Change Your Image
Scottie-3
Reviews
Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)
Effective, if not necessarily fair-minded
I am a Democrat, and I believe Bush needs to be removed from office, but I hope I can post a critical, non-partisan look at this film and how it has been fashioned.
I just finished watching it. A lot of it was very hard to watch, and it only increased my anger with the Bush administration. That said, I have some criticisms:
* Unlike with Bowling for Columbine, Moore does not want viewers of this film to make up their own minds.
* Moore doesn't always fight fairly. I thought his portrait of pre-war Iraq was blatantly one-sided. He never mentions once that Iraq was a dictatorship (in fact, he refers to it as a "sovereign nation"), so he loses points for intellectual dishonesty.
* He certainly gets a lot of footage out of Lila Lipscomb and her grief over her dead son. I think he overdoes it, and I felt even sorrier for her that her grief was being exploited for this film.
* The film is too long; most of the last half-hour should have been cut.
* I didn't learn anything new, but then I've been following this administration pretty closely.
* I have to say that Michael Moore knows how to make a very persuasive story
and he knows how to push an audience's buttons. This is agitprop of the highest order.
Aside from that, I think this film is right on target as far as facts are concerned.
Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003)
A Masterpiece
As many critics have pointed out, this film looks like a Vermeer
masterwork in motion. That, in itself, might be praise enough, but
the film has much more to recommend it. Namely, there is a rich
subtext here about an innocent girl named Griet and her
despoilment, not only by Vermeer (who pierces her ear, so she
can wear the pearl earring of the title), but by his household of
vicious women and the caste system that will forever condemn her
to a life of servitude. Consider the scene in which Vermeer's
daughter, Cornelia, deliberately soils a drying sheet with mud
(although it looks like excrement). Consider also the scenes in
which Griet learns to mix paints, and spreads mounds of brown
paint onto Vermeer's palette. She also ventures into the meat
market and is surrounded by heaps of freshly killed animals.
Even though the film's major characters behave according to the
most proper etiquette, there is a psychological violence here that
both devastates and penetrates Griet. This film depicts the gradual
violation of the title character, sold to a rich patron, for the sake of a
painting. This is powerful, subtle, and visually sumptuous art.
House of Sand and Fog (2003)
Fixer-upper
Today I saw "House of Sand and Fog," the feel-good movie of the
year. I liked the cinematography, score, and performances by
Kingsley, Connelly, and Aghdashloo. (At first, I didn't care for
Kingsley--he just seemed to glower a lot. By the end, I understood
why everyone's raving about him in this role.)
MILD SPOILERS AHEAD:
But I just couldn't buy the story's preposterousness. Come on, they
take away her house because she misses a $500 payment? Then
they auction it off and keep all the money? Right. I also couldn't
believe that Behrani (Kingsley), with his network of wealthy Iranian
exiles, wouldn't be able to find work other than the menial jobs he
has here. Don't you think one of the Shah's buddies might've made
a few calls on his behalf? Also, I kept wondering why Kathy
(Connelly) didn't sue Behrani over the nails, the manhandling, and
for smacking her head against her car. And then there's Les
Burdon, one of the most hilariously named characters I've come
across in some time. What a misguided dolt. But then, without
him, there wouldn't be any terrible accidents and misunderstandings to cause everything to spiral so out of control.
We'd be deprived of the movie's labored attempt to pull off its
Hamlet-like ending.
Like "Monster's Ball" a few years ago, the superb actors almost
elevate the material to a level the writing hasn't earned. In the end,
I just didn't buy this "House."
The Quiet American (2002)
Ambiguous, well-written film, but not that impressive, ultimately
I saw "The Quiet American" today. I thought it was very well written
and acted. I've seen better work by the director, however (the
excellent "Rabbit-Proof Fence" and "Dead Calm"). I still say Jack
Nicholson deserves the Oscar for "About Schmidt." Michael Caine
is quite good, but you sort of get the sense he's playing himself.
There aren't many acting pyrotechnics (usually a good thing in my
book) but neither are there any profoundly touching moments.
What makes the performance interesting is that you're never
entirely sure of his motives, which is the writers' point.
This is a very political film dealing with US intervention (by the CIA)
in pre-war Vietnam. It does not paint a pretty picture of American
actions, but neither does it let Britain or France off the hook. It was
supposed to have been released in the autumn of 2001, but after
9/11, Miramax assumed (probably rightly) that no one would be
interested in seeing a film that depicts American cooperation in
acts of terrorism. Seeing this movie, I couldn't help but see certain
parallels to current events. Michael Caine is credited with
convincing Harvey Weinstein to take the film off the shelf and
release it. That may partly account for his Oscar nomination.
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
New direction for the series?
Ignore what the critics are saying about the latest Star Trek movie:
this one kicks serious a**. It's true that the movie takes too long to
get moving, and the story's a bit murky in the early scenes, and
there's some truly poor writing in the first half-hour, but once this
baby gets going, hang onto your seat. This is the darkest, most
violent, most subversive, and most spectacular Trek movie of them
all. That's not to say that the writers have jettisoned the usually
thoughtful tone of Star Trek, but the themes here are psychological, not philosophical. Although this is clearly the last
voyage for the Next Generation crew as we know it, it could signal
a new direction for the franchise.
Treasure Planet (2002)
A technical achievement, but not much else
I saw "Treasure Planet" today and was very disappointed. The
animation is pretty terrific, and the blend between computer and
traditional animation is seamless, but the movie seems only to
concern itself with outlandish effects, while the characters and
story get only sporadic attention. There is a nice relationship
shown between Jim Hawkins and John Silver, but the other
characters are mainly annoying "types." One exception: the captain
of the ship, who is voiced by Emma Thompson. In her British
accent, she uses her extensive vocabulary as a weapon. Example,
when explaining something to a rather dense character: "Let me
make this as monosyllabic as possible." From an animation
standpoint, this is a technical accomplishment, but not much else.
Wait for video.
Femme Fatale (2002)
Style to Burn
Brian De Palma's "Femme Fatale" is a very twisty erotic thriller. His
best films ("Dressed to Kill," "Blow Out") channeled the spirit of
Hitchcock, and this one joins that list. This is a movie buff's dream,
packed with references to other great thrillers ("Double Indemnity,"
"Rear Window," "Vertigo," and several others I won't name), and
made with fantastic technique. I could sense that De Palma had
an absolute blast making this movie. There are split screens,
slow-motion, lengthy tracking shots, gorgeous crane shots... he
uses just about every trick in the book in service of a story that will
keep you guessing right up until the end. This is bravura
filmmaking, and great fun to watch.
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Provocative video essay has many questions, no answers (spoilers)
"Bowling for Columbine" is a very provocative documentary on
America's gun culture. I highly recommend this movie, not as an
aesthetic achievement, but one in which the medium of film is
used to ask compelling questions, expose hidden beliefs, and
show the graphic realities of its subject. This movie shocked me,
saddened me, made me laugh, and made me angry.
First of all, the writer-director, Michael Moore, although
unquestionably liberal, is a lifelong member of the NRA and an
award-winning marksman. It is not his aim to question anyone's
right to bear arms. He does not ask if guns or gun ownership is
right or wrong. He just wonders why Americans use their guns to
kill each other so much more than anyone else does. This film
doesn't really provide any answers; it just asks some very good
questions.
The trailer for the movie makes it look like he interviewed a bunch
of gun nuts who all come off as idiots. Wink wink, tee hee. Not at
all. There certainly are some wackos on display here. Terry
Nicholls's brother gives a creepy/funny interview in which he holds
a loaded gun to his own head. A young man complains that he
only made #2 on his high school's suspected bomb-maker top 10
list. His friend claims to have given up gun dealing because it
became too much of a "hassle" having so many come over for
"guns, drugs, and booze." The Michigan Militia justifies its "Militia
Babes" cheesecake calendar.
Some of the things we see in this film:
Graphic footage of U.S.-sponsored violence against civilians in
foreign countries September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, including
footage of the second jet plunging into a tower A TV reporter reveals that one of the Columbine killers, in a diary
entry, fantasized about hijacking a jet and crashing it into New York
City Closed-circuit TV video of the Columbine High School killings,
including graphic scenes of the massacre in the library Charlton Heston appearing at a pro-gun conference in Denver (a
few miles from Columbine) just days after the massacre, rifle aloft,
proclaiming "From my cold, dead hands" Comedian Chris Rock suggesting that if bullets cost $5000 each,
there would be no more innocent bystanders Assassinations An interview with Marilyn Manson, demonized after Columbine,
who comes across, surprisingly, as one of the more intelligent
interview subjects in the film A man puts a gun in his mouth and pulls the trigger Enlightening comparison footage of U.S. vs. Canadian news
coverage An astonishing sequence in which Moore takes two Columbine
students, with bullets still in their bodies, to Kmart headquarters to
"return the merchandise." (The Columbine killers bought their
ammunition at their local Kmart.) Kmart actually agrees to stop
selling ammunition at its stores. Heston, once again, this time in an interview with Moore,
attributing America's gun violence to its high number of minorities,
then referring to "those troubles we had with the civil rights"
(movement)
Again, Moore doesn't have any answers, just provocative
questions. Fingers seem to point to the media's penchant for
scare tactics ("If it bleeds, it leads," one interviewee says) and a
lingering, underlying racism in America, but the portrait Moore
paints here is much more complex than that. Moore may be a
marksman, but this target proves elusive.
The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)
Less here than meets the eye
Very disappointing, particularly since I've loved just about
everything else the Coen brothers have done. The film is so
self-conscious about re-creating the look, feel, and conventions of
1940s film noir that it forgets to be about anything. Billy Bob
Thornton (not my favorite actor) plays a barber in 1940s Santa
Rosa (I kept expecting references to Hitchcock's "Shadow of a
Doubt" but none showed) who gets involved in a shady investment
deal. Things spiral out of control, and his wife (Frances
McDormand, excellent as usual) winds up in jail. There are several
plot twists and reversals, but the pace of the film is extremely slow.
The problem stems from the Thornton character, who narrates ad
nauseum. His character is a little on the slow side (surprise!), so
the film noir convention of monotone male narration, usually from
the perspective of a cynical smart-aleck, now comes from a boring
nobody stuck in a dead-end life. We are told he is meant to
symbolize "modern man." UFOs show up. Audiences scratch their
heads and wonder if their money might be better spent elsewhere.
I don't usually shy away from puzzling films (I loved "Mulholland
Drive," after all), and maybe this movie gets better with repeated
viewings, but my first impression of this film is not a favorable one.
Shallow Hal (2001)
Sweet, but short on laughs
This unusual entry in the Farrelly brothers canon is long on compassion but short on laughs. Unfortunately, the lack of comedy is due not to a lack of trying but to a large percentage of jokes falling absolutely flat. The Farrellys have often relied on comedy that ridicules the disabled and the unattractive. We laugh, if uncomfortably, at these jokes in their other films. "Shallow Hal" tries to amend this, displaying a great deal of compassion for those who are different, but revealing that without the freak jokes, the Farrellys just aren't very funny. Gwyneth Paltrow is very good as the 300-lb. Rosemary, whom Hal sees as thin and beautiful via a hypnotic suggestion from Tony Robbins. In her thin state, we see how every fat comment wounds her. Her eyes are particularly expressive when Hal compliments her on her beauty. We see a mix of wonder, suspicion, hurt, and hope--all in one expression.
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
Its heart outshines its technical achievements... as it should
"Monsters, Inc" is essentially about embracing your fears, and
learning to laugh at them. A very timely message, don't you think?
It's true that the little girl is absolutely adorable (but not
saccharine), but the heart of the film is the growing relationship
between Sully (big furry blue monster, voice by John Goodman)
and this pre-verbal little girl he calls "Boo." At first, she's sort of a
pet that he's apprehensive about. Predictably, she becomes much,
much more to him. Sully learns to be a father.
This movie made me cry. And laugh. It does have some lagging
moments, and isn't quite on par with "A Bug's Life" or "Toy Story 2,"
but it's darned good. (I've never been a big fan of the original "Toy
Story," which seemed more concerned with "gee-whiz-look-what-we-can-do-with-computers," rather than story
and character, at which the subsequent Pixar films have excelled.)
Technically, it's years ahead of "Shrek," which, in my opinion,
offered nothing beyond lifelike-looking characters (who
nevertheless do not move in a lifelike fashion) and a dash of hip
cynicism. Watch this movie and notice that the characters move in
a completely convincing way, that fur and hair behave as they do in
life, but that the movie does not call attention to it. "Monsters, Inc."
is concerned with more important things.
Ghost World (2001)
Terrific script and performances; OK direction
The humor is extremely snarky, but convincingly captures a certain post-adolescent attitude and mindset. Enid (Thora Birch, the daughter in American Beauty), just as I did at her age (18), thinks everything and everyone deserves nothing less than her total sarcastic derision. She and her friend Becky roll their eyes at everyone else in the movie and make withering comments. "You guys should like call me so we can get together!" squeals a perky classmate. Enid, in monotone: "Yeah. That'll definitely happen."
There's a lot of very funny stuff here, and Birch has her character dead to rights. When she meets Steve Buscemi, a "dork" and "loser" she targets for a practical joke, an odd friendship develops. She finds him somewhat endearing and decides to find a girlfriend for him. But the movie does not develop in the direction you expect it to.
I won't spoil anything else except to say that Enid does eventually recognize a need to change. The script, however, does not resolve things patly, and instead ends on a somewhat ambiguous, but satisfying, note.
I loved the script of this movie, although I thought it could have been a bit shorter: Enid somewhat overstays your sympathy. You give her a lot of slack as she struggles with the idea of becoming an adult, but toward the end, you just want to slap her and tell her to grow up already.
The visual style of the film is somewhat static as far as camera movement's concerned. Director Zwigoff is good with the actors but negligent of his camera. Production design is suitably chaotic and campy.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
Rich, multilayered, and uncommonly ambitious
It's a shame we'll all be tempted to dissect how much of this film to
attribute to Kubrick and how much to Spielberg, because it can
only lead us away from appreciating the film that has been made
here. Clearly a blend of styles between the two directors, "A.I." is
an uncommonly ambitious science fiction film, perhaps the most
ambitious since, well, "2001" and "A Clockwork Orange." One of the film's most interesting gambits is that it spends a good
45 minutes inside a suburban home without much of a glimpse
beyond it. In this opening section, the filmmakers explore the
themes of what makes a person human, and what makes a family
a family. As it turns out, this is time well invested, because the
remaining 2/3 of the film expands outward exponentially, until we
are, as in "2001," on the brink of the infinite, and the themes of the
opening section are expanded to their philosophical extremes. This is not pretentious bunk. Note how carefully religious themes
are interwoven here (David appears in white, as an angel; his
search for the Blue Fairy a reference to the Virgin Mary), as well as
psychological elements from fairy tales (Pinocchio, The Wizard of
Oz). Even psychoanalytical elements appear (David's obsessive
need for his mother, the distinctly vaginal design of Rouge City,
and the film's closing shot [which I won't reveal]). This multilayered
film will reward multiple viewings.
Golden Dreams (2001)
Heartfelt salute to California's diversity
This short film, at Disney's California Adventure in Anaheim, provides a nice complement to the park's other features. While attractions elsewhere in the park pay tribute to California's various industries, "Golden Dreams" spotlights its unique strengths due to the diversity of its people. It offers a surprisingly un-whitewashed history of the immigrants from around the world--Europe, Asia, and Latin America--who contributed toward making California what it is today. Holland does a great job synthesizing the disparate material in this short form. In one sequence, she recreates Dorothea Lange's photographs of the dust bowl farmers, freezing on the face of a despairing mother. The shot smoothly transitions to the inside of a movie theater, where the same woman is enjoying an early Hollywood film--the product of many Eastern European and Jewish immigrants. The film ends with a montage of important Californians that manages to include heroes from both sides of the political spectrum.
Dr. T & the Women (2000)
The Patients of Job
It's great to see Altman returning to the large ensemble
comedy. It's a form that brings out the best in him. Working
again with Anne Rapp (who wrote the sweet "Cookie's Fortune"), Altman has crafted a rich and multilayered take
on the story of Job, with a healthy dose of Fellini's "8 1/2"
thrown in for good measure. Richard Gere plays the Job
character, a gynecologist with an undying faith in and love
of women. But the gods do everything in their power to
break his devotion, as one calamity after another befalls
him. I won't spoil the ending, but, like the Fellini film, it is a
kind of fantasy of death and rebirth.
The movie is dense in symbolism, for those who appreciate such things. In one scene, Gere's wife (Farrah
Fawcett) climbs into bed in blue jammies and, childlike,
refuses sex because it's "not nice." Gere places a cup of
tea on her bedstand; the cup bears an image of a unicorn.
The Fawcett character, we learn from her psychologist, has
mentally reverted to a state of virginity. Thus the unicorn
and the color blue, both symbolic of the Virgin Mary, are
used to describe her sanctity, while the cup alludes to her
womb.
There are many such shots of symbolic richness, but none
of them detract from the sheer entertainment of the film.
Although it is bound to polarize viewers, this is one of
Altman's best.
Center Stage (2000)
Some Great Dancing
Center Stage cobbles together some of the best elements
of Fame, The Turning Point, Flashdance, and Dirty Dancing, so it feels very homogenized and predictable.
That's not to say it's bad. I appreciated that the film did not
gloss over the darker sides of the dance world (unhealthy
obsessions with body images, bulemia, the unnatural and
tortuous effects of ballet on the body), but neither does
Center Stage dwell on them. The tone is mostly upbeat, the
structure formulaic. Although cliched and familiar, this movie does not stint on
dance sequences, and the dancing in this film is pretty
phenomenal. Especially noteworthy is Ethan Stiefel, who
plays the ballet company's male star. He is easily the most
electrifying male dancer since Baryshnikov and may even
be better. Check out his performances here of MacMillan's
Romeo and Juliet and Balanchine's Stars and Stripes and
see if you disagree.
Topsy-Turvy (1999)
For opera lovers only
There's a scene midway through "Topsy-Turvy," Mike Leigh's film about Gilbert and Sullivan, where a close-up of Jim Broadbent (who plays Gilbert) reveals the moment he thought to write an opera about Japan, "The Mikado." A subtle change of expression, something in the eyes, signals this epiphany. Unfortunately, this scene arrives entirely too late.
It's a pity, because the moment the film begins to deal with the genesis of "The Mikado," it takes on an urgency that has been entirely missing for the previous hour. After Leigh belabors (and belabors!) the point that Gilbert and Sullivan have reached their creative nadir with "Princess Ida," we finally get a glimpse of what made them worth caring about in the first place. This is a serious tactical mistake, because some viewers will have lost interest in the story altogether.
The remainder of the film, which deals with the development, rehearsal, and incidental facts of "The Mikado," is thrilling to anyone who loves theater and opera. The backstage stories illuminate the on-stage ones. And Leigh manages to film most of the opera's musical numbers. (Sadly, "Tit-Willow" is not among them.)
I recommend the film to those already interested in its subject. Others, however, will be put off by its overlong running time.
Fantasia 2000 (1999)
A few segments far exceed the original
Disney animators certainly had their work cut out for them in trying to create something to equal the original Fantasia, and they have mostly succeeded here. Despite a few merely pleasant segments (Shostakovich, Saint-Saens, and Elgar), most of the new material is impressive.
By using a minimalistic animation style for Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, it's immediately apparent what gift Disney animators have for storytelling and characterization. When we're no longer dazzled by the rich and spectacular animation elsewhere, humor and sheer humanity shine through.
The two most astonishing segments are set to Respighi and Stravinsky. In the first, we are treated to the luminous spectacle of flying whales; in the second, we are vividly shown the destructive and regenerative properties of nature. This sequence, set to Stravinsky's Firebird Suite, is, put simply, the most breathtaking piece of animation ever made. You owe it to yourself to see it on the IMAX screen.
On the whole, Fantasia/2000 doesn't cohere as well as the original, but a few segments far exceed the 1940 film.
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
Kubrick's final masterpiece
One could spend well over the 1,000-word maximum describing the richness and symbolic depth of this masterwork. To make short work of it, Kubrick explores the intertwining relationship between eros and thanatos and subtly supports it with a metaphysical theme (the Fall of Man, Man's redemption by Christ), and still delivers a never less than mesmerizing film, directed as an extended dream sequence. As pretentious as this sounds, the actors register across the board, with particularly excellent work by Kidman. Cruise is something of a revelation here; I've never seen such impressive work from him. The movie is a surprising coda from Kubrick, since it is an uncharacteristically intimate and optimistic film.
Gods and Monsters (1998)
Fine Acting, Dull Directing
Ian McKellen, Lynn Redgrave, and even Brendan Fraser (in the film's most difficult role) shine in this beautifully written drama. Bill Condon's direction, however, lacks imagination and aesthetic. It's entirely the actors who pull off this insightful and sad portrait of an ageing, ailing gay filmmaker who was "out" when everyone else in Hollywood was closeted. I'm betting there's an Oscar coming to Ian McKellen, and hope the Academy won't overlook Redgrave.
Velvet Goldmine (1998)
Directed by... Ken Russell?
Todd Haynes is one of only a few truly risk-taking filmmakers today (see "Safe" for proof), but the risks don't always pay off in "Velvet Goldmine." I for one liked the "Citizen Kane" structure, and the tongue-in-cheek references to "A Hard Day's Night" and "The Last Waltz," and I admired a lot of the film's techniques. But frankly, this reminded me of some of Ken Russell's most excessive efforts: dazzling visuals, but a muddled script.
The Opposite of Sex (1998)
Promising screenplay poorly executed
Smartly written and observed, but undermined by poor acting (except for a terrific Christina Ricci) and pedestrian directing.
Deep Impact (1998)
Popcorn and prozac recommended
Unless watching 2 hours of tearful farewells is your idea of a good time, avoid this one. It's like the climactic scene from "Sophie's Choice" repeated over and over again. Followed by about 5 minutes of catastrophic violence. Ick.
The Alley Tramp (1968)
Amusing Trash
Enjoyably terrible, Z-grade stag film. Some unintentional laughs, though not consistently funny. Herschell Gordon Lewis is no Ed Wood, but this cinematic trash is good for a few chuckles.