Change Your Image
pourleschiens
Reviews
Chicago (2002)
artificial, superficial- is it OK to have flaws if you don't consider them flaws?
The 5 rating is a compromise. As a certain sort of film, it's a 10. It's well-made, fun, flashy, all that other crap.
But let's look further into this, to find the way in which the film is also a 1.
What is the movie's sell? What does it offer, why does it exist? Well, it features singing. By singers? No, by actors. Are the songs good? Some of the standards are all right, but some songs are immediately forgettable. What else does the picture offer? Dancing. By dancers? No, by actors. Is the dancing good? Some seems all right. Nothing earth-shaking, nothing too difficult or memorable. What ELSE does the picture offer? Style, wit, and sex appeal. And how does it fare on those fronts? Pretty poorly, to be honest. It's never quite as stylish as it thinks it is, never so witty or charming or ingratiating as it thinks it is, and as for being sexy- once past the opening number by Zeta-Jones, there's scarcely a sexy scene in the picture.
What we have here then is a film filled with actors in which precious little acting is required, a story with no characters, a musical told too much with music, and a lead actress so unattractive, physically and otherwise, that all a viewer wants is for Zeta-Jones to somehow hijack the film. When Lucy Liu, in a wonderful cameo, momentarily becomes the center of attention, I was thrilled- at last, no more watching Zellwegger try to seem sexy or interesting- but it was a false alarm, and the 'wegger was soon back in charge.
So you see there are some problems. It's such a vacuous film. It's such a vacuous TYPE of film- and I don't mean all musicals, necessarily, though they do tend to that. But there is no there there. Film can tell a story- this hardly qualifies as having done that. Film can inspire our awe with great visuals, great music, or a perfect mixture of the two- this does not do that, though I am sure some would argue it intended to. Film can elicit our empathy- but not this one, where there is no emotion whatever, nor was meant to be. Or- last and perhaps, but not necessarily, least, film can serve merely as another sort of art, filmed- musical performance, dance, and so on. But as I said, these aren't dancers, but actors- not singers, but actors- and so however good the songs and choreography might have been (and they are hit-or-miss), they could never have been good enough to merit their being filmed, due to their being done by people not especially gifted in those arts.
So. What we have is an empty, pointless film, not even as FUN as it should have been (for in the end this film has no claim to any purpose but to have been fun for the viewer), yet extraordinarily well-made along certain lines, and for certain undemanding, unreflective viewers.
I did enjoy some of the acts and actors and elements, anyway. Reilly and Gere were very good. Zeta-Jones for all her beauty was mis-used and under-used, though that opening number is dazzling. Reilly's Mr Cellophane bit and Gere's press conference and courtroom numbers were wonderful. Still many of the numbers fell flat, worst of all the one with all the women prisoners singing about their crimes- just bad, badly done, and boring. As I go on I'm wondering where those five stars are coming from- there's just a certain quality to the production, I guess- and what I admire about it I admire truly- but on principle I would've been bound to disapprove of so empty a film, even if it had been ten times better, which this wasn't.
The Legend of Bagger Vance (2000)
the legend of murphy's law
I panned this film in a lengthy review, mocking everything about it- its ridiculously abbreviated telling of the Matt Damon character's backstory, its ridiculous "I am an old man in the beginning and the end of the film, and the bulk of the movie is my narration of events from my childhood" framing device, the ridiculous Bagger Vance character, the ridiculous golf mythologizing, the ridiculous "It's the Depression, we need a hero!" stuff, the ridiculous way in which one is never in doubt, for a second, about the very next thing that will happen, the ridiculous attempt to deal with the philosophy of the Bhagavad Gita in a piece of Hollywood cheese about GOLF- I also mocked the movie for seemingly being aimed at the "ignorant, rich old white person" demographic, as that was the only group I could see enjoying it. I thought my saying I was white would make this statement OK, but maybe not- it was either that statement, my calling the film "crap", or the general tone of the review, that caused it, alone among the reviews I've submitted to this site, to not be allowed. Or maybe it was the part where I said the film was sort of evil in its stupidity. I did, however, praise Charlize Theron, who was wonderful. Will this review get through? It should. It's honest.
Road to Perdition (2002)
winter, no wonder
This is a film of extraordinary beauty and dignity. Its first hour is winter- it's perfect film-making, only very austere and hard and humorless. It's pitch-black and uncompromising, and altogether incredible. This is not to imply there is a change in quality in the second hour, only that there's a shift in tone as the father and son take to the road. Indeed the film lightens up (barely) once with them, but more importantly reveals the warmth underlying all that cold strength of the first hour. I had read Ebert's review prior to seeing the film (a mistake, but an inadvertent one) and in it he laments that the plot's progress is inexorable, that we know what will and must occur, that it is the stuff of Greek, not Shakespearian, tragedy, and all worse for being fated. He is entitled to his opinion, but the Sophoclean tragedy has its place and its proponents, as well- and, done well, in whatever form, such a story can be immensely powerful. So, do we know what must occur? As the film goes on, yes, we do. Does it diminish the film? Not a whit. What is of concern in such a tale is the journey, the form, the elegance with which it's done, the archetypal elements employed, and the soul of the thing. To judge using those criteria, the film is a complete success. It could not have been better made. Its tone is a long exhalation on a cold night. It is good work, great art, and affected me very strongly; it spoke to something fundamental in me- as it was meant to do. I hope we have not all become deaf to films like this.
My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)
this is sparta?
A very likable little movie, leaves one smiling throughout (for the most part) and creates characters and situations we care about. It's an interesting setting for the usual romantic comedy stuff, because Greeks in America really are a world unto themselves, and their lives and communities, and all the delightful members of these wonderful families, are too rarely depicted in major films- even this wasn't a major film but became one by good word of mouth. So I was glad to see these people and this family in a movie. Less successful are Ian's parents, who I thought were treated unfairly- their scenes were so unpleasant they nearly stopped the movie cold- and Ian himself was a cipher, so perhaps Nia Vardalos has trouble writing non-Greeks. Still, she wrote a very heartfelt and charming movie about an experience neglected by movies generally, so it's hard to fault her too much. Film is rarely so corny as it might have been, another tribute to Vardalos. Her voice-over narration didn't work, however- it played like a bad stand-up act on the subject- and I was glad it wasn't in much of the movie. Overall, it's a good-natured film, a tried-and-true form but with a novel and interesting setting and cast of characters, and made with great love. You can see why people would take to it.
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
fun, but slight
Like all the Coen movies it's well-made and beautiful to look at and to listen to. It also has the common Coen problems- it isn't really ABOUT anything, and is kind of shaggy, and seems, once you step back and look at it, to have been primarily a stylistic exercise. But there's beauty and wit here, just the same. The music is well worth remembering. Still, there are nagging feelings- while everything in the movie WORKS, I get the feeling I didn't experience as much beauty here as the brothers intended me to. I only recall feeling chills (for sheer beauty) one time, this in a film with many shots and songs included for beauty alone. This review sounds much more negative than it should, I rather liked the movie. I liked the Babyface Nelson stuff, the joke on local politics, the sirens, the toad, John Goodman beating people with a tree branch- there's plenty to like! But everything is at a distance, or else seems air-light and inconsequential,- for instance even allowing that it's a comedy and, being a Coen Bros film, is a play on style and stereotypes, does the viewer care if Clooney gets his wife and children back? I didn't. Nor do we mind much when it seems Pete has become a toad, nor when we find out he's been put back in a chain gang- nor, more importantly, does the movie seem to care. The only time one feels anything like concern for the characters is when they're about to be hung after having been pardoned- and even then my interest and my thoughts of "How unfair!" only lasted a second or two. Then I remembered what movie I was watching and thought, "Oh, it's all so damn lackadaisical." Anyway, seven points for style.
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
it is
No other film will make you feel more, or more deeply. No other film will leave you in this state. The immediate effect is something like that of a drug. It leaves you feeling very loving, and very loved, and very grateful. I don't think any other film captures what it is to live, as an emotional experience, so well. Capra was unsophisticated, we're told. His film is unsophisticated, we're told. But there is such a thing as emotional sophistication, and often the other kind serves only to render a man unable to articulate just what life is like, emotionally, how deep the despair and how high the exultation. This movie should be a book of the Bible.
Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
old friends
Daisy Werthan (Jessica Tandy) is an old Jewish widow in 1940's Georgia. She wrecks her car, so her son (Dan Aykroyd) decides to hire her a driver. This is Hoke, played by Morgan Freeman. And that's it for plot. The rest of the film follows the pair through the remaining 25 years of their relationship.
It doesn't sound like much but my God what a sweet film. I do not believe it is sentimentally so, either- very late in the film Daisy is still thoughtlessly treating Hoke like a lesser being.
Q: What is this movie ABOUT?
A: The nature of friendship, and race relations in the mid-20th century South.
Film is for perhaps the opening half hour the least pleasant movie I can think of. Tandy character very unpleasant and Freeman character cartoonish. Writing like Variety now.
But yes, it is an annoying film to start, and it's startling to think how completely it changes as it goes on, without your really noticing it's changed. It mirrors the relationship it depicts.
I thought at first that Daisy's Jewishness was sort of a throw away detail and would not 'have to do' with the film, but I was wrong. Her Jewishness proves indeed to be a key to the character. One of the crucial developments in her friendship with Hoke is when they're both treated like trash by a couple of racist Alabama policemen. Solidarity!
This is of course expanded upon when Daisy's synagogue being bombed prompts Hoke to tell her about a lynching he remembers from childhood. We get it, we get it.
The film does gradually become more and more overtly about race relations (culminating, I think, with the two friends listening separately, for no good reason separately, to the King speech) yet remains throughout mostly about this friendship.
There is that separateness. We wonder why, after so many years, do they eat separately? And our heart aches for them both, and for that time and place.
The final scene is perfect. No more separateness.
The acting in the film is superb. Morgan Freeman is a fine actor and his performance here reminds me of none of his others I've seen. Jessica Tandy, beautiful at 80, is very good in a very difficult role. She had to play an annoying, mean old woman at the beginning of this picture, and that's thankless, but she did it. Yet when the character revealed 'hidden depths' and her 'essential humanity', Tandy was wonderful. My favorite scenes of hers are during the trip to Alabama, first when she's shamed by the racist policemen, later when she's left in the car alone and, frightened, begins calling for Hoke. Her scenes of dementia at the end are handled skillfully and in them Tandy resists the temptation to go over the top, with the result that when she at last gathers herself and tells Hoke how much he means to her, it makes the movie.
The Nativity Story (2006)
full of grace
This is a very lovely film. The cinematography, actresses, actors, and sentiments are all equally lovely. It is a rare thing to see a Bible story brought to screen and told with heart, rather than made merely a spectacle. Much of this film is domestic drama, handled very deftly. We consider so rarely what would have been the practical consequences of certain Bible stories being true. Mary, indeed, would have been a shamed woman. Joseph, indeed, would have had his honor offended and would have faced a crisis. We never think of that! It's good this film was made by a woman. A man would have been less sensitive to the difficulty of Mary's position. Anyway, I very much liked how all that was done. The filmmakers' first order of business must have been to put meat enough on the skeletal nativity tale to promise a feature film. They did so very skillfully, I thought. The film ends up including as main players the three kings. They are introduced early on, back home, and we follow them throughout. When the film's main strands at last meet, the effect is very beautiful, whatever one's beliefs. This is simply a very lovely film, and surprisingly powerful. I found it had more scenes of genuine power, many more, than did The Passion. Mary telling the shepherd, "I will tell my son of your kindness" was such a moment. Joseph and Mary exchanging glances hearing a man prophesying about the Messiah in the streets was such a moment. As was the actual birth of the child, and the arrival of the worshipers and well-wishers. The film, so modest-seeming, proved always capable of sneaking up on one and overwhelming him, reminding him all at once of the story's fundamental majesty.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
what is truth?
This is a difficult film to review. On the one hand, it is a technical masterpiece and contains amazing work by everyone involved; on the other, it is as misguided as the Christian religion, and ultimately either devoid of meaning or nearly so.
The message of the film, if only by accident, is that on earth, people suffer and die, and hurt each other. Anyway that's what I took from it.
That is not what Mel meant for the film to be about, however. Christianity long ago decided (was in fact founded on the notion) that Jesus is best viewed not as a teacher but as a sacrifice, and that's how the story's always been framed. And that's why, I guess, viewers of this film witness less than a minute of Christ's preaching, and over an hour and a half of Christ's suffering and dying.
About that- if he suffered and died for our sins, why will we suffer and die? Just for the heck of it, I guess.
As for Christ's suffering and dying, as I said, it's all we see of him. We see none of his love or mercy, because it is impossible to be convincingly loving or merciful with your mouth a bloody mess. Whatever is claimed on its behalf, this is not an uplifting or inspirational film. It is the opposite, and one of the lasting impressions I have of it is that Jesus was blessed to die, as we all are blessed to die, considering the hate already loose in this world, and considering also man's capacity to suffer and to cause pain.
Still, I found the film powerful, involving, and tremendously sad. Its sadness comes not from the Godliness of the sufferer, nor even from his Goodness, but from his humanity. He was a man, like anybody. The film is sad because the suffering is true, and the resurrection's not.