Reviews

In light of Brittany Murphy's recent and tragic death, I decided to watch some of her movies I'd never seen and I found this one. "The Devil's Arithmetic" is the kind of movie that would be good for middle-schoolers who don't know much about the Holocaust. It doesn't dumb down the atrocities of a concentration camp, but it doesn't focus on depicting them in graphic detail, either. While there are several deaths, many happen off-screen, and those we do see are bloodless but blood-chilling.

Fans of the book, which I read several times in middle school and early high school, will probably be disappointed; there's no Gitl, Rivka is Hannah's cousin, and some of the more suspenseful episodes of the novel are gone. However, if you've never read the book or can set the book aside, the film has an interesting story and does a good job of establishing a culture that will be unfamiliar to the viewer. Brittany Murphy is probably the best thing about this movie, and I don't say that out of pity; she plays Rivka as a sweet, kind, devoutly religious young woman who is the movie's emotional backbone. Kirsten Dunst is, well, Kirsten Dunst. She isn't bad in the part, but she doesn't make herself terribly memorable in it, either.

Older audiences might think "The Devil's Arithmetic" sanitizes the Holocaust, but I'd have to disagree. It doesn't whitewash what happened - it just presents it in a way that won't cause twelve-year-olds to have vivid, gory nightmares. If the film has a large flaw, it's that Hannah never develops much of a personality beyond a bratty kid who has to adjust to life in the camp. That was the flaw of the book too, I think. At the same time, that blankness allows viewers Hannah's age to imagine themselves as Hannah and react and learn as she does.

Robert Duvall delivers a subtly affecting performance as a man who seems utterly bewildered by how to react to the world around him. Minutes into the episode, you feel really bad for this guy. He has no friends, his boss fires him because he doesn't fit in at the office, and he's under the constant, unrelenting thumb of his smothering mother. There are social rules, but no one ever gave Charley Parkes the rule book. Rather than be angry at his situation, he's passive to the point where, were he a real person, he'd probably snap someday and end up a serial killer.

Instead, Charley "meets" a beautiful young woman who plays the pianoforte - she's a doll in a dollhouse in a museum, and he swears she moves around the dollhouse and is threatened by another doll. It's sad because we see how Charley could be a gentle and caring boyfriend, if only he could figure out how to find and get to know a real woman like this. He's trapped in the "smallness" of his world, its limited options as he sees them. Terrific acting.

A supernatural romance-novel of an episode, "Jess-Belle" stars the bewitching Anne Francis as the title character, a mountain girl who loses her man and will do whatever she can to get him back. Looking at it objectively, this episode shouldn't work nearly as well as it does - the dialogue is sometimes laughably melodramatic and Billy Ben doesn't seem handsome, intelligent, or charismatic enough to merit the undying devotion of two beautiful women - but the strength of the acting sells it. The fact that this was filmed in black and white does a lot to add to the spookiness of the story; I can't see it working nearly as well in color. Definitely recommend this one. Oh, and I love the fact that this was originally aired on Valentine's Day!

"Gremlins" starts out well enough, as an inventor looking for a Christmas present for his son buys a strange little creature from a Chinese boy, despite the boy's grandfather's warnings that taking care of a "mogwai" requires a great amount of responsibility. Gizmo the mogwai goes home with the inventor to a small town where a mean old lady tries to make everyone's life hell and the inventor's son, Billy, has a crush on a girl. There are three rules to taking care of a mogwai: never get one wet, never expose one to sunlight, and never feed one after midnight. Of course, we know that by the end of the movie, all of those rules will have been broken at least once.

"Gremlins" goes downhill once it becomes clear that it's a movie without any kind of intended audience. Gizmo, the only good gremlin, is as adorable as a stuffed toy and the characters are portrayed in a broad way children can easily understand, but shortly after Billy's friend accidentally breaks the "no water" rule, the movie turns into something between satire and horror. It's too scary for kids, but not clever enough, scary enough, or sharp enough to hold the interest of adults. Kids will be the ones eager to see the mean old lady get her comeuppance, but the way in which she does will probably give them nightmares. Likewise, Billy's girlfriend's story of why she doesn't like Christmas is completely out of place for a movie geared at children. The movie doesn't know whether it wants us to laugh at the gremlins or to be truly afraid of them. The whole thing might have worked as a campily over-the-top shorter film, but there's not enough substance for a full-length movie, and after a while it grows tiresome waiting for the gremlins to be defeated and the movie to end.

I kept thinking of another 80's movie in which buying something strange from an old Chinese man leads to chaos, "Little Shop of Horrors." Unlike "Gremlins," "Little Shop of Horrors" knows what it is (a satire) and knows who it was made for (teenagers and adults). Its twists and turns are capable of holding the audience's attention and it's genuinely funny. "Gremlins" could have been a children's movie about a cute gremlin named Gizmo, a horror film, or a tongue-in-cheek sendup of horror films. Trying to be all three at once doesn't work.

