Craig-32 Reviews

Jesus' Son (1999)

Strange, Solid Filmmaking

[16 September 2000]

JESUS' SON is a tale like so many others that we've witnessed in the world of film: young, purposeless man wanders about, falling in with similar people, a love affair destined for tragedy, and etc. It sports an unremarkable look that would otherwise be remarkable had music videos and commercials already trumped it: overexposure and vivid colorization.

But from its opening scene, JESUS' SON establishes itself as something quite worth watching. Despite the use of main-character-as-narrator, which can be a real sticking point, the film's writing and Billy Crudup's tremendous acting ability propel every scene into something charming and full, almost overflowing with ideas. In the course of this movie's average length, FH (in case you haven't seen the film, F and H are the initials of Crudup's character's unpleasant sobriquet) runs in with a bizarre and completely original group of characters who are all like him in some way: his manic junkie girlfriend (Morton), a down-and-out scumbag with a hammer (Leary), a perennial widow (Hunter), a Mennonite couple, a drug-addled orderly (Black), a crusty old con (Hopper). However, these characters are not token or caricatured, but fully formed people who live in FH's bizarre reality and all connect with his desperate longing for escape or meaning in one way or another.

Much like Bruno Dumont's recent films LA VIE DE JESUS (hmm) and HUMANITE, JESUS' SON explores life in a particularly unforgiving world (in this case, 1970's Chicago, in Dumont's, bleak pastoral France) and claws for some sort of beauty therein. Unlike Dumont's films, FH seems to find that beauty amongst people whom he can relate with and help. The two sides to this film can be seen in a span where FH works as an orderly, and, with the frantically comic Jack Black, steals pills to make it through the long graveyard shift. After a grisly scene involving the removal of a hunting knife from a man's eye, the two wander into the countryside, and, drug-addled and playing off one another (like the characters in Thompson's FEAR AND LOATHING. . .), marvel at the ghostly wonders of the night. These scenes are priceless examples of writing and imagination that, in terms of sheer delight, probably eclipse anything to come out of recent Hollywood.

In the end, the true glory of this film is to find compassion where our conceptions of characters would tell us otherwise. The characters are not spat upon in their depiction; everything they do is earnest and according to their human value. The viewer constantly waits for something truly horrible to occur (and this is, often, what the film portends), but instead we can find only light.

The movie has weak points, but they are few. All in all, this is a triumph of acting and writing, and the direction sparkles at times. The film fails to provide a coherent theme to speak of, but its disjointed pieces somehow fit together to form a wondrous whole that is never short on surprises or pure humanity.

Humanity (1999)

Almost Perfectly Perplexing. . .

[30 July 2000]

A woman came into my video store last night, and, while I was checking her films out, she said "Ugh. I just saw the most boring movie." I asked what it was: "Humanite, up at the LeFont." I was suprised, but not very. "Really?" I said. "I loved it!" She was shocked. "What could you possibly love about that movie? I mean, I can take just about anything, but it was the most boring and offensive movie I've ever seen!"

Now, my first reaction was not one of utter disdain, because, for one, she IS a customer at the very cool independent store in which I work, and she did seem to honestly appreciate film, but just not HUMANITE. And I understood, but I didn't agree. Of course, she asked me what was so great about it, and I stuttered through a terrible, ineffective justification for my love of the film, but this served only to make her think I was pretentious and make me realize just how hard it is to talk about HUMANITE.

It is a wonderful film. It is, like most movies I find myself drawn to, about loneliness, disappointment, and the idea that nobody really gets you. It is about the notion that terrible things happen to everybody every day, but nobody else really seems to sympathise when terrible crimes occur; people cease caring about "everyday" problems and, instead, lament (in this case) the rape and murder of a young girl. Superfluous events detract from real life. And, perhaps, this is what Dumont was getting at through the nature of his film: so much narrative involves one event in such strict terms that it seems unfair to the characters.

For my money, Dumont makes this point much more intelligently (read: subtly) than those involved in the Dogme movement. Keep up the good work, Bruno!

The Blood of a Poet (1932)

Yes, Very Surreal.

[22 June 2000]

Cocteau's first feature certainly reflects the early idealism of cinema, that "we can do it!" spirit that made early artists truly believe in the potential of cinema as a medium to trump all other arts. Thematically similar to the more famous surrealist work "Un chien Andalou," "Le sang d'un poete" is a chroma-key free-for all, with talking hands, statues that come to life, and banal bourgeoise cardgames transpiring on children's corpses. It's hard to watch at times, made even harder by what I think is a terribly distracting score (to the point where I just turned the sound off and enjoyed the film as a silent with subtitles.) However, by the end one realises Cocteau's heartfelt audacity, and the true spirit of the early cinema artists who wanted to do things with film that nobody has the cojones to try today.

