shades033 Reviews

Frailty (2001)

An excellent horror film on a par with Steven King's best

[10/10 · 30 April 2002]

Movies with twist endings are a dime a dozen these days, but once

in awhile, a movie comes along that completely pulls the rug from

under your feet and leaves you affected for hours after you've seen

it. The Usual Suspects was a movie that had a particularly

effective twist ending. So was last year's Memento. Horror movies

have long been known for creating twists when revealing the

identity of a killer, but rarely, has there been a horror movie that

has taken such an intellectual route to unveiling a story and then

trumping it with such an unexpected twist ending.

As Frailty opens, the FBI is plagued by a series of serial killings

and disappearances by a criminal calling himself "God's Hands".

They've reached an impasse in the case until a Fenton Meeks

(played by Matthew McConaughey) comes to their door and

reveals that his brother may be the killer. He then proceeds to

relay an incredible story about how their father dragged the boys

into a mission to destroy demons, conveniently disguised as local

townsfolk.

Told in flashback, the story is set in a typical small town in the

South, where Meeks' father, played by Bill Paxton, is a widower

raising his two sons on his own. In the middle of the night, he tells

his sons that God has come to him in the form of an angel to

enroll him as a soldier in God's army in a war against demons

living on earth. These demons look just like humans, except that

Meeks' father can see them by putting his hands on them. His

mission is to destroy them. Fenton is a bit suspicious and

skeptical, but his trusting younger brother, Adam, is enthralled and

ready to do whatever his father needs him to do. Fenton's

suspicions quickly turn to fear, as he witnesses his father destroy

his first demon with an axe and then bury the body in the rose

garden behind their house. His father's convictions in what he is

doing are so strong that he is able to sound convincing and sane,

except that Fenton realizes he must stop his father. The conflict

between the two leads to Fenton's lack of faith and a refusal to

believe in God, as his father continuously pushes him to

participate in the mission.

Directed by Paxton, Frailty is a true horror movie of the highest

magnitude, and it's one of those intelligent character-driven

thrillers that are far too rare. The tone and setting of the movie is

like something that Stephen King might have written, while the

movie itself is reminiscent of two of his better movie adaptations,

the coming-of-age drama Stand by Me and Pet Sematary. Some

aspects of Frailty also remind one of M. Night Shamalayan's

dreadful, Unbreakable. Although this tends to be equally as slow,

Paxton takes a similar premise and does it in a way that manages

to keep the viewer riveted to the screen. The most disturbing

aspect of the movie is watching Paxton as the loving father who

gets his children involved in his brutal crimes, and the situation is

even more tense when one realizes how witnessing such carnage

could affect these young minds. Setting the story in such a simple

locale as this Everytown, USA, makes the nature of the killings

even more harrowing. After spending the entire movie thinking you

know what will happen, the back-to-back plot twists at the end are

every bit as satisfying as those in The Usual Suspects and

Memento.

Considering that this is Paxton's first time as director, the excellent

performances by the entire cast are even more impressive,

particularly Matthew O'Leary, who plays the young Fenton Meeks.

O'Leary's performance makes him one of those child actors that

should be kept an eye upon. Jeremy Sumpter plays his optimistic

brother, Adam, in a way that brings a nice counterpoint to the

brothers' relationship with their father. Without question, Paxton is

every bit as good in this as he was in A Simple Plan, playing the

father with a creepy smile of confidence and an air of politeness

that makes his cause seem just. By comparison, Matthew

McConaughey's role is fairly minor, as he only appears in the

framing sequences and acts as narrator for the flashback scenes.

When he is in front of the camera, he does a nice job looking and

acting as haggard as one who might after experiencing some of

the things he did as a teenager.

The script by first-time screenwriter, Brian Hanley, is sharp and the

storytelling is coherent and easy to follow, which can be rare in this

sort of movie. Some of the twist movies that Frailty draws

comparisons to have left the viewer thinking, "huh?", due to the

overly complex storytelling. Even though Frailty sometimes uses a

flashback within the main flashback, it still manages to keep

things comparatively simple and cohesive.

The movie doesn't actually show much of the inherent violence or

gore, making it even more disturbing as the mind fills in the

blanks with the graphic detail, and the sound effects add further to

the effect. The background music works well to help build the

tension, and the lighting is used to create a mood more effectively

than any other recent movie I've seen. From the light pouring

through the slats in a shed to the light emblazoning the police car

grill onto McConaughey's face, the lighting plays the largest part in

making this movie visually stunning, much like Alan Parker's Angel

Heart.

Frailty is easily one of the best horror movies I've seen in a long

time, almost like that Stephen King movie that no one has yet been

able to make. Paxton should be commended on such a fine

directorial debut and for bringing together such a fine group of

actors.

Changing Lanes (2002)

Well-acted but slow-moving and disappointing

[6/10 · 13 April 2002]

Have you ever hit the lowest point of your life and just as you think you're about to get out of it, someone does something to drive you further down the spiral? Did anyone ever do anything to you that was so hurtful or that got you so mad that you wanted to do whatever you could to get back at them?

These are the questions that go through the minds of two disparate New Yorkers, who turn a minor car accident on the West Side Highway into a bitter,day-long feud. Samuel L. Jackson plays Doyle Gibson, an insurance salesman who has recently been separated from his wife and family due to his alcoholism. Ben Affleck plays Gavin Banek, a scheister lawyer wanna-be, who has been entrusted by his law firm to deliver important documents to court to prevent a lawsuit against the firm. Both men are in a hurry to get to their respective court appearances, when they get into the car accident, but when Banek rushes off, he leaves behind the document that would save his case and his firm. When Gibson is made late for his own court appearance to fight for the custody of his kids, it drives him into an act of desperation and anger, as he uses the important file to try to get back at the uncaring lawyer who has ruined his life. In return, Banek goes to a slimy hacker to tamper with Gibson's credit rating, putting the home loan he needs to save his family in jeopardy.

Changing Lanes examines the lives of the two guys, who are trying to desperately to hold their lives together, and just as they are about to make ends meet, they run into each other-quite literally-making matters worse. The movie doesn't have as much to do with the two men fighting against each other, as the two men trying to find a way out of their situations and change their lives. Neither guy is particularly bad, but they both feel they must do whatever they can to save face and save their way of living.

If you've seen the commercials or the trailer, you've probably seen the best parts of the movie, and much of the rest involves needless sub-plots and exposition that acts as pure filler. The trailers are a bit deceiving as they seem to promise an action-packed thriller, but that's just not this movie. The basic formula is that we see a bit of expository dialogue, then one of the guys acts against the other, there's a bit more exposition, he feels bad, but before restitution can be made, the other guy retaliates. There never is the sort of over-the-top one-upmanship that made the recent Panic Room such a great movie. It also quickly turns into a reenactment of The Firm, as Banek tries to find out the truth behind his firm's unscrupulous practices when it comes to the estate of a dead philanthropist.

As far as actors go, I'm a fan of Jackson's, but not so much of Ben Affleck; as characters, both of them have a hard time winning over the audience. Just as you begin to despise Affleck's character, he tries to make amends and make up for some of his tactics. By comparison, Jackson's behavior tends to be erratic and irrational, suddenly flying into rages as you begin to empathize with him. But other than that, Jackson and Affleck are both given an ideal opportunity to show off how good they are as actors, and in this film, they're both at the top of their game. Ben Affleck is surprisingly good, with the redemption of his character being apropos, considering his own recent personal problems. To his credit, he turns Banek into the more likable of the characters over the course of the movie. He consciously tries to resolve the situations as they escalate while Gibson seems rather unrepentant and thus, less sympathetic. What's interesting is that the two men keep passing each other, yet their direct face-to-face interaction in the movie is fairly minimal. It's too bad, since these few moments are some of the film's best.

The rest of the cast, which includes Amanda Peet as Banek's wife (and daughter of the big boss) and William Hurt as Gibson's AA sponsor, are unnecessary and easily discarded characters. They could have just as easily been unknowns, hired from a SAG casting call. The only exception is actor/director, Sydney Pollack, who plays off Affleck beautifully, as his boss/father-in-law. Pollack has always been a class act, and he plays the slimeball trying to justify his own crimes as well as he did in Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut.

The script, a first screenwriting effort by Chap Taylor, is great, and credit can be given to director Roger (Notting Hill) Michell for getting such stellar performances out of the two actors, but both of them should also be blamed for the poor pacing. The movie is very slow and dry, and there is just way too much exposition and drama. Taylor should have tried to insert a few lighter moments to break up the rather dour mood of the movie. As far as the filmmaking, the entire movie looks grainy and poorly lit with fairly bad cinematography. Michell uses way too many close-ups, and often, the camera seems as if it was poorly positioned. There is a clear-cut moral and resolution to the story as both men try to seek out redemption, but in general, the ending is also a bit of an anti-climax.

Overall, the premise for Changing Lanes is good, making for an interesting character study, but it gets bogged down in trying to develop the characters far beyond what is needed. More often than not, the movie tends to drag, and it fails to deliver on the trailer's promise of being an exciting thriller. On the other hand, it does succeed as an insightful drama, and if it were a stage play, I would be raving about the terrific script and performances. But to sit in a movie theatre trying to watch these two characters trying to make sense of their lives is just not what I consider entertainment, and if this were a television drama, I probably would have changed the channel.

Rating: 6 out of 10

Human Nature (2001)

A bizarre comedy from the warped mind of Charlie Kaufman

[7/10 · 13 April 2002]

The latest movie from the warped mind of Being John Malkovich writer Charlie Kaufman is a romantic comedy, exploring the relationships between four individuals brought together by a series of tentative bonds.

The first character, introduced in a series of flashbacks, is Lila (Patricia Arquette), a hirsute girl who becomes an outcast from society due to her fur-covered body. She decides to live in the forest and become a nature writer, but eventually, she gets horny, so her electrolysist (played by Rosie Perez) sets her up with Dr. Nathan Bronfman, an anal and neurotic psychologist, played by Tim Robbins. Bronfman has his own set of issues after being raised by strict disciplinarian parents, and it's not surprising that he's a 35-year-old virgin, considering that his main area of study is trying to teach lab mice table manners. The two quickly fall in love and on a nature trip, they come across a man who has been raised in the wilds, not by a monkey, but by his human father who thinks that he is a monkey. This monkey man, played by Rhys Ifans, brings out Lila's more animalistic urges, but Nathan thinks that this is the key for taking his research to the next step. The newly dubbed "Puff" allows himself to be conditioned by Nathan, trying to please his newfound "father", by learning and acting more human.

Relative newcomer, Miranda Otto, plays Gabrielle, Nathan's manipulative "French" lab assistant, playing with the doctor's feelings to get whatever she wants from him. When Nathan finds out Lila's hairy secret, it horrifies him, driving him into Gabrielle's arms and creating a bizarre love rectangle between the four.

Kaufman once again gets a chance to see how far he can go with a number of strange premises and try to tie them together into a cohesive story. This time around, he is working with another video director making his first feature length film in Michel Gandry.

Frankly, Human Nature only has one or two jokes-neither as original as a portal into the head of John Malkovich-but they're funny enough to be stretched out and provide humorous fodder for the entire movie. It does take a little while to warm up to these characters and the situation though. Early in the movie, when a naked and hairy Lila starts parading through the forest singing a song that could have come right out of Disney's "Song of the South", you expect a very long and painful movie. But it gets better, and clearly, Rhys Ifans steals the movie, much like he did as Hugh Grant's roommate in Notting Hill. Some of the funnier scenes involve Puff's "training" to be more human, and the set-up just gets more and more outlandish. At one point, he is taught how to behave at the opera with a full opera box set constructed inside his cage. Imagine Gene Wilder and Peter Boyle singing "Puttin' on the Ritz" in Young Frankenstein to get some idea how funny this situation becomes as it progresses. Ifans alternates between being highly cultured and refined and being a horny, sex-crazed animal. This leads to all sorts of insane situations, where he tries but fails to control his urges, at one point humping a waitress in a classy restaurant. Eventually, he goes on a lecture tour, and the animalistic lovemaking of Nathan and Gabrielle in the next room, drives Puff to a lecherous life seeking out prostitutes. This allows Ifans to show off a darker side to the character, and he beautifully captures the pain suffered by a man-animal that can't decide which he would rather be. The characters are similar archetypes to those found in Being John Malkovich, as Tim Robbins plays John Cusack's hapless schmuck, Otto plays the Catherine Keener bitchy other woman role, and Arquette is the frumpy, spurned woman. Most of the second half of the movie shows how the four characters play a series of human mind games, as they try to feed their animal urges.