"Milk" is so good that immediately after it was over, I wanted to stay in the theater and watch the whole thing again. I went into the movie with high expectations, and, while it took me a little bit to get used to the movie's fast pace, I wasn't disappointed.

I spent months before the film's release reading about Harvey Milk, and while "Milk" shifts a few facts (example: he met Scott on his forty-first birthday, not his fortieth, and by then he was already a hippie who hadn't worked in insurance for the last few years) and simplifies others (in the interest of time, his connection with the Peoples Temple is completely skipped), it's true to the essence of the man who went from being a semi-closeted New Yorker, with few accomplishments to his name, to the first openly gay man elected to public office in America. The acting is uniformly excellent and there's no sense that the filmmakers are trying to make anyone a pure hero or a pure villain, even the unbalanced-yet-pitiable Dan White.

Sean Penn portrays Harvey Milk as a genuinely kind and good-humored man who sometimes lets his newfound goals and ambitions take priority over his personal relationships; James Franco is quietly devoted as Scott Smith, Harvey's boyfriend who leaves him when he grows tired of the endless campaigning but is still always there when Harvey needs him. Perhaps one of the most fun performances to watch is Emile Hirsch as Cleve Jones, who begins the film as a bratty part-time prostitute but evolves into a tireless activist who, we can tell, is going to be the one to pick up where Harvey left off. Diego Luna plays Jack Lira, Harvey's sexy yet clearly disturbed post-Scott boyfriend, and Josh Brolin is surprisingly sympathetic as Dan White, Harvey's Board of Supervisors colleague who will seek Harvey's friendship despite a personal opposition to homosexuality, feel an overwhelming sense of betrayal when Harvey votes against him on his pet project, and eventually kill him out of envy and revenge. Alison Pill, Joseph Cross, and Lucas Grabeel are among the actors who play Harvey's campaign workers; one of the things that makes this movie enjoyable is the sense of camaraderie among Harvey's friends and supporters. You wish you could go over to Castro Camera and hang out with them yourself.

Harvey is so likable as a character that I spent a large portion of this movie smiling just watching him. He's charming, funny, and gives everyone a fair chance; while his friends dismiss Dan White, Harvey insists that Dan "will be fine" and can be educated. At the same time, he's definitely flawed, with a sometimes questionable taste in men (none of his friends can understand why he stays with Jack, who drinks too much and has temper tantrums) and a willingness at times to trample people's feelings in the name of the greater good. There's a scene where he decides that all his campaign workers have to come out immediately, including a young man named Dick Pabich, who Harvey insists has to call his father this very minute even though Dick looks as though he'd rather hide under a rock. It may be his decision to ignore Dan White's feelings that seals his fate.

While the movie never excuses Dan's actions, we understand his frustration and rage. He takes a huge step out of his comfort zone to try to be Harvey's friend (there are hints that he subconsciously wishes their relationship went beyond friendship, but this is never presented as a certainty, only a possibility) and is personally hurt when the courtesy he extends to Harvey isn't reciprocated. He has no friends on the Board of Supervisors and is struggling to support a wife and baby on a tiny salary. While he can't get one single thing he wants, Harvey's becoming a media superstar.

Even after they've broken up, Harvey and Scott have one of the sweetest gay relationships I've seen in any movie. The chemistry is strong from the moment a nervous-yet-charismatic Harvey picks up Scott, a cute hippie, in a subway station on his fortieth birthday, and every time they kiss, hug, make love, or even just talk as Harvey makes dinner, we can tell they're crazy about each other. When Scott leaves we want Harvey to get him back or die trying, and after they break up we keep hoping they're going to reconcile.

I've spent most of this review talking about the interpersonal relationships, as opposed to the gay rights element, because they're so essential to the story, but the gay rights element is also excellently-done and inspiring. Watching the various protests and marches is exciting, and it's fun seeing Harvey debate anti-gay crusaders until their logic collapses on itself. Despite various tragedies, the final feeling the film leaves you with is one of hope - which, I think, is how Harvey would have wanted it. Definitely see this one.

I watched this movie when it was on TV recently, knowing it was a classic movie. I didn't have any expectations, seeing as I barely knew what it was about - I just figured it would be good.

"The Postman Always Rings Twice" is never boring, but it's too long by half an hour, if not more, and it's hard to believe that Frank and Cora would risk so much for each other when their relationship is based purely on physical attraction. Perhaps Cora, stuck in a loveless marriage, could realistically fall for a handsome man who showed an interest in her - but why does Frank plot murder for the sake of a woman he barely knows? Surely he could continue on his travels and find another, equally sexy woman in a less complicated and dangerous situation? Cora and Frank are devoted to each other because the plot requires them to be, not because they have any sort of plausible emotional connection. I believed they were strongly sexually attracted to each other, but I didn't believe that they were connected on any other level.

Throughout this film, I kept thinking of ways that it could be a better movie. I didn't try to, it just happened. At one point I was convinced that Nick had figured out Cora and Frank's plans and was telling them various things just to see them squirm, but no such luck. The movie drags on and on in the last hour, with Frank and Cora going from one melodramatic plot point to the next without really thinking or reflecting on any of them. I got sick of Frank and Cora. I wanted them to be smarter, to do unexpected things - oh, and I wanted Frank to stop successfully punching out guys who look like they could crush him with one arm tied behind their backs.

The acting is good. Once you accept the plot dragging on and on, the script is fairly decent. Still, I wouldn't recommend this movie except perhaps to hardcore film fans, and I wouldn't watch it again.

A note: There is no postman in this film, and the significance of the title is not revealed until the last scene, where we find out it's a lot more boring than we were expecting.

Young lesbians looking for films about themselves deserve so much better than this movie. So does anyone else who watches it.

The first problem is that the dialogue is unrealistic. These characters launch into what they think are beautiful poetic speeches that no real person would be able to make up off the top of their heads. The scene where the three main characters are reciting letters to their mothers is particularly bad; the first has written hers ahead of time but the other two spontaneously create drivel that some scriptwriter must think is particularly deep and intriguing.

The second problem is that we're never really shown what's so, so great about the love between Tori and Paulie that Paulie will go through the lengths she does for it. I'm sure fans of this movie will claim that "it's true love!", but the film leaves us to infer this instead of making us truly believe it.

There are various notes that ring emotionally false. One that stands out is Mary's reaction to her two roommates having sex in their room while she's there; she appears to have no problem with it. I can just hear the thought process of the writer of the original novel (or of the screenwriter, if this wasn't in the original): "Mary has to be absolutely okay with everything, or else she'll look homophobic." You find me a high school girl who's completely comfortable with two people of either gender having sex in the room while she's there, I'll show you a high school girl who's either a voyeur or is trying too hard to seem "cool".

The actors try hard to sell this story, but the script is so bad that it can't be done. As the film progresses Paulie begins to look more and more like a head case, and the awkward Shakespearean quotes get worse. Don't waste your time watching this. 2/10

"My Beautiful Launderette" is a mixed bag of touching and powerful moments, somewhat boring lulls in the story, and moral ambiguity. It's mostly about Omar and his life as a Pakistani in Britain; a great deal of it is about families, their bonds, and their conflicts; significant parts of it are about Omar's relationship with Johnny, which means that the film is dealing with a lot of material. For a film with so many aspects, it's too short.

Some will argue that, seeing as it's not the main focus of the film, Omar and Johnny's relationship had a fitting amount of time devoted to it, but their relationship raises so many questions that I found myself wishing it was more central. What exactly was their friendship like when they were young? It's implied that they've had a romantic relationship before the film starts, but why did that end up on hiatus? Aside from being at a certain place in a certain time, what other factors contribute to Johnny's acceptance of Omar, later prejudice, and final love and devotion? The ambiguity is distracting as opposed to lending itself to interpretation.

The dynamics of Omar's family - his businessman uncle, his sick father who was a journalist in Pakistan but now is poor and unrenowned, his ambitious cousin who wants to develop her own life and sees Omar as a means to that end - are well-acted and realistic. In fact, the acting is good all around, which helps in the moments where it seems the plot is taking its time moving from one development to the other, without much substance in between action.

"My Beautiful Launderette" is definitely worth seeing, at least once if not twice, but, having made the decision to put the protagonist in a tumultuous and intriguing romance, the filmmakers should have spent more time on that aspect.

I really, really wanted to like this movie. Shortly before it was released I was reading Mary Renault's Alexander books, and I was hoping the film would do justice to Alexander's life. It didn't.

What drove me crazy about this movie is that every once in a while I would see something I really liked, something that should have been cut out from the movie and pasted into a better one.

I liked what I saw of the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion, but at the same time I could almost hear the filmmakers whispering in the background, "We don't need to have them kiss, do we?" I had to sit through a creepy Alexander/Roxane sex scene but apparently Oliver Stone was afraid to have Alexander and Hephaistion kiss. (He claims that wasn't his reason. Frankly, I don't believe him.) It isn't as though men kissing is some incredibly daring venture. Merchant Ivory was doing it back in 1987.

I liked Val Kilmer as Philip, because he at least looked like he was having fun. I thought one of the early scenes of Alexander's childhood, when his drunken father enters the room unaware that his son is there, was well done...probably because it was directly out of Fire From Heaven.

In terms of visual imagery, it's a beautiful film to look at, Colin Farrell's godawful hair aside.

However, the things I liked weren't enough to make a good film. The Oedipal complex idea was fairly unsupported and campily overblown, and the accents were awful. (I heard Angelina Jolie's accent is supposed to be historically accurate, but it reminded me of a vampire anyway.) Alexander/Roxane literally scared me, and this is from a person who thinks Rosario Dawson is an incredibly sexy woman.

There's not much buildup or reasoning for the events that happen. They happen. There's some sort of melodramatic reaction to them. On to the next one, and we still don't know anything about the logic behind them, probably because Oliver Stone himself doesn't know the logic.

And as others have said, Anthony Hopkins and his long speeches were deadly boring.

If you don't have to spend much money to do so, see it once so you'll have a deeper appreciation for better films.