A seminal work in experimentalist cinema; why does it seem like we've fallen way behind?

Happiness (1998)

Quite a Film . . .

[19 June 2000]

Todd Solondz' film HAPPINESS, like his previous film WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE, is largely about people dealing with the dichotomy of who they actually are and who they feel they should be. However, HAPPINESS is a greater film than DOLLHOUSE, not necessarily for any glaring reasons beyond the fact that Solondz himself is improving in the writing and directing departments. HAPPINESS, though, decides to take a grand scope where DOLLHOUSE was focused on one character, and does it so effortlessly that the scenes dealing with the film's three or four stories flow together, almost making us forget how large the number of people and ideas we're supposed to be keeping up with is.

Be forewarned, though: HAPPINESS is a dark tale of people who are uncomfortable and who must deal with situations that may seem very disturbing and in bad taste at first, but a discerning (and experienced) viewer will find moments of tremendous emotional exposition and touching humanity amidst the father and son who talk nonchlantly, almost sportingly, about masturbation and pedophilia (a topic in which Solondz' insight far exceeds the overrated AMERICAN BEAUTY); the young computer tech obsessed with the idea of tying his beautiful neighbor up and performing grandiose, unspeakable sexual acts on her; the other neighbor who can't stop talking about Pedro -- the doorman -- and his severed penis.

Despite that, HAPPINESS, I promise, is a comedy. "KINGPIN" it ain't, but there are moments of completely unpredictable consequence and surprise that will have you cracking up in the face of the bleakest human activity imaginable.

Most of all, HAPPINESS is, like Paul Thomas Anderson's somewhat similar and equally brilliant MAGNOLIA, the story of people who just can't stand to be alone or outcast; it is the story of the world, a place where everybody just wants to fit in, to find someone, and to be happy.

"To happiness!"

Open Your Eyes (1997)

Eh.

[28 May 2000]

Not very good. I picked up this film as a screener from the video store in which I work expecting a complex psychological thriller (since that's what it said on the box) but was let down to find ABRE LOS OJOS a pseudo-sci-fi "thriller" (read: Hollywood fare, pero en Espanol) that makes all the right philosophical poses to silence some naysayers without actually saying anything at all. What I originally thought was an Antonioni-style (with mimes!) dark philo-psych art film turned out to be little more than "Man Without a Face" jumping around in fake Cartesian boots. Whatever.

The Glass Shield (1994)

An Excellent Film

[7 May 2000]

Being that I was only thirteen when this film came out, I vaguely remember the promos for THE GLASS SHIELD. As usual, the Hollywood establishment misrepresented this film during its release and I fear no one saw it, and those who expected 1) Ice Cube to have a huge role or 2) Lori Petty to get naked were severely disappointed. (I think this came out very close to CLOCKERS, too, which might have confused some people.)

I've been hearing a lot of underground talk about Charles Burnett, lately, so I picked up this film (thinking it was a usual cop-meets-gangsta film previous to my knowledge that Burnett directed it.) I must say that it is an excellent, incisive picture that manages to duck every convention one expects from Hollywood. I was reminded of IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT, but this was without the Mr. Tibbs-like over-the-top innocent; JJ (an excellent Michael Boatman) is truly a real character, with real guilt and real problems. Ice Cube plays his role well, and Lori Petty is good, but it is the creepy fraternity of mustachioed white cops that makes this film truly frightening. They are bad, but not outright evil; they are, instead, men too pumped up on the power of the badge and the sidearm and the encouragement of their peers.

This is a riveting film with less than two "action" scenes; the tension exists instead in the idea that terrible violence awaits every character at every turn, and when the higher-ups descend to the levels of insane criminals, we realize the significance of the title, and the vulnerability of peace.

Highly recommended.

Kagemusha: The Shadow Warrior (1980)

Another Kurosawa Masterpiece.

[12 February 2000]

I consider myself a big fan of Kurosawa, though I haven't yet seen all his films. Thus, if he made c**p, I'm not yet aware of it. As far as I'm concerned, Kurosawa was an untouchable genius in his field, and for my money was the Japanese Kubrick.

Kagemusha is another samurai story, this one being about identity and death. Gloriously filmed sequences increasingly border on dreamlike vignettes, like the battles in the third act: the Double and Shingen's brother sit atop a hill looking into a blood-red curtain of smoke that is intermittently shocked with blue gunfire. Absolutely stunning, the film truly predicts the direction Kurosawa would move in his final years: to the ethereal, heavy-handed whimsy of RAN, A RHAPSODY IN AUGUST, and DREAMS.

And the final sequence, in which the Double crosses a field of dead men and horses in a single-handed attack on the armed enemy, is one of Kurosawa's greatest achievements.

Highly recommended.

Last Chants for a Slow Dance (1977)

Jost's First

[3 February 2000]

LAST CHANTS is a fine introduction to Jost's work, because, really, the films that follow aren't much different (at least, those with Tom Blair in them: SURE FIRE and THE BED YOU SLEEP IN.) Basically, they all follow a man who drives a pickup truck and has questionable morals, though Tom's character in BED isn't the same sort of character we see here and in SURE FIRE. But the men are usually failing in their business (a wacko get-rich-quick tourist scheme in SURE FIRE and a lumber company in BED) and later turn to violence. So the films seem formulaic at times, but it's Jost's exclusive formula, and it works. Here, though, there's a lack of the visual splendor that Jost injects in his later films, which is understandable. Anyway, LAST CHANTS is certainly worth a look, and it's a fine introduction into the work of this great, virtually unknown filmmaker.

Julien Donkey-Boy (1999)

An interesting exercise in Dogmatics.

[31 January 2000]

In short, julien donkey-boy is a quite interesting film. Apparently, this is what we're supposed to expect from Mssr. Korine, so there's nothing tremendously shocking in the piece (and, when a director [oops, naughty word!] makes a career out of "shocking," this is what we expect.) It is, at times, a beautiful film, using many creative techniques to establish scenes (a very prominent scene is an event between Julien and Chris in the kitchen involving bacon that is nothing more than a lightning-fast montage of quick cuts, very deftly exploring the mental ability to assemble pieces of information into a cohesive whole) and surprisingly glowing camera work.

However, one is constantly reminded that the film is a Dogma 95-certified work, a product of a rather horrible artistic regime. Dogma reminds me of the Cultural Revolution: it basks in its ability to show "the truth," but it also wrecks and ridicules traditions that, while being far from necessary, never impair the true artist (why should the elimination of tripods get us anywhere closer to "the truth"?)

But Korine is able to transcend many of those hinderances, if sometimes only barely, and even cheats his way out of some of them: Dogma outlaws recognition of the director, but the first credit says simply "harmony korine" and shows a picture of the man himself (not to mention the trailer, which touts Korine as a genius alongside Fellini, and quotes Bertolucci's statement that Korine has "changed the language of film.")

All in all, though, julien is a treat to watch. Ewen Bremner creates the part with such natural ability that it's nearly frightening to realise that it's all an act, and Werner Herzog pulls off the despicable role of the father with an almost endearing stylism and stoicism. Sevigny is adequate, though she somehow seems much too grandiose and beautiful for her part. She was much more suited to play Jenny in KIDS, and here she simply fits the bill as opposed to Bremner and Herzog, who blow it to smithereens.

Oh yeah, what it's about: surrogate mothers, Oedipal complexes, death, insanity, loss, and the repetition of history.

So anyway, go see it. Or don't. Either way, you'll be hungry later. So get a sandwich.

The Limey (1999)

Smashing!

[20 January 2000]

I really found THE LIMEY to be another great piece of filmmaking from Soderbergh. I really don't have anything new to say that hasn't been said, but let me just point out what an adept talent Soderbergh is behind the camera (as well as in front of it.) This could really be put in a box set with Soderbergh's previous film OUT OF SIGHT and Quentin Tarantino's near-masterpiece JACKIE BROWN, though THE LIMEY is more similar to the latter than the former, in its handling of aging once-hipsters.

At the end, we figure out that THE LIMEY, while being a film with a now-familiar mix of crime and dark absurdist humor, is actually a tender look at loss and attempts to recapture and relive youth through the eyes of Peter Fonda and the British Peter Fonda, Terence Stamp. Soderbergh handles this theme so delicately you'd think he is a filmmaker twice his age.

