Reviews

12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
a bad movie with a decent conclusion -- SPOILER!!!
29 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER ALERT!!!

if it weren't for the worthy-of-a-good-con-movie conclusion, this film would be a total waste. nicholas cage is good and the acting in general is all right, but the script and the direction are totally cringe-making. by the time you realize they were perhaps MEANT to be cringe-making, you also realize that it's a miracle you lasted long enough to hit pay day. by overplaying the bad-movie hand, ridley scott risks losing his audience and wasting his con. in other words, to paraphrase roy, he risks being conned back by the mark.

a note on the psychological aspect: what kind of illness does roy suffers from? not one that makes any sense to me.
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Gorgeous Poetry
29 November 2003
At cost of risking the authorial fallacy, I'll say that I took this film to be autobiographical. One advantage of having a talented writer do a film about a talented writer is that, when the protagonist reads his writing, you don't cringe (we should also have first-rate musicians write the score in movies about fictional musicians). In "The Business of Fancydancing" the writing is gorgeous and is what gives the film substance and shining power. Seymour Polatkin/Sherman Alexie's poetry makes up the bulk of the screenplay, whether in the form of actual poems (read by the protagonist or other characters, printed on still frames, or rendered in song), or as part of the dialogue. The film is non-linear and non-realistic: people don't always speak like real people and events don't follow one another in chronological fashion. But Alexie is brutally honest in his portrayal of the truth of his characters, and the film finally feels much more authentic than most made-to-look-realistic, traditional movies. It is one of the paradoxes of fiction that realism is frequently better achieved through non-realistic means.

"Fancydancing" is a wrenching and angry movie about identity, belonging, and race. Leading one's life as a Native American is clearly no easy job, and Alexie takes a very unsentimental look at the ordeals and dilemmas that come with a Native heritage. His characters are not especially likeable, and all make questionable choices. As Alexie makes clear, however, there are no "right" choices. Whether you stay or go, conform or depart, life's going to getcha and people are going to be mad at you.

The poetry beautifully depicts the pain of this dilemma while at the same time showing the redemption that comes with living the dilemma, sticking with it, not giving in. The images are occasionally hokey, and some sequences could have been cut without any loss to the overall effect of the film. But this is a brave film with a brave, unsparing vision, and it deserves a wide viewership.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mystic River (2003)
3/10
Boredom unto Death
15 November 2003
It is an ever-fresh source of astonishment to me to see how much this world forgives men (as opposed to, you know, women). They'll craft an overblown, self-indulgent, and absolutely crass piece of work like `Mystic River,' and immediately the critics will outdo each other with praise filled with enough high-sounding adjectives to generate a thesaurus of their own. But let a woman make a meaningful, intelligent film about women and men, or, god forbid, only women, and she'll be immediately attacked with the narrow gamut of vocab reserved for `chick flicks.' It makes you really, really sad.

I actually went to metacritic.com and read me the stellar reviews written by our major movie critics for `Mystic River.' Having seen the film last night, and having being variously puzzled, irritated, bored, and enraged by it, I had to see for myself what the critics saw in it that was so wonderful. Answer: you won't find out from the reviews. The above-mentioned critics are so busy telling us what a masterful director Eastwood and masterful actor Sean Penn are, and what masterful acting the director elicited from Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon, Marcia Gay Harden and Laura Linney, that they forget to give us a, you know, reading of the film (which you thought movie criticism was all about). But hey, this is Oscar material, what can you do? Gotta be handled with kid gloves.

