Reviews

Its interesting to read the comments left by IMDB users towards this film. People will either love it, hate it, or be too puzzled to figure out how they feel towards it. I enjoy reading people's interpretations of the film, but most of the comments are frustrating. A lot of the movie's criticizers have managed to convince themselves that the movie is overrated; that it is only praised so that people can feel "artsy" and intellectual. Some of the fans of the movie are no better. Many say things like "Only the people who have a high IQ can solve this enigma". How wrong they are.

A low IQ has nothing to do with how much a person dislikes "Mulholland Drive." Most of the people who hate this movie most likely either (a) don't know how to approach it, (b) refuse to view it with an open mind and/or with a sense of wonder, or (c) simply aren't used to this kind of movie.

Most anti-fans of the film are quick to judge those who like it as "pompous". But, honestly, what could be more pompous than assuming that, because you were incapable of enjoying the film, nobody else can? The word "overrated" pops up quite frequently when this film is being discussed. Personally, I don't believe that such a term is fitting to any movie. "L'avventura" doesn't interest me in the slightest bit, but that doesn't mean it's overrated, it means that the movie doesn't fit my tastes. "Overrated" is simply a term for those with too much pride to admit that they didn't like a highly rated movie.

I think the main reason of why so many people can't appreciate "Mulholland Drive" is because they haven't been introduced to Lynch's style. What people often don't realize is that a movie really doesn't have to make the slightest bit of sense, nor does it have to be understood, but it can still be just as amazing of an experience. Does "Mulholland Drive" make sense? Is there a puzzle to uncover? As discouraging as it is to some, I would guess that the film really is more abstract than people like to think it is. Much of the movie is part of the television pilot, and the rest of it, Lynch admits, were supercaffeinated brainstorms and last minute ideas. Personally, It really doesn't make a difference to me. I love the film nonetheless.

What is there to love about this film? The dreamlike atmosphere. The variety of different storylines and moods. But the greatest moments in movies are almost always without dialogue. They are moments when the music fits the visuals so perfectly that one has a mild feeling of euphoria. Lynch has a gift for creating this kind of moment, and "Mulholland Drive" may be the ultimate example of this ability of his as a filmmaker. The opening credits for example has us following a lone car late at night. These images are so fitting to Angelo Badalamenti's music that one feels overwhelmed by it's beauty. Of course there are dozens of other moments like this in the movie, and there are also great scenes made up entirely of dialogue.

I don't expect anyone who hated "Mulholland Drive" to have read any of my comments, but I wish that those that disliked the movie so strongly would give it another chance. Don't try to make any sense of it; just sit back and let yourself be immersed into a totally sublime cinematic experience.

Its rare to see such an expertly crafted thriller as Memento. The protagonist suffers from a short-term memory loss condition, causing the events of his life to be mixed, scrambled, and immediately forgotten. He must write himself notes, take pictures of people he's supposed to remember, and tattoo himself with facts to remember. Its a remarkable concept.

The question the whole way through Memento is whether or not the film can live up to its concept. The film is shown from its ending scene to its beginning, making it even more puzzling to watch. The viewer has to give their full attention to Memento, or else they won't have any clue as to what's going on, but it can be rewarding to those who picked up on most of it. Memento is a one-of-a-kind experience that is so mystifyingly confusing that you'll enjoy getting lost in it.

O O O O O O O O

(Very Good)

I fully expected to be disappointed by this third installment to the Hannibal Lector trilogy. I was expecting a cheap hacker flick, but I found it to be a well crafted film with excellent acting from a top-rate cast.

Hannibal wasn't well received with the critics, or the public for that matter, and its easy to see why. Too many people compare it to it's predecessor, The Silence of the Lambs. I'm one of those few who considers the two films pretty equal in comparison. Silence relied almost entirely on Anthony Hopkins, who stole his scenes, but left the rest of the film suffering from a lack of excitement. Hannibal makes good use of Hopkins, as well as adding to the gritty and fascinating subject matter with another grotesque character, played with excellence by Gary Oldman.

Thomas Harris's novel and Ridley Scott's direction make Hannibal a far more different experience. The subject matter doesn't seem to be taken so seriously; its actually rather humorous at times, which doesn't leave quite an impact on the viewer, but it still makes for a fun ride. Many complain about the ending, but personally, I thought it made a perfect end to an excellent trilogy of filmmaking.

O O O O O O O 1/2

How rare it is to see a realistic drama with realistic dialogue. Most of the dramas today exist only to please audiences; to give them a simple story with one-dimensional characters and a conflict and deliver a happy ending with all conflicts wrapped up. You Can Count on Me is a rare cinematic experience that allows you to feel like you're watching everyday events for the characters as they happen.

To talk about the plot is an injustice to the film and to those who haven't seen it. I can only complement the performances of Laura Linney, Mark Ruffalo, and the rest of the cast, but, with such an excellent screenplay, its no wonder they were all so convincing.

O O O O O O O O 1/2

Here is a wonderful little comedy from Curtis Hanson (L.A. Confidential). Its a story about a loser (Michael Douglas's best performance), Grady Tripp, who used dope to write his award winning novel and is now making a follow up, which he can't seem to finish. It follows a crazy weekend he has with other goofy characters, such as a morbid, troublesome student of his, a gay editor, a chancelor, whom he's having an affair with, and their blind dog, who's looking to kill him. I know, it sounds like crap, but it you must see it to believe it.

There is terrific dialogue and plot twists all around this film, as well as flawless direction by Curtis Hanson. The performances, consisting of Douglas, Tobey Maguire, Robert Downey Jr., Frances McDormand, Katie Holmes, Rip Torn and others, are simply superb. Its one of the most underrated films of 2000, and it is a film that will be remembered in years to come.

O O O O O O O O 1/2

The animated film industry has been instantly revolutionized with the first full-length feature film, Chicken Run. From the makers of the nifty little Wallace and Gromit shorts, Chicken Run is a splendid adventure film that is well made in every way.

Chicken Run is, in a way, a prison film. The prisoners are the chickens on a small farm dominated by a sadistic Mrs. Tweedle, who becomes obsessed with making chicken pies for more money.

Unlike Disney productions, Chicken Run is not manipulative, and it's characters aren't one-dimensional. Every line is well written, and the score is excellent. Although most of the chickens are physically hard to tell apart, the voices are diverse enough for the viewer to tell who's who. This is simply a terrific film, and it is the history of film animation.

O O O O O O O O

Here is a wonderful little comedy from Curtis Hanson (L.A. Confidential). Its a story about a loser (Michael Douglas's best performance), Grady Tripp, who used dope to write his award winning novel and is now making a follow up, which he can't seem to finish. It follows a crazy weekend he has with other goofy characters, such as a morbid, troublesome student of his, a gay editor, the chancelor's wife, whom he's having an affair with, and their blind dog, who's looking to kill him.

I know, it sounds like crap, but it you must see it to believe it.

There is terrific dialogue and plot twists all around this film, as well as flawless direction by Curtis Hanson. The performances, consisting of Douglas, Tobey Maguire, Robert Downey Jr., Frances McDormand, Katie Holmes, Rip Torn and others, are simply superb. Its one of the most underrated films of 2000, and it is a film that will be remembered in years to come.

Cinema in general is rapidly becoming cheaper and more money driven. The average film goers always head towards the movies that seem to have high budgets, big stars, and lots of advertising. I don't remember ever hearing of Requiem for a Dream until the Oscar nominations came out. It garnered an NC-17 rating from the MPAA, which led Arinovsky to make an edited R rated version and an unrated Directors Cut, which is what I saw.

This may be the most powerful film I've ever seen. It kept me glued to the screen, despite the graphic and heart stopping visuals on screen. There was actually one scene where I had to close my eyes, in a sickening moment when a junkie pushes a needle into his infected arm. I was pretty shaken by the time the credits began to roll. Every little tidbit that makes films great was done with perfection here.

Darrin Arinovsky has proven to be a fully formed master at direction. Everything he does here increases the film's power immensely, such as split screens, different color hues, and surrealistic hallucinatory sequences. His way of showing a person using drugs with the extreme closeups is particularly effective.

The sound in this film is incredible. Something that rarely gets mentioned about this film is the score, which is dark, tragic, and haunting, creating a perfect atmosphere for the events that take place.

The acting is truly amazing. Jennifer Connelly and Jared Leto aren't the type you'd expect in their roles, but they perform very well. Its easy to forget that you're watching Marlin Wayons in a serious role, he is surprisingly good. Ellen Burstyn is simply phenominal in her role, giving the year's best performance. Watching these four people rapidly deteriorate into miserable, pathetic junkies is depressing, but heartfelt.

I'd personally recommend that anyone 11 or over should watch this film. Its the type of movie that should be shown in middle schools and high schools as an anti-drug video. It shows how far into the gutter you might go if you try drugs. A truly great film.

O O O O O O O O O

My expectations for Meet the Parents weren't very high going into it, but I was pleasantly surprised by the time it was over. Its one of those great "disaster comedies," like What About Bob? (1991), when the protagonist arrives to a new place hoping for the best, but problem after problem arrives beyond his control, making our protagonist's life a living hell.

There are several differences between the two films, but in Meet the Parents, the protagonist is being thwarted in every way by his girlfriend's father (Robert DeNiro, perfectly cast), an intimidating former CIA agent who is determined to prove that he (Greg, played by Ben Stiller) isn't good enough for her.

Many of the jokes in this film don't go "bang," which is probably why mainstream audiences were somewhat disappointed by it. The key to many of the jokes is in how predictable each is. Such as an innocent little volleyball game in a pool, or a situation with a missing dog. We discover how each little conflict will backfire against Greg before it happens, leaving us laughing before the actual event and laughing harder when it strikes.

DeNiro and Stiller have impeccable comic timing here. DeNiro plays a character we love to hate, and his character gets the best of Greg in every situation. Watching his reactions to Greg's goof-ups are as funny as it gets.

I recommend you don't enter this film with high expectations. It's a film that is simply fun and nothing more.

O O O O O O O 1/2

The Coen Brothers seem to gave many trademarks in their films, but perhaps the most obvious is that none of their characters seem truly normal. Everyone is incredibly unique and strange in their own way. O Brother, Where Art Thou? may be the best example of this trademark.

The storyline is said to have been loosely based on Homer's "The Odyssey," and the film and the material do have some connections, such as the lotus eaters, the sirens, and the cyclops. But most of O Brother, Where Art Thou? is the Coen Brothers unleashing some of the crazy characters and ideas they have in their heads.

Three convicts escape from their chain gang and, being that they're still chained together, they argue over where to go. Ulysses (George Clooney, in one of the year's best performances) promises his comrades that there is gold further off, but he really just wants to get back to his wife. This leads the three on an epic journey full of bizzare and comical adventures.

This is the type of film that replays itself in the viewers head long after viewing it. The memorable adventures simply don't leave the mind, mostly due to how unconventional they are; the one I keep remembering is a hysterical encounter with "Babyface" Nelson. Its an incredible cinematic experience that I can see myself watching decades from now. And that's why I consider it the best film of the year.

O O O O O O O O O

This may be the most entertaining film of 2000. Cameron Crowe directs this autobiopic about his experiences with Rolling Stone and his interview with a rising band. It is a coming-of-age story, possibly one of the best in years.

Cameron Crowe seems to have a knack for writing memorable lines and for keeping the viewer's interest. I would go as far as to say that Almost Famous is his best film, beating out such films as Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Jerry Maguire. It is a completely unpredictable film at many points, and, while it never uses the mainstream techniques, it can still please any audience.

The cast is well put together, and they have a lot of chemistry. Although the character of William Miller is somewhat of an enigma, Billy Crudup, Jason Lee, Kate Hudson, Frances McDormand, and Philip Seymour Hoffman all give top rate performances. Almost Famous is the most captivating film of 2000. And when one watches it, they won't want it to end.

O O O O O O O O

Cast Away is one of the most thought-provoking films I've seen in a long time. It follows the events before, during, and after Fed-Ex employee Chuck Noland (Tom Hanks, in an outstanding performance) becomes stranded on a deserted island. Things are pretty dull until his plane inevitably crashes, when things become truly compelling. Hanks portrayal of Noland on the island is brilliant, capturing the terror and hopelessness that must be going through Noland's mind.

The moments on the island are truly great for several reasons. Most of our emotion comes from what we see rather than what we hear; Zemerickis wisely halts the score and lets us feel like we are helplessly deserted on a quiet island, completely isolated from the sounds of every day life, such as people talking, car doors slamming, phones ringing, and clocks ticking. This is a brilliant character study of what Noland does to keep himself alive, physically and psychologically.

When the island tidbits are over and Chuck returns home, things continue to mind boggle. How would people react if we unexpectedly returned four years later after being considered dead? What kind of position does this put Noland's fiance in? Although many of the details of Noland's life after the island are completely off and more crowd-pleasing, it is still compelling. Wouldn't Chuck be psychologically ruined after four years of human isolation?

The film is terrific until the last few scenes, which ruin the overall impact. Zemerickis tries to put together several painfully obviously hints at Chuck's future. The last shot alone, with Chuck looking at the "crossroads" and smiling at the camera is absolutely absymal. It is a terrible way to end what was a powerful and serious film, with a stupid little crowd-pleasing "things are looking up" conclusion tacked on.

The ending can be forgiven, and there is still no doubt that the island scenes are immensely powerful. They alone make this film one of the best of the year, and they make it well worth watching, if only to challenge us and make us think.

O O O O O O O O

Here is M. Night Shymalan's follow-up to his critically acclaimed, highly successful spook story, The Sixth Sense, and everyone seems to be asking the same question. Which is better? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I'd personally say that Unbreakable is the better of the two.

Unbreakable follows a boring, depressed security guard, David Dunn (Bruce Willis), who, remarkably, never gets injured or sick. He is being stalked by a mysterious comic book collector, Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson, in a truly great performance), who continually attempts to convince David that he's more than he seems, and that David's lack of injury and Elijah's brittle bones must mean that they are on opposite sides of the spectrum for a reason.

M. Night Shymalan makes the film twist and turn unexpectedly, keeping the viewer guessing (probably incorrectly) at what will happen next. Similar to The Sixth Sense, it results in a big double-whammy at the end. Ultimately, the reason I prefer Unbreakable is because the events in the film before the surprise ending are easier to watch with repeated viewings.

M. Night Shymalan seems to have several obvious trademarks. Notice how quiet his films are, and notice how quietly the characters speak. There are long pauses between most of the things the characters say. The pacing is deliberately slow and suggestive of what will happen later. It's an interesting filmmaking style that I will look forward to seeing more of.

O O O O O O O O

2000 really wasn't a great year in movies, but if we are to remember anything about it, it should be that one film united the world. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon has instantly become the most successful foreign film of all time. Although it definitely isn't the greatest foreign film of all time, it is, perhaps, the best martial arts film ever made.

It is being called the Star Wars of Taiwan, but I think that's a bit misleading. Star Wars was popular because it took place in an entirely different world where the rules were broken. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon also takes place in a fantasy world, but it is more realistic. Sure, some people can fly around, but the characters aren't yelling catch phrases and comic relief in the heat of the battle, such as in Star Wars. This is a more serious film, but it is a rewarding one.

The battle sequences are absolutely breathtaking. Just compare them to Gladiator's choppy, overrated battles. In Crouching Tiger, it is made very clear what the battlefield looks like, where the characters are in it, and what they are doing. In Gladiator, there really isn't any way of telling what's going on, we just see a few strange shots, like a tiger's leg, then a sword, etc. Crouching Tiger's, battles are beautifully choreographed and graceful, and that's why they can stand the test of time better than Star Wars or Gladiator.

It's about time the martial arts genre finally cooked up a rewarding and compelling experience, one that makes you think and look in awe. It's a unique experience and I'd highly recommend it to anyone who is willing to look at subtitles to see a superb film.

O O O O O O O O 1/2

At what point are people going to realize the hopelessness of the Drug War? That's what Steven Soderbergh attempts to answer in his excellent film, Traffic. The idea here is that no one gets away clean. It shows several situations about how drugs are effecting everyone everywhere. Cops in Mexico, cops in America, the government, teens, parents, drug dealers, and many others, everyone is getting involved in drugs, and those who try to stop drugs are beginning to realize the hopelessness of the issue. It's a depressing film, but it's a depressing world.

Soderbergh's direction is truly outstanding. He takes a five hour show and makes into two and a half hours long. He makes himself head of photography, shooting many of the scenes himself, making all of them seem documentarylike, choosing different hues for different storylines, and effortlessly making the multiple storylines flow smoothly between each other. He did a pretty damn good job if you ask me, but if you figure in that he had half the time the normal filmmaker gets to make his film, it's almost unbelievable that he could get this good of results.

Soderbergh is able to pull flawless performances from his cast, and, combined with the shaky cameras, it makes it all seem so realistic, as if we are following along with the storylines, or as if we possess the cameras. That is the secret to the power of Traffic, it's realism.

As far as thrillers go, U-571 is a well made film. Although it's historical inaccuracies are awful, it still serves as a great theater experience. It won a well deserved Oscar for it's sound, which, in the right theater, makes the film well worth the admission. Sound is the key essential to U-571.

The characters are simple, the plot is simple, and the film probably won't haunt you long after you've seen it, but that's OK. Just sit back and enjoy the claustrophobic sets, the deafening sound effects, and the non-stop action for what it's worth.

The Coen Brothers seem to gave many trademarks in their films, but perhaps the most obvious is that none of their characters seem truly normal. Everyone is incredibly unique and strange in their own way. O Brother, Where Art Thou? may be the best example of this trademark.

The storyline is said to have been loosely based on Homer's "The Odyssey," and the film and the material do have some connections, such as the lotus eaters, the sirens, and the cyclops. But most of O Brother, Where Art Thou? is the Coen Brothers unleashing some of the crazy characters and ideas they have in their heads.

Three convicts escape from their chain gang and, being that they're still chained together, they argue over where to go. Ulysses (George Clooney, in one of the year's best performances) promises his comrades that there is gold further off, but he really just wants to get back to his wife. This leads the three on an epic journey full of bizzare and comical adventures.

This is the type of film that replays itself in the viewers head long after viewing it. The memorable adventures simply don't leave the mind, mostly due to how unconventional they are; the one I keep remembering is a hysterical encounter with "Babyface" Nelson. Its an incredible cinematic experience that I can see myself watching decades from now. And that's why I consider it the best film of the year.

Shadow of the Vampire is an interesting little film. It deals with the events surrounding F.W. Murnau's making of Nosferatu, a legendary silent horror film from Germany. There have been many mysteries surrounding Max Shreck, who, in real life, did refuse to show up on the sets without his costume and makeup. He seemed truly obsessed with his character, and it payed off, as he created quite possibly the most realistic vampire ever caught on film.

This film presents the idea that, perhaps, he seemed so perfect for the role for a reason. The idea here is that Murnau hired a real vampire, going by the name of "Max Shreck" (Shreck is German for "fear") and acting in Murnau's picture so long as he can take the blood of the leading lady in the final scene.

Shadow of the Vampire is often a darkly funny film, mostly because of Willem Dafoe's brilliant performance, playing his character as goofy and unknowledgable about film, but dangerous and frightening when he needs to be. He delivers perhaps the best performance of 2000, making the viewer await his every screen presence and gluing our eyes to the screen with his every movement.

This is not a vampire thriller, in fact, its far from it. It is a black comedy and a drama, full of artistic and compelling ideas. It asks us how far a person will go in order to achieve their art, while toying with the idea that Max Shreck was an actual vampire. It's a clever film that should be seen more than once, and it's one of the best films of 2000.

O O O O O O O O

Cast Away is one of the most thought-provoking films I've seen in a long time. It follows the events before, during, and after Fed-Ex employee Chuck Noland (Tom Hanks, in an outstanding performance) becomes stranded on a deserted island. Things are pretty dull until his plane inevitably crashes, when things become truly compelling. Hanks portrayal of Noland on the island is brilliant, capturing the terror and hopelessness that must be going through Noland's mind.

The moments on the island are truly great for several reasons. Most of our emotion comes from what we see rather than what we hear; Zemerickis wisely halts the score and lets us feel like we are helplessly deserted on a quiet island, completely isolated from the sounds of every day life, such as people talking, car doors slamming, phones ringing, and clocks ticking. This is a brilliant character study of what Noland does to keep himself alive, physically and psychologically.

When the island tidbits are over and Chuck returns home, things continue to mind boggle. How would people react if we unexpectedly returned four years later after being considered dead? What kind of position does this put Noland's fiance in? Although many of the details of Noland's life after the island are completely off and more crowd-pleasing, it is still compelling. Wouldn't Chuck be psychologically ruined after four years of human isolation?

The film is terrific until the last few scenes, which ruin the overall impact. Zemerickis tries to put together several painfully obviously hints at Chuck's future. The last shot alone, with Chuck looking at the "crossroads" and smiling at the camera is absolutely absymal. It is a terrible way to end what was a powerful and serious film, with a stupid little crowd-pleasing "things are looking up" conclusion tacked on.

The ending can be forgiven, and there is still no doubt that the island scenes are immensely powerful. They alone make this film one of the best of the year, and they make it well worth watching, if only to challenge us and make us think.

Its shorts like these that make me proud to be a movie fan. This is a well presented account of the first 100 years of American film, shown with small clips. It pops up often on TCM.

I find it interesting that it sites certain movies with their title and date, to sort of show that they are landmarks. Some of their picks probably didn't deserve this citing, while others did. The Birth of a Nation, Gone With the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, Easy Rider, The Godfather, and Raging Bull were perfectly deserving of being highlighted as landmarks, Casablanca, It's a Wonderful Life, and Schindler's List perhaps deserved citations, but The Jazz Singer, 42nd Street, San Fransisco, and Red River certainly didn't deserve it. I can't say anything about Greed, because I haven't seen it, though I'd like to. But films like The Gold Rush, King Kong, Citizen Kane, and The Third Man did deserve to be highlighted, as they all signaled an increase in cinematic merit.

The creators of the short made a great choice by repeatedly using Bernard Hermann's score from Citizen Kane through certain moments to create a dreamlike and heavenly nostalgia among the viewers.

It doesn't matter that several of the movies are chronologically out of place. They often seem to be separated into genres. One moment has classic gangster flicks like Little Caesar, The Public Enemy and Scarface, the next will have musicals, like Meet Me in St. Louis, The Wizard of Oz, and the Gene Kelly vehicles.

It is remarkable how the short can bring out nearly every emotion from the film experienced viewers. We are reminded of thrilling moments, like the car chase in The French Connection, a battle scene from The Adventures of Robin Hood, and the crop duster from North By Northwest. We are reminded of the dramatic moments, like Brando's taxi speech in On the Waterfront, the conclusion of Casablanca, and the battle scenes from The Birth of a Nation. And we are shown clips from the comedic (the oceanliner sequence in A Night at the Opera), to the tense (Gary Cooper waiting for the outlaws in the abandoned town in High Noon), to the unsettling (the horrifying shot of possessed Regan's spinning head in The Exorcist). It all combines to create a dizzying sense of nostalgia and it serves as a reminder of how great it is to be a true movie addict. Of course it has obvious omissions, but they can be forgiven.

By the way, Some Like it Hot and Citizen Kane DO make appearances in this presentation. Just very small ones.

Rating:

O O O O O O O O O O

(cinematic bliss)