Reviews

8 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Rumble Fish (1983)
9/10
Aaaww, that's my idea of film-making!
30 April 2006
This 1983 black and white Francis Ford Coppola film based on the book by S.E. Hinton is a forgotten little pearl. Too sad that it has been put completely in the shadows of Coppola's later merits. Rumble Fish is probably something completely different than what you would expect from what appears to be a teen movie. It may not have a strong narrative that has appeal to the majority of movie watchers. Watching it may at times be more amusing than impressive. It may even be annoyingly arty and stylistic for some. But oh, take it for what it is, and enjoy it.

What a cast of young actors! Matt Dillon, Mickey Rourke, Diane Lane, Vincent Spano, Nicolas Cage (Coppola's nephew), Laurence Fishburne, and not to forget Tom Waits as an enjoyable bartender and billiard keeper. And what a score by Stewart Copeland. Accompanied by smoke, looming shadows, the sound of clocks ticking all around, clouds running by at great speed, all filmed in black and white. It is a tale of simple, forgettable lives in a small Oklahoma town, and the way it is presented gives you a sense of claustrophobia and overhanging doom – the impression of time rushing by, and of life being passed through without being lived.

Rumble Fish is a coming-of-age story. Its main character, Rusty James (Matt Dillon) tries hard to be a gang leader, and to live up to the days when his elder brother (Mickey Rourke) led the rumbles in the streets. His brother has left town and is now but a figure of mythic proportions in the boys' minds and conversations, known only as The Motorcycle Boy. However, he returns one day.

The Motorcycle Boy is tired of his reputation as the gang leader who ran the whole side of town. His mind is elsewhere. He has grown. He has been on the outside, and he wants to show his little brother that there is more to life. He tries to show him this through the metaphor of the Siamese fighting fish at the local pet store. The 'rumble fish' will fight their own reflection if they don't have other fish to fight – but then perhaps they wouldn't fight any more if they were put into the river and sent out into the ocean.

Above all, Rumble Fish is a touching character study. A 19 year-old Matt Dillon shines as the reckless, simple-minded teenager who has a somewhat limited ability of expressing himself verbally, but in return he holds endless admiration of his elder brother. It is this admiration of his brother's past merits that directs all his actions and desires. At one point his frustrated girlfriend says, "You always try so hard to be like your brother, Rusty James" – to which he answers, comically proudly, "Hey, my brother's the coolest!"

Dennis Hopper is also brilliant as the boys' alcoholic father, who has failed his children but still conveys a touching insight of his eldest son's condition – the son who is an incarnation of the woman he lost. "He's merely miscast in a play. He was born in the wrong era, on the wrong side of the river. With the ability to do anything he wants to do and finding nothing that he wants to do."

But Mickey Rourke steals the movie. Oh, that man can act. He literally illuminates the screen with his enigmatic presence, and when he speaks, his voice is quiet and mysterious. You hear clocks ticking, his heart pounding, and you see his world in black and white – all with the exception of the colourful rumble fish, representing those who, unknowingly, still have the possibility of a different life, outside these claustrophobic borders.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Heartbreaking, gut-wrenching about how lonely life can be when you can't be true to your own nature
21 November 2005
When I saw Brokeback Mountain last night at the Oslo International Film Festival, I was perhaps a bit over the top desirous and eager to see it, as I had recently read the short story by Annie Proulx which I had replayed over and over in my head. Thus, I was somewhat numb throughout the whole screening, and it wasn't before after I had returned home and lay sleepless through half of the night with an unfamiliar tummy ache that I realized the profound effect the movie had actually made on me.

This understated and heavenly beautiful movie directed by Ang Lee tells the story about a love that finds its wrong time and place in society. It is 1963 and two young ranch hands spend a lonesome summer herding sheep up on Brokeback Mountain, where they inevitably fall in love. However, they are unable and unwilling to recognize their relationship for what it is, leading their lives into misery. The film moves in a slow and chronological pace, telling an utterly realistic story about utterly realistic human beings. The dialog is never superfluous, making every second of it loaded with significance. The imagery of the Wyoming landscape and the sparse music score conveys the huge loneliness of these two men. However, as much the movie is lonely and quiet, it is full of emotional tension.

The story is above all conveyed through the brilliant acting of the two main characters. There is perfect chemistry between Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. Ledger portrays the hesitant and reserved Ennis del Mar. Gyllenhaal portrays the hopeful and daring Jack Twist, who is open about his desires and willing to take his risks to be with the one he loves. They complement each other and bring each other's character to perfection in a graceful and touching manner. Watching them act together is one of the wonders of the world. Body language, subtle glances and facial expressions tell their own story. We get close to the protagonists and we can feel their pain.

What is most painful is the characters' inability to deal with their relationship – not even to define it. They know what they feel, but societal norms, their upbringing and all they have experienced thus far in life has taught them that 'this thing' cannot exist. They are both uneducated and come from broken homes and they simply do not have the reference frame to acknowledge what is going on. Their words are few, and they never mention their feelings nor do utter words such as 'sex', 'love' or 'relationship'. Instead, they constantly refer to their relationship as 'this thing'. On the other hand, through their actions and body language it is impossible to be mistaken about their true feelings. It is also impossible to be mistaken about the fleeting moments of true bliss and peace they find in each other's company during their short 'fishing trips' throughout the years. Not to speak of the lifetimes of misery they and the people around them experience all the while the two of them are trying unsuccessfully to lead normal family lives.

The movie stays with you. And you want to stay in it, however painful it is.
86 out of 118 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Gordon-Levitt stands out
3 August 2005
This movie induced ambivalence in me. I don't know whether it is the actor performances or the direction, but partly it reminded me of a high school drama series, particularly the whole UFO story. However partly I also felt a great need to return to the theater immediately afterward to watch it once more. This is owing to Neil McCormick (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who is the one character in this movie who provokes my feelings. The young actor shines as the wrecked, apathetic but beautiful teenage hustler, and uplifts every scene that he is in.

The subject, sexual child abuse, sounds as if you've already seen it a million times, but then you will be surprised about how delicately it is handled. It gives a somewhat documentary impression – a picture of what happens in the characters' lives – and avoids falling into melodrama (though sometimes barely).

The main thing about this story is what's already told in the tag line: 'One boy can't remember – the other can't forget.' It is simply a thought-provoking psychological study; how persons with different personalities handle childhood traumas so differently.

Recommended!
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A nerve-wracking journey culminating in great satisfaction
27 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
"I AM NO MAN!"

I don't think I know any other movies from which you could just quote one short line and it will send shivers right through me – to the extent that tears may even start to well in my eyes. This movie trilogy is a huge emotional thing for millions of Tolkien fans who have built up our expectations through years of nerve-wracking waiting time, and Peter Jackson knew that.

Although I saw the theatrical version when it came out in December 2003 and was thrilled, I just watched the extended DVD for the very first time two days ago. As for the two forerunners, the extended version is a great relief. It makes me very happy when they have included scenes that contribute to the emotional development and character bonding. I love it when dialogue is not only fancy lines being thrown around, but actually contributes to the depth and understanding of the story. And I love it when details are taken straight from the book.

It was good to finally get to see moments that were missing in the theatrical version, particularly Aragorn using the palantír, Merry swearing his oath to Théoden, Gandalf confronting the Witch-king, Faramir's encounter with Éowyn in the houses of healing, and Frodo and Sam marching with the orcs. However, I sadly had to accept that one of my favorite moments from the book was never included. It is where Sam sits in despair in the tower of Cirith Ungol, humming a tune about the Shire, and then hearing Frodo's faint voice answering him from up above... This is a beautiful moment, but I guess it didn't fit in with the atmosphere.

The movie is good on the capturing the climaxes. Shelob, the battle of the Pelennor Fields, and the Mount Doom scenes are perfect. However, as with the first two movies, I get the sense of the movie rushing too fast through the action, and we miss the sense of how much distance and time the characters really lay behind them. It is probably the way it has to be when making such a story into a movie. But the movie also captures some of the small moments, and conveys in a touching way how also the small and seemingly insignificant creatures have an important place in history. The interaction between Pippin (Billy Boyd) and Gandalf (Ian McKellen) is beautifully done in this sense. One of many visually mesmerizing scenes is the little hobbit overcoming his fear of heights and climbing up and lightening the beacon of Minas Tirith, which in turn alarms Rohan that war is on its way.

After the Two Towers, I was quite nervous about the third installment. Both because the second one was an ever so small disappointment and because there was so much of the story left to tell. In both senses I think the Return of the King made up for this. Moreover, it certainly came to its right in regard to character development. Samwise finally demonstrating to be the true hero of the story (thanks, Sean Astin, for living up to my favorite LOTR character). Gollum no longer being annoyingly funny and cute, but finally evolving into a terrifying, horrid creep showing his true dark sides, preciousss.

However, I have a few small complaints: Firstly, the music score was really overdone several times. I think the smaller, emotional moments, particularly the Frodo and Sam moments, could have been more touching and powerful without that accompanying music score that had too much pathos. Secondly, I don't approve of scenes that undermine the power and wisdom of Gandalf, degrading him into a cool old fighting wizard, such as hitting the steward of Gondor in the head with his staff. Everybody knows, he would never have done that.

I could still write several pages about what I liked and what I disliked about the Return of the King, but this review has to come to an end. The bottom line is that whatever the worries throughout the first two movies (and particularly the second, which went out of its good concepts in my opinion), this one made up for it. And I guess that's it with this being the final installment, finally we get the idea of why the characters have been portrayed the way they have through FOTR and TTT – namely, to be able to show us the full depth of their development throughout the story. And now they have become who they were born to be, and it all makes sense. I just love that feeling; when it all makes sense. Thank you, Peter Jackson & co., for giving me the three most exciting Christmases of my life.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Ice Storm (1997)
Beautiful, intelligent and yet utterly disturbing
4 August 2004
I am deeply touched. I can not believe it took me 7 years to get to see this movie. It goes straight into my top ten.

The movie is based on Rick Moody's 1994 novel about the life of two suburban families in New Canaan, Connecticut during the time of the Watergate scandal: A time of sexual liberation and of disintegration of existing social norms and of the nuclear family. The characters may stand as symbols of the kind of people that are created out of a society with decreasing social norms. They are ordinary people who live in material welfare, bored, unhappy, confused, scared of conflicts, and constantly seeking something else than they already have.

Instead of being examples to their children, the parents are constantly trying to run away from their own emotional confusion for instance by seeking casual sex and thereby hurting each other. In the meantime the children are left to their own upbringing, watching bad TV shows, emptying their parents' drinks, blowing up toys on the balcony, shoplifting, experimenting with sex and drugs. The communication between parents and children is terrible, or should I say non-existing. They all live in their separate worlds, all the time more disconnected, until a tragedy caused by a natural disaster finally calls them back to life and, hopefully, makes them look beyond themselves and see how valuable and fragile life is. May this provoke back the belief in what the family as a unit can do for each other if they stand together?

The movie is both uncomfortable and at the same time enormously satisfying to watch – perhaps because the theme is presented in such a human and recognizable manner. The dialogue is great and there are even very funny scenes at times. These people seem so real and so fragile, like you and me. It is as if we can see right through their souls and their pain.

The cast is brilliant (except for that irritating Katie Holmes with her cheap Hollywood teenage series look). I have never seen a movie plenty of child actors acted out as professionally and convincing as this one. Christina Ricci is the best and Elijah Wood is also excellent (much more enjoyable than in LOTR), making me wish they were young again so they could have more roles in movies like this.

The atmosphere caused by the weather gives a kind of somber mood stressed by the dimmed colors and the mystical music score.
92 out of 117 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Maurice (1987)
This movie is timeless
23 April 2004
‘Maurice' had a deep emotional impact on me when I first saw it in my early teens, more than ten years ago. I just saw it again for the first time since then and I was a bit worried that I would be disappointed, but then I was definitely not. It still had the same magic.

To me, this is the #1 Merchant-Ivory work. I find this movie astoundingly profound compared to several other of their movies. This movie is above all accomplished by the excellent acting. It tells a pure and convincing story about struggling to be true to oneself in a world of not only prejudice and firm standards but even serious legal sanctions.

I think ‘Maurice' is far more romantic, and sexy, than most heterosexual love stories I have seen. The love and longing of these men seems so real and pure, especially by the fact that they are consistently being told that their inclination is `unspeakable', and their futures and careers are at stake.

It is great to see Hugh Grant in an early role (his first real movie role?) that is so different from the mainstream comedy entertainer he has become. The ending is stunning. I love that the movie ended exactly where it did, although it is a dread to acknowledge that the war would break out soon after. The music score is enthralling. And Alec Scudder is so beautiful that it hurts.
163 out of 168 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Reckoning (2003)
A medieval criminal story
20 February 2004
There were several reasons why I was looking forward to seeing this movie: 1) An appealing genre: It was said to be a movie in the class of 'The Name of the Rose', which is great, 2) an appealing plot, 3) an appealing trailer, which is just mesmerizing, and 4) an appealing cast, with actors such as Bettany, Dafoe and Cassel. I did find it both entertaining and including much of the right, somber mood, but still it missed something as a movie. It was just not convincing enough. I had a strong feeling that quite a few of the actors didn't fit their characters, I didn't feel anything about the characters as a spectator, the setting wasn't authentic enough, and the dramatic development was rather weak. It started out very promising, but somehow it never came to its right. But what I really enjoyed about this movie was that it was a great tribute to the art of acting. Moreover, there are great costumes and music. Actually, I would have preferred it to be a (traveling) play rather than a movie... :-) However, Paul Bettany freaks (like me) should absolutely not miss it.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A likeable war epic
5 December 2003
This was a great pleasant surprise, as I found the trailer rather mediocre and thus I went to the cinema with low expectations, figuring that this would possibly be another heroic Hollywood drama full of clichés. However, I was overwhelmed with joy. In addition to be an adventurous and thrilling movie, it is full of humour and personality, and it also seems quite authentic historically. The tension and special relationship among the crew mid-sea in wartime in the early 1800s is very charmingly described. I think Crowe and Bettany play excellently together. Crowe has the authority, the sympathy as well as the doubt that one would expect of a convincing captain Aubrey - my only complaint is that he does not seem convincingly British. I am really happy that the project was laid in Peter Weir's hands, he never disappoints. Quite a relief also that this was not made into a simple, superficial Hollywood drama by adding unnecessary love stories or such, which is always my worst fear about "masculine" movies. Oh no, this movie is full of manhood and in my opinion it does not at all suffer from not including any female characters. I can't say much about the degree of being true to the original story as I haven't read Peter O'Brian books yet, but at least this movie has surely made me want to read them - and I expect them to be even better (the books usually are)!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed