Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
K-PAX (2001)
A Charming, Hidden Gem Of A Movie
13 April 2002
It never ceases to amaze me how movies like this get made.

No car crashes, no explosions, no pyrotechnical performances with people screaming at each other or themes/bravura megalomaniacal rants that self-consciously have "Please nominate me for an Oscar" whispering in the Academy's ear.

No, instead we're given a quiet, enormously fascinating, compassionate, well-intentioned film that sits back and realizes that above beautiful cinematography (Which it has in spades), before performances which nail you to your seat (Which it carries in abundance), the most important thing of all is story. And K-Pax despite all "common sense" in Hollywood, throws out every safe-bet to get a movie produced and gives us just that. Wonderful story. Marvelous story.

I don't need to talk about that. Everyone from the science fiction fans (Who appreciated the depth and seriousness of the subject matter) to the warm n' fuzzy brigade (Who "Get the message" of the movie) have done their part to praise the various facets of a film that refuses to be categorized and is simply a very, very good story.

And perhaps because of that, because no one knows precisely what it is, just that's it's wonderful--Not unlike Prot himself--the people who came to this picture and created it have made a film that doesn't slant itself one way or the other but does a wonderful job of juggling seemingly disparate elements--the science, the drama, the message,the psychological aspects--and approach the movie fresh-eyed and innocent. The cinematography is, at times, simply beautiful and inspiring. And Iain Softley obviously had an enormous respect for the material because when it came time to tell the stories and let it speak through the actors, he pulled back, kept it simple and left the audience to witness to incredible performances by Jeff Bridges and Kevin Spacey to leave viewers with the same feeling; the acting is beautiful and inspiring.

Kevin Spacey's "Prot" is a wonderfully understated character with the gentle, knowing presence of an outsider who understands. It is his very calmness and seeming omnipotence that make his emotional outbursts, when they come, that much more intense and painful for audiences. He brings to the story the delicate sense of ironic humanity that comes from someone who may not actually lay claim to being human.

Jeff Bridges provides the warm, tired, cynical but still hopeful center of the film that provides reality to Spacey's quiet otherworldliness. Jeff Bridges is the much needed Everyman of this movie who is like so many of us out there; intelligent, wanting to do the right thing, essentially a good person at heart who is perhaps little lost and a LOT tired of the shackling nature of every day life in a first world nation. He asks the hard questions, he clings to his perceived reality. But he also wants to help. And all he's looking for is an excuse, some kind of spark to ignite his hope.

I suspect that K-Pax is going to occupy the same space in most people's hearts as that of a good book. I can't see it raking in buzillions of dollars, despite the fact that far, FAR less worthy films do that every summer. Instead, it will carry along, fondly or even maniacally supported by lovers of the film by word of mouth, quietly finding a new audience and making change where ever it goes. It's a gentle, engaging, quiet film that punches viewers between the eyes not through editing, action or shouting, but through that most basic and often forgotten art of cinema, finding a strong story and just letting it tell itself.
407 out of 431 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
Art, Trash, Love, Tragedy & Post Modernism in one amazing film
7 April 2002
Okay, let's get one thing straight out of the gates. Art is a subjective thing and everyone has their own personal definition of what is good art and bad art. I'm not going to come out and say that Moulin Rouge IS cinematic art, but I think I can safely say that it's trying to do what good art has always set out to do, and that is engage the audience and make them work a little, think a little and feel a LOT. I think it's great the the film has generated such a polarized response in viewers. If nothing else, that means that it's definitely NOT a middle of the road movie. Let's forget about Baz Luhrmann and his rhapsodizing about "heightened reality" and "establishing a contract with the audience" or "decoding the period for modern viewers." What he's done in this lavish, challenging and often extreme film is what the very best art attempts to do; communicate the basic human experience (In this case, love and the beauty/tragedy thereof) by stripping it down to bare essentials, by exaggerating certain elements, by putting all the artifice available to modern artists in order to explore a basic and primal element of our lives. In a world where we have come to acknowledge that there's no such thing as an original idea, only original variations, it's nice to see someone produce a wonderful, original variation that is unapologetic, dynamic and engaging.

There is nothing naturalistic about this film, but then there is very little naturalistic in what most consider the great works of art our time. It is fun, it is BIG, it is fast, touching, sentimental, rebellious. It is the very essence of the Bohemian ideals it espouses if Bohemians were given a multi-million dollar budget and lifetime supply of absinthe for "inspiration".

This is not a movie for everyone. Literalists should stay far, FAR away. Lazy viewers should not even leave the house, because it's not that kind of film. But if you're willing to work a little, to buy into what the movie is selling, and to take the hand extended to you when the rollercoaster arrives, you'll find a movie full of hard work, technical mastery, amazing performances and, best of all, a reason to maybe not be so cynical about people, the world we live in, and above all things, love.

Bazmark productions should be very proud of what they've created. They set out to provoke something in the world of movies and I think they've done that. This film will be an influence on young film makers, dreamers and lovers for years to come. I applaud Baz Luhrmann for doing what so many aspire to and few actually do; taking a risk on something that matters. And being willing to let the rest of the world see it.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I want a crack at the cutting room floor...
18 June 2001
First, a gratuitous and sexist comment, but it had to be said:

It's high time the two greatest performers in Hollywood got their due, and in this movie, Angelina's breasts stole the show; they jiggled, they bounced, they displayed an amazing range. They left me slack jawed, opened mouth and a believer in the miracle of Hollywood magic and they deserved to steal the show.

Okay, chauvinist pig mode is off. On with the review.

I've been following the development of this movie with interest for a few months, and as all the craziness mounted, I decided to go easy on it. Considering the kind of problems they've had during the production of this movie, I'm surprised that it turned as well as it did.

This does not mean the movie isn't problematic. It is. Very. But I can understand why.

My hat goes off to Graeme Revell Considering that he go dragged in at the last minute to rescore this movie, he did a very impressive job, even if we were denied the usual orchestration that you expect from a film with this budget. But to Simon West, the director... Ah, Simon, what can I say? I feel for you, man. To have your movie cut and then show it to the studio only to have them recoil in horror and order the movie to be entirely recut with a new editor a handful of weeks before release...

Well, let's just say it shows.

I don't know what Paramount was thinking, but without giving anything away, there are major, MAJOR plot and continuity issues at work in this movie that leave me seriously wondering just what ended up not going in. I expect (Or at least hope) that when the DVD comes out, there's gonna' be a HUGE deleted scenes sequence, because this is the first time in recent memory I recall so many sequences shown in the trailer not appearing in the film.

Angelina's performance is passable, although she really comes into her own when she's grimacing or bouncing around. This is what we want from Angelina, so that's just fine. Everyone else is, for the most part, forgettable and probably just cashing in the checks and waiting to collect action figures of themselves when the inevitable marketing onslaught gets into full swing. The special effects are occasionally Okay, though for the most part that CGI leaves one with a kind of bored, "Dude, that is like, SO 1993." In a world of "bullet time" and hyper real character a la "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" there's just no more excuse for CGI effects to look plasticky and not in synch with the real world environments they're layered against.

The set pieces of the film are, of course, the breasts. No, the action sequences. Yeah, that's it. And while a few, such as famous bungee sequence from the trailers are VERY well done, I couldn't help but feel that perhaps they took wrong approach. It seems like all the truly amazing action takes place in the first half of the film and gradually goes downhill. Perhaps they should have reversed the order of their action gradient, 'cause ending the movie on the bungee fight would have been MUCH more satisfying than the poorly cut resolution we saw.

I feel this could have been a much better movie. It's obvious there was a lot of material that wasn't used and was hastily recut for God knows whatever reason. It ain't no block buster, but if you want to believe that breasts can fly, this is definitely a film to put on your pubescent, Set-The-Woman's-Movement-Back-About-30-Years must see list of the summer...
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed