Reviews

Christina Ricci sings more than she speaks in the movie, but she manages to hold your attention nevertheless for a pretty solid hour and a half in this well-acted and profound, but uneven period piece. Sally Potter, who also directed the similarly problematic "Orlando", clearly has the visual and thematic talent to be a much better respected director than she is - she just needs to learn how to tell a story.

The first forty minutes of the film, which begins in the year 1927, are absolutely masterful. The sublime Claudia Lander-Duke plays young Fegele, an impoverished Russian-Jewish girl whose beloved father decides to journey to America in search of a better life. After that, Fegele and her family are set upon by unnamed bad guys (probably either Cossacks or Communists), and Fegele is separated from them. She ends up on an ocean liner bound for England, where her name is changed to Susan, she is adopted by an English family that doesn't understand her, and she is forced to begin the process of assimilation.

Flash forward ten years or so (Potter is regrettably and consistently unspecific about such things). Fegele (now Suzie and now played by Christina Ricci, she of the large, expressive eyes) wants to be a showgirl so she can earn money to go to America and find her father. She auditions and is accepted by a group based out of Paris. Once in Paris, she rooms and becomes tight with fellow showgirl Lola (Cate Blanchett), a somewhat vapid and materialistic creature with no ambition save that of landing a rich man - which she manages to do in the form of opera singer and Mussolini supporter Dante Dominio (John Turturro, in one of his better performances). Around the same time, Suzie meets and falls in love with Cesare (Johnny Depp), the leader of a band of gypsies.

Once all the dominoes are in place, Potter wastes no time in knocking them down. You can see trouble coming a mile away: Lola, Suzie's one confidant who is aware of her Jewish ancestry, begins falling under the emotional and political spell of anti-Semitic, gypsy-hating fascist Dante. Meanwhile, the Nazis have invaded Poland and, despite everyone's self-assured predictions that they'll stop there, the French border is neither geographically nor historically distant. Suddenly, it's a race against time for all involved, but especially for Suzie - will she stay behind with her gypsy king, or, given a choice, will she escape certain death? The problem with all of this is that it's all so familiar. Potter adds nothing to the old story. There are some wonderful messages in this film about multiculturalism, nationalism, and the sometimes subtle nature of fascism, but if you don't care about the story you're not going to be interested in listening to the messages. The gypsy subplot, for instance, seems tacked on, like it was an excuse to give Ricci a love interest and have him be played by Johnny Depp.

The really interesting plot line here involves Lola and Dante, and I would pay ten dollars to see a movie that was just about them. Both Blanchett and Turturro create real, flesh-and-blood human beings, and it's in their scenes that Potter's writing really soars. Watching Dante sink deeper and deeper into a political philosophy fueled by his own insecurity while the irrepressibly optimistic Lola tries to turn a blind eye to it all is a fascinating and marvelous experience.

Ricci gives a good performance too, although occasionally that Valley Girl tone she uses in most of the rest of her movies slips out a little too much here and there. Fortunately, Potter doesn't give the shy, quiet Suzie very much to say. Most of her acting is done with her eyes, and she's really quite good. Johnny Depp does what he can with Cesare, but there's only so much an actor can accomplish when playing a plot device.

Art direction, music, and cinematography were all top-drawer. As is par for the course with Sally Potter's films, it looked good and had some interesting things to say. I just wish it had been more compelling.

Leonardo DiCaprio IS Howard Hughes in the piece that should finally win Martin Scorsese that elusive Best Director Oscar.

Hughes biopics have been floating around Hollywood for decades. And no wonder - the story of Howard Hughes is an excellent example of the American dream being followed through to its conclusion. Tremendous, unprecedented power, fame, success, and wealth, followed by a massive, nearly unprecedented crash-and-burn. What could be more quintessentially American? Of course directors and producers have been scrambling all over each other to be the first to put a summation of Hughes' life on screen. A competing project starring Jim Carrey and directed by Christopher Nolan has been rumored for some time, in fact. But Scorsese got his out first, and I can't imagine that Nolan's film could possibly be any better.

For the uninitiated, Howard Hughes was one of the great eccentric geniuses of this century. He was a film producer and director, an engineer, a pilot, a hotelier, and a crazy, crazy man. He ended his life in the suite of his Las Vegas hotel, which he hadn't left in twenty years. By that time, he was receiving daily blood transfusions from Mormons, who he believed were the only clean people in the world. He was no longer trimming his fingernails or cutting his hair or beard. He wore tissue boxes on his feet, and a surgical mask at almost all times. Terrified of germs, Hughes barricaded himself in his hotel and died there alone, sad, and insane. This would seem to me to be the most interesting part of Hughes' life to film - watching his madness devour him alive.

But no - Scorsese made the choice of allowing us to see Hughes in his younger, more vibrant days, and allowing us to watch the madness creep up on him instead.

The film opens as Hughes is filming "Hell's Angels", now nearly universally lauded as a masterpiece. He's throwing money at it hand over fist, but it's a passion, so he doesn't care. Genius or insanity?That's what Scorsese and DiCaprio bring across more than anything else here - the line between the two is so thin, it can be invisible in some cases. It certainly was with Hughes.

Eventually, Hughes gets into the airline business, founding TWA. He gets into a streetfight with PanAm, in the person of PanAm president Juan Trippe (Alec Baldwin, enjoying being the bad guy) over who has the right to global flights. In between all the corporate and political intrigue, Hughes finds the time to fall madly in love with fellow outsider Katharine Hepburn (Cate Blanchett), and to dally with Ava Gardner (Kate Beckinsale). All along, Hughes struggles with his obsessive-compulsive tendencies, his most heroic moment coming when he overcomes his agoraphobia in order to testify before Congress (represented in the person of Senator Ralph Owen Brewster, a snarky Alan Alda) and save his company.

Leonardo DiCaprio is the true savior of this movie, and Scorsese deserves credit just for getting out of his way. This is DiCaprio's chance to grow up as an actor, and he takes it and runs with it. It's difficult for a star of his caliber to be anything but Leo on screen, but he succeeds more than admirably in making you see Hughes instead of the movie star. He even comes to actually physically resemble the fortyish Hughes, a remarkable feat for a babyfaced thirty year old. It's a terrific performance, and one that should garnish Leo an Oscar nomination.

Also notable is Cate Blanchett's Katharine Hepburn - her performance is jarring at first, seemingly over-the-top, but once you settle in and realize that that's really how Hepburn WAS, it becomes fascinating. Her relationship with Hughes is heartbreaking. It's a case of two Hollywood outsiders who can't get past each other's eccentricities - a great romance cut short by neurosis. To me, the segment of the movie that examines their relationship is the best part of the film.

Overall, it's a slick and good-looking film, which is almost enough to get you past its shallowness. But DiCaprio and Blanchett are both wonderful.

This is a visually generic documentary - it could almost pass for a high school film project in that regard. But the subject matter is quite compelling, especially for a resident of the Los Angeles area.

It's the story of a murder investigation that took place in the Agoura Hills section of Los Angeles County, about fifty miles north of the city proper, a relatively upscale and crime-free neighborhood. Jimmy Farris and Mike McLoren were selling marijuana out of what even the teenagers called a "fort" in their backyard when they were accosted by the Holland brothers (Jason and Micah), Tony Miliotti, and Brandon Hein. What happened next is disputed. What just about everyone can agree on is that Jason Holland stabbed both McLoren and Farris with a pocketknife. McLoren was wounded and Farris died on the scene.

All four of the participants in the brawl were sentenced to life in prison, even though by the lone prosecution eyewitness McLoren's admittance, Miliotti and Hein mostly stood around watching. They, however, were prosecuted under a new law that made gang members responsible for one another's behavior. So one of the two central questions of the movie is based on that assumption: was this a gang killing?

The second question is whether these boys got a fair trial. The deceased's father, you see, was an LAPD officer, and the families of the accused felt that their sons got unduly railroaded because of it. In addition, the district attorney's office had just lost the OJ case, had failed to nail Michael Jackson, had just seen Erik Menendez nearly walk away because of a mistrial. They had something to prove. And justice may (or may not) have been thrown out the window in the process.

It's a provocative film that, at the very least, documents a police force, DA's office, and community in crisis. It underachieves technically, but don't let the crudeness fool you; the ideas here are solid. Definitely worth a look.

An immensely frustrating experience as an audience member. Catherine Hardwicke is one hell of a talented director, someone who I'll be keeping a very close eye on in the future. And Nikki Reed has written a pretty great script for a teenager - but therein lies the central problem with the movie. It is a powerful expose of the secret lives of teenagers, but the other half of the movie is, out of necessity, spent examining the inner lives of adults. And that's clearly something that Ms. Reed didn't understand when she wrote the screenplay. And how could she? She's a kid.

The electrifying Evan Rachel Wood plays Tracy Freeland, a 13-year old girl living in the vast, shallow wastelands of 21st century Los Angeles. She spends her time hanging out with her nice, ordinary friends, keeping up with her schoolwork, and writing poetry that indicates that there's a special mind at work. Like a lot of kids, she has a very close relationship with her daffy, irresponsible white trash mother Melanie (Holly Hunter, who rightfully received an Oscar nomination), and virtually no relationship with her deadbeat, jackass father. All in all, she's a typical if extraordinarily bright kid. Sure, she lifts an occasional cigarette from her mom, but with the complex home life she's got, who can blame her?

Then she meets Evie (the aforementioned Nikki Reed, who is a far more mature actress than writer), the baddest, most popular girl in school. Evie smokes like a chimney, dresses and acts like a whore, smokes pot and drops acid, manipulates adults with the charm of a professional grifter, and generally behaves like a character out of Larry Clark's "Kids". Tracy, desperate to be popular, works her way into Evie's friendship, and Evie introduces Tracy to all the pitfalls of adolescence. Soon, Tracy is giving Evie a run for her money in the excess department, and Evie has more or less moved in with Tracy and her family. Melanie struggles to be the cool mom while keeping her daughter safe, and Evie has her pretty much cowed.

Both women (Tracy and Melanie) have to break free of Evie's spell and find a way to live with one another despite the minefield of old family wounds between them. It all leads up to a confrontation between the three that would be devastating if it weren't so melodramatic. About three-quarters of the way through, the movie becomes a rehash (so to speak) of "Reefer Madness", and it becomes very hard to take the plight of these poor women seriously.

This is Tracy's story, but it's also Melanie's. Tracy's end of the story is terrifying - really well-written. It doesn't hurt that Evan Rachel Wood gives an absolutely revelatory performance, among the best I've ever seen out of a young actor. It certainly doesn't make me look forward to having teenagers. Melanie's end is - well, it's confusing. It often seems as though Ms. Reed plugged clichés about clueless parents of teenagers in because she didn't know what else to do. Which is probably the case. Holly Hunter really brings a third dimension to it, though, and ultimately it's her performance that saves Melanie's side of the story from being completely unbelievable.

Worth renting for the performances and Ms. Hardwicke's direction. A lot of big talents are revealed here - Ms. Wood, Ms. Hardwicke, and even Ms. Reed, who wrote a filmable, if somewhat mediocre, screenplay at 14. Check them out.

An altogether average Hitchcock movie (which, admittedly, makes it better than almost any thriller made nowadays), notable for two reasons.

First, there's Robert Walker's subtle, brilliant performance as Bruno Anthony. This was a stylistically very different performance from what audiences were used to seeing in the early fifties. It was less stagey, more fluid. Even the way he walked was quiet and smooth. What's even more fascinating is Walker's choice to make Bruno a not-so-closeted homosexual with a sexual obsession with Guy Haines, played by the very dull Farley Granger. Bruno's stalking of Guy isn't about murder; it's about sex. Walker telegraphs this with body language and facial expressions, because the Hays Code never would have allowed such a concept to be put to screen at the time, and the result is a marvelous sort of chemistry to the relationship between the two men.

The second reason to rent it is the final sequence on the carousel, which is pure Hitchcock. Bruno and Guy pummeling one another, a child in jeopardy, a carnival ride spinning out of control, shouts of joy turning to terrified shrieks. The shots of the carousel horses' faces, mouths ghoulishly leering open, madness in their eyes, are particularly effective here. And never have I seen the outcome of a non-sports related film depend so much on the outcome of a sporting event.

A really great movie. Not the best of Hitch's career, but certainly worth your time.

The climate is fear, pure and simple. Fear so heavy you breathe it in. There's a menacing entity killing nearly at random, and no one knows where, when, or who it'll strike next. The authorities are working hard to bring the danger to an end, but they're seemingly blocked at every turn. As the tension mounts, everything the people of this place don't like or understand becomes suspect. Social conventions break down. Hysteria seeps into the hearts of these people, a good, hardworking, blue collar people. And it drives them mad.

The story I've just told is essentially the story told in "Summer of Sam", which I believe is Spike Lee's best film. The story takes place in the summer of 1977 in New York City, but social mores being what they are today, it could easily take place in any town in America today, right now. Replace the Son of Sam with a terrorist threat, and the situation becomes strikingly similar.

The vigilantes who beat Richie at the end of the film are beating him because he works at a gay strip club, not because they think he's the Son of Sam. They don't like his hair or his music or his friends or his attitude, but in the end the straw that breaks the camel's back is his sexuality. As the country struggles with a potential Constitutional gay marriage ban, we need to think about where our anger toward homosexuality is really coming from. Is it coming from a sense of morality, or is it coming from a sense of fear?

That's enough political mumbojumbo though. This is a stunning film, and don't let anyone tell you different. I noticed Adrien Brody in this flick long before anyone saw "The Pianist", and I said then that he was going to be a star someday. He should have gotten an Oscar nomination for his work here, as should have John Leguizamo and Mira Sorvino, Leguizamo especially. He shows range I haven't seen from him since. The script plays like an Arthur Miller stage production. Tormented protagonist, fighting battles with his own soul that he should learn to let go of. A climactic moral test of wills. Society turning on an individual out of fear and anger.

So props to Spike Lee, who may never be this good again. "Malcolm X" and "The 25th Hour" are also both really wonderful films, but for me, this one takes the cake. If you haven't seen it already, do so. A lot of people don't like it, but like Adrien Brody says in the film, you've gotta think for yourself.

I was stunned at what this film did to me. An absolutely brilliant display of psychological horror. Alan Parker made the scariest film of the eighties, maybe the scariest film of the second half of the century with this picture. The hell with "Psycho", "Angel Heart" is where it's at if you want horror.

I don't know how Parker hasn't become the Hitchcock of his generation after this film. I know some of his other work - "Evita" and Mississippi Burning" are two films of his that I happen to think are pretty good. But they're nothing like this. What Parker does so well here, what he seems to get better than any other director I've noticed since this film was made, is how atmosphere makes a movie. He has a real sense of place and time that's a key component to making the terror of this movie real.

Aside from Parker's talents, there are three performances without which the movie just wouldn't work.

Robert de Niro gives the second best performance of his career here, right next to "Raging Bull", and even that's pretty close. I'm not even normally a huge fan of de Niro's - I mean, don't get me wrong, he's a legend, but I find most of the time that I'm less impressed with him than most people are. Not here. In this movie, de Niro makes the simple act of eating an egg into a treatise on mortal dread. He should have received the Oscar for this performance, no question about it.

Lisa Bonet - what happened to her? Every couple of years I'll see her in something like this or "High Fidelity", and she's got all this charisma - she really is a superb actress. What she does here is really interesting because you can see that it's very underdone, a lot of subtlety. Which is a strange way to go if you're playing a voodoo priestess. But she's very vulnerable here. I think it's a shame she didn't become the star she could have. I'd love to see more work from her.

Mickey Rourke is another resident of the "Where are they now?" file. I've heard more from him recently though. He's been making a comeback of sorts. He's actually the primary reason I rented this movie, because I saw him in Sean Penn's "The Pledge" and wanted to see more of his stuff. He's the third performance that makes this movie complete, and he's the one who really has the hardest job, who has to strap it to his back and get it across the finish line. His is also the most important job, because he needs to instill the terror in you. It's through his eyes that you witness these bizarre events, and it's his reaction that makes it all the more terrifying.

Again, brilliant. Can't say enough about it. The last thirty seconds or so kind of sucks (those of you who've seen it know what I'm referring to), but I can just turn it off before that. Oddly, it doesn't ruin what's come before.