FargoUT Reviews

The Batman (2022)

Too long, unfocused, but great production design

[6/10 · 7 March 2022]

Good detective-based Batman movie, sort of feels like a spiritual successor to Batman: The Animated Series (maybe my favorite Batman version produced by Hollywood). Performances are very good, although the characters often speak in hushed tones for no apparent reason. The camera work is a bit chaotic and messy, but the film noir stylization is effective.

The score by Michael Giacchino is excellent, very moody and beautiful. The production design is gorgeous--this is a very visually striking Gotham, and it hearkens back to Tim Burton's Gotham rather than Christopher Nolan's more realistic Chicago-esque Gotham. It tends to be a very impressive movie to watch from a visual standpoint.

The opening hour of the movie is excellent, but unfortunately it cannot sustain that level of quality. The story is the weakest part, a meandering focus without a real purpose for the "detective" Batman. It's answered very early on who is committing the crimes (the Riddler), and unfortunately Paul Dano's take on the Riddler here doesn't do much. There are other villains too, most notably Colin Farrell's Oz/Penguin, who is a better villain and gives a better performance. Farrell is unrecognizable under the prosthetics and makeup, but he nearly steals the movie.

Compared to Christopher Nolan's trilogy, all three of which had strong villainous presences, this one's villain is mostly seen in video. It mutes the impact of threat faced to Batman. And at nearly 3 hours, there isn't enough to support the length. It could have been chopped down 20-30 minutes and not lost anything. Tighter editing would have made this better.

Zoe Kravitz is excellent as Selina Kyle/Catwoman, and her presence elevates the movie every time she's in it. And while Robert Pattinson makes for a very good Batman, he's not so much a Bruce Wayne. Jeffrey Wright and Andy Serkis are both good in their supporting roles, particularly Wright who makes for a sympathetic James Gordon.

I really feel like this should have gone for an R rating, which would have given the storytellers more room to play with this darker noir-infused Batman. And the length is a hindrance in that it is both too long for this unfocused story, but also too short for what it needed to properly build it out. It almost seems like this would have been better as an HBO Max series with 10 episodes.

Overall it's a good movie, worth seeing, but I don't think it will hold up well over time with repeat viewings.

Mary Poppins Returns (2018)

Surprisingly whimsical sequel/remake of Mary Poppins

[8/10 · 20 April 2019]

I grew up watching Mary Poppins, and Julie Andrews will always be Mary Poppins to me. However, Emily Blunt comes as close to recreating the character as anyone could have. She doesn't have the pipes that Andrews did, and while the songs here are quite lovely, they don't have the same catchiness of the original. But Emily Blunt is a gifted actress who channels the same energy that Andrews tapped into. It's not mimicry, and she manages to create a warm, enchanting portrayal of the character. So much so that I was actually brought to tears as she drifts away at the end of the film, with a knowing smirk and a glance back.

I was surprised at the connections back to the original: the admiral firing his cannon on the hour is still here, the Banks' kids have now grown up and Michael has kids of his own, they even live in the same house. Michael's wife died, and Jane has moved back in to help raise her brother's three kids. The three child actors here are a vast improvement over the original. Emily Mortimer and Ben Whishaw are fine as the elder Banks's, and Lin Manuel-Miranda is good stepping in for Dick Van Dyke's chimney sweep Bert. Meryl Streep (once again paired up with Blunt) has a wonderful memorable appearance as well.

A couple great cameos by Dick Van Dyke (tap-dancing on a table!!) and Angela Lansbury are icing on the cake. Apparently Julie Andrews was asked to appear, but she decided not to infringe on Emily Blunt's take. I felt her presence missing, and I was sad she chose not to be involved.

All that said, director Rob Marshall did a great job with this. It may not become a classic like the original, but it stays true to the spirit and energy. I was pleasantly surprised.

Those People (2015)

Charming performances elevate Those People

[8/10 · 3 November 2018]

THOSE PEOPLE drops the viewer into the middle of a melodrama involving several friends trying to find their place in the modern New York landscape. The film follows Charlie (in a revelatory performance by Jonathan Gordon) who has been pining away after his best friend Sebastian (equally good Jason Ralph) for well over a decade. He's in love with Sebastian, yet has never pursued a relationship beyond the superficial.

Enter the pianist Tim (well played by Haaz Sleiman), who shows an interest in Charlie. To anyone who has been emotionally trapped by unrequited love, this scenario will seem familiar. Tim wants a relationship with Charlie, but Sebastian's presence in Charlie's life acts as a perpetual block to maturity. Sebastian is a narcissist, but he is dealing with abandonment issues and relies on Charlie to ground him.

Most of this is played out over three months, a plot device which gives some of the characters' decisions a forced and artificial weight. Had more time been given to flesh out these characters, this might have been a truly great film. These characters are all pretty well-off and seem detached from the struggles of life in a big city. Sebastian's father is dubbed "the most hated man in New York" due to his embezzling money from charities. Sebastian himself bears the brunt of the public's scorn, unable to show his face in public without being hounded by the press.

What separates THOSE PEOPLE from some of the more pedantic queer cinema of late is how these characters interact. They all care for each other, and the not-terribly-innovative admission of this story is we often stay in damaging relationships out of fear. Gordon's performance beautifully captures this hesitancy to mature and move on, even when he knows better. I've never seen Gordon before, but he gives an eye-opening performance here.

Ralph and Sleiman are also quite good. Ralph has the unenviable task of making Sebastian into someone the viewer believes Charlie would stay with. The chemistry between Ralph and Gordon is palpable, and it's a large reason the film works as well as it does. Sleiman, always a sight for sore eyes, gives Tim a maturity with a hint of past trauma that makes him quick to react.

While it isn't a great film, it is a very good one, with surehanded directing from first timer Joey Kuhn (he's a better director than writer, judging from this movie alone). The cinematography is lush and warm, drawing viewers into this inviting story with ease. Nothing here is particularly surprising, and the writing suffers from its predictable story arc, but minor complaints of an otherwise lovely little film.

Call Me by Your Name (2017)

Resonant romance with powerful acting

[10/10 · 26 March 2018]

Like Brokeback Mountain, this devastatingly sensuous romance features two people who meet and fall in love despite the risks of their relationship in a society that frowns upon such same-sex attraction. Elio and Oliver have a brief but powerful relationship that is still conflicted and messy. Oliver is not necessarily gay, but finds himself attracted to Elio anyway; Elio is trying to figure out what he wants and who he is.

Elio's parents are well played by Amira Casar and Michael Stuhlbarg, who gives one of the most punch-to-the-gut monologues in recent years during the final moments of the film. Both suspect and even encourage the relationship of their son as he explores his way into adulthood. Casar's performance is particularly understated, all knowing glances and hidden messages. She knows a lot more than the other characters believe she does. Stuhlbarg deserved an Oscar nomination for his portrayal as Elio's father, but he was sadly overlooked. He is excellent throughout, but his final scene with Elio is so well acted and filled with love, I felt like a raw nerve had suddenly become exposed inside of me, and Stuhlbarg had just strummed it like a guitar.

Armie Hammer gives a great performance as the brashy American who first upsets the apple (peach?) cart with his mannerisms and more aggressive personality. While physically he seems too old for the role (sparking some unnecessary controversy over the age gap between the two characters), he has a natural chemistry with Chalamet that is riveting. The two of them have to navigate a complex array of emotions with personality clashes and mockery slowly melting into attraction and love.

But this is Timothee Chalamet's film, and the young actor gives one of the most authentic performances I've seen in years. There isn't a moment that suggests he's just acting. While Elio is hardly a flashy character, that makes what Chalamet pulls off even more astonishing. He is the heart of this film, and the final scene as he stares into a fire should not be missed. It is powerful, endearing, emotional, and every bit worth the Oscar nomination he received (and probably should have won in all honesty).

This film is a heart-wrenching portrayal of new love, the difficulty of communication even in a multi-lingual world, all overshadowed with the inevitability of knowing it must come to an end. The best film I saw from 2017.

Mother! (2017)

Aronofosky's allegorical spectacle is one of 2017's best films

[9/10 · 17 September 2017]

Mother! is a divisive, masterful allegory, and even after my initial viewing, I've been going over at least three different ways of interpreting what occurs over the two hours. No review of this can really be given without spoiling the film's story, since giving any details will reveal the nature of the beast. For those who would rather be surprised, avoid reading much on this before you see it.

Many people will be put off by the imagery displayed here, especially in the latter half of the film, particularly a visual representation of sacrament/communion in a very disturbing scene that is only shocking if taken at face value without acknowledging the inherent religious symbolism. For people horrified by this depiction, people consume the blood and flesh of Christ on Sunday every week, so maybe the horrified response is misdirected (I've often thought it bizarre that we eat bread and drink water/wine as a representation of eating Christ, and shown here hammers that home). Aronofsky mocks the absurdity of Biblical scripture, and perhaps those offended are merely protecting their religious beliefs. I can't be sure, although my gut tells me people simply missed the point, which is astonishing, as Aronofsky is not a subtle filmmaker -- he practically bashes the audience over the head with symbolism here.

When viewed from a metaphorical perspective, much of this becomes quite comical. This is quite darkly humorous at times, although the imagery makes it difficult to laugh over. A woman destroying a piece of the house mentions she wants to leave a reminder that she was here -- a very funny twist with shades of environmentalism and ecological warfare. There are several layers of meaning which Aronofsky deftly envelopes into a story of chaos.

None of the characters have names -- these are not characters, but archetypes. Jennifer Lawrence is very good as the titular "Mother", although she may the weakest part of the film's cast simply for having to play the thankless victim role. I don't imagine many others could have done anything different, although a warmer actress might have worked better for what is asked. Javier Bardem is great as always as the poet prone to writer's block. Titled "Him" in the credits (capital H) suggests his divine nature, but that is only one reading of his character.

Michelle Pfeiffer steals every scene she's in, going just this side of over-the-top, and Ed Harris is good as her devoted husband. I particularly liked the glimpse of his injured torso just before Pfeiffer shows up. Domhnall and Brian Gleeson (real life brothers) show up as the two sons of Harris and Pfeiffer (hammering home the Adam/Eve/Cain/Abel metaphor as one kills the other). And Kristen Wiig makes a surprise appearance as the poet's publicist. I'm not sure what Biblical character she is meant to represent, possibly a blend of several, or possibly missionaries?

Lastly, this is Aronofsky's showpiece, and his work is phenomenal. With an amazing sound design (Oscar worthy) and close-up, hand-held camera-work to retain the proximity with our heroine, Aronofsky is working on a whole different level than most filmmakers. We watch "Mother Earth" get pummeled quite literally at one point which horrified me on several levels -- we do this to our planet, and it disturbed me to see it portrayed this way. Certainly not a condemnation of Aronofsky, but moreso of humanity as a whole. We are not good stewards of this planet.

As an enormous fan of Aronofsky's Grand Guignol style of storytelling, I didn't know what to expect from Mother! I left the theater smiling just as those around me left shaking their heads in contempt (I overheard one couple say it's the worst thing they've ever seen). Perhaps they missed the point or, if they understood it, didn't like the depiction of humanity as greedy consumers of the world. I'm not entirely sure. All I do know is that I loved this film, and give props to Aronofsky and Paramount for producing this truly bizarre, outlandish spectacle.

Wonder Woman (2017)

Filled with action, humor and excitement, Wonder Woman is the best DC film since Nolan's Batman trilogy

[9/10 · 5 June 2017]

I grew up watching Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman, and the initial previews of this filmic rendition had me worried after the spate of lackluster DC-themed superhero films that have left me feeling cold and unimpressed. My initial worries mostly related to the dour seriousness of previous DC films (even Suicide Squad was bleak and depressing), and the visual tone seemed to suggest Wonder Woman was going to follow suit.

Thankfully, Patty Jenkins proves my reservations were unwarranted. Wonder Woman is an exciting, clever, and humorous introduction to the character, one of the best origin stories we've ever been gifted. After an admittedly rocky start (with some pretty terrible CGI), Jenkins turns this into a superbly assured film. Gal Gadot more than adequately steps into the boots of Lynda Carter -- she makes this Diana Prince her own, reminding me in ways of Christopher Reeve as Superman. She's awkward and gawky as she tries to blend in with the rest of human civilization. In one of the movie's more memorable scenes, Diana tries on clothes, wondering how anyone is supposed to fight in such restrictive "armor".

Chris Pine has proved his leading man status several times over, but his chemistry with Gadot is instant and charming. His secretary Etta Candy is played by scene-stealing Lucy Davis, who befriends the Amazonian princess quickly, admiring her strength and refusal to placate the male-dominated culture. Robin Wright makes an excellent and strong impression as Diana's personal trainer.

However, Gal Gadot is truly what makes Wonder Woman the success it is. This is her chance to prove her star-making turn in the otherwise woeful "Batman v Superman" was not a fluke, and she delivers in spades. Director Patty Jenkins handles all of this with an assured hand, making the action scenes fluid and comprehensible without resorting to flashy or distracting editing. I normally despise transitions from fast-to-slow motion, but Jenkins gets this right too: there's just enough to see Wonder Woman's super-human feats without falling victim to the Zack Snyder effect of removing all excitement from the scene.

Not just one of the best superhero movies out of the DC universe, this is one of the best superhero movies period.

Cedar Rapids (2011)

Awkward comedy attempts to be Ed Helms's "40 Year Old Virgin"

[6/10 · 7 March 2011]

Cedar Rapids is a decent comedy aiming to be Ed Helms's attempt to segue into leading man status as fellow "Daily Show" reporter Steve Carell did with "The 40 Year Old Virgin". This is a less successful attempt, due in large part to some strange story decisions (he's sleeping with his former teacher, one scene involving illicit drugs comes out of nowhere and seems like part of a completely different movie). Ed Helms is funny enough, likable although he lacks Carell's goofy charm that makes it so easy to look past his quirks. This renders much of the comedy more awkwardly uncomfortable than it otherwise should have been.

Anne Heche is the real highlight here, portraying a married woman who uses her annual trips to an insurance convention as an escape from her mundane family life. She is charming, funny, and easy to sympathize with, even if her motivations are entirely selfish. John C. Reilly chews the scenery in an over-the-top performance--a very hit-or-miss performance here. Isiah Whitlock Jr. pulls off his role very well, and he does offer up one of the most hilarious scenes in the film as he attempts to escape from a hostile group of partygoers. Alia Shawkat (excellent on Arrested Development) shines when she's on screen, making me wish the film had focused more on her than it did. Her role as a drug-addled prostitute does eventually lead to some unfortunate plot turns, but Shawkat is able to rise above the material. The same can't be said for Sigourney Weaver, who has the thankless role of former teacher, and while she's entertaining on screen, she seems to be here more for name recognition than anything else.

This is a somewhat entertaining comedy, lacking technical expertise (excruciatingly bad lighting, lackluster cinematography, poor direction and editing) but bearing some bad storytelling decisions. The art direction seems to suggest this film takes place during the 1980s, and had it not been for the cars and cell phones, I would have believed it. Did the costumer design team purposefully hit thrift stores looking for the most unfortunate clothes around? I imagine this was for comedic effect, but it sadly misses the mark and makes the film oddly anachronistic instead.

Let Me In (I) (2010)

Let Me In: Why is everyone moving so slowly??

[6/10 · 4 October 2010]

Comparisons to the original Swedish "Let The Right One In" are inevitable to those who have seen it. A fan myself, I was worried about the remake being an unnecessary clone. The trailers made me hope that Matt Reeves had done a decent job, and to the extent that he has, he succeeded in creating an atmospheric vampire film.

But sadly, the original film does exist, and the comparisons do not hold up well: Tomas Alfredon's original far surpasses this remake's attempts on virtually all levels. From the visual palette to the mixed bag of visual effects to the plodding pacing, Reeves's vision often pales as a cheap copy of Alfredon's telling of the same story. The cast of actors here seem hamstrung by a director's choices, leading to a very forced, unnatural flow in character interactions. Chloe Moretz, in particular, is unable to capture the haunting coldness that Lina Leandersson tapped into so effortlessly. On the other hand, Kodi Smit-McPhee handles his part of a tortured student exceptionally well. His character seems poised to grow up into a tormented soul, potentially with serial killer tendencies (the mask is an eerie hint of a future Michael Myers or Jason Vorhees). His exposure to Abby seems to refocus his purpose in life, giving him meaning where little existed before. The rest of the cast is decent, although this film rests on the shoulders of these two young actors alone.

And for the life of me, I do not understand why everyone talks and moves so slowly in this film. I assume they were aiming for atmosphere and slow-building suspense, but the result is actually boring. I swear, a good ten minutes could have been shaved off this film's running time had the actors run things at a normal pace. This fault seems to be a result of poor direction though, as the actors are all quite capable.

Surprisingly, the visual effects work in "Let Me In" is lackluster, often unnecessary and artificial. While the badly-rendered (but hilarious) CGI cat attack from the original is missing, it is replaced with other poor CGI effects. One scene involving a vampire's exposure to sunlight is particularly obvious; done so well in the original, the remake replaces it with some awful computer effects. Abby's violent attacks become little more than ragdoll effects with gruesome sound design. This lack of realism pulls the viewer from the story, a crucial mistake that hinders the effectiveness of the film's eerie story.

The music pales to the original, and Reeves's color palette of browns and yellows doesn't quite capture the chilly effectiveness of Alfredson's stark blue hues. On its own, "Let Me In" would probably have been a pretty effective, nasty gem of a horror film. But, at least for me, I was unable to disconnect my love of the original from my experience viewing this one. Hard as I tried, I could not seem to shake the powerful impact the original had and how little of an impact this remake has.

** Updated 10-05-2010: Watched Let The Right One In again last night. Having seen both so closely together, there are some updates in the remake that make more dramatic sense but oddly enough lessen the dramatic pull of the story. The lack of parental figures in the remake gives the story a more melancholy feel but at the expense of limiting Owen's believability as a child. The bullying in the remake is harder, more violent and mean-spirited. This should make for a more satisfying conclusion, but instead makes the bullies into caricatures.

The father/protector's role in the remake is more clearly defined, and his actions are more plausible, but the original performance by Per Ragnar is more poignant, a tragic mess of bad choices and regret whose sole purpose in life is to sustain Eli's existence.

Sidenote: the one thing which I noticed more than anything is how Tomas Alfredson chose to focus on the characters' eyes and their observations of the world. Eli and Oskar's eyes are constantly in frame (especially true of Lina Leandersson, whose hauntingly big eyes portray so much sadness and a hard edge suggesting her character's true age). I don't know if this is what affected my enjoyment of the original over the remake, but it was something I definitely noticed.

Another Gay Movie (2006)

Not Another Teen Movie

[6/10 · 23 March 2007]

The first thirty minutes of "Another Gay Movie" are some of the most excruciatingly bad film-making I've seen this side of film school classes. I quite expected to shut the movie off, and I would have, except something quite unexpected occurs: the movie actually begins to be quite funny. Perhaps it was sleep deprivation or maybe the sheer audacity at which the filmmakers go to up the comedic (and gross-out) ante is shockingly funny in the way shock jocks can be funny. Quite often, you'll be asking how far the filmmakers will go--with fart jokes, vomit jokes, sex jokes, fetish jokes--and you'll almost always be surprised at how far they do push the border of taste. That is quite admirable by itself.

This is not nearly as good as the rave reviews here would have you believe, nor is it a disastrous bomb. I wouldn't say this spoofs or parodies "American Pie" so much as it copies the formula with gay teens. There are no laugh-out-loud moments to be found here, most of the humor is met with a smile. There are scenes that push the envelope beyond what "American Pie" ever did. The unrated version of this is a virtual comedic soft-core porn with better acting and a story.

The four leads are pretty much the reason the film works as much as it does. The directing is DOA, the writing is about as smart as you'd expect, and the production looks on a whole as a cross between "Strangers with Candy" and "But I'm A Cheerleader!". The actors are therefore required to carry this one, and they prove to be up to the challenge. The sweet romance that buds between two of the characters is well-handled and well-performed, one of the few believable aspects of an otherwise over-the-top campy comedy.

If you can make it past the initial scenes of filmic torture, you may even find yourself rooting for the guys to finally get some action. This is definitely one of the more unique gay-themed productions, and that is at least cause for celebration. I am harshly critical of "gay" films, especially comedies, but this one is a surprisingly sweet and charming no-holds-barred gross-out romantic comedy. Now if that isn't a backhanded compliment, I don't know what is.

Adam & Steve (2005)

Nearly unwatchable "romantic" "comedy"

[2/10 · 19 December 2006]

It seems exceptionally difficult to make a gay romance (or any gay-themed film, it seems) without delving into cheap stereotypes. There have been a few diamonds in the rough, but Adam & Steve is a painfully unfunny and extremely dull film that is neither romantic nor comedic. Aside from the throwaway sight gags, the poor directing, the mediocre acting, the spectacularly awful writing, Adam & Steve's real problem is its tonal shifts. The mish-mash of genres here keeps adding barrier after barrier to push the audience out of the picture. The film begins with an odd introduction of the main characters, complete with Parker Posey in a fat suit. Next up, we get two visual sight gags of poop and vomit in one scene (one of which is so poorly done, I laughed in spite of how unfunny it was).

There are scenes of drama, there are scenes of comedy, there are scenes of musical numbers and a choreographed dance sequence. It only takes about 15 minutes to realize how bad this picture really is. Parker Posey and Chris Kattan, along with a handful of supporting character actors, upstage the two main leads who are about as charismatic as two rocks. There are scenes where Posey and Kattan both seem to be rolling their eyes, maybe wondering how they got roped into this production.

Adam & Steve has no direction and flounders in search of one. It jumps all over the place, going from a completely screwball gross-out comedy (attempting a pale imitation of the Farrelly Brothers) to a tender love story (admittedly neither tender nor particularly loving... not even really a story for that matter). It almost seems as if the screenplay were written in segments and then spliced together. There are a handful of humorous moments, most of which come courtesy of Posey and Kattan, that prevent the movie from becoming a complete waste of time. And the final climactic moments are nicely handled, a welcome break from the maddening confusion that has preceded it all. The only reason to see this one is if you are a fan of either Posey or Kattan. And, really, if you are, both have done far superior work.

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Lonely Broken Hearts

[10/10 · 4 December 2006]

"Brokeback Mountain" was the first short story I read from Annie Proulx--it was also the last. Her story drove me into a week-long depression, a reaction I've never had before or since. Her words spoke volumes in just a few short pages. I read this story after hearing about Ang Lee taking the director's chair for this supposedly "gay cowboy" adaptation. This oversimplification may have simply lowered my emotional guard. Why not also call Shakespeare's "Romeo & Juliet" a love story about teens? Brokeback Mountain, as filmed by Ang Lee, is one of the best romantic tragedies I've ever seen. It is one of the greatest love stories ever told. It is also one of the saddest, most heart-wrenching displays of grief, fear and regret to ever grace the silver screen. It is a tragedy of epic proportions--this is not the simple story of two gay cowboys (which isn't even accurate itself since they are not cowboys). It is about families torn apart through lies, it is about society's inability to accept unconventional love, it is about a man who is so stricken with fear that he is unable to accept love from anyone. Ennis Del Mar is a representation of the lonely broken heart, damaged at an early age and incapable or unwilling to be mended.

Both Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal play these characters with respect and dignity, relying on the emotional core to drive the story instead of the plot. There isn't one misstep in the cast, not one moment that rings false. Michelle Williams has the unenviable task of playing another lonely broken heart, one damaged by her husband's betrayal and dishonesty. Anne Hathaway does exceptional work with her rather underwritten character--until her final key scene shows her to be just another victim of Twist and Del Mar's love affair.

One could easily blame Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar for ruining many lives, not to mention their own. But such is the tragedy of Brokeback Mountain. Two characters who had no intention of ever falling in love finding themselves gripped with the kind of passion a person would be lucky to experience even once in a lifetime. In spite of this, Del Mar gives in to fear, pulling away from the only true love he may ever know. The final climactic moments as Del Mar learns of Jack Twist's fate are poignant, underplayed, and emotionally devastating--both for him and the viewer. I can not begin to express how shattering the final moments of this film are. Annie Proulx's words captured it perfectly and I can not do it justice but with pale imitation.

Common complaints and criticisms seek superficial answers for the complexities of this film's story. These characters are never pardoned for their transgressions. Del Mar's emotional abuse of his wife is a reflection of his own internal abuse. These are flawed human beings with real problems that are not easily tidied up. To say the film excuses his behavior is wrong on many levels; in fact, his behavior leads to his ultimate punishment, a life spent alone with only regret and pain to fall back on. This is the tragedy of Ennis Del Mar's choices, one we should all learn from. Love can never be explained and none is needed here.

Brokeback Mountain, in my opinion, transcends itself to become more than the sum of its parts. It is one of the greatest love stories ever told, but it is also emotionally tragic. This is Shakespearean in scope, a tale of true love lost by way of fear, and one of the best American films ever produced. Hopefully we may all learn to love and overcome the fear which can often paralyze us. One day, it may be too late, handed our fate on a small postcard, forever trapped in a pit of despair and sadness. I can not think of a worse punishment for anybody, a life of internal pain and sorrow that nothing can rectify. The final moments of the film, with Del Mar alone in his trailer with nothing but his long lost love's shirt hanging in his closet, are at the same moment truly horrific and truly heart-breaking. It is a punch to the gut. The lonely broken-hearted end of all things for Del Mar.

The Shaft (2001)

This movie has no right to be this entertaining

[7/10 · 29 August 2006]

I stumbled upon "The Shaft" while flipping through the cable channels. The TV guide had it listed as the 2000 Samuel L. Jackson version of "Shaft", which I had not yet seen. My first thought was that the film was off to a bad start by the mistitled "The Shaft"--it became clear rather soon that this was not the same film as I was led to believe. Jackson was nowhere in sight, instead replaced by an as-yet-unknown Naomi Watts.

And yet, I sat there for the entire film, cheering and laughing and applauding what I think must be one of the most absurd B-movies I've ever seen. The production values are surprisingly strong, with good cinematography, decent (to a point) visual effects, and some obviously tongue-in-cheek acting from the unusually stocked cast (Naomi Watts, Ron Perlman, Dan Hedaya?). I almost get the feeling that this film was shelved from theatrical release upon the 9/11 attacks (the screenplay contains some very eerie and prescient references to the not-yet-committed terrorist attacks on the WTC towers and Osama bin Laden).

However, with all that said, "The Shaft" is one insanely enjoyable ride through B-movie territory. What do you expect from a movie whose villain is a possessed self-aware elevator? To be sure, this is far superior to "The Mangler", another film about a killer machine gone haywire. This one never takes itself seriously, in spite of the rather frightening effects of people being decapitated (a most impressive effect) and others falling to their deaths. No one is spared: pregnant women, children, dogs. This elevator is one mean SOB.

Yet the filmmakers know exactly what tone to take, mixing dark comedy with the macabre to make what I can say is one of the more entertaining films I've seen in a while. From a masochistic German daycare worker (played riotously over the top) to an obnoxious blind man and his seeing-eye dog (whose ends are both laughable and sad simultaneously), this film does almost everything right--that is, up until the conclusion. The story takes an awkward turn into military cover-ups and corporate greed which drags the story into unnecessary territory. What should have been a fast-paced climax is more complicated than it should be and more serious than it demands.

That said, "The Shaft" is one of those movies which screams to be watched with friends, laughed at with a beer in one hand and a shot in the other. This is one odd-ball feature film, both very funny and shocking. Not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, but one that will stick in my memory for a while to come. Definitely worth a look if you are in the mood for what it is.

Alexander (2004)

Alexander the Human

[8/10 · 28 November 2004]

Oliver Stone's "Alexander" has been on the receiving end of a great deal of controversy and slanderous criticisms. And to a very slight extent, the opinions condemning the film have merit. But in picking apart the film, piece by petty piece, these critics have unfairly tarnished what is otherwise an above-average epic, not quite reaching the heights of "Ben-Hur" but far superior to "Gladiator". All in all, Stone has created a beautiful-looking film with good performances, brutal war scenes, and some over-the-top Shakespearean melodrama.

Of course, it isn't hard to see why people are upset. "Alexander" does not focus on the man's conquests, but instead on his emotions, his drive, his reasons. It asks, "Why?" when moviegoers seem to want to know, "How?" Even the mainstream critics have trashed Stone's creation, which surprised even me. If anyone is to appreciate his work, it should be the pro-critics. One obvious clue should come from the title and its noticeably absent "the Great". Stone is not focusing on the legend, but on who the real man might have been. Taking that course, it is no surprise people are disappointed.

There are flaws, of course, as with every film. Primarily, the voice-over work by Anthony Hopkins is harshly detrimental, in filmic terms. Voice-over is considered some of the worst technique in storytelling, and "Alexander" is chock full of it (presumably because Stone has so much to say in so little time). Elements we want to see are instead told by Ptolemy (Hopkins) as we watch Alexander's army wander from battle to battle. There's a commonly-held philosophy in screen writing: don't tell--show! Some of Ptolemy's monologues are decent and allow us further insight into the story, but some simply gloss over important elements of Alexander's life.

And it is far too drawn out. With only two major battle scenes, "Alexander" strives towards great drama instead of great action. And while Stone's battle scenes are brutally intense, they are often cut short or interrupted before any sort of climax. One jarring example comes during the first intense battle between hoards of Persians and the Macedonians. Midway through, so it seems, the film cuts to Alexander parading in through the Persian empire, victorious. With so many scenes of Alexander's armies wandering around through deserts, you think he could have excised a couple to shorten the length.

But those flaws aside, "Alexander" is an absolutely stunning film to watch. It is pure eye candy in a way most films only wish they could be. Where movies nowadays revel in CGI to "create" a look, Oliver Stone uses old-fashioned camera tricks (filters, panoramas, etc.) to establish a visual palette that puts the recent (and similar) epic "Troy" to shame. This is a rare big-budget Hollywood sword-and-sandals film where the sets look like ancient buildings. Where the crowds of fighting extras are, for the most part, real people. Where the blood and brutality of battle is shown in graphic detail. In a crucial scene, Stone implements a pink (almost infrared) filter which provides for some of the most gorgeous images I've ever seen in a major motion picture.

Colin Farrell has his work cut out for him with the role of Alexander and succeeds quite admirably. He portrays Alexander as a conflicted man who becomes legend with his death. Angelina Jolie chews the scenery, complete with a strange Russian/Transylvanian accent. This is exactly the type of film Jolie's face was made for--and she excels here. Most impressively is Val Kilmer, giving a bravura performance as King Philip. This is Oscar-quality work from Kilmer, and if justice holds out, he should get a nod for supporting actor.

Oliver Stone has made an epic of grand sweeping vision about a man who arguably doesn't deserve it. He's pared off "the Great" legend and myth, strive to look at Alexander the man, whose impressive conquests overshadowed his flaws. In doing so, he'll find himself lambasted by almost everyone. People dislike thinking of their legends as problematic humans. And Stone's flair of over-the-top soap opera makes the film a likely target for cynical crabbies (and before I create the wrong picture, I am myself a cynical crabby). I find myself wondering why I appreciated the film as much as I did--my jaded side seems to have been beaten into submission.

In closing, "Alexander" is not a great film, but it is a very good one. It is a step up from "Troy" (which I also enjoyed), but it isn't the grand Best Picture of 2004 that I was anticipating. Once the dust settles and it is relegated to the video stores, people may come to recognize the good qualities of this truly epic film. When all is said and done, this is a solid 8 out of 10 on the IMDb rating scale. It could (and should) have been better, but it certainly isn't the disaster critics are talking about.

The Princess and the Warrior (2000)

This existential fairy tale is devastatingly beautiful

[10/10 · 13 May 2004]

"The Princess and the Warrior" moves at a leisurely pace, nowadays commonly mistaken for slow or plodding. It is the pacing antithesis of "Run Lola Run", yet in remarkable ways, covers the same thematic ground. Tykwer takes Krzysztof Kieslowski's favorite themes (fate, chance, destiny) and tells one of the most uplifting existentialist tales I've ever seen on film. Poetic in its visceral impacts, heartbreaking in its emotional force, "The Princess and the Warrior" achieves an astonishing level of humanity which very few films ever strive to attain.

As a result, "The Princess and the Warrior" becomes the jewel in the crown of Tykwer's filmic repertoire. With Franka Potente as the emotionally-reserved Sissi and Benno Furmann as the jaded Bodo, Tykwer has created two opposites who are fated to attract. Unlike Hollywood, however, there are no magical forces at work, no clever "Meet Cute". It is very conceivable that these two could have never met, and only due to Bodo's criminal actions do they meet. Is it fate or coincidence that Bodo's run in with the law causes a run in with Sissi? Their interactions are quiet with bursts of trauma, their eyes do most of the talking. Tykwer seems to suggest that Bodo and Sissi's entire existence is to affirm each other's life.

Tykwer has crafted a psychological exploration of two misguided souls looking for an escape from their lives. Stuck in perpetual repetition, Sissi and Bodo live without living, searching for some meaning but incapable of doing so or, even more sorrowful, rejecting whatever is presented to them. This is not a "Pretty Woman" clone but an honestly reaffirming look at two unhappy individuals finding what they so desperately need in each other. Bodo and Sissi's relationship of awkward meetings, misconceptions, and soul-binding metaphysical connections culminates in what I can only describe as one of the most impactful and emotional climaxes in all of film history--period.

Kudos to Tykwer for creating one of the most romantic and spiritually-fulfilling films I've ever seen. A perfect and necessary viewing experience for anyone feeling stuck in the mundane routine of life, thrilling, suspenseful, almost painfully aware of what it feels like to be emotionally and spiritually lost. "The Princess and the Warrior" upholds the optimistic idea that even when things go bad, life is still worth living, if only to help someone else. It is, in my opinion, one of the finest motion pictures ever made.

Taking Lives (2004)

A brief review with minor plot spoilers

[6/10 · 15 March 2004]

This well-acted psychological drama bears no resemblance to "Seven" or "Copycat", although the title credits would hint to otherwise. Stylishly directed by D.J. Caruso ("The Salton Sea"), "Taking Lives" dives full on into the psychological aspects of identity. However, despite the timeliness of the film given our real world problems with identity theft, the story's plot holes drags down the proceedings.

FBI agent Illeana Scott (Angelina Jolie) is called up to Quebec to help in an investigation of a possible serial killer. The case has spanned nearly twenty years, with the first murder depicted in the film's early moments.

The investigation is cracked open when a sole witness to a murder comes forward. James Costa (Ethan Hawke) claims to have witnessed and interrupted the killer during one of his murders. Soon thereafter, it becomes apparent that Costa is now being pursued by the murderer.

All of this is handled in a most unusual manner. With excellent cinematography, Caruso revels in the forensic and quirky mannerisms of Illeana (credit to Jolie for fully involving herself in the character). Her eyes dart back and forth, scanning everything for any detail. Using simple techniques of observation and instinct, she can quickly notice anything which might help her case. The camera captures everything in a graceful manner, quite unusual for this kind of film. Worthy of notice is a chase on foot through crowded streets, which attains a sense of surreality without drawing needless attention to itself.

Credit must be given to the screenplay, which smartly crafts Jolie's character into a full-fledged, rational woman. When feelings arise between herself and Costa, she asks to be removed from the case so her judgment may not be clouded. However, the screenplay also takes serious missteps, leaving many gaping plot holes and questions unanswered.

Whatever the script lacks, thankfully, is made up for by an excellent cast (particularly Jolie, Hawke, and Martinez) and creative direction by Caruso. There are no surprise twists in this film--if you've seen any serial killer movie, you'll quickly figure out who the killer is well before the characters do. There are, however, some surprises to be had, particularly in the final five minutes. There is a scene of shocking violence just before credits roll which caused our preview audience to scream in horror. Even I, desensitized to most movie violence, recoiled in shock.

While the screenplay leaves much to be desired and Philip Glass's score is disappointing, "Taking Lives" is a generally entertaining, scary movie which gets under your skin and may possibly leave you finding it hard to fall asleep at night.

Out of 4 Stars: *** (3 Stars)

*On a sidenote, this film contains one of the all-time best "jump scares" in film history. I almost threw my nachos into the row behind me. That alone makes it worth viewing on the big screen.

Angels in America (2003)

Powerful, unsettling, and hilarious

[10 December 2003]

Raised in Salt Lake City, I was brought up a member of the Mormon church. I say this to give backing to my next comment: Patrick Wilson gives a hands-down pitch perfect performance of a married Mormon man. His severe emotional and sexual repression, his mental anguish, and particularly his stoic facial expressions. Tony Kushner deserves credit for writing such a spot-on role--as a gay man, I identified heavily with his character. Any reviewer who criticizes Wilson's performance obviously does not know many Mormon folk. It wasn't until I left the church that I began to grow into a mature and emotionally balanced person.

That said, "Angels in America" is easily one of the best films of the year. The dialogue is beautiful ("threshold of revelation") and the actors all deliver the lines without making it sound like a theatrical play.

Kudos must go to Justin Kirk for his award-worthy performance. Going up against Emma Thompson, Al Pacino, Meryl Streep, and other heavy-hitters, Kirk comes out with the strongest performance of them all. I laughed and cried as he went through a juggernaut of emotions.

Mary Louise Parker also does a phenomenal job, although (and my friends agreed) she has far too much personality to be a Mormon housewife. I guess that's why her character is going crazy. This is perhaps Parker's best performance in a fine line of work.

Meryl Streep, Al Pacino, and Emma Thompson all do great work here, but they are upstaged by the lesser-known actors. Thompson is fantastic in every one of her roles (particularly with her New York accent) and Pacino gives one of his finest performances in a long time. Streep has a multitude of roles, particularly as the elderly rabbi (never would have guessed it was Streep until the credits rolled). On a more personal note, she plays the Mormon mother to perfection!

"Angels in America" is a poetic, heartfelt examination of loss and suffering during a troublesome point in America's history. Don't miss this poignant film!!!

Gigli (2003)

"Bad Boys II" was worse than this...

[10/10 · 3 August 2003]

In a strange turn of events, I found myself headed in to a theater showing "Gigli". All I could hear in my head was the incessant roar of negative publicity. Some critics have even said it is the worst film ever made. My question to them is... how many movies have you actually seen?

This is not to say it is a good film. The plot is worthless and is only there to bring Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez together for an entire film. An appearance by Al Pacino is the film's best moment. And Ben and J. Lo are hardly adept "contractors". But this is not a bad movie, and certainly not one of the worst movies ever made. The dialogue actually has a bit of charm to it--even the "It's turkey time. Gobble, gobble." Perhaps because the audacity to even try a piece of dialogue like that made me laugh. But in that scene, J. Lo is not seducing Ben, more like she is offering him a challenge.

Some scenes hurt like hell to watch. Some scenes are just plain boring. But every so often, a scene comes out of nowhere and surprises you with its wit and inspiration. Take a scene where J. Lo argues the superiority of the vagina to the penis as a sexual device. It's quite possibly one of the most hilarious, yet erotic monologues I've ever heard. And I don't even think J. Lo is all that sexy!

I don't feel like spending a lot of time talking about this movie--it really isn't very good. But I do recommend it, simply to counter all the negativity around it. While I never once believed either of the actors to be contract hitmen (or whatever they are), there is a definite zaniness and originality to the film. And that rates higher in my book than "Bad Boys II" could ever attain.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

Johnny Depp and a bunch of other people...

[9/10 · 11 July 2003]

Well, I'll be. When I first heard about a movie being filmed based on a Disney World ride, all I could imagine was standing in long lines only to be bored for 15-minutes (in this case, 2+ hours). But I should have taken a look at the pedigree involved.

Gore Verbinski, hot off his hit "The Ring" (which I was so-so on), impressed me with "The Mexican", a quirky unusual romantic comedy that struck a chord with me. Johnny Depp, an actor who is entirely particular with his movie role choices, appears as Captain Jack Sparrow. These two things alone should have made me take notice--but with the Disney studio overseeing the film's production, I expected "The Country Bears". What I got instead is one of the best films I've seen all year.

With a well-written script, "PotC" becomes that rare summer movie we all hope for: smart, exciting, but never serious enough to spoil the fun. The cast is mostly to commend for this, I suspect. Orlando Bloom, hot property thanks to his performance as Legolas in "Lord of the Rings", makes a commanding lead, a star in the making. While his turn as Legolas made him well-known amongst fans, he has a far larger role here, and manages to make his hero into something more than a bland male lead.

Keira Knightley, along with Claire Danes in "Terminator 3", creates one of the few strong female heroes that audiences want in action films. While it isn't a great performance, it suits the film extremely well.

Geoffrey Rush was born to be a pirate, with a great look and a mixture of comedy and dead seriousness. He does a very good job and commands the screen whenever he's front and center.

Unfortunately, Johnny Depp is also usually around. With one of the greatest performances in movie history, Depp creates Captain Jack Sparrow as one of those movie characters people will dress up to look like at Halloween. His character is a swishy, slurry mess, yet in full command of his senses, his wits, and his ability to manipulate others to do what he wants. With limp wrists and a constantly shifting center of gravity, Depp portrays Jack Sparrow as a self-assured, inventive, yet dangerous pirate. He's a benevolent figure, but sneaky and crafty like the best villains usually are (that he is not a villain speaks to the screenwriters ingenuity).

According to Depp, he decided to form his performance around his good friend Keith Richards. The resemblance is rather uncanny when you think about it. While there are spectacular set designs, cinematography, special effects, and action scenes, Johnny Depp becomes the film's saving grace--if there is any justice in this world, Oscar will not forget him come nomination day.

Gore Verbinsky has given us an old-fashioned pirate film with updated visual effects. The effects are practically seamless, with flesh melting to bone and back again with ease (although this brings up a question: if moonlight is merely reflected sunlight, why doesn't sunlight show their true form?). In the grand tradition of Hollywood epics, he entertains us without pandering to us. It's a stylish, well-crafted film that features some very good performances--and of course, Johnny Depp. If you had told me a few months ago that "PotC" would have an Oscar-worthy performance in it, I probably would have laughed.

All in all, "PotC" is a must-see summer film, if just to watch Johnny Depp prance around like he owns every inch of celluloid.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Time Travel for Dummies

[8/10 · 6 July 2003]

!!! WARNING: SPOILERS !!!

"Terminator 3" is not a great film, but it is a very good one. Lacking is the intense score by Beltrami, the sense of doom and dread in every shot, and the gritty atmosphere created by James Cameron. As a technical film, it is expertly handled. But it is missing its artistic vision. Jonathan Mostow is a competent (even talented) director--see "Breakdown" for an excellent suspense film--but he was given the task of taking care of another director's baby.

In trying to satisfy all the prerequisite elements of the Terminator films, he seems to have sacrificed the essence of them. They're gritty, violent, doom-filled stories about the end of the world. "Terminator 3" occasionally achieves that sense of defeat, particularly in the final ten minutes. But with all the mayhem and action sequences, there doesn't seem to be an urgency about them. It's an excellent summer flick, but don't expect the kind of grandeur that the first two films exhibited.

With that being said, "Terminator 3" almost seemed essential (and makes me wonder why James Cameron didn't want to make it). If, as James Cameron's films stated, John Connor sent his own father back in time to protect his mother, he would not exist if Judgment Day did not occur. This makes for a paradox--how can someone exist if their father is from the future? The future must be set, and if the future is set, what we decide can't change it. It could take hundreds of films to adequately deal with the implications here.

An episode of "The Outer Limits" dealt with this nicely--a woman changed her life by going back in time and "correcting" all the problems. Every time she came back, her brain was forced with another lifetime of memories. If you've fixed all the problems in your past, there is no reason for you to go back in time. Your present would be altered without repair.

In all actuality, there could be no movie about the events portrayed in the "Terminator" films. Granted, this is taking it way beyond the sci-fi roots and trying to ground the films far too much in reality. But hypothetically speaking, the moment a robot is sent from the future, everything would change. If a robot was sent to the past, and it was meant to destroy a certain person, then its very existence proves its failure inevitable. If it did succeed in killing a particular person, then the moment it arrives in the past, it would vanish--there would be no need for this robot to be sent back in time to kill that person. Seeing as how killing the person would alter the future, why would they need to send a robot back? How could the future be dead-set if it can be changed so simply? Something not dealt with in time travel films--how does time travel affect the past and present as well? If you send a terminator back, and they complete their mission, your present is no longer the same, you would not have to send a machine back in time to kill that person--they'd be dead from the previous timeline. So there must be infinite timelines--and time travel would simply be traveling from one version of time to another. The theories of time travel really give me a headache if I think too deeply about them.

Another thought: sending something back in time is probably an impossible task. It is well beyond the limits of my own mind. If you send someone back in time, it is the present to everyone else. This would mean to those people that the future is set, that it has already occurred.

"Terminator 3" deals with all of this, though hidden beneath layers. You have to dig to figure it out--it doesn't tell you everything. That's one of the impressive traits of Mostow's film. The script smartly gives us the questions, but lets us delve into them. If John Connor is killed by one of the Terminators, then the future is changed, and John Connor can not send his own father back to protect his mother. Talk about your mind-warps!

While this is merely just scratching the surface of the paradoxes time travel theory creates, it is after all, just a movie. "Terminator 3" has a decent cast (Kristanna Loken leaves a bit to be desired, although she acts about as much like a killing robot as I would expect one to act), a well-written script, and a talented director. The action is above par, and sometimes downright brutal. Best yet, the ending is a downer, a surprise that caught me off guard. That a big-budget film would attempt such an ending (and intelligently deal with it) makes me feel a little more generous with my rating of the film. All in all, I recommend this one as a good continuation of James Cameron's imaginative story, although lacking his artistic creativity.

Rating: 3 stars out of 4 (*** out of ****)

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

Waited for video--glad I did

[12 June 2003]

I never thought I'd see the day when a Star Trek film was so uninteresting that I would avoid seeing it in theaters. "Star Trek: Nemesis" proves one thing--the ads didn't lie. This is a big, bloated, self-important film that has nothing important to say.

Worse still, there is nothing new or innovative in the film--at all! We have yet another Data subplot (this time involving yet another android), Picard is again losing his "number one", Riker and Troi are finally getting married, which is nothing earth-shattering. I think Wesley Crusher was inexplicably in one scene, but absent from the rest of the film. Beverly Crusher, Worf, and LaForge have absolutely nothing to do here.

But first, let's discuss bad casting. Tom Hardy not only doesn't look like Patrick Stewart--I was taken aback when they started discussing how he was a clone of Picard. Say what?! I never once bought the premise that these two were even remotely related in any way, shape, or form. Apparently it was to be a big revelation, but I just sat confused as to how anyone might mistake Shinzon with a younger Picard.

That aside, this film starts out bad, gets worse, and worse... in the final twenty minutes, the film does pick up speed and becomes the movie we were waiting for. It becomes exciting and action-packed, which is what Star Trek movies require. We can excuse the talkiness of the TV episodes, since they were on a limited budget. Given that this film cost $90 million--I can't see where this money was spent. At all. I've seen movies that cost $20 million look better.

This film flies in the face of every Star Trek fan, and we should be outraged. I'm no longer a trekkie--I lost interest after "Insurrection". But this is a travesty--the worst Star Trek film featuring the Next Generation crew. They should have handed the reigns over to Jonathan Frakes who has created the only successful and worthy Next Generation film ("First Contact").

All of the Prime Directive rules go out the window here, Picard risks his ship unnecessarily just to service the plot, and there's a massive collision that defies logic (in space, given Einstein's theory, wouldn't Shinzon's ship just be pushed since there is no resistance?). But I digress. "Nemesis" is a film that has no clue what it wants, no plot, and it destroys beloved characters. The ending had me in tears, but only because of how much I have cared about these characters in the past. It evoked an emotion it did not deserve. This may be the last time we see the Next Generation crew together--and that was part of the reason I cried. Knowing that this crappy film is the point of separation? That's very sad indeed.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

Brilliant mindbender is actually very heartbreaking love story

[10/10 · 4 December 2002]

*SPOILERS*

This is primarily for those who hate and loathe "Mulholland Drive." When I first saw the film, I walked out of the theater angered that I had spent two hours of my life watching a non-sensical film. I enjoyed the performances, but I felt the film just fell apart the longer you watched it.

For two weeks, the film stayed with me, lodged in my brain. Why were critics applauding this? Why did Ebert call it one of the year's best films? Two weeks later, I decided to revisit "Mulholland Drive," this time accompanied by a fellow film lover. As the movie played out, my mind had a reawakening of sorts. Everything started to fall into place. I must not have been paying attention the first time I watched the film, because everything you need to know is there on screen. I walked out of the theater, my friend praising the film, and I right along with him. I've since seen the film about four more times, and it becomes more interesting with each viewing. If I were to create my list of best films of 2001 now? Be sure "Mulholland Drive" would be near the top.

The reason? The first ninety minutes (or primarily the pilot for the TV series) had to be altered in order to finish the film. While I was disappointed that ABC ditched the show (in favor of what, exactly? According to Jim??), I'm glad to have seen Lynch's work. From the opening credits to the moment Betty "wakes up", the film is a dream of Diane Selwyn (Betty). Diane, in real life (and this is where time shifts in the film), came to Hollywood, fell in love with Camilla Rhodes (Rita) and was then dumped for a Hollywood director (Adam Kescher). Emotionally hurt, Diane decides to have Camilla murdered. "Mulholland Drive" is basically just a tale of failed romance.

The dream recollects everything that occurred to Diane upon her arrival in Los Angeles. However, in the dream, her name is Betty, she's a talented girl who immediately gets recognition by the Hollywood's elite, stumbles upon the amnesiac Rita (it's easy to love someone when they have no past), falls in love with her, and everything works out for the best. But then her dream starts to break for her awakening (the "Silencio" club, the blue box, everything starts to come apart--much like a dream would as it ends). The cowboy announces, "It's time to wake up." And then Diane wakes up, hurt and alone, angry at Camilla for betraying her love.

That's basically the film. After Diane wakes up, the film jumps back and forth through memory, time, and dream. Diane is quickly going insane, as she realizes with horror that she had Camilla murdered (blue key). Finally, she kills herself in her room (in her dream, they discover Diane's decaying corpse--a bit of foreshadowing for Betty/Diane). Now watch the film again and see if it doesn't all work. It's quirky, weird, and atypical... but it's one of the most imaginative films in a long time. This is easily David Lynch's best film to date, and everyone should rejoice in its audacity.

Clockwatchers (1997)

An honest and often hilarious look at office life

[22 April 2002]

At the suggestion of co-workers, I rented this film, and was amazed at the honest and funny portrayal "Clockwatchers" offers. Sure, it's a slow-moving tale, but working in an office is like that--slow, monotonous, boring. This movie is a very funny satire of inner-office politics. I am surprised the amount of negativity directed towards the film. Perhaps it was a bit too honest?

Parker Posey is so perfect in this movie. Toni Collette has the perfect low-key performance to work off Posey's. Lisa Kudrow is funny, but she smartly remains in the background for most of the movie. Alanna Ubach has the thankless role of doing nothing. However, all four work so well off each other, you can easily overlook the negatives.

For the person who commented that there are no offices like the one portrayed here, let me say: WRONG! I have worked in two offices that are nearly identical to that portrayed. It was horrible, and I quit both of them quickly. Admittedly, the film does push the realism boundaries, though this is a satire. Exaggeration is key to satire.

Go rent this movie. Preferably on DVD for the widescreen. This is better than "Office Space" and is more honest in its depiction of office life. It's sad, funny, quirky, and original. Parker Posey's brilliant performance is worth the price alone. Two Thumbs Up? You bet!

John Q (2002)

Only for the idiots out there...

[3/10 · 19 February 2002]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Let's face the simple truth: you will be hard pressed to find someone who likes the insurance industry. It's a double-edged sword, however. We couldn't live without them, no matter how much we may hate it. Shelling out premiums from every single paycheck, only to still be required to come up with money to cover medical procedures. It's a pain in the ass and we all hate it. So it was only a matter of time before Hollywood came out with a film to capitalize on that hatred and resentment. And here it is in the form of "John Q".

Unfortunately, "John Q" is not only a bad film, it's a misguided film. Taking a firm stance against HMOs, "John Q" demands that America come up with a better solution. My own suggestion would be to take the money used to fund this film and send it out to all those who will need mental insurance coverage for watching it. After viewing this movie, I came out conflicted: I hate HMOs as much as the next person, but I hated this movie even more. It presents the material in such a one-sided and manipulative way, I almost feel my brain has split a personality. One part wants me to laud the film with praise for attacking an evil industry; the other, more rational part wants me to shred the film for taking the easy way out.

"John Q" begins with a BMW swerving and passing cars on a lonely highway. Needless to say, this car crashes, killing its driver. If you've seen the trailers, you know exactly why this scene is here (John Q's son needs a heart, a woman just died with a fine heart, you do the math). We are then introduced to John Q. Archibald (Denzel Washington), your average blue collar worker. His supportive wife Denise (Kimberly Elise) and their only son Mike (Daniel E. Smith) play silly games on the way to school--see how normal these people are? The only thing missing is a good church scene. Oh, nevermind, they included that too. This, of course, all leads to tragedy during a little league game. Mike, stealing second base, clutches his chest and drops motionless to the ground.

Turns out Mike's heart is three sizes too large (someone call Dr. Seuss, stat!). Without a transplant, he will die. We are told this by the hospital administrator Rebecca Payne (Anne Heche) and the cardiologist Dr. Turner (James Woods). It's at this point you realize the callousness of the filmmakers. Portraying the administrator and physician as villains, they sit coldly emotionless as John and Denise cry over the predicament. There is no insurance, and the procedure will cost $250,000. These two "villains" are never afforded the thought that perhaps they see this same scene played out so often, they are beyond emotion. Of course, without them, we wouldn't have the satisfying emotional arc for when they both instantly become human again.

John, trying desperately to raise the money to no avail, must take drastic measures, taking the emergency room of the hospital hostage. With a strangely colorful assortment of characters, John soon starts a debate with Dr. Turner. The police surround the ER, lead by Frank Grimes (Robert Duvall), chief hostage negotiator. John doesn't take well to Grimes' attitude, and soon threatens the lives of his hostages. Either his son gets a new heart, or he starts killing hostages (the logic of that still doesn't make much sense).

"John Q" tries so hard to make you weep, cueing the orchestra at just the right moments. Sadly, when the music swelled, so did the bile in my stomach. First-time screenwriter James Kearns is primarily to blame for this travesty. The plot alone plods along at an insipid pace, you may find yourself hoping the sniper shoots him just so it ends. As if that weren't enough, Kearns' dialogue is some of the absolute worst I've ever heard in a major motion picture. Stilted, corny, and stupid, even the talented Washington can't help it. Just thinking about the screenplay makes me so angry I find myself having trouble coming up with descriptions. How a piece of garbage like this could get made is beyond me.

Nick Cassavetes doesn't help the matter either. With his rancid directing (his last film was the equally awful "She's So Lovely"), the film plays out artificially. You never really believe for a moment Mike will succumb to his heart condition, despite that his systolic blood pressure drops below 80 (this device almost served as a heart-induced countdown--thankfully, it is forgotten quickly). Portraying a completely one-sided issue, we are forced into cheering for John. This sort of manipulative filmmaking is quick to turn me off. You hear the arguments for why the medical industry is evil, and yet it's a direct result of America. It's based around capitalism. During the final few minutes, small news reports sum up the events. One commentator makes the only valid and rational argument in the film, stating it is our fault the medical industry is the way it is. We want better coverage, but we don't want to pay for it. Sad this moment came so late in the film.

Poor Denzel. After getting an Oscar nomination for his (vastly overrated) turn in "Training Day", he gets sapped with this God-awful role. Of course, we shouldn't feel too sorry for him, since he did choose it. Even the strongest of actors couldn't get this material to work. The only real moments of acting come from Kimberly Elise as his wife. Ray Liotta is handed the annoying task of being the harsh, uncaring police chief. In any other hostage film, he'd be the hero, and we'd be cheering him on to take out the hostage taker. But here, not a chance. He's the villain. Robert Duvall seems to be sleep-walking his way through his role, while Anne Heche tries desperately to bring humanity to her inhumane character. Even the usually reliable Woods can't wade through the crap he's given.

The film ends on a cheap note, with the police arresting the wrong man (I almost bolted for the exits, but figured it was almost over anyway). This doesn't come as a surprise, and it shouldn't be treated as one. I am not spoiling anything, because the filmmakers are so bad at setting up this "false" ending, it's really quite pointless. We get to witness a very graphic operating scene (how this film managed a PG-13 rating is beyond me), and not only that, the doctor actually taps the heart to make it start beating. It's one of those ludicrous moments that, if happened in real life, you might punch out the doctor. Ah, but Cassavetes isn't finished. He even includes a short glimpse of recently deceased Ted Demme, the director of much better movies than this one. Why the clip is in the film is beyond me, as it serves no purpose whatsoever, but it did remind me of how crappy Nick Cassavetes is as a filmmaker.

"John Q" is rated PG-13 for violence, language and intense thematic elements. To put it simply, and taking a cue from Roger Ebert, I hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. I hated every single moment of it. It was a false, manipulative sapfest that wants to get its audience riled up over a subject people already are riled up over. The music is bad (including some weird vocalizations that can not be explained), the direction is worse, and the script is bottom-of-the-barrel garbage. Talented screenwriters lurk on the outskirts of Hollywood, desperate for a chance to get a film produced. Instead, we get this. The state of HMOs concerns me, but for now, that Hollywood actually let this film be made, the state of Hollywood is just as bad. Shame on you.

Vanilla Sky (2001)

Overall incredible, but nobody will get it

[8/10 · 16 December 2001]

Critics have lambasted "Vanilla Sky" and it's hard to really understand why. It's one of the most emotional films of the year, as well as a very romantic one. It's a strange journey, for sure. In fact, it never really makes any sense until the last twenty minutes, which is a remarkable treat. The pieces are all there, but you aren't let in until the climax. Some may hate it... I loved it. It's like a better version of Mulholland Drive (which decided to explain nothing and thus alienated 90% of the audience). The themes dealt with in this film are astonishing and how they are handled is surprising. I hope this film doesn't get lost in the shuffle, but apparently the critics and audiences have spoken: deep, intellectual films should be left to the arthouse crowd. How depressing...

Urbania (2000)

Powerful drama is a genuine cathartic experience

[27 January 2000]

"Urbania" is a film that deals with tough issues in a complex way. Directed by first-timer Jon Shear with amazing surehandedness, "Urbania" tells the story of recently-singled Charlie, who has seemingly become disillusioned from society. Shear's script, based on the play "Urban Folk Tales," is a sharp and occasionally hilarious look at a gay man's search for redemption and love. Obsessed with a man he's only seen on the street, Charlie wanders the streets, looking for love, and hoping to rekindle his past relationship. It's a simple story, dealing with some hard issues in a non-linear way.

Dan Futterman is heartbreaking in a very challenging role that requires him to gain our sympathy in spite of his problems. On top of it all, however, is Shear, who handles this material with affection and heart. His direction manages to be moody, atmospheric, suspenseful, and scary, all the while maintaining our sympathy for Charlie. Thankfully, just as the film gets too serious for its own good, Shear throws in numerous asides to urban folk tales and reenacts them. It's very funny, but in the end, it's as cathartic a film as you will see all year. Do yourself a favor and catch this emotionally-haunting film but remember: bring tissues. You'll need 'em.