So, since I have no Oscar-related obligations whatsoever, let me give you my reading of the film. Guys, meaning men, meaning white men, are very fragile and very fierce creatures. They are tough and powerful and all that, but when you hurt them, when you really hurt them, they thrash around in agony like wounded lions and bring a lot of destruction and self-destruction around them. Since, however, this is the majesty of the white male human animal, one can only look on in awe and marvel and terror. The enormity of the white male condition is such that criticism is really beyond the point. In `Mystic River,' men hurt, god they hurt, but they also rage, and Eastwood, not one to pull back when it comes to marveling at the majesty of the WMHA, shows the two emotions battle each other as if such battle were a true-blue epic. Beyond epic: as if it were metaphysics and existentialism and fate and cosmic law rolled into one. Heck, he even wrote his own gloomy score to accompany the drama of it all! So you see what I mean when I say that men are forgiven a whole lot in this world. Because this stuff, all metaphysics and epic aside, is as boring as s***. And I mean it, from the bottom of my heart.

Oscar Prediction: Best Director (Eastwood) and Best Actor (Penn) for this lousy film.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
In the Cut (2003)
9/10
Pleasure and Fear: Campion's Guide to Female Eroticism ***SPOILERS***
2 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
In Jane Campion's films, women are stunted communicators. They are overwhelmed by larger-than-life men in the presence of whom their words are clearly futile, not to be uttered. In In the Cut the protagonist Frannie is an English professor who collects the words of others but does not have much to say on her own account. She is silenced inside by a bewildered fear of people-men-which she carries around in the form of a great vulnerability. As we see her in the streets of New York, in the bars, on the train, in her house, we are struck by how small and fragile she looks, a beautiful thing in a very rough world. Frannie is constantly pondering over the little poems, or fragments of poems, the transit authority posts in the New York subway trains. She is also writing a book on slang words, which she gathers by regularly meeting a black student in a seedy restaurant-bar. The words are very much not her own words, part of a culture she studies as an outsider. In her home, she meticulously posts words and sentences on cork boards on the walls. When the cop who will become her lover first enters her place, the first thing he notices are the words. When he leaves, he leaves behind a new word, `disarticulated,' which Frannie hastens to scribble down and put up with the others.

Disarticulated, or inarticulate, is, in fact, what Frannie is. She cannot articulate her unease, and stumbles through a traumatized post-9/11 New York in a state of shell-shocked withdrawal. Along with her unease, she cannot articulate her desire. Pauline, her sister, who knows her well, pressures her into dating men, presumably because she doesn't. Pauline herself, who lives surrounded by sex because her apartment is literally above a go-go bar and she's close to the girls, is in love with a doctor who sleeps with her but does not love her back and whom she sees mainly by making doctor's appointments. Frannie's and Pauline's lives are filled with desire and sensuality. Their houses are steeped in color and sound, wonderfully cozy houses, not expensive but lusciously decorated with red shag carpets and piles of soft cushions. At the beginning of the film, Frannie's and Pauline's desire shows itself in their love for each other. Since we don't know the two are sisters (half-sisters, actually), we think Pauline is Frannie's lover. The two women touch a lot, walk holding hands, part with a loud kiss on the mouth. The play of their hands, their touch, their physical proximity dominates all the scenes in which they appear together in the film. In the meantime, the doctor Pauline is in love with is seeking a restraining order against her. The idea that she may be issued a restraining order feels absurd to Pauline, who tells Frannie the story in grief and disbelief. Looking at Frannie and Pauline huddled up in Pauline's apartment, it feels absurd to us, too: theirs is clearly a world in which women have a lot more to fear from men than men from women.

Men are portrayed from the start and consistently as dangerous predators. The student Frannie meets in the bar is cocky and macho, and Frannie looks remarkably vulnerable sitting with him with her professorial glasses on. In the back of the room, women giggle with a guy or two. When Frannie goes to the restroom, she gets lost in the back of the bar and comes across a woman giving a man a blow job. The scene is, again, filled with menace. At the same time, Frannie is attracted to it, and look on, unseen. When she comes back to her table her student is gone, sent away by a mixture of impatience and jealousy.

These threatening men (besides the student, who will later try to rape Frannie, there's Frannie ex-boyfriend, who breaks into her house, and of course the cop and his partner) serve the purpose of the film, which, as a slasher thriller, means to keep us guessing which one of the guys is the serial murderer who strangles women, rips their throats open, and cuts them to pieces. Juxtaposed to Frannie's desire, though, this pervasive sense of male threat functions at a deeper level, because it provides a context to her inwardness and isolation. When Frannie finally gets her detective into bed, Campion does a great job of making the intensely erotic and explicit lovemaking all about Frannie and her pleasure. Molloy's own pleasure is not even addressed. The sex is all about Frannie and her delight. In his review of the film, Rene Rodriguez of the Miami Herald describes the sex in the film as cold. I am not surprised, though I think he is dead wrong. The film's exceptional eroticism may fail to register, or register fully, on the American viewer's radar screen because its polarities are subverted. I never thought of this before seeing this scene, but in fact movie sex scenes (the heterosexual ones) are all about the man's conquest of the woman. The man fucks the woman. In In the Cut, Frannie fucks the detective, not in the sense that he is passive (he isn't), but in the sense that the whole scene is about her pleasure, her desire. So the typical parameters along which we are trained to register eroticism on the screen do not work here, because there is no sense of male conquest, no taking over of the female body. The female body is possessed only of its own pleasure, a pleasure Molloy serves. The camera is focused on Frannie's face, on her gestures and expression of sexual delight-and these are conveyed rather restrainedly in terms of movie conventions, without moans or grunts and little verbal ejaculations. Frannie moans only when she gives herself an orgasm, not when Molloy gives it to her. Also, and significantly, Frannie is the one who initiates the lovemaking, in a matter-of-fact, unromantic way that is atypical of this kind of movies. So it requires a different mindset to appreciate the eroticism of In the Cut, a mindset focused on the pleasure of women rather than on the pleasure of men.

Besides wanting to hurt women, men want to own them. This theme runs through the film as a constant thread. Pauline's and Frannie's father, whom we see in sepia-colored sequences ice skating with the woman who's destined to be Frannie's mother, fell in love with her on a frozen pond while he was already engaged to another woman. The woman, disgusted by her fiancee's behavior, threw her engagement ring on the ice. The man picked it up and, half an hour later, put it on the hand of his new conquest. The sepia-colored sequences return two or three times. Just to make sure that we get it, Campion has the ice-skating father run over his new fiancee, cutting her to pieces with the sharp blades of her skates. The men who want to own women are the same men who will cut them to pieces. Molloy also asks Frannie to get engaged to him, as will the serial killer before she kills him and ends the movie. So Frannie is constantly fighting: to protect herself from male violence and to retain her independence. When, towards the end, Molloy, apparently frustrated by Frannie's silences and withdrawal, shouts at her that she's exhausting him, she locks him to a drain-pipe with his handcuffs and fucks him. The sex, as before, is about her, not his pleasure.

Frannie doesn't win her battle. The ravaged city of New York is too far gone, too lost in violence and horror, for a small woman like her to right things. But, as in her other films, Campion shows us a woman who reappropriates her desire without emasculating her partner or turning away from men altogether. This is a great victory unto itself.
47 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
a possible world
3 January 2001
With Girlfight, this tops my best of 2000 list. Not that I have seen them all, and not that there's much competition. This was such a dreadful year in Hollywood I'm swearing off Oscar day. But this IS an amazing film (as is Girlfight). Let women direct more, I say, and let budgets be slashed in subatomic particles. Most importantly, let people who have stuff to say, say it. All the other ones should wait for inspiration.

One of the amazing things about this film is its pace. It is breathless, and you never quite stop laughing or gasping or having some variety of intense edge-of-your-seat emotional reaction. Which is amazing, because the plot is so complex, it could easily have gotten lost in chaos. Even as you laugh, the tension doesn't let up. The stories unfold rapidly and dramatically and with full comic timing, and you never quite stop marveling. We are not treated very often to this kind of inventive filmmaking.