THE LIMEY is a wonderful, innovative, intelligent picture, but, to be truthful, I'd like to see Soderbergh move away from the Elmore Leonard-styled stories and back to things like SCHIZOPOLIS, an earlier masterpiece of his. Tarantino seems to be stuck in the same place, as he is now working on Leonard's 40 LASHES. I think the 90's saw enough of the man's work (including Levinson's GET SHORTY, a TV series based on MAXIMUM BOB, and countless mentions in the Hollywood press) that we can move in a new direction. But I digress.

Go see THE LIMEY, even if you're sick of the type of story that Tarantino popularized so well. It transcends itself many times over, and will, it is my guarantee, leave you with a wistful smile on your face.

Dogma (1999)

Smith climbs another rung on the ladder to . . .well, something.

[4 December 1999]

DOGMA is a few things.

First, it's a very funny movie. Here, Smith has fleshed out the Jay and Bob characters and spread their presence out over the entire film; something that could have been annoying but instead was very effective. Chris Rock added that essential edgy comic spark, and the role-reversals of Matt and Ben worked very well to comic ends. Otherwise, the "funny-'cause-it's-true" cracks at the Church are well-written and dead-on.

Second, it's a much less scathing look at Catholicism than the protesters would have one believe. It rarely, if all, attacks the followers of the religion but instead the corruption at the very top. This is nothing that has never been said before, and George Carlin's presence is a good reminder of that.

Third, it's a film that's very aware of itself escapes the gratutity that often comes with younger, less mainstream comedies that have become more recognizable by the general public.

However, it's not as good as Clerks. It's about as good as Mallrats. It's a little better than Chasing Amy. Why? I don't know. I didn't like Chasing Amy as much as everyone else seemed to, perhaps because I dislike both Joey Lauren Adams and Ben Affleck. But I think the thing that hurts this film the most is the thing that makes it such a tremendous work - that it has to set up a huge, complex mythology, and it takes a lot of time to explain all the references and characters. Smith did the best he could, but explanatory lines just have a way of killing scenes. Thankfully, the acting picked it up a bit (Rickman was huge.)

In DOGMA, Kevin Smith makes a good case for compassionate Catholicism - and, while it's a funny, effective film, I still can't agree with his flawed philosophy. But I recommend it: it's quite a ride.

Instinct (1999)

Hot and cold

[25 November 1999]

I've read most of the reviews posted here, and I will say this: they're all right, in one way or another.

Let me say that INSTINCT is, deep down, a good film with very unfortunate things happening to it. We have an important character who is not essentially "good," and that's something that's intrinsic in a credible film - the audience's doubt of their own morality. We have a very timely story with one of the deepest points in years. We have excellent, excellent actors.

However, we also have an inept director, a bizarre romantic subplot, a lousy script, and what looks to be a strugglingly happy ending to please the tv generation. All of which is a real shame, because INSTINCT, deep down, wants so desperately to change the audience dramatically, to make the people question their own beliefs, their own world, as soon as they step out of the theater. INSTINCT is really an art film that got into the wrong hands.

Personally, INSTINCT, be it a mediocre film or not, changed my life. I was, deep down, concerned about certain things, but I never really brought them to the surface. Since watching the film, I've stopped eating certain foods, stopped caring about most of my possessions, and started getting my real priorities in order.

What does this say? It says that for the people who go to the movies to be entertained, this movie might or might not please. For the art film lover, it's the same. Like I say, this film breaks no ground filmistically, but what I see is a story with a lot of potential and a true message that got diluted by studios, a lousy director, and the precedent of both Hopkins' career and the many "the insane are saner than the sane" films that came before it.

Three Colors: Blue (1993)

A stunning film from one of the world's preeminent directors.

[22 November 1999]

TROIS COLOURES: BLEU is a rich, dark film with all the Kieslowski marks: death, silence, depression, and the inner torment of outwardly attractive women. After seeing the whole trilogy and the DEKALOG, I'm convinced at Kieslowski's great talent, and his very early death was a true blow to world cinema. Much like Kubrick but with a less ironic nature, Kieslowski loves to make his characters and stories both humanely distant, realistic, and, at the same time, philosophically idealist and dense. I enjoyed BLEU more than BLANC (which was an odd machismic entry in a trilogy mainly focusing on women) but not as much as ROUGE, which I feel is one of the finest, most beautiful, most well-done films I've ever seen.

More specifically, BLEU's focus seems to be on the relationship of a woman's loss of the tactile manifestation of her husband's existance with the ligering notions of his life - especially his music, which pervades the entire film, interrupting at key moments with a blackout and short blast of the overture. To watch Julie struggle with her husband's abandoned secrets (including a mistress Julie befriends) is shattering, frustrating, and perplexing.

Unfortunately, life must move, and, due to that, I can't watch BLEU over and over. However, I did glean from one viewing the complexity of this picture, and recognize its need to be watched over and over, until Kieslowski's last gasps can be properly understood, which is all we can hope to return to a man whose genius was tragically cut short, but still stands as a giant in my view of cinema.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

One of Earth's Great Treasures.

[14 November 1999]

This is one of the few films that actually has the power to change the way one thinks and goes about his or her life. It certainly has all the philosophical weight of Kubrick's best films, coupled with Malick's own unearthly wizardry at making nature a living, rippling, beautiful beast. Malick certainly reaches a creative bit of transcendence here, as this film has a narrative structure somewhere between BADLANDS and DAYS OF HEAVEN and really seems to go beyond anything that DAYS even touched.

As for its sad comparisons to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (which was NOT an anti-war film,) they should be written off. SPR can't touch this work; it's in a different league, made for different people. THE THIN RED LINE spares no expense and really paints a complete picture of existence on this planet in the WWII macromicrocosm. The final shot is one of the best, most piercing, most life-affirming pieces of art ever. I get teary just thinking about this film. I just wish it, along with 2001, would have a shrine in which they could be shown all the time.

If Malick makes another film, I fear he might simply implode in an infinitely small, dazzlingly bright explosion of pure art.

If I could save five films for the post-apocalyptic world, this would be one, along with 2001, DR. STRANGELOVE, ROUGE. . .and BIODOME. You know. For like, instructions.

Eraserhead (1977)

I. . .I. . .er. . .alright.

[29 September 1999]

Well, I've never exactly considered myself a fan of David Lynch films. Of the ones I've seen, I've enjoyed THE ELEPHANT MAN the most, perhaps because of the excellent performances by Hopkins and Hurt. Though I found the scenes involving Merrick's mother to be a bit out-of-place in that film (and especially the final space-flight shot. Seems like a man in the Victorian era would have no concept of movement through a starfield.)

Anyway, onto ERASERHEAD. I watched it because people told me it was the most original film of all time, and some even said the best. While I believe that BLUE VELVET is a grossly overrated film, I feel that Lynch really makes an accomplishment here. I didn't dislike this picture, really, and in fact was very impressed, at least on the technical levels. Some of the shots were excellent, and even the puppetry was good.

But what about the film? I don't know. It really does evoke some of the horrors of being alive, if not in a bit of hyperbole, but it reminds me of something that I can't seem to remember. Lynch's statements here are nebulous, but that's not a bad thing. The only thing that really makes me not love this film is that it lacks something that I find to be important in art: subtlety. I mean, I'm used to the idea of the insane world, both internal and external, and I prefer to see it portrayed in more stealthy ways. But for the fan of surrealism, of grotesque, and of utter cinematic psychological horror, this is a well-done film.

So basically, I feel this is an acheivement, if nothing else, of style and craftsmanship, but not something I'd rave about. Quite insane, though, and I do enjoy a bit of gorgonzola.

High and Low (1963)

Another Great Film from Japan's Master Filmmaker

[23 September 1999]

While I've seen HIGH AND LOW referred to as a "film noir," a "detective drama," a "riveting game of cat-and-mouse," and so on into infinity, I think those terms tend to underestimate some very great films (such as this and Kubrick's THE KILLING) and attempts to place them within boundaries over which the expanse of a few powerful films such as these spill.

Indeed HIGH AND LOW is a story involving some familiar techniques from film noir; the detective story; and the hunter-and-hunted storyline, but it surpasses so many films that might be included in a list of fine films noires. It, in true Kurosawa style (one which Stanley Kubrick matched blow-for-blow, seeming to complement one another in their stunning gifts to the cinema), stands as a fable showing the differences and tensions which the coexistance of different classes creates.

Gondo, the rich on high, receives torment from those who live below him, being literally perched upon a hill, overlooking the city in a feudalistic way, in which the king's palace gazes down upon the serfs below. As the kidnapper says, "it's hot as hell down here. But you wouldn't know that, you have air conditioning." Thus we see the parallels pile upon each other: it is about class warfare but also shows the differences between heaven and hell; and Gondo makes both a descent and ascent simultaneously.

The plot is simple, but the truth is complicated, and I won't go into it here, but take my word as it stands: this is an amazing piece of film. See it now or regret it! Every Kurosawa film is sublime.

Schizopolis (1996)

It's 1984 All Over Again. . .

[26 August 1999]

In what has been called the first truly postmodern film, the director, Steven Soderbergh (creator of the blah "sex, lies, and videotape" and the sharp "Out of Sight,") begins the film by stating that "The moral fiber that holds our society together will be ripped apart if every man, woman, and child, does not see this film."

I wouldn't go that far.

However, SCHIZOPOLIS proves to be a really, really funny jaunt through the territory that Tim Burton, David Lynch, and John Waters constantly fail to conquer: ordinary America. Where Burton adds a fairy-tale-gone-wrong sense, Lynch throws in his dark underbellies, and Waters his completely ridiculous extremists, Soderbergh places normal people in hyper-normal situations. The thing that makes this film so much better than those aforementioned is that every part of it is real, every part is believable. Fletcher is the everyman, who stands alone in the bathroom making all sorts of faces in the mirror, and suddenly stops when a colleague enters.

Soon Fletcher is caught in the middle of a seemingly insignificant conspiracy that really IS insignificant, and we are treated to so many intertwining relationships that soon we forget who these people are, and they merge into one face.

Overall, SCHIZOPOLIS is a very humorous and original take on the 9 to 5, and goes to show what A&E has been telling us all along: "Every life has a story."

Sure Fire (1990)

A breathtaking gaze into the heart of America.

[14 August 1999]

SURE FIRE is a striking and haunting film; shot in glorious anti-establishment 16mm color, it uses the small frame to drill deep and quickly into the souls of a few everyday hicks in Utah. This is my first Jost film and I have to say that I am blown away by what he can do with such a small budget (he filmed, directed, and edited it himself) and it serves as quite an inspiration to this hopeful filmmaker. Better than any high-budget film I've seen this year (with the exception of Eyes Wide Shut, of course) and it was made in 1993, but my point is that SURE FIRE is a dark and disturbing portrait of America, beautifully executed, and well shot. *wink*

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998)

A flaming heap of excrement.

[12 August 1999]

If you've ever seen Pulp Fiction, you know that it's an intelligent and groundbreaking movie that flipped the Zetigeist of big-Hollywood production in 1994. Guy Ritchie, in his completely overrated and overdone debut, takes everything that made Pulp Fiction a great film, rubbed poop on it, and rewrapped it with interesting-looking directorial maneuvers that belong not on the silver screen but instead are meant to flop around in the cesspools of MTV. No wonder Ritchie won MTV's "Best New Director" award -- he copied thousands of music video tricks in order to pull off this boring, confusing, and banal heist movie. It has terrible acting, awful and forgettable writing, and a storyline that meanders and, at best, serves only to cause more disappointment when a new "character" is introduced or one of the many goons gives his theories of life. All in all, I don't see why Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels got all the critical acclaim it did -- perhaps the critics are giving up on art and just looking for a neat use of slo-mo.

Says nothing, goes nowhere.

Disco Godfather (1979)

Kickin asses, gettin' wimmenz, savin' chilrenz.

[29 May 1999]

Disco Godfather is, quite possibly, the worst film ever made. I think that Rudy Ray Moore could have feasibly wiped his tail with the celluloid and the end result would have been a more worthy feature.

Then again, Disco Godfather is probably one of the most entertaining movies I've ever seen. Aside from the three-hour-long roller-skate-disco-dance sequences and the rants about the evils of PCP, the film (and I say "film") is a karate-fightin', rappin-rhymin', booty-shakin', disco-quakin' good time! When Rudy Ray delivers lines like "But how? AND WHY?" with a knowing glance toward his captivated audience, you know you are putty in the hands of a master craftsman. The film's supa-fly climax, a spontaneous kung-fu fest at a PCP warehouse, is one of cinema's finest moments. Just sit back, let the fists fly, and let the carefree spirit of Rudy Ray Moore's 1970's America take you away.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

The reason the movies exist.

[19 January 1999]

All of you who complain about the film's length can shut up.

Honestly. This film is one of the most brilliant things I've seen in a long time. Of course, you may not like war movies. Who cares. This isn't _To Hell and Back_ or _The Longest Day_, it's a film about life that happens to be set with a war going on. It harkens the raw cinematic power of _Apocalypse Now_, and should certainly not be ignored by the Academy this year. For your consideration, I present the film's two most powerful images:

A short cut in the battle for "The Rock," a blade of grass is suddenly spattered with blood.

The final shot, a coconut resting in an estuary, sprouting a new tree.