Tim Robbins plays his character a bit subtler then some of his past roles, but it works for the character. One of the other amusing schticks involves Nathan debunking his own shrink's theories on his problems--surely his chosen field of study couldn't have anything to do with his strict upbringing. His reaction to finding out that his parents have adopted a polite and well-mannered six-year-old is priceless.

It's fairly obvious that Otto is one of Australia's latest Nicole Kidman clones, as she has a similar mix of beauty and range of demeanor, being sweet one moment and sassy the next. While Gabrielle is a fairly minor role compared to the others, her next appearance will be in the second chapter of The Lord of the Rings.

Patricia Arquette is the weakest link in this equation. (Or is she the missing link?) She spends much of the movie naked or semi-clothed, but doing everything possible to be as unattractive and as unsexy as possible. If she isn't covered in hair from literally from head to toe, she is shaving her body hair, or she is bald, wearing a bad wig and acting psychotic. The concept of a hair-covered woman is a creep enough concept without Arquette's over-the-top performance.

The movie isn't as stylish as some of director Michel Gandry's videos, although the forest scenes hark back to one of his earliest works, which irony of ironies, was on Bjork's first video for the song, "Human Behavior".

Overall, Human Nature is a bizarre little movie that gets funnier as it goes along. The laughs come slow at first, but once Rhys Ifans takes center stage, the laughs are regular and hearty. It is a terrific exploration of what it is to be human and what it is to be an animal, and how hard it sometimes is to make the two ends meet. That said, if you're expecting this to be exactly like Being John Malkovich, then you may be disappointed, as this is an animal of another species.

Rating: 7 out of 10

The Time Machine (2002)

A rather bland attempt at a special effects movie

[6/10 · 24 March 2002]

A few years back, Dreamworks announced that HG Well's classic

time travel story, The Time Machine, would be brought to the big

screen for the first time in almost forty years.

In the long-awaited adaptation directed by Simon Wells, the

grandson of the writer, Guy Pearce plays Alexander Hartdegen, a

professor at Columbia University, who decides to build a time

machine after his fiancée, Emma, is killed in a robbery. After his

plans to return to the past to save her life fails, the Time Traveler

finds himself racing farther and farther forward in time until he

arrives 800,000 years into the future. By that time, the human race

has evolved into two distinct species: the kind-natured and

innocent Eloi, and the brutal, subterranean Morlocks that kill and

feast on them. Having nothing better to do, Alex decides to take it

upon itself to right the wrongs of this inhumane future.

The Time Machine clearly falls into the genre of science-fiction

effects movies, a genre that has been fairly prominent in the last

year with The Mummy Returns and Planet of the Apes last

summer and the more recent The Lord of the Rings. In principle, a

proper sci-fi effects movie is one where the visual effects take

precedence over the story and acting. Surprisingly, this movie has

cool visual effects and a decent story, yet it still manages to falter.

The movie sticks fairly close to the original story, while paying

tribute to the 1960 movie by George Pal and taking artistic license

with the reasons for the time machine being built. It quickly cuts to

the chase with Alex taking his first jaunt in the Time Machine only

fifteen minutes into the movie, sparing the viewer of a long set-up.

There is an innocence to the first half of the movie, as Alex

experiments with time travel that harks back to the simplicity of the

era in which the story was written. The second half, where Alex

learns the harsh realities of the future and tries to protect the Eloi

from the Morlocks, is more like your typical modern-day sci-fi

movie.

While The Time Machine could not exactly be considered boring,

it's also not particularly entertaining. It keeps you interested

enough to see what happens next, but there are no laughs and

none of the emotion necessary to help the audience connect with

any of the characters. The CGI itself is quite good, especially in

showing the passage of time, but it also seems detached from the

non-CGI.

The time-travelling effects are the obvious draw, as is the

impressive attention to detail while recreating various eras. It was

fascinating to see a 19th Century New York with the streets filled

with horse-and-carriages, and the near future of 2030 showed a

bit of creativity. The most beautiful scenery is in the future world of

the Eloi, where the world looks like something out of Riven (I

probably could have done without the Survivor theme music,

though.) It would have been nice if Alex had spent a bit more time

in each era, as the two eras he visits before arriving in the far

future are barely touched upon.

The Morlocks themselves look awful. The CGI versions of the

creature look cool enough--a bit like the pygmies from The Mummy

Returns–but the rest of them look like men in bad costumes and

Halloween masks. They are not even remotely frightening and are

almost laughably bad. It's hard to believe that the legendary Stan

Winston is responsible for this B-movie moment in what would

have been an otherwise impressive movie visually.

In general, the script and dialogue are okay, though there are a few

weaker moments between Alex and his confidante, Dr. Philby

(played by Mark Addy). Of course, the Eloi have their own

nonsense language to make sure the viewer has no idea how bad

the dialogue would have been if their scenes were left in English.

Their silliness is almost as annoying as the Gungan-talk in Star

Wars Episode 1.

The talented Guy Pearce is one of the few saving graces that

keeps this movie from being painfully unwatchable at times. At

first, he comes across as a 21st Century Jimmy Stewart, hamming

it up as the hapless and bumbling professor, but over the course

of the movie, he gains his confidence and his footing in time travel.

Either way, he's much better as a leading man in a genre where

the effects take top billing, than Brendan Fraser or Mark Wahlberg. Another standout performance is Jeremy Irons as the creepy

Uber-Morlock, looking very much like an albino Marilyn Manson.

Although his time on screen is minimal, he makes the perfectly

evil nemesis for Pearce. On the other hand, former 7-up

spokesman, Orlando Jones, plays Vox, a compendium of human

knowledge, and one of the most annoying synthetic beings since

Jude Law in AI. His character seems unnecessary to the story, and

he fails to add the humorous factor that seemed to be the

intention.

Technically, this isn't a bad movie and it keeps the viewer

entertained, but there's so much potential, and the movie fails to

meet up to expectations. In an attempt to keep the film down to the

90 minute mark, Wells has left out the sort of character

development that would help the audience relate to the characters,

and he fails to take advantage of the possibilities of time travel.

While the movie tries to express a message, it's never very clear

what it is--don't try to change the past? Evolution is bad? The

Morlocks are just stunt men in ugly costumes? And the ending that

tries to wrap things up in a neat little package was just

aggravating.

Clearly, Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings has raised the bar

on what constitutes a great effects epic, and The Time Machine

falls well below the bar. While the visual effects are decent, as is

Guy Pearce's performance, the movie fails to deliver on what HG

Wells set-up as an excellent premise.

Rating: 5 out of 10

Italian for Beginners (2000)

A interesting look at the language of love

[8/10 · 25 February 2002]

Danish cinema tends to get a bit of flak from the critics, that is,

when it's not being ignored in favor of some of its European peers

like England, France and Italy. So it's rather amusing that one of

the latest Danish imports contains almost as much Italian

dialogue as Danish, yet retaining all that is endearing about

Scandinavian films.

Written and directed by Lone Scherfig, Italian for Beginners follows

the lives of six unique and diverse individuals in a small Danish

town, who are brought together when they take a class to learn

how to speak Italian. While the six characters featured are fairly

archetypal, they each are given their own unique twist. We have

Olympia, the klutzy baker; Jorgen, the impotent hotel receptionist;

Finn, the unruly, soccer-loving restaurant manager; Giulia, the

Italian waitress who doesn't speak Danish, Karen the lonely

hairdresser and Andreas, an unconfident junior pastor, whose

induction into the local chapel plays catalyst to many of the

situations.

For the most part, the Italian class is used almost as a

euphemism throughout the film-possibly for love or sex-and it

gives the characters a chance to express themselves and their

feelings, something they can't always do in their native language.

It's interesting to see how love and death and some of the simpler

things in life brings them together.

In some ways, this concept is similar to the recent Monster's Ball.

Like in that movie, there is a bit of a credibility problem in believing

that these people are all living in the same small town without

really knowing each other, especially since there are so many

connections between them. On the other hand, some of contradictions help to differentiate between life in a small town in

Scandinavia and that in the Deep South, and the people in this

town seem a lot more secluded and private despite interacting

regularly. The interaction between them seems more believable,

and the humor tempers the sad moments, whereas Forster's

movie just depresses and confounds the viewer.

If there's one thing learned from Italian for Beginners, it's that the

Danish have a very strange sense of humor. Surprisingly, those

laughs translate well into the English subtitles. The comedy

ranges from the outlandish to the more subdued, but it always

seems spontaneous. Most of the laughs come from each character's distinctive personality quirk, and the tone of the humor

is similar to that of Christopher Guest's Waiting for Guffman.

The sad truth is that if this film were British, it would be

immediately embraced by an American audience. The pacing and

storytelling is similar to movies like The Full Monty and Waking

Ned Devine, and it also shows how repressed small town folk

deal with changes in their lives, and how something rather

minor-in this case Italian lessons-can turn their lives around.

Unfortunately, none of these characters really seem to redeem

themselves or change by the movie's end.

Still, Scherfig has found some untapped potential and created an

interesting story, which is a nice change of pace than some of

those awful movies about dating in New York City. There are many

recurring themes in the movie too, such as the power of prayer,

something that is realized both by the pastor and the waitress. Italian for Beginners was filmed using the tenets of Dogme 95's

"Vow of Chastity", a manifesto created by a group of Danish

directors–most notably, Dancer in the Dark's Lars Von Trier–in

which movies are shot on handheld cameras using only natural

lighting, sound and settings. Lone Scherfig has managed to

surpass what many other directors have managed using the

same formula.

One quickly learns to overlook and forget the low budget

production values, as they get ensconced in the personalities and

each character's story. There are many talented Danish actors and

actresses in this movie, none of whom I'm familiar with but all

whom are equally entertaining. Their emotions always seem real

and Scherfig uses the Dogme 95 system well to insure that the

focus is always on the actors and the acting.

This is a strange and heart-warming movie that is a bit slow at

times, but otherwise, it is thoroughly enjoyable and entertaining. It

also wins points for originality in that you never really know what to

expect from one moment to the next.

With Italian for Beginners, Lone Scherfig has created a no-frills

feel-good movie that takes a unique look at falling in love not too

far removed from France's recent export, Amelie. She is definitely a

director to keep an eye upon, and it will be interesting to see if she

can make the transition to mainstream American audiences as

has her Danish compatriot, Lars Von Trier.

Rating: 8 out of 10

In the Bedroom (2001)

A dark drama that will have you glued to the screen

[23 January 2002]

Sometimes, it's fun to go see a movie without having any expectations, or even having knowledge of the basic plot or premise. It's also nice to see a movie that would usually get ignored in a crowded market get a large amount of attention without having the plot be too obvious from trailers or commercials. Although In the Bedroom has been in theatres for a number of months, it's only recently started getting attention and positive word of mouth after Sissy Spacek's Golden Globe nomination.

Tom Wilkinson plays Dr. Matt Fowler and Sissy Spacek plays his music teacher wife, an older couple living in a small Maine fishing town, who become worried when their only son becomes involved with an older woman with two kids, played by Marisa Tomei. Their worries soon prove to be warranted, as the woman and her estranged husband proceed to destroy the teenager's life. Ultimately, it has a devastating effect on the couple's everyday life and their relationship.

This movie is a fascinating and powerful character study of people in a small town and how conflict and tragedy affect them. It is a story that takes place in three clear-cut acts separated by two twists, both of which take the viewer by surprise although they're both foreshadowed and somewhat expected.

It's hard not to compare this movie to the recently released Monster's Ball, one of my least favorite movies of last year, but it's a fair comparison, since it also showed a series of tragic and sudden events and how they affect the people in a small town. Unlike Monster's Ball, I found the actions and emotions of the characters in this movie to be a lot more plausible, and you can't help feeling the despair of the couple as they deal with their son's problems.

In the Bedroom also compares to last year's The Deep End, and Sam Raimi's underrated A Simple Plan, two other slow movies that dealt with how small town folk deal with problems and how those problems sometimes lead to more drastic actions. It's never clear whether the Fowlers disapprove of their son's relationship is because the woman is older and has two kids or because of the problems that her estranged husband brings to the relationship. At times, it seems like the Fowlers' only worry is that their son may not go to college in order to stick around and take care of his older lover and her kids.

Either way, the parents starts to drift apart due to their overpowering sense of grief and inability to change things, and it's not long before they're playing the blame game on who is responsible for their son's situation. When they finally explode, it's one of the most powerful film moments in recent memory. The shorter third act shows how they learn to cope and deal with their problems.

Despite the slow pace and the excessive length, the performances and the beautiful yet subdued camerawork and choice of setting keeps the viewer riveted to the screen.

It's been far too long since we've seen Sissy Spacek in a movie, and like this year's other comeback kid, Robert Redford, her age is showing. But her age also makes her perfect for the role of Ruth Lawler, as her world -weary eyes seem suitably representative of Ruth's own frustrations.

Like last year's The Deep End and The Others, this movie shows how an over-protective mother can alienate her children while trying to help them. Spacek gives another groundbreaking performance that shows talented yet less experienced actresses Tilda Swinton. Nicole Kidman and especially Halle Berry how to create realistic emotions on screen. Late in the movie, there is a particularly tense yet short confrontation between Spacek and Marisa Tomei that shows how much better these two actresses are.

Tom Wilkinson has played comedic parts in The Full Monty and has appeared in a number of period pieces including Sense and Sensibility and The Patriot. In the Bedroom proves him to be quite a talented dramatic lead actor, as his performance allows him the full range of emotions, and he creates a character as believable and real as Spacek's.

First-time director Todd Field is probably best known as playing Nick Nightingale, the pianist who gets Tom Cruise in a bit of trouble in Stanley Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut. Field uses the Maine setting beautifully to create a portrait of the couple's life, and he uses the pacing to create insurmountable tension before driving a wedge between the couple. The script by Field and Robert Festinger is one of the better ones of the year with dialogue that is far too real, yet perfectly suited for talents such as Spacek and Wilkinson.

Obviously, this movie will be getting a good deal of Oscar attention due to the performances by Spacek, Wilkinson, Tomei, and the terrific script. If you want to see action, go see Blackhawk Down; if you want to see the fine form of filmmaking as perfected by two master thespians and a talented new director, than In the Bedroom will have you riveted to the screen. Rating: 9 out of 10

Black Hawk Down (2001)

One of the best war movies of all time

[10/10 · 12 January 2002]

When talking about war movies, there are many great ones that immediately spring to mind. Since the 70's, three of them have formed a bit of a holy trinity: Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now, Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, and Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. These three movies have set the bar for all other war movies that have come along since then. When it was announced that Gladiator director, Ridley Scott, would be adapting Mark Bowden's book, Black Hawk Down: A Story of Modern War, filmgoers knew that they would be in for a treat.

For whatever reason, I don't remember hearing much about the civil war in Somalia or about the Battle of Mogadishu on which Black Hawk Down is based. The plan seemed simple enough: the Army is sent into Somalia by the government to try to put an end to the Civil War. On October 3, 1993, a group of them were sent on a quick mission to capture the Somali warlord that had been running the country with an iron fist. It didn't take long for the operation to go completely FUBAR as two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down. Things went from bad to worse, as the Rangers found themselves surrounded by thousands of armed Somalis, whose only goal was to shoot any American soldier that invaded their space. After "stirring up the hornet's nest", the mission becomes a desperate attempt to maintain the Rangers motto, "Leave No Man Behind".

Needless to say, Ridley Scott has made the ultimate war movie with Black Hawk Down. Unlike some war films that temper the battle with slower character-building sequences, you have to wait only thirty minutes for the Rangers' mission to go into effect. And the action doesn't stop for the next two hours, as the rest of the movie is filled with flying bullets, explosions and bloodshed. The fighting is so chaotic that it is hard to follow the action and tell what is happening, at times, and it becomes almost too easy to become desensitized to the violence. By the third time someone yells "RPG's!" though, the entire audience knows to duck and cover their ears.

While the American soldiers go in with a solid plan, it doesn't take long for panic to set in, and pretty soon, you're not sure which side is more disorganized. It's amazing to watch what seems like thousands of extras playing the Somali militia swarming over the soldiers, and the action and camerawork is reminiscent of a video game as the soldiers try to escape their precarious situation through the streets of Mogadishu. As the movie progresses, the tension continues to build as the grim and unrelenting hopelessness of the situation sets in both for the soldiers and the viewer.

It's pretty amazing how much has been made of the 19 downed American soldiers when over 1000 Somali men, women, and children were killed during the raid. While the movie is clearly weighed towards the American perspective, I can't imagine how it must have felt to be the guy who gets to play "Dead Somali with a Gun #354".

Although characterization has always been used extensively in war movies to get the viewer to care about the characters, Black Hawk Down works better because, for the most part, the soldiers are personified as little more than grunts in the field doing the bidding of their superiors. At least the soldiers had their names taped to their helmets, so that this didn't have the problem of some war movies, where it's sometimes hard to tell who is who. Some of the best performances of the film come from Tom Sizemore as the gung-ho Lt. McKnight and Josh Hartnett, who plays the sergeant who leads the mission and feels personal guilt every time a man is lost. Sam Shepard also is excellent as Major General William Garrison, who sits back in the safe zone watching his doomed men be overpowered by the enemy. Eric Bana's part is small, but he has some of the best lines in the film, really driving home the point of why soldiers do what they do. Ewan McGregor's role is even more minor and insignificant, but his Trainspotting compatriot, Ewen Bremner offers the movie's little bit of comic relief.

As expected in a Ridley Scott film, the visuals and camerawork are stunning with the movie having a gray almost monochromatic look that makes the orange flames and red blood really stand out. As is typical in Scott's recent movies, there is lots of flying dust, rubble and debris mixed with slow motion shots of falling bullet casings and splattered blood. He also uses animals and non-military personnel well in some of the shots to show that this firefight is happening in the middle of a populated market district.

A big deal has been made out of the blood and gore in Black Hawk Down, but what is any true war movie without it? Though most of the graphic violence on display is not far beyond Saving Private Ryan, there is at least one visceral sequence that will make most people squeamish, unless they watch those operation shows on The Learning Channel for entertainment. Black Hawk Down is quite an achievement in creating a realistic representation of an event in recent history. Most of this movie leaves the viewer aghast and incredulous of what they're watching, and it's hard to believe that something like this could possibly happen. Technically, this movie is an amazing feat that gives the viewer one of the most realistic impressions of what it would feel like to be in the middle of a war, which makes the atrocities of the event seem all the more real.

In a genre that has brought out some of the best in directors and actors, Black Hawk Down is easily the best war movie ever made, and it has replaced A Beautiful Mind as my candidate for Best Picture and Director.

Rating: 10 out of 10

Monster's Ball (2001)

Worst Movie of the Year

[1/10 · 21 December 2001]

I can't believe how many people are raving about this. It is really one of the worst abominations of cinema I've seen in a year with many many good movies. This is painfully slow and boring,and the plot has so many holes in it, that it is completely ineffective.

The story really doesn't go anywhere and the characters are so unlikeable that you spend most of the movie hoping that the rest of them will die off. Halle Berry spend the entire film overacting and her character is just irritating. Billy Bob plays the same character he does in every single movie (although at least some of those are interesting in one way or another).

You know you're in trouble when the performance in the movie is by rapper Sean P-Diddy Combs!

Basically, if you're horny for Halle Berry, than you'll enjoy her sex scenes. Otherwise, avoid this at all costs. Don't believe the hype!