Reviews

Recommended for those who like thoughtful, surprising film fare. To this viewer, it is somewhat reminiscent of Local Hero. Not recommended for adrenalin junkies or those who thrive on sophomoric humor. I gave it a 7, though might change my vote to 8 over time. (I've never given a 10, and very few 9's.)

At the time of this writing, there are 21 votes in the rating. Unweighted average is 8.1, weighted average is 2.9. Two votes are "1", one each for 5 and 6, all others are 7 or over. Three votes by males 18-29 average 1.2, presumably weighted or it would be mathematically impossible (1+1+5)/3 = 2 1/3. I've often wondered about the secret algorithms for weighted averages. By this film, it seems apparent that 2 males 18-29 carry more weight than all other demographics combined (19 votes). Sigh.

This is one of the best depictions of female adolescence, and the intensity of female "best friend"ships I've seen. Good attention to detail. Doesn't pull its punches on sex, drugs & rock'n'roll - neither glamourizing nor moralizing. It might take courage for parents to let their teenagers see it, but it's delusional to think kids don't know about these things. Good to see it handled intelligently.

We can all be grateful that this picture ended up being a Salma Hayek project, rather than a Jennifer Lopez vehicle. I am sure it is the better for this. Julie Taymor was also a brilliant choice as director. A worthwhile telling of this extraordinary and talented woman's life.

An interesting observation: In the USA, Mexico is typically viewed as a country which people want to leave, wanting to come here instead. The depicted cosmopolitan world of Mexico City -- Kahlo's father was a German Jew, Tina Modotti was Italian, Trotsky was of course Russian, and even Hayek's father is a Lebanese immigrant -- is something different and refreshing.

Other reviewers have described the content of this film, so I won't repeat. Instead, I'll hold forth on a pet peeve about movies. Which is - the liberties taken with bird content in movies. To wit: The film is named "Caracara", but the bird used in the film is a Harris's Hawk. There are nine species of Caracara in the world. They're all found in Central and South America. One of the nine occurs far enough north to be found in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Did they think that none of the 70 million birdwatchers in the US (according to the "National Survey on Recreation and the Environment" conducted periodically by the US Forest Service, most recently released in 2002) would notice?

One of the other comments on this film included: "Hence the title, referring to the species of Peregrine falcon she keeps as a pet". First, a Peregrine Falcon is a species itself; there are not species thereof. Second, although the Caracaras are members of the Falcon family, the bird used in this film is not a Falcon of any kind - Caracara, Peregrine or otherwise.

This is a low budget film, but this is not an expensive item to research. I suppose they liked the name "Caracara", which is rather more exotic than "Harris's Hawk". So, when it turned out that no Caracara could be found to appear in the film, they simply substituted something else, and kept the cool name. And they figured it didn't matter if they got it "right", because the audience wouldn't notice. Considering the comment quoted above, perhaps they are right. But, considering the kind of obsessive attention to detail found in many other aspects of filmmaking, it is baffling why so many films consistently goof up bird-related content. (The sound people are especially culpable in this regard.)

Other reviewers have described the content of this film in extensive detail, so I will not repeat. In this film, the ending, or rather lack thereof, is not an asset. For comparison, consider another one of Sayles' films, "City of Hope". This has an indeterminate ending which is absolutely brilliant. In general, I'm a loyal Sayles fan. No matter the flaws in his work, he tackles important issues and themes. This one just is not up to his usual standards, IMHO.

I know this movie is supposed to be serious drama. And much discussion of that has been covered in previous comments.

But I love it best for its campiness. The image I carry with me is when someone accepts a mission from the king. "OK, I'll do it." The character promptly leaps over a railing, lands on his horse, and gallops off to his mission. What's not to love?

I saw The Atomic Cafe in a theater when it was first released. Someone exclaimed derogatorily as they walked out on it. But I thought it was brilliant. Sort of a sub-genre of documentary, this one had no commentary, narrative or explanations for the material presented. No retroactive interviews with those who were there. It relied 100% on archival materials.

A few years back, I visited the Trinity Site (here in New Mexico) on the 50th anniversary of the first test of the bomb. Quite a few of those who were somehow involved back then and still living turned up for the event. So I did get to hear some hindsight comments. Definitely different than what was being said back then, and such commentary could have really changed the picture.

This is a rare approach, and therefore thought provoking. One can argue that the choice of material, editing and music track impose some interpretation, and there may be something to that. Although it's unlikely that one could turn the story into something really different unless latter-day, hindsight interviews were added to provide a different spin.

Being a "Baby Boomer", I was born during the times depicted in the movie, and have some early memories of them. For those who were alive in that time, it's fascinating to see how it tweaks your memory. I, for one, didn't think deep thoughts about the "duck and cover" drills at school - it was just another thing that got us out of our seats, like fire drills and recess. But it does tweak memory, to bring back things not thought of for many years. Interesting to consider how one's own memory is incomplete, wanders, can be influenced, etc. (Now, re-read Orwell's 1984.)

Brilliant, and disturbing. Interesting to consider in light of current events (spring 2003).

The director is from India, and brings his knowledge of being subject to the British empire to the DVD commentary. Well worth checking out. As a Victorian period piece, the Kate Hudson character was a little too much of a zany free spirit to be convincing. Today, when the issue of world empire is very much on the table, this film's content is well worth considering.

Having read through 60+ comments already online about this film, I won't bother to add to that verbiage. Instead, I'll describe the experience of first seeing it, which is still vivid in my memory.

Koyaanisqatsi was shown at Radio City Music Hall when it was released, as part of the New York Film Festival. Once it was over, the sold out house made its way out onto the streets of midtown Manhattan, during busy evening traffic for the theater district. The audience had been transfixed by the film sufficiently that it had temporarily forgotten how to "behave" as pedestrians. Scores of people wandered off the sidewalks and into the streets, such that it snarled up traffic. Perhaps they were considering the intensity of city life as ephemera or illusion. And so, a cacophony of taxi horns filled the air, and the drivers rolled down their windows to curse and yell, trying to bring the crowd back to "reality". Which everyone was busy considering in unconventional ways. Memorable juxtaposition.

Inexplicably, in the midst of it all, was a man from Bolivia with a llama. For some modest fee, you could have yourself photographed with the furry Andean ruminant. Completely cryptic, but somehow appropriate, and as sensible as anything else around and about at the time.

Koyaanisqatsi was (and is) beautiful and thoughtful. About ways of life that can endure, and those which carry the seeds of their own destruction. Told in a non-narrative, non-verbal way.

The DVD for this film has an interesting twist. On one side is "The Truth about Charlie", and on the other side is "Charade", of which it is a remake. The opportunity for side-to-side comparison is interesting.

That said: Mark Wahlberg is not an adequate surrogate for Cary Grant, but Thandie Newton does a good job in the Audrey Hepburn role. Several of the modernized elements (e.g. bad guys of various races and genders) are refreshing, but overall the original's stylishness and charm win the day.

Good, but not very good.

Mostly very good, with a couple of caveats. The Dustin Hoffman-Rene Russo romance aspect was a little forced, but OK. Excellent exposition on "emerging diseases", including the opening credit sequence which shows the various bio-safety levels. Too bad the ending wasn't so strong: You don't find the carrier animal, and then have enough antibodies to save a couple thousand already sick people THE NEXT DAY. One can only imagine what kind of committee came up with this nonsense, but they obviously have little regard for being grounded in something related to reality.

Ah well.

I went to see this at a festival as a good-for-you topical film - kind of like eating brussels sprouts or something (apologies to those for whom brussels sprouts are a particular favorite). The filmmaker is an Iranian Kurd, and the film involves a journey from Iranian Kurdistan into Iraq.

Much to my surprise, it inspires a fair amount of laughter even in the context of extreme difficulties: a tent refugee camp for orphans in knee-deep mountain snow; voices and faces (never shown, but instead hidden in shame) disfigured by chemical weapons attacks and so on. These are present simply as part of the story's background, rather than like the shrill preachiness more typically seen on U.S. television news reports. Though I suppose one can't really fault journalists for being intensely serious when reporting on that part of the world.

The story is slim: someone is looking for something. They don't find it (her actually), but find other things which turn out to be of value. The man and his two (grown) sons have a larger-than-life bluster and recurring pratfalls which are a bit reminiscent of the Three Stooges. Laughter is good medicine, and these people have certainly earned the right to a heavy dose thereof. One example of the silliness: Our three travelers have their motorbike, clothes and musical instruments stolen by highway bandits disguised as police. Later, they get a ride on a truck and encounter two guys running through the snow in pastel-colored long undies and handcuffed together. They turn up a few times, always claiming to be cops but no one believes them, and they can't get any help.

Overall, an unexpected pleasure. Worth seeing.

The most obvious problem with this movie is that it is very funny. This is a problem because the audience laughed so long and hard that significant amounts of dialog were drowned out and could not be heard. For myself, I thought there could have been a little more bite to it all - as in Phil Ochs' fiercely satirical folk song of the period - "Love Me, Love Me, Love Me, I'm a Liberal". I'm not sure why this film followed the path of being so blandly saccharine. That said, I can't remember the last time I laughed so long and hard at a movie - 'til it hurt. That counts for a lot.

I only just saw this movie yesterday, after months of public discussion/publicity about it. It lives up to the talk; powerful, thoughtful and disturbing. Inspired by the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado a few years back. (How sad that to many "Columbine" now recalls those horrible events, rather than the lovely mountain wildflower the school was named after...) It has many memorable moments, including interviews with Canadian teenagers about the differences between our two nations; and when K-Mart responds to a visit from kids wounded at the high school my discontinuing carrying bullets for handguns and assault rifles. Usually, I object to tear-jerking, but this isn't so bad. The image of then-National Rifle Association President Charlton Heston's profound cowardice which closes the film will stay with me for a long time.

Everyone should see this film. And bring your friends and family.

This movie opens with a semi-conscious female college student being butt-f**ked by a drunken stranger while being recorded on video by a film student. The stranger throws up on her. The rest of the movie shows us how her efforts to lose her virginity in a "good way" lead to this, and has subplots about the unsuccessful quest for love of other students. The movie itself has a lot of gimmicks, including fall leaves jumping back on the trees and turning green again to bring us to the beginning of the semester. The performances aren't awful, and the filmmaking shows skill, too, which is why I didn't score it a "1". But it's hard to figure any good reason for this story to be told or why people would devote months or years of their lives to tell it, which is why I didn't give it a high score.

Set in Alaska, this film makes good use of the delirium caused by the midnight sun, using it in a "Telltale Heart"-esque context. The cast is outstanding, with Al Pacino as the cast's pater familia, Hillary Swank as an eager rookie cop, Robin Williams turning in a disconcertingly creepy performance as a bad guy, and interesting supporting players including Maura Tierney and Jonathan Jackson (be on the look out for good things from this up-and-coming young actor). I recommend seeing it on the DVD. Christopher Nolan, Insomnia's director and the imagination behind Memento, twists time in the commentary track. The film is presented in the order shot, rather than in the order of the script or finished film. This is an approach I wouldn't mind seeing in more commentaries. Very thought provoking!

A pleasing fluffy historical comedy of manners, adequately presented. The best thing is the dialog, since Oscar Wilde is the source of some of the wickedest witty remarks of any time or place. Reese Witherspoon does an adequate job of playing an English girl, and the cast overall turns in solid performances.

I loved the TV series as a kid, and was not disappointed by the re-make. I am surprised at its poor box office showing, and low ratings here, even amongst those old enough to remember the original show, which was a classic of Cold War satire. DeNiro turns in a surprisingly good turn as Fearless Leader, Renee Russo is on-target as Natasha, Jason Alexander is a credible Boris Badenov, and the newly invented "Karen Sympathy" and "Minnie Mogul" are not troublesome. The heavy use of sardonic asides is particularly faithful to the TV show, but perhaps are not a universally-enjoyed device. I recommend taking a chance on this, even though others have expressed low opinions of it. You might get more good laughs than you've been led to expect.

Historical movies always take liberties -- conversations are concocted where no one could actually know what was said, customs are adjusted to be comprehensible to modern audiences, etc. However, historical films about actual historical personages should make at least a minimal nod to history. This film does not. The only scene I actually remember is when our hero surprises an assassin who creeps into his chamber at night. He confronts the dangerous intruder with, "I don't remember sending for room service". The main entertainment value is in its badness; I recommended my local video story put it on the "Turkeys" shelf.

Romances typically rely on obstacles to provide dramatic tension. In this case, it's the time-honored obstacles of money and politics. Our hero can't marry our heroine because of the prominence of his family. Our heroine, due to her family's dire financial straits becomes a courtesan. Thereafter, she sleeps with everyone but him, at least for awhile. She also distinguishes herself in public poetry bouts, and saves Renaissance Venice by seducing the King of France so he provides reinforcements for a war against the Turks. Also features the plague, a trial for witchcraft, jealous wives, an envious cousin, and more. Well crafted, and worth seeing. Based, loosely, on actual historical events and characters. Decent performances turned in by a talented cast.

Adapted from Grisham's first (and arguably most substantial) novel in which he addresses changing race relations in the South. The plum acting role went to Samuel L. Jackson, which he carries off well. He plays the father of a very young girl who is very raped, barbarously brutalized and miraculously survives. He kills the perps, and comes up for trial, around which the drama hinges. Things end up better than they would have in the 1960s, but Mississippi cannot yet be mistaken for a land of justice and equality. McConnaughey and Bullock characters are a little slick and shallow, but what can one expect from Hollywood? The story has more substance and thought than in many films, even though much is unavoidably lost from the condensation of the lengthy novel.

An excellent tale about enduring incredibly adversity and eventually triumphing. The incomparable Morgan Freeman sets the tone as narrator. This should not be seen as a "prison" movie, even though it is set in a prison. Tim Robbins, as the other major character and the man whose trials rival those of Job, is a good everyman. When this film was nominated for a lot of Oscars, Kathie Lee Gifford made a great show of ridiculing its title (on "Live with Regis and..."). She hadn't seen the movie and would probably be embarrassed to be reminded of the episode.

This is truly goofy romantic tripe. Mainly notable for an early performance by Hugh Grant, who is probably embarrassed when clips are trotted out. Main value is its campiness, and laughs where the filmmakers never intended them.

Dustin Hoffman plays a "difficult" out-of-work actor, who dresses as a woman and auditions for a soap opera out of desperation. He gets the part, and his deception leads to a bewildering array of complications: He falls for another cast member (played by Jessica Lange), her father falls for him, an acting friend is depressed she didn't get the part herself, and so on. The scene where the soap must broadcast live, and his character unveils him/herself to the astonishment of all, is perhaps one of the funniest moments in film. Being a comedy, all ends well. Hoffman has commented he was disappointed he didn't make a better looking "woman".

As a small child, this was was of my favorite scary movies (along with "The Crawling Eye"). Like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", the tone of the plot is informed by Cold War ideology. In other words, the lone individual (in this case, a kid) stands up against the evil invaders which take over people's minds turning them into zombies. A minor campy classic.