If you've lived in LA for any significant length of time, you'll realize from the start that this film is not meant to be realistic. The MTA scenes at the beginning are so un-LA, so colorful and happy, you know this is going to be a grand fest of the imagination and the heart, not a tale of urban life. (For one, people on MTA buses tend to sit dejectedly, not to have a collective laugh&lovefest). Similarly, the ethnic angle is more life-as-we-would-like-it-to-be than life-as-is. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's so refreshing to see race on film without having to trudge through misery, pain, and blood, you want to weep with gratitude. What's Cooking? is full of big themes treated with similar lightness: broken families, same-sex relationships, tradition vs. progress, parenthood, urban violence, gender roles, politics... Even as it packs it all in, the film does it all seamlessly, treating it as the stuff of everyday's life it in fact is (funny how movies tend to deal with one issue at the time, and how we've grown to consider that a good thing).

But lightness is not glibness or superficiality. There's a big heart and a big sharp mind at the center of What's Cooking? and problems get taken seriously. Clearly, since this is the world as we'd like it to be, most things find some sort of satisfactory conclusion by the end. And that is more than all right, because we're tired to see gays and people of color go down, families drown in waters to thick to negotiate, and all the vast repertoire of disasters that make critics think a film "got it right." Nope. Not here. But the world as we'd like it to be can still be a POSSIBLE world, and this is ultimately the exhilarating nutshell of What's Cooking?: that joy is not beyond our reach, the pain can give way to healing, and that, hell, we can, maybe not perfectly but nonetheless, all get along.

Well done!
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
You Can Count on Watching the Same Story Over and Over
24 December 2000
Warning: Spoilers
This film came to me with the great recommendation of having tied Sundance with the fantastic Girlfight. But it turned out to be a disappointment. It's an all right film, not offensive to the palate and the intelligence, but not special either. The story, of siblings meeting again after a childhood trauma has marked their lives (in what way, though? the movie doesn't tell us anything about that, other than they miss their dead parents. No kidding) is really unoriginal. Just at this time, there is at least another movie that deals EXACTLY with the same premise, Vertical Limit. While the genres these two movies operate in are wildly different, and one would be tempted to say that You Can Count on Me analyses the "adult sibling" relationship in more intimate terms (isn't that what indie movies of the drama/comedy variety are supposed to do?), it seems to me that Vertical Limits has the advantage of actually not being boring. Okay, I'm too harsh perhaps. But have people really not seen adult sibling relationships depicted/explored in movies before??!!! It seems to me that's just about all we see in movies. Randomly: Rain Man, The Brothers McMullen, Hanging Up, The Godfather (yes?), Sister My Sister (YES?)... it's all over the place! If you want to see really DEEP explorations of sibling relationships, I propose you turn to Ingmar Bergman or Margaret Von Trotta. Hey, and why not? Girlfight! It does it pretty well (though maybe one would say they are not adults. Who cares, says I).

Having said that I find the premise trite, I'm going to add that I found the development trite as well. Like, these two people love each other very very much but they lead very very different lives, and one of the two is troubled while the other one is stable, and the troubled one asks the stable one for money... It depicts the situation of just about any pair of siblings I know. Seriously. And the schmaltziness, oh the schmaltziness. We are supposed to UNDERSTAND that Sam and Terry love each other very much even though we are never told why and how, and the way we understand it is by 1) watching Sam welcome Terry home with unbounded happiness and 2) watching Terry say goodbye to Sam with unbounded sadness/fortitude/optimism/whatever. Other than that, it's all about Terry going through the rituals of male bonding with Sam's little son: late-night pool playing, fishing, construction, fistfighting. You would think by now filmmakers would have come up with something more original. And why isn't Terry bonding with his sister instead? Or is he bonding with the sister by bonding with her son? 'Cause if that is the case, we have such a major problem of dysfunctional lack of communication on our hands, it's not even funny. The bonding of uncle and nephew in fact pivots on CUTTING OFF the sister/mother, as is the case with most male bonding.

**SPOILER ALERT*** What the film does well, it seems to me, is show how Samantha GETS RID of all the loser men (brother included) that populate her life by deciding at some point to shed them, one by one. Well done, Sam! She even "gets rid" of the budding loser-boy mentality of her son by telling him to shape up and stop pining after his uncle.

Laura Linney is terrific and breathes all the life into this otherwise supremely forgettable film. And she looks terrific in those glasses.

BTW, I like her better as the good guy than as the bad guy.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
a dazzling but flawed film
8 June 2000
Let me say straight out that John Woo's cinema has the power of filling me with positive glee. His images are simply dazzling, his choreography is exhilarating and his style is poetic. Having said this, I'm going to say what's wrong with M:I-2. First of all, the script is quite lame and the plot predictable. Secondly, some of the violence is so uselessly in-your-face and so protracted that I felt, more than disgusted, bored. Third, this film is clearly ALL Tom Cruise, which means that the supporting characters shine with futility, ineptitude, and insignificance. Fourth, the sexual politics are SO BAD: damsel is sexually exploited, pathetically ineffective, helplessly vulnerable, and in desperate need of rescue. Yuk.

In spite of all this, some of the scenes are filmed so beautifully, I gasped. The beginning scene in Utah, for instance: fantastic. The car chase between Tom Cruise and Thandie Newton, which transmutes into a tango dance: immensely creative and sensual. The motorcycle chase towards the end: breath-taking. Also, John Woo manages to capitalize beautifully on Tom Cruise's amazing screen charisma, to stunning effect. And he bends the M I trademark mask pealing to his penchant for identity swapping (see Face/Off, which could be the title of this film too), introducing some valuable thought-provoking elements into a script that doesn't seem to offer any to start with. Finally, I ALWAYS enjoy the bird/dove scene, a John Woo signature that expresses redemption and beauty magnificently. Terrific cinematography and amazing stunts.

So, in conclusion, I loved this film. And I'll go see everything John Woo does. But he should try to work on his female characters.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
the pains of believing
11 May 2000
The Hymens Parable takes another stark, pained look at the reality of faith in this turbulent, disbelieving and tormented world of ours. In the best tradition of contemporary films that deal *seriously* with faith (the Catholic faith in particular), Hymens is metaphor-heavy, as its title suggests-the OED definition of `parable' reads as `narrative setting forth in terms of something else, fictitious story told to point a moral, apologue, allegory.' Hymens' story-line centers around a young and handsome soon-to-be priest whose faith and vocation are equally shaky. Jason's attraction to the religious life is, it appears, completely indebted to his sister Cassie's visionary and `crazy' mysticism. At the same time, Jason harbors resentments of all sorts against Cassie, whose obsessed devotion puzzles and angers him.

Cassie works in the film as a reminder of the other-worldly nature of faith, whose uncompromising, heavenward nature cannot but be `read' by our brutal, cold, over-scientific world as mental illness. Brought up in a highly dysfunctional family (part of a highly dysfunctional world), Cassie suffers in her flesh the contradictions and tearing paradoxes of the evil that surrounds her: she's indomitably drawn to self-inflicted pain and thirsts uncontrollably for wine (preferably the sweet wine used in the Mass). With the same single-mindedness of Joan of Arc with respect to the solaces of sacramental confession, Cassie craves the solaces of the Eucharist. Unable as a woman to be a priest herself, Cassie conditions Jason from his early childhood to choose the priesthood. Jason follows this preordained path, though not, as I said, without misgivings and doubts.

Jon Springer, who has written, photographed, and directed this film, may have bit off more than he can chew. Because he wants to show the high contemporary relevance of the Eucharist-which is at the heart of the mystery of the Incarnation-he finds himself having to confront the trickiest mystery of all, the mystery of evil. This he does through the troubled personal lives of Jason and Cassie, but also through its ultimate 20th century example, the Holocaust. This mish-mash of horrors can indeed be too much for anyone to take, and we sympathize with Jason's struggle to believe. At the same time, though, it's hard for the viewer to gain understanding of Cassie's mystical obsession. Without meaning to sound facile, I still think that most of us believers manage to do so in a more joyous, light-spirited, less tortured way. Why is God, one wonders, not showing these siblings that there's genuine beauty and joy and RELIEF in faith? At the end of watching Cassie and Jason go through their exhausting ordeal, one is tempted to wonder: what's the good of faith?

I want to point out something that I found very valuable in this intense film. Many nowadays protest the supposed exclusion of women from the heart of the Church. Hymens asserts in no uncertain terms that women are perhaps right at THE heart of the religious experience. As in other recent films that deal with Catholicism (Scorsese's Bringing Out the Dead comes to mind), women are the ones who see and point the way, while men try to follow as best they can. That women should, as a consequence, be certified as crazy and locked up in psychiatric institutions by a world that makes no room for the supernatural is a painful but ultimately validating fact. See this movie and judge for yourself!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
religion is not psychology
26 March 2000
I agree with the other commenters that this film was well acted and well filmed, but it would be nice if once in a while the media did not portray priests who are racked by doubt and disbelief, and if the Catholic hierarchy were not mean, vicious, and despicably mundane. It looks like filmakers believe that people will not be able to take serious portrayals of faith which are not balanced by a hefty amount of cynicism and inner struggle. Of course inner struggle is a big part of faith, but there ARE people and priests out there who just go about the business of believing in God and working for the the good of humankind without excessive torment and without having to battle a blighted hierarchy. It has become a given that representations of faith must either be corny and preachy or extremely secularized. It's as if filmmakers had figured that there are only two audiences for religious themes: the feel-good believers who watch the various angels TV shows and the questioning skeptics who need heavy-duty realism. That's not true and not accurate. Religion is a complex business, but this complexity can be shown more subtly than by secularizing the priesthood to the point of disfiguring its reality and purpose.

Same goes for miracles. What is it with blood-crying statues of the Virgin anyway? If I remember correctly there was one in Stigmata as well (and in Central Station?). And, come on, there must be a less hokey way to deal with miracles than by having a little girl walk into a church all covered in blood, then turn out a junkie, then resurrect from the dead for the whole shamed bunch of priests to see. It was all very dramatic and very corny. Myself, I preferred the heavy-handed spookiness of Stigmata: at least the force of the divine was truly palpable and religion was not reduced to someone's psychological drama.

I wish someone gave Anna Heche a role in which her incredible sexiness and charisma were used a bit better than to seduce old guys and priests. That was bit of a useless side-tracking, wasn't it? Or was it a selling technique? Either way, we could have done without it.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
religion is not psychology
26 March 2000
I agree with the other commenters that this film was well acted and well filmed, but it would be nice if once in a while the media did not portray priests who are racked by doubt and disbelief, and if the Catholic hierarchy were not mean, vicious, and despicably mundane. It looks like filmmakers believe that people will not be able to take serious portrayals of faith which are not balanced by a hefty amount of cynicism and inner struggle. Of course inner struggle is a big part of faith, but there ARE people and priests out there who just go about the business of believing in God and working for the the good of humankind without excessive torment and without having to battle a blighted hierarchy. It has become a given that representations of faith must either be corny and preachy or extremely secularized. It's as if filmmakers had figured that there are only two audiences for religious themes: the feel-good believers who watch the various angels TV shows and the questioning skeptics who need heavy-duty realism. That's not true and not accurate. Religion is a complex business, but this complexity can be shown more subtly than by secularizing the priesthood to the point of disfiguring its reality and purpose.

Same goes for miracles. What is it with blood-crying statues of the Virgin anyway? If I remember correctly there was one in Stigmata as well (and in Central Station?). And, come on, there must be a less hokey way to deal with miracles than by having a little girl walk into a church all covered in blood, then turn out a junkie, then resurrect from the dead for the whole shamed bunch of priests to see. It was all very dramatic and very corny. Myself, I preferred the heavy-handed spookiness of Stigmata: at least the force of the divine was truly palpable and religion was not reduced to someone's psychological drama.

I wish someone gave Anna Heche a role in which her incredible sexiness and charisma were used a bit better than to seduce old guys and priests. That was bit of a useless side-tracking, wasn't it? Or was it a selling technique? Either way, we could have done without it.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Christological Tale
18 November 1999
I've seen the film a second time last night and it struck me even more forcefully that this is a deeply spiritual and profoundly hopeful film. People flounder and die in the chaotic, red-death-scarred Hell Kitchen night, but hell is not terminal if burnt-out medics can drag themselves out just one more night and rescue its dwellers by taking them to Mercy hospital. The hospital, which is Heaven to Bellevue's Hell (as Tom Sizemore's terrific character tells us), is the pulsing centre of the story. It is populated by a plentiful of characters taken right out of Catholic mythology and re-embodied in late twentieth-century New York.

Christ figures abound: Frank Pierce, who begs for the cup to be taken away from him but then is out again in his night of the spirit, to put souls to rest and "bear witness" to human freedom, fall, and redemption; Noel, who asks, like Christ on the cross, for a cup of water and, like Christ, is denied; security guard Griss, whose name is pronounced as if it were Grace; the drug pimp, pierced by a fence post in the same way as Christ was pierced by a sward; etc.

And then of course we have Mary Burke, who can be the Virgin Mary or Mary Magdalen or both, but who, in either case, symbolizes forgiveness (of her father) and acceptance (of tired Frank, who can sleep peacefully only at her place, possibly enfolded in her arms like in a present-day Pieta'). Even though Frank doesn't see it and screams his "Why Have You Forsaken Me?" over and over (not with anger, mind you, only infinite pain), he DOES save people and they know it: they turn to him for salvation because they know that's where they can get it. Finally, in the ICU with Mr. Burke, Frank consummates his destiny and symbolically dies. His death releases Burke from the constraints of earthly life and sets him free for eternal peace.

Tremendous performance by Nicolas Cage, who focuses the film with his forced bursts of hilarity and his mesmerized looks out of the ambulance windows, and Patricia Arquette, who portrays beautifully her character's sadness, weakness and profound innocence.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
the perennial malaise of the middle-class American male
5 October 1999
Although there are some things in this film that are indeed exceptional (art direction and set decoration, besides the more obvious acting etc.), I am just about shocked by the ease with which Hollywood manages to fall back on its most insinuating and pernicious attitudes towards women, the suburbs, the repression of desire, and moral bankruptcy. Okay, so: the American suburbs bread discontent and potentially explosive sick fantasies under a patina of well-behavior and perfectly manicured front lawns. And: children are the designated victims of adults' failure to keep off the edge on moral and existential insanity. How many times do we have to be told this? Isn't it what, for instance, The Ice Storm reminded us of recently? It, at least, had the historical decency to take place in the 70's. At the end of the 90's, I'd like something more meaty, more political, less self-indulgent, thank you very much.

As for politics, the sexual politics of this film are so sneakingly backwards as to make one wonder if feminism is really fallen off the edge of the world. Did you sympathize with the sad-but-heroic struggle of Kevin Spacey? I did, and I hated the director for making me do it. Annette Bening is great in this film, but her character is simply bitchy and monsterish and unredeemable. Her frigidity is so impermeable that she manages to resist EVEN Kevin Spacey's most touching "let's start over" efforts. Now isn't it sad? No, it isn't. It's sexist, and misguided and wrong. In fact, all through the film women are viewed as nothing more than the object of male desire, and if we are expected to look at this as some sarcastic criticism of male culture, well, there's simply no space in the film for the critical distance needed to do this.

5/10 for artistic merit, with a lot of misgivings.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed