surreyhill Reviews

The Darjeeling Limited (2007)

Lighten Up, Francis!

[8/10 · 30 October 2007]

The Darjeeling Limited is a metaphor-laden ride in which the characters all have baggage, both literal and figurative, that they cannot seem to shed because they have yet to understand that they would be less encumbered without it.

I am a fan of Wes Anderson, even though his movies generally leave me with a feeling of numbness on first viewing, and a sense of uncertainty as to whether or not I thought the film was any good from a plot and character standpoint. I find myself remembering scenes and images and in the days and weeks that follow; I enjoy revisiting my memories of it and pondering the quirks of characters, the mind of the characters, and the intent of the director. There aren't any big emotional payoffs or any neat plot twists. Dialogue that seems nonsensical, trivial, or awkward turns out to be easily related to overarching themes as the movie unfolds and rewinds in my mind's eye. Or maybe it's all just a big, steaming pile of pretentious nonsense, too twee and too precious for its own good. I can't decide. I can never decide. I remain baffled and frustrated, but something about them keeps me coming back.

"I have GOT to get off this train," said the stewardess, Rita. The train is the biggest metaphor, bigger even than the pile of Louis Vuitton luggage the three brothers, played by Adrien Brody, Owen Wilson, and Jason Schwartzman, drag all over India in a quest for spiritual enlightenment and a return to being brothers "they way they used to be". One suspects that they never were the way they used to be.

Peter cannot let go of his father, who died in an accident he witnessed, and who he was not able to save. He carries around certain personal objects that do not fit him, or are outdated, like talismans. Meanwhile, he is terrified of becoming a father himself. Francis, survivor of a motorcycle accident that has left him wrapped in bandages, wants the brothers to become close, but constantly annoys both of them with his fussy, overbearing, control-freak ways. Jack pines for a girlfriend he can't leave, or who won't leave him, and of whom his two brothers disapprove. Meanwhile, he has casual sex with Rita with no more real forethought than he applies to slugging down narcotic cough syrup and pills of unknown provenance, just to make his surroundings more interesting and to take his mind off his ex-girlfriend.

But the brothers' most profound source of unhappiness is that their own family has failed to live up to their image of what a family should be. This longing for an idealized family and parents is a major theme in Anderson's movies. They resent their runaway mother, who did not show up for their father's funeral, they squabble over who should have possession of their father's belongings.

It is a bereaved Indian father who gives Peter the absolution he craves, not his brothers or his mother. Francis finally removes his bandages and lets his younger brothers see his wounds, both emotional and physical. Jack is the only one who seems largely unchanged…is this because the actor was a co-writer? It must be very hard to write for yourself.

All this makes it seem a serious movie, which it is not. There are two good hearty laughs to be found in it and many wry smiles. The brothers are exasperating and shallow, at times even petty, and yet you find yourself liking them all the same. I found these characters to be intriguing. Peter seems the most outwardly normal, but he has the strangest quirks. Francis is oddly sexless, almost monastic. One suspects he may very well end up living much as his mother does. I kept waiting for him to make some comment about his scarring and how it might affect his romantic life, but he never did. Jack is highly sexed, yet seems uncomfortable in his body, hiding behind his little porn star moustache. He yearns to be mysterious and exotic, or a romantic expatriate artiste, but when he attempts to act as such, it just comes off awkward and forced.

Owen Wilson is an actor I've never had a whole lot of use for, but I must admit that he was very good in this movie. He brought a sweetness to a character who could have been simply annoying. Adrien Brody was fine as Peter. His character had to display the most emotional range, and was also the most physical, with some episodes of good slapstick. Anderson clearly understood Brody's strengths and made them work. He and Wilson were effective in scenes together and had the chemistry of real brothers. I was less impressed with Jason Schwartzman. I have liked him a lot better in other movies. I felt he was overshadowed in this film whenever he had to go up against Brody and Wilson, despite being given the funniest lines. He did well in his scenes with Rita.

Wes Anderson's movies have been criticized for being too white, too rich (his main characters usually don't have money worries, Max Fischer aside), and for having a void in the center. I think setting this movie in India with all its beauty and diversity and having some of the strong supporting characters be Indian helped with the whiteness factor. But to criticize movies like this for having a void in the center kind of misses the point. His movies are about the void—the one that exists between people who yearn for that sense of connection. And the best way to bridge it is to stop taking yourself so damn seriously.

The Jane Austen Book Club (2007)

One half the world does not understand the pleasures of the other....

[8/10 · 25 September 2007]

Let's get one thing out of the way, first. This IS largely a chick-flick, although many men who go to see it are likely to get caught up in at least one of the subplots. The litmus test is Love, Actually--if you enjoyed that movie, and are a man, I imagine you'll like this one as well. There are several attractive females, some lesbian domestic affection scenes handled with remarkable matter-of-factness, and the film (and novel) handles the male characters gently and with love.

But it is a movie that with primary appeal to two groups--chicks and Jane Austen devotees, including the male ones. Are there enough of these to make a movie a success? Yes, there are.

Jane Austen's work stays current because she wrote about timeless themes--how do you choose the best person to marry? Is love enough, or even required for lifelong contentment? How do you deal with difficult or embarrassing family members? How best to handle a family crisis? How do you learn to tell true friends and quality persons from those who are perhaps flashy and amusing, but will end up betraying your friendship and trust or, heaven forfend, tempting you to abandon your own principles? Whether you live in the age of Blackberries and Hybrid SUV's, or the age of sealing wax and barouches, every person comes smack up against many or most of these vexing problems throughout their lives.

The conceit of this movie and the book it is based upon is that a shared love and appreciation of the works of Jane Austen can provide the currency through the exchange of which modern women (and a few selected men) can confront, share, and come to better understand their personal challenges and in the process, form bonds of friendship or even romance. The strength of this movie is that even if you have a tough time with that conceit, you will still enjoy the humor of it, and the strong performances. It's pleasant to watch, like curling up with a favorite book and a frothy cup of chocolate. It is true to Jane—no explosions, the villains aren't completely evil, the primary problems of the characters stem from incomplete or willfully-faulty understanding of themselves and those around them, there is no melodrama or Gothic touches except of the parody sort, and the lone death happens off screen.

I have this weird little theory about why P&P is the MOST beloved of all of Austen's books. Sure, Darcy is a smoldering hunk of tightly-controlled passion and Lizzie is as spirited and intelligent a heroine as ever nanced through a foot of mud to get to the bedside of an ailing sister, but that's not it.

In all the other Austen pairings, you had a sense that they were pairings which would truly happen in real life because deep down we know nothing has really changed from Austen's day--women's beauty and youth and social standing is factored into a certain equation which determines how handsome, wealthy, charming, accomplished, or respected a man she is able to aspire to. In no case, other than P&P, does this basic equation get violated. Lady Catherine De Bourg had it right. A shocking match, indeed! The Lizzie/Darcy romance, therefore, is the lone Cinderella story, and don't give me Edmund and Fanny, as Edmund was a younger son most in need of a virtuous wife who wouldn't ever embarrass him and was never laid out as a man of wildly attractive appearance while virtuous Fanny's looks were improved enough to attract the flirtatious Henry Crawford.

So, we women, all of us, are madly in love with P&P precisely because it is the ultimate fantasy of this amazing guy who will love us JUST FOR OUR QUICK WIT, GOOD HEART, and FINE EYES. There are no Mr. Darcy's, just like there are no characters of the sort commonly played by John Cusack, so get over it, already. There is possibly a Mr. Rochester, but remember, he had a crazy wife locked in the attic, a creepy housekeeper, an insipid ward, a bit of a sarcastic streak, and was once played on screen by a pudgy Orson Wells. In other words, a lot of baggage. And he still wasn't able to be brought up to scratch by Plain Jane Eyre until his fine big house had been burned down, his eyes put out, and his arm messed up. Now THAT is reality.

It is true in real life that single dog breeders can, and do, meet nice men and fall in love and maybe even get married. It is also true that nice, handsome, heterosexual men join book clubs*.

But this movie serves up impossibly cute Hugh Dancy in the role of an implausibly unattached, adorably geeky Grigg Harris who loves reading, older women, and can dance gracefully despite being too clumsy to artfully sip a cocktail. The statistical probability of such an attractive and unspoiled man (one who admits he is willing to be "directed") like this joining your book club and then actually wanting to develop a romantic relationship with an unattached woman older than himself is approximately the same as seeing one of the Dragonriders of Pern barnstorming over an Iowa cornfield.

In the RL JABC, Grigg would be gay and Allegra would be straight and Bernadette would be queuing up for the Early Bird Special at Cracker Barrel. And your cheating ex-spouse, Jimmy Smits, ain't never coming back, and if he did, it would be after a series of weepy drunken whiny pathetic phone calls at 3am. There will be no "letter". This movie is a little bit cruel to imply otherwise.

But that's OK. The world would be a very unkind place without at least the notion of dragons and rocketships, Darcys and Griggs. And that is why we loved it.

*with wife.

Amazing Grace (2006)

Not just another costume flick (NTTAWWT)

[9/10 · 25 February 2007]

Amazing Grace is the story of William Wilberforce, a Parliament MP of deep religious convictions who was a tireless crusader first for the abolition of the slave trade by the British, and then for social justice for the working and lower classes. This film in my opinion really has something for everyone and will appeal across broad political and religious lines. It is being marketed to Christian groups, because of its unabashed roots in the redemptive power of religion to inform convictions, but it is certainly never preachy.

One might think that a film of this subject matter, with wigs and stockings and parliamentary speeches, would be dry and dusty and slow to move, but the film is leavened with wit, spiced with great British thespians at the height of their craft, and speaks directly to many of the great questions we are grappling with today. There are many echoes of our present reality. The arguments about the slave trade still resonate in many of the big debates of our own time.

I had begun to despair of the career of Ioan Gruffudd, a very handsome young actor from Wales who really caught my eye in the A&E/Meridian Horatio Hornblower series, only to appear on the big screen in an unending series of undemanding dreck like the 101 Dalmations movies, King Arthur, and the Craptastic 4. Here, he again shows why I thought he might have a real future as more than just a lantern-jawed hero with a pretty face. He does a wonderful job of portraying a good man motivated by a deep faith in the goodness of God, which gave him purpose in politics and the strength to pursue his goals even as his health was failing (although the love of a pretty woman with deep cleavage also seemed to give the poor chap a boost).

Seasoned British favorites Michael Gambon, Ciaran Hines, and Nicholas Ferrell are in fine form, and relative newcomer Benedict Cumberbatch turns in a very understated but fine performance as Pitt the Younger, who is at first on the side of the abolitionists, but feels he must put forward a different policy once England is in "a time of war".

The movie shows very deftly how honest differences of opinion change from matters of political debate into acts viewed as outright sedition based on whether or not the same language is being used during wartime, or peacetime.

Dixie Chicks take note.

Anyhow, it is always depressing to me as a gal who used to salivate over Albert Finney in Tom Jones to see how very very old he has gotten, but he did a wonderful job, too, as the repentant slave ship Captain turned priest who penned the hymn "Amazing Grace". I guess somewhere in the back of my mind I must have known the story of this hymn, but it's so firmly implanted in the forefront of my memory as a spiritual that I had forgotten it was originally penned by an Englishman.

Youssou N'Dour does a terrific job with the character of Oloudaqh Equiano, a former slave from Jamaica whose memoirs of his time in slavery were published in England to high sales and helped sway the British public to the abolitionist side.

Fun for me as well was to see Rufus Sewell, who is always entertaining as a baddie, play someone on the right side of things in this one, and even show flashes of humor. I knew he had it in him. He plays reform-minded clergyman Thomas Clarkson, and it is said that Jane Austen had QUITE a crush on him, and from Sewell's portrayal of young firebrand Clarkson, it is not difficult to see why.

I cannot, however, give this movie ten stars because of some continuity issues with time-switching (and no, smudging kohl under Gruffudd's eyes isn't QUITE enough), and because my friend and I were really hoping that when Wilberforce and Pitt the Younger were running in their undershirts, they were headed for a lake. Alas--no such luck.

I realize that a lot of guys don't like costumers, but this is not a chick flick. It's really quite a good political movie and character study and there's little mush and absolutely no relationship porn to be seen. Granted, you won't see any battles, but that's kind of the point. Not all great victories are won by force of arms. This is one which was not.

Hollywoodland (2006)

Elegant Noir Period Piece, Superbly-acted

[9/10 · 12 September 2006]

Hollywoodland is a film that works equally well as a film noir, and an homage to film noir.

Film noirs set their protagonists loose in a world that is both corrupt and unsympathetic, and truthseeking is the path to redemption, no matter where the quest for those truths might lead, or how ultimately trivial the quest. Hollywoodland obviously stole the playbook from the great late 40's and early 50's Noirs: a cynical private detective as the protagonist, a sexy femme fatale, multiple flashbacks, dramatic chiarascuro photography, and a fatalistic mood leavened with provocative banter*.

The Film Noir element is provided by the mystery around the death of a Hollywood B-list actor, George Reeves, who became reluctantly-famous as TV's granite-jawed cardboard hero "Superman". He really wanted to be Clark Gable. Our cynical private detective is played by Adrien Brody, but the femme fatale is more elusive—is it the sexually-aggressive wife of a studio magnate, portrayed by Diane Lane? Or the opportunistic younger woman who takes George Reeves away from her? These questions remain unanswered to this day, and the film, no "Jack the Ripper: Case Closed", does not even attempt to suggest that it has the solution that has eluded all the other sleuths, both amateur and professional, who have looked over the evidence of the alleged suicide of TV's Superman.

The seedy underbelly of Hollywood has long provided fertile ground for noir-ish films. Ben Affleck reminds us in this one of why he was once thought "the next big thing" as he proves to be not only effective, but ironic, in the role of Reeves. After all, Affleck has teetered on the edge of professional parody and typecasting, as much a prisoner of his own blandly heroic good looks as his romantic entanglements with much more colorful women. But here, he is affecting, showing both the charm and humor of his doomed character as well as his infinite capacity for self-delusion. Unlike a Ben Affleck, Reeves may have had a movie star's handsome face and tall, broad-shouldered physique, but he did not have a movie star's star quality and talent. He was born for roles like the one that defined him, and it was a reality he was unable to accept. Whether this led to his death by suicide, or by making choices in his associates that led to a well covered-up murder, the film provides much grist for one's speculative mill.

The supporting roles in this movie are uniformly excellent, from Diane Lane's major star turn as the aging wife of the mogul to the pathetic eagerness of Reeve's agent, who only wanted to keep his client working. His was the best line of the film—"You can't always act, George. Sometimes, you have to make a living." The movie has the multiple flashbacks device, and in some movies, this would be annoying, and it WOULD be annoying if this was the story of George Reeves. But it's not. It's the story of Louis Simo, as played by Adrien Brody. As Simo delves deeper and deeper into the mystery, he realizes that his story could very easily be Reeves'—a man who hangs his hat on the notion that he's more important and better at what he does than he really is, but fails to appreciate the things about himself that are the true foundation of a happier life. This isn't a movie about an unsolved mystery. It's about illusion, disillusion, and self-delusion, and both Affleck's performance and Brody's make this point very clearly by the end of the film. So does Diane Lane's. Her illusion and delusion was of herself as a young and sexy woman who was desired by men who were much her junior. At the end, her aged face, sans artifice and makeup, is revealed in the harsh light of day and pronounced "beautiful", by her even older husband. And yet, we cannot find this a redeeming moment for her as we know she doesn't care for his approval as the man with the power to make her feel young and beautiful is dead–another noir-ish element.

I do think that the negative reviews of this movie (and there have been a few, but generally it seems to be appreciated by most critics) are due primarily to a set of unrealized expectations. As a murder/true crime thriller, it's a failure. As a noir-ish character study about the redemption of a man very near to the edge, an homage to an era, and a period piece, it's a rousing success. Although there wasn't a bad performance in the entire movie, Adrien's character is the one who has the only true arc, and without this vivid and fearless performance, the movie could have been as bland and formulaic as one of George Reeves' clichéd TV dramas.

That it was not is great news for all fans of Film Noir, Old Hollywood, show business biopics, and Adrien Brody, not to mention the future viability of Ben Affleck as an A-list Hollywood Actor. *source, Wikipedia.

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

Lord, I can now die a happy woman.

[10/10 · 27 August 2006]

Anytime is fine--just let me pay a few bills so I don't leave my affairs in a big mess. Oh! and I do want to live long enough to see the myth of Eli Manning destroyed (again). But then, it's OK. I've had my fun and I'm ready to go.

I've seen Hobbits. I've seen the Balrog. I've seen Capt. Jack Aubrey fighting the Frogs with cannon, pistol, and sword.

And I've now seen Snakes. On a PLANE! This is an uplifting, righteous film with a positive message. This message would be "Sit your @ss down, Clarence!"...no, that's not it. OK, the message is that we're all in this together and we can all get along and even flirt a little between being menaced by hundreds of deadly venomous snakes, whether we are black, white, thin, fat, Asian, western, or have annoying yappy little dogs (I shed a tear, at least).

I saw this film in a more than half-full theater with a mixed audience. It was half black, half young, half old, half white, half-baked, and entirely ready to thrill to the sight of deadly snakes biting every vulnerable body part while Samuel L. Jackson dispatched numerous snakes with varying degrees of awesome badazzness, while ripping off quotable one-liners. It was a real unifying experience. We were ALL on that airplane, cheering for Jackson to figure a way to get the passengers to put aside their petty differences and various neurotic tics, and bring the survivors down safely, while killing as many mf'ing snakes as possible in myriad awesome ways.

Also, the opening and closing songs on the soundtrack were excellent. Stay through the credits and watch the music video. It's hilarious, especially when the guy in x-ray isn't noticing that their luggage is filled with snakes. Homeland security, bite Agent Flynn's rock hard gluteal regions. Ten Agent Flynn's and we wouldn't need those clowns to protect us.

Here's what we've got.

Two breasts. 35 dead bodies. Glorious Snake-o-vision effects not unlike how things looked to Frodo when he put on the ring. Kickboxer Fu. Nipple Fu. Taser-on-a-stick-fu. Microwave Fu. Dufflebag Fu. Little bitty busted First Class Champagne Bottle Fu. Intheunlikelyeventofawaterlanding Inflatable Liferaft Fu. Speargun Fu. Drive-in Academy Award nominations for Kenan Thompson and his 2,000 hours of "flying experience", Nathan Phillips for his superb characterization of a kick-3ss sexually-ambiguous flight attendant ("who's your daddy NOW, b#tch!), and the big air-duct dwelling Python for raising anglophilia to a culinary level for the first time--ever.

4 and a half stars out of a possible 4.

Apologies to Joe Bob Briggs. I'm sure he'd say "Check it out!"

Lady in the Water (2006)

A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Hubris

[6/10 · 9 August 2006]

Tolkien spent decades creating his mythical world of Middle Earth, and populating it with fell beasts, otherworldly races, and magical talismans. M. Night seems to have doodled his up on a cocktail napkin near the end of a really effed-up party.

There's a lot of truth to the notion that a great mythic story gives ordinary peoples' lives a sense of purpose.

This isn't that story, or even anything close, but it held my attention and I didn't find it unwatchable.

I give it 2 1/2 stars for overall plot, score, and Paul Giametti, and another 1/2 star for the fact that my friend Maggie and I were surprised how hot Night looked in that cream-colored long sleeved sweater, doing laundry.

We totally did not see that coming.

There's your twist.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

PASTICHE of the Caribbean--SPOILER

[7/10 · 8 July 2006]

This movie throws everything but the galley sink at the wall and only some of it sticks We have the ship named Flying Dutchman, but not the actual Flying Dutchman, which irritated the heck out of me because he'd have been a lot more interesting given the lovelorn theme than Davy Jones. We have mythological beasts, legendary seamen, and voodoo priestesses with hard-ons for Johnny Depp.

Well, I suppose the last bit isn't quite so unrealistic.

But she dug Orlando Bloom on sight, and I don't get that at all.

Anyhow, there are some huge problems with this movie, and not all of them could be resolved by tying the plot points up neatly at the end of the third movie. First, we have too many derivative echoes of Star Wars. I've read as much Joseph Campbell as the next nerd, but it gets tedious seeing the same romantic triangles played out over and over, and the same dynamic between the cursed and hideously-deformed villain who was turned to evil because he was unsuccessful in romance set against a young and pure-hearted protagonist.

I swear to high heaven, if Will and Elizabeth turn out to be brother and sister in Pirates III, I will flipping throw my large Diet Pepsi--ice, straw, soda, and all--at the screen. That will most seriously displease me.

Which brings me to my second complaint, namely--watching Keira Knightly vacillate between Will and Jack is rendered absurd by the existence of what a lamer Orlando Bloom is in one of three key heroic (?) roles. OK, OK...put the man in platform shoes, give him blond hair extensions and blue contacts, and he's otherworldly beautiful. But he. Can't. Act. His way out of a paper bag, let alone off a ship full of cursed sailors who look like walking, talking, barnacle-encrusted bits of flotsam and jetsam. He's just not got the juice, and you put him next to Depp on screen and it's clear that any reasonably piratical lass would opt for a dirty weekend and a trip around the bay with Captain Jack as opposed to a lifetime of boredom with nice-guy Will.

But wait, there are glimmers of hope. Our plucky, lightsabre (I mean sword!)-wielding heroine turns out to have a rather machiavellian side to her, before plunging into regret for her actions. Will showed promising signs of jealousy and violence, before reverting to Luke Skywalker-esquire mastery of his anger. And Captain Sparrow seems to me to be ripe for the picking in whatever passes for a piratical version of a male midlife crisis, though Mr. Rochester-like, he's bound to be permanently maimed, first, before he's rendered fit for a lifetime of being press-ganged by anything in petticoats. The best dynamic in this movie wasn't (sadly) between the nominal villains and the heroes, it was between two of the heroes; Jack tells Elizabeth she will be tempted to try being truly self-serving because she is curious and will want to know what it feels like, and Elizabeth very pertly (because we're talking Keira here whose jaw is the only thing more aggressive and jutting than the toothily-armed prow of the Flying Dutchman in this movie) tells him that he will in turn wish to sample the joys of being a decent fellow doing the right thing, and enjoying the respect and admiration which comes from being a good guy and hero.

I could almost hear Han and Leia bantering, or Rick from Casablanca saying "I stick my neck out for no one".

Long live the antihero, and may he always get the girl, or at least stride off into the sunset with Claude Raines.

OK, here's what you really need to know. The pacing is not good in this installment. There are parts which are just too loud and go on too long. The waterwheel sword fight, however, is all it's cracked up to be, and then some. The script neglects to give its most charming characters any memorable lines. Davy Jones is well-voiced, and beautifully (which is to say disgustingly) CGI-rendered, as is the Krakken. I thought I'd crave sushi after this film, but found I did not. I was pleased as punch to see Jack Davenport's Commander Norrington character return, mostly because I had girlfriends who dug him in the first movie. He has a heckuva voice, and looks better with a tan and some dirt all over him.

And there will always be an England so long as there are superb British Character actors like Tom Hollander to add an elegant and silky menace to cardboard villain roles, and McKenzie Crooks to be alternately Gareth from The Office (BBC) and the austensible (sic) comic relief other than Johnny Depp in this one. And.............

SPOILERS I'm thinking the real beating heart of the Davy Jones character is that music box. They didn't try to turn him into the Phantom of the Opera for nothing, IMO.

Just please, please, PLEASE do not let his long-lost love be the unintelligible voodoo priestess. I not only have a large diet soda to hurl, but also popcorn.

Jerry Bruckheimer, you HAVE been warned.

And I don't appreciate you left the dog on that island to be eaten.

King Kong (2005)

New "Kong" Takes Risks, but Raises the Bar

[9/10 · 6 December 2005]

Love him or hate him or just think his films aren't your cuppa, there's one thing that everyone can agree on when it comes to Peter Jackson. If you give him a lot of money and a couple of decent actors, he doesn't squander it. King Kong cost 210 million to make, and every penny of it can be seen right up there on the screen. You cannot look at his movies and say "Where IS it? Where did all the money go?" From Depression-era New York City to Skull Island, to scenes of shipboard life, the art direction and settings are spectacular as one would expect from the director of the visually-stunning LOTR.

King Kong is an iconographic subject and as such, there are only so many liberties a director and screenplay can take without turning it into something else. If someone is going to shell out 10 bucks to see a movie called King Kong, they are going to expect the basic elements of the original movie to all be there, and in this Kong, they are.

There is the self-promoting adventure filmmaker/huckster/con man Carl Denham, played by Jack Black, the spunky down-at-the-heels blonde beauty, Anne, played by Naomi Watts, a handsome hero to fall in love with Anne on board the Venture, played by Adrien Brody (in what I think was a particularly daring but highly successful casting decision), and mysterious, fog-shrouded islands, menacing and hostile natives, and as many dinosaurs and other assorted icky giant prehistoric foes to face as any 12 year old fanboy could possible imagine in his geekiest wet dreams. But it all, ultimately, hinges on Kong himself and if the giant gorilla truly comes across as real. I re-watched the original in preparation for seeing this one and it simply does not hold up well.

I'm happy to report that Kong, himself, has set the benchmark for combining live action and CGI-characters another notch higher for all other filmmakers in this genre.

Peter Jackson took a few risks in his fresh look at Kong, and I think some of them worked extremely well, while others are going to pose problems for some viewers, especially those who just want a straight-up action and thrill picture with big effects.

Because right there lurking underneath all the thrilling effects and the great action scenes is a movie about love. This movie is saturated with characters who are in the grip of some form of love—in fact, I could make that case for all of them, save one. King Kong is mushy and sweet at the core as a ripe plum. I expected to see a love story, but I didn't expect to see a movie ABOUT love, but that's what I ended up seeing.

I felt there was one extended fight/action scene on Skull Island that went on too long and was over-the-top for even THIS movie. There are also two scenes that are sufficiently cheesy and squirmy to make them obvious targets for parodying and spoofing for years to come.

Let's just put it this way. Peter Jackson has found his muse, and it's Andy Serkis cavorting in front of a blue screen.

Still, the KK crew have created several new supporting characters from scratch, and made them compelling and marvelous in their own right. While in the original, the emphasis was just on Anne, Carl, Jack, and Kong and the crewmen were mostly there as expendable extras to get killed or eaten, in this movie, the various other characters who populate the Venture are brought very vividly to life and play key roles and have their own little character arcs. When some of them die, and they do, you actually care about it, and it makes you angry at Carl Denham for risking these people's lives on his crazy venture. Jamie Bell's character of a young orphaned seaman was particularly effective. Ditto for the older, experienced sailor who had taken him under his wing and become a surrogate father. Comic relief was provided in the form of the actor cast as Anne's co-star in Denham's movie. PJ very wisely decided to take some of the stilted, clunky romantic dialogue from the original away from the Jack Driscoll character and give it to the shallow, vain, faux action-hero, instead.

There's so much more I could say about all the homages to the original that PJ slyly inserts throughout the film, as well as nods to various other icons of the giant-monster-on-the-loose genre (and I even thought there was a little cheesy Titanic moment in there). But it would be more fun to let everyone else try to catch them than to spoil anything.

Is this a Best Picture nominee? I think it will get buckets of nominations, but probably not a Best Picture. Naomi Watts ought to get nominated for Best Actress, though. She is talented, moving, and beautiful as the day. Although we are asked to believe the impossible—which is that she would really be torn between throwing herself into the arms of Kong or the arms of Adrien Brody—she manages it all quite beautifully. Jack Black was generally up to the task and had a particularly good look for the character. Brody rose to the challenge of playing the man of words who becomes the man of physical feats of heroism. Peter Jackson knows how to make his leads look gorgeous on film, and he succeeds beautifully with Naomi and Adrien. Naomi might have been easy, but he gives Adrien a matinée-idol-fabulous look.

So, in summary, about as good a popcorn flick as you're ever going to see–a movie that's got thrills and chills and romance and drama. A little directorial self-indulgence, I think, can be endured when everything else is so stunning, because Peter Jackson never forgets for a single minute that his movies are supposed to be ENTERTAINMENT. And entertaining, they certainly are.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Under the Hard Chocolate Shell, a sweet and gooey center

[9/10 · 26 July 2005]

This movie stands up very well to my fond memories of both the book and the Gene Wilder movie of my childhood. At the center is a story with real heart, about the happiness that comes from a loving family.

The opening visuals were so beautiful and wonderful and so very Roald Dahl that I knew I was going to be in for a treat. Has there been a better-looking movie all year? It was breathtaking, each set piece a glittering jewel. Burton's aesthetic sensibilities are so very well-matched to the source material.

I might as well get my only major complaint out of the way first--I did NOT like Danny Elfman's songs or the way they were performed. I missed the lovely, clear brainworm of "Oompa Loompa Doobity Doo, I've got another Riddle for You" from the Wilder version. The Elfman Oompa Loompa songs were wonderfully-well choreographed, but I had a hard time picking out the lyrics and the sound was muddy, but worse than that, these aren't songs a young kid can sing-along to--they were clearly aimed at adults and teens, and I think that's a very bad deficiency. The Oompa Loompa songs should be totally accessible to 6-8 year olds. So--that, I hated.

Elfman's incidental music, though--that definitely enhanced the movie.

But everything else, I liked. I didn't mind Willie Wonka's backstory, and gee, I just smile and smile every time I see good old Christopher Lee up there on screen. Has any geezerish actor this side of Alec Guiness had a better run in his dotage than Lee? Lee and Alan Rickman are the only actors working today who can sound properly menacing without any hint of insanity to it.

As for Depp's performance, I loved it. I roared with laughter when he reacted to the idea of Augustus Gloop-flavored chocolate.

Although I am NOT a fangirl, if my feet were held to the fire, I would have to admit that Depp is the most interesting and versatile American actor working in film today. I have other favorites--in particular my beloved Adrien Brody--who I think that in time might be on that same level, but few are there right now. There are a lot of actors who can play serious roles, or portray people with mental illness, handicaps, etc. convincingly, but if you can play a freak or weirdo or madman or villainous type, OR a romantic lead, AND do comedy well (both physical and verbal) then in my book, you've really got the total package as an actor (and it doesn't hurt to be handsome with big, dark, flashing eyes, either). Not that many guys who are that good-looking and thought of as sex symbols will take the pratfall and the little song and dance and seltzer down the pants. I admire him tremendously for that.

I'm a big believer in the old saw, "Dying is easy--COMEDY is hard". I really do respect and admire Johnny's ability to portray all these different interesting and oddball characters, and to make an audience simultaneously wierded-out and tickled. These fine talents are showcased in this movie. Roald Dahl wrote this novel long before Michael Jackson was a gleam in some Motown executive's eye. I think we should try and get past the obvious comparison, and look at Depp's interpretation in a less tabloid way.

But, if you must--then I have to say I raised a parental eyebrow over the sheep room scene. I mean, these Oompa Loompas are worse than Smurfs. At least there was one Smurfette. But these guys, unless they are like Gimli's dwarfs and the women look exactly like the men, don't have much of an outlet.

King Arthur (2004)

Saw King Arthur today, and there was much rejoicing...

[7/10 · 19 July 2004]

I say there was much rejoicing because the shadow of "Holy Grail" will necessarily loom large over any movie about King Arthur and his English Knights (Eeeenglish K-niggits?) and I feel the filmmakers behind this one really were doing everything in their power to avoid any possible scene or bit of dialogue that would invoke snotty Frenchmen, Knights who say "Ni", Shrubbery (though the Saxon invaders would certainly qualify), and watery tarts with swords (this attempt failed, unfortunately, due to the soppy presence of Keira K-niggetly).

Half-Roman, half-Celtic Artorious is indeed fortunate in his comrades in arms. In short order, we are introduced to nostril-flaring, smoldering Sir Lancelot, the Quite Frequently Pissed-Off; cheeky Sir Galahad, the Utterly Winsome; vaguely-psycho Sir Tristan, the Unkempt; bullroaring Sir Bors, the Ridiculously Fertile; tight-lipped Sir Dagonet, the Scary-Looking Moppet-Dandler; and finally, nondescript Sir Gawain, the Not-Quite-So-Winsome-As-Sir-Galahad.

With a cadre of fighters such as these, Arthur's many successes in the field of battle should come as no surprise. Their foes include the Woad warriors, a proud race of Celts, and the Saxon invaders from the North, but along the way they also have to confront Romans who are oleagenous enough to put several of Italy's most productive olive groves out of business. This is a very important plot point, for those of you who are connoisseurs of plot, because it plants a seed of doubt in Arthur's mind that perhaps a quiet retirement in Rome surrounded by more of same might not be quite what they pictured in the glossy brochures he had been receiving for the past 15 years from the DeLuxe Roman Retirement Villas, Inc.

Much plot ensues, and the movie doesn't even begin to have the merest whisper of the faintest hint of actual suckage until Gwinevere shows up and begins to act really poorly. The lack of on screen suckage up to this point is not really the sole accomplishment of the director and screenwriter--no, there are plenty of clunker lines but the British male actor cast is so adept at making lemonade from some of the lemons they are dealt that one doesn't mind a bit.

If the Hero who Overcomes Long Odds to Succeed in the End is one of the oldest devices in fiction, then Lancelot has the second-oldest character device--the one of "Best Friend who objects to absolutely every single thing the hero proposes as being the height of idiocy or self-indulgence, but then goes along with all the hero's schemes, anyhow".

Good things--Ioan Gruffudd is smokin' hot, and so are a few of the rest. But he has the inestimable advantage of TWO swords and the best armor, not mention that basket-weave leather jerkin that he wears early in the flick. I really enjoyed hearing Lancelot's and Arthur's leather creak when they moved about. This was a great touch. Also, the strategy behind the various battle scenes was interesting to watch unfold. The camera didn't linger overlong on Gwen and Arthur's big sex scene, and it became apparent why not later on, as they would only have had time for a quickie, since they would have had to spend the rest of the k-niggit mapping out a very elaborate battle plan to confront the masses of invading Uruk-hai, I mean SAXONS, who were camped outside Helm's Deep, I mean HADRIAN'S WALL, waiting for daylight. And then there was the cinematography, which had that silvered effect at times that was kind of intrusive in Gladiator, but it worked well here, in a story partially set in the Pleistocene Epoch.

Bad things--I found the soundtrack really disappointing-I wanted it to be more Celtic in flavor. But mostly, Keira-sorry, credulous fanboys--she's terribly miscast here and the miraculous costume changes and obvious makeup were snark-inducing. The only 'machine' this Woad looked like she had been tortured with was a curling iron. The thought of her as "spunky, girl-power" Lizzie Bennet makes the blood run cold. She was fine for a rompy flick like Pirates of the Carribbean, but I thought she was NOT plausible as a warrior who ran half-naked into battle when the men were all wearing armor. They should have had her stick to shooting arrows with deadly accuracy from a distance. That was plausible. I also found Merlin a depressingly small presence, and wondered that they even bothered to include him at all.

Anyhow, the Saxons do indeed battle Arthur and his Knights on two occasions, making heavy use of their primary battle tactic of getting upwind from their enemy and raising their arms and charging, letting their powerful B.O. render their enemies senseless and unconscious. Some of the Knights eventually fell prey to this diabolical tactic, but Arthur, his sense of smell numbed by the lingering stench of the last exchange of dialogue with Gwinevere which still clung to his crispy curls and creaking leather armor, was able to hang in there and claim his destiny as the eventual King of the Britons, overcoming long odds to succeed in the end.

Gwenivere is clearly upset by Lancelot's death (we know this because her mouth hangs open like a fish, and she knits her brow--no, wait, she'd been doing that a lot before--anyhow, we know she is upset because, well--who wouldn't be?), as she had clearly been hoping to work her way through the whole cadre of Arthur's Knights, for comparison purposes. But, in the time-honored fashion of aspiring political wives, she elects to "settle" for electability over bad-boy sex appeal.

Which only goes to show you the truth of the old saying--"Behind every Legendary Hero is a dodgy bit of Woad tail booting him back out into the fray whenever he starts talking about retirement."

The Dance of Shiva (1998)

Dance of Shiva--a Hornblower-centric Review

[4/10 · 8 July 2004]

Here's the great thing about Dance of Shiva, now that I've watched it. If you start painting all your fingernails and toenails during the opening sequences, they will be completely dry when the movie ends. The movie ends neither too soon, which would leave them still tacky when you got up to turn it off, nor does it run long enough to disqualify it as a good excuse to sit down and paint your nails and let them dry thoroughly before starting in on any other projects.

Briefly, because there's really no other way to discuss it, this short film attempts to tell something about the heroism shown by a troop of Bengal Lancers under British command during WWI, and by Bengal, I mean they are Bengali, from India. Paul McGann plays a chaplain who is trying to reconcile his mission as a promoter of the Christian faith with the very laudable goal of trying to respect the Hindu religious beliefs and philosophy which unify his Bengal unit and are the source of their courage and strength. Shiva dances the dance of life and death, entertwined, you see, so one feeds upon the other, and there is no reason to be afraid of either. The British don't see it quite the same way, of course, and so Sam West eventually shows up in the arrogant twit Aryan bigot role to throw up on his boots when confronted with the grim realities of trench warfare. But really, there's not any actual plot--as such.

Samuel West has hardly any lines in this movie, which is sort of a crime when you consider the folly of hiring one of the most golden-throated actors in all of England to be in your short flick, and then not giving him much more to say other than..."Ooof....urp.....glgugggggghhhrrggg....<splat>". Not cool. However, those of you who felt that his syphilitic seizures in "The Ripper" compared unfavorably to Jamie Bamber's epileptic fits in the role of Horatio Hornblower's "Archie Kennedy" (which they did) will be greatly reassured by the the realistic portrayal of shivering and puking and attempting to keep from puking in Shiva. I suppose it's simply a matter of matching the sudden-onset, uncontrollable, publicly-disturbing, involuntary manifestation of a medical problem to the actor. In Mr. West's case, the barfing and shivering thing was really working well for him.

Horatio Hornblower's Faithful Lt. Bush, Paul McGann, looks great in a priestly collar, but less well in a WWI-era helmet than he does in a bicorn. The timbre of his husky voice is mostly wasted, but he has the opportunity to display that long, beautiful, austere face in a variety of concerned and thoughtful moments of observation, reflection, and compassion. Screencappers, start your engines.

There's a neat little association here for the Potter movie fans. Branagh (bearded) has a few lines in the beginning, which he delivers with characteristic gusto, and then later on, a guy named Julian Glover shows up. Glover was the voice of Aragog the giant spider in Chamber of Secrets, and of course, Branagh was Gilderoy Lockhart.

La, what strange bedfellows these obscure British art-house flicks make.

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)

Spoilers! I've a love/hate relationship with this film

[8/10 · 6 June 2004]

Viewed purely as a piece of visual cinema, this is an outstanding film. Alfonso Cuarón's direction is inspired. Magic, in this installment of the series, is handled matter-of-factually, except when there is something beyond the common, such as the flight of a hippogriff. It's no longer like watching a guided tour of Hogwarts-=finally, the characters are fully-integrated into their magical world.

There were many things that were handled much better in this movie than in the first few films, particularly with regard to the prickly and confusing feelings that arise in person of Harry's age. Dumbledore's superficial doddering whimsy serves to camouflage a penetrating and perspicacious mind, just as in the novels. Snape was an apparent villain, and yet, one which made you wonder what unknown qualities made him a trusted confederate of Dumbledore-this is really interesting to watch in the context of what we now know about him from Book 5. Hagrid has been consistently lovable in all three movies, though is sadly underused in this film-where are the Flobberworms? But most of all, the magical elements in this movie were given personality and life beyond anything one saw in the first two films. The Whomping Willow managed to serve as both a menacing antagonist AND comic relief, an impressive achievement considering the WW had to accomplish this feat without benefit of dialogue and facial expressions. And as for Buckbeak, he was a truly realistic creation. I cut my eyeteeth on Ray Harryhausen's work, and one of the things I do NOT like about most CGI is that the creatures don't really move like anatomically-realistic creations and appear not to be subject to the same gravitational forces and physical laws as the live-action characters they are supposed to be interacting with. This, however, was not the case with Buckbeak. The hippogriff was a perfect blend of equine and avian characteristics, and the jerky and awkward movements of the hippogriff while on land contrasted pleasingly with its grace and power aloft.

And speaking of realistically-blending awkwardness and grace, the performances coaxed from the three young leads in this installment really did portray adolescence in a way that should be recognizable to anyone who experienced it, or is in the process, thereof. From the way Hermione, so sure of herself in most situations, clung to the unlikely (for now) Ron when she was feeling frightened, to the way Harry showed the back of his head to annoying adults who didn't understand him, to the different ways that the kids walked down a hill--Ron shambling and slouching round-shouldered in the way of a boy who has grown a bit faster than his classmates and is self-conscious about it because his clothes don't quite fit, Hermione, swinging her arms and light on her feet like a real girl, and Harry, with the coltish grace of the natural athlete who moves without thinking how he must look to others---everything was true to the age group.

As for Dan Radcliffe, he IS Harry Potter and I hope they can get the production schedule speeded up so that he can continue to play the lead role in the remaining four movies. I don't see how any other actor could now be acceptable in this role.

Gary Oldman isn't physically the look I envisioned for Sirius Black, but he does a fine job with the limited amount of screen time he has. Sirius has a virile presence, for all his shattering experiences in Azkaban, and Oldman managed to portray this. I was less than enchanted with his CGI'ed 'Grim'-which I felt looked more like a werewolf than the Shepherd/Lab mix of my imaginings. My reactions to David Thewlis were more complicated. I felt his acting captured the essence of Rowlings' lonely and shabby Lupin, who is also mysterious, courageous, and exceptionally sensitive and kind. I liked his performance very much. But I was distracted the whole time by his look. He was a bit too well-fed, too smooth-cheeked--not wolfen enough. And his CGI'd werewolf form was anatomically-disturbing. I can't believe the same designer who created Buckbeak could also have created the werewolf, and I hope I find out it was indeed a different person.

Which brings me to my real nitpicks-one purely movie-related, and the rest book-based.

The cinematic nitpick is that the whole mystery surrounding the identity of Moony, Padfoot, Wormtail, and Prongs was not given sufficient exposition at any point to be understandable to those audience members who had not actually read the novel. This is such a serious problem that it rises above the level of a nitpick, to a major, major flaw. I think it should be addressed by adding footage to the DVD release, or getting the movie back into theaters again in the form of a 'Director's Cut' in a few years.

I really do not like what they are doing with Movie!Ron, though I appreciate what Rupert Grint has been able to do with what he's been given. He is not JUST the screwup pal and the comic relief. Ron. Is. Brave. He is also fiercely loyal to his family and his friends. I really hope the upcoming screenplays get closer to Rowling's version. Rowling has telegraphed so clearly that Hermione and Ron are going to end up as a couple that all but the most die-hard Harry/Hermione 'shippers can see it coming, and so it behooves the script to adhere to her concept of Ron a little more closely so that this becomes a believable pairing. Since she won't be falling for him for his family's money or his scholarly mind or for being the handsomest boy in school, they'd better do a great job of showing that he has oodles and oodles of heart.

So, I say-keep the actors, bring back Cuarón for OOTP, and can the screenwriter. And for pity's sake, do SOMETHING about that DORKY Moustache on Lupin!!!

The Undertaker's Wedding (1997)

charming bit of fluff, but no "The Loved One"

[6/10 · 7 June 2003]

I enjoy black humor, and my all-time favorite flicks include "The Wrong Box" and "The Loved One".

TUW attempts to be that sort of film--a black comedy centering around the trapping of death and funerals. But in this case, a nice premise and some excellent opportunities for comedy were squandered in order to bring the viewers a made-for-TV caliber romance and Italian-American/mob stereotypes. And that's a bit of a pity, considering some of the acting talent assembled.

However, this movie is NOT going to be the worst hour and a half you ever spent camped out on the couch. It's very pleasant, and looks quite good.

The central premise is that if you are the scion to a long and distinguished line of undertakers to the Mob and live in apartments adjoining your funeral home, you will probably have a difficult time finding a nice girl to marry you due to having dead bodies in various stages of preservation camped out on gurneys down the hall. So, despite having an assortment of nice ties, and apparently a thriving business, Our Hero in this one is lovelorn in the extreme.

Where do they find these idiot women? I mean, what are a few dead bodies down the hall and a seriously bad haircut compared to getting hooked up with Adrien Brody?

The Lovelorn Undertaker is played by Adrien Brody, and I spent the whole first half of the movie wondering which comedian of Jewish extraction his hairstylist was trying to get him to look like. At first, I thought...Moe Howard. But the bangs weren't long enough. Then, I thought "Adam Sandler", but his hair was just a bit too long and brushed forward over the temples for him to be aping Happy Gilmour. Then, it hit me. JERRY LEWIS! Yeah! In the Dean Martin era!

Once I'd figured it out, I felt much happier, and was able to settle back and enjoy the flick.

It's easy to see that Adrien Brody would flat-out tear it up if he were given a better written, romantic comedic role, and one can only hope that happens, so that he does not get forever typecast as a broody, moody, artistic or tormented sort. Here, the big, sad, puppydog eyes and trembling lips are outta control, and despite the too-large suits, he manages to make his rather hangdog character sympathetic, amusing, and attractive.

So, for Brody fans--a rewarding view. For everyone else, a pleasant, unchallenging hour and a half of fluff.

Harrison's Flowers (2000)

A mixed bag, but worth your while

[8/10 · 29 April 2003]

This movie is simply made for watching on video or DVD. Here's the plan--the first time through, watch all of it. But on subsequent viewings, just watch the stuff that happens in Yugoslavia.

Except for the men's room scene after the Awards Banquet.

This movie is really, really frustrating to watch because you can't help but feel that the directors and other creative parties associated with the actual film were very dedicated to telling the story of the journalists and photographers who were trying to bring the truth of what was happening in the early days of the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia to the screen. They were fascinated by the people who would willingly risk their lives to obtain images of the horrors and atrocities being carried out to the rest of the world, and what motivated them--made them tick. And they were enamoured of the character of Kyle Morris, as portrayed by Adrien Brody, and wished to showcase him in some way in order to drive the point home--that people like him were brave and admirable, no matter what their personal demons and failings.

Unfortunately for those of us who were hooked on this POV, they were also hamstrung, utterly, by the source material, which was a love story about a woman who would not believe her husband was dead, and whose dedication to finding him and whose devotion to him was convincing enough to cause persons such as are described in the preceding paragraph to risk life and limb to try to reunite this couple.

I don't want to use this space to snark. It's unseemly, given the seriousness of the subject matter. What I want to highlight is the way in which one of the performances affected me. The central figure of this movie from a standpoint of character arc is not Harrison, or his wife, Sarah, but Kyle Morris. We first see Kyle at a Pulitzer Awards dinner, where a grief-stricken, coke-addled Kyle Morris goes off on the Harrison Lloyd character. It's a show-stopper, and drenches everything else that happens in Yugoslavia with layers and layers of bitter irony.

The great stuff in this is movie is all about Adrien Brody's character Kyle Morris. This is probably the sort of character that a young actor just dreams of getting his teeth into. Kyle is one of those bundles of contradictions and contrasts that fascinates endlessly. He is an angry, foul-mouthed swaggerer with the gentle hands and soul of a poet, and a kind heart too easily touched. He is a drug user, which is usually portrayed as a character defect which goes along with being weak or afraid to face reality, but in his case, it is probably more a result of his trying to cope with having too MUCH courage and desire to walk into the bowels of real-life hells, like war-torn Yugoslavia. He is both cocksure and certain, and insecure, terrified he will never get recognized for what he is doing in trying to record the truth. He takes rebellious pride in being an outsider, but he churns with jealous resentment against those who seem to have "made it". This character is BRAVE, quick, resourceful, clever, with a crackling energy that suffuses every line, every expression, every move he makes. Brody brings a wild animal's instinctive quickness and 360 degree awareness of the environment to the role; you can almost see his large but sensitive nostrils quiver as he tests the wind for the scent of danger, and the way to safety. If I were going deep into the heart of the battle zone with nothing more than a camera bag and a sense of purpose, I would want no one else to take me there. When he wraps his arm around Sarah, and tells her to move, she obeys. I would, too. He seems to be tapped in to the undercurrents that flow beneath the reality that they see and hear around them, and sense shifts in the flow and direction that the others cannot, and acts on a combination of instinct and intelligence to get Sarah into a city which has become a charnel house where no badge or profession is respected or spared from the snipers and the bayonets.

I was fascinated by this character. It was the sort of portrayal that made one want to know more--what drives someone like that? What was his childhood like? Why did he risk all for someone like Sarah?

Unfortunately, this portrayal and character threw the whole film off-balance, and made the putative heroine seem self-absorbed and unlikable in the end.

I recommend this movie for the brilliant footage of the journalists and Sarah working their way through war-torn Yugoslavia, for the harrowing urban combat scenes, and for Brody's performance.

I can't, however, give it more than 8 stars, since it committed the primary infraction of rendering its heroine unlikable in certain ways, without redemption or the change brought about by a true character arc.

Also, Harrison and Sarah's son was sort of creepy. Sorry, but there it is.

The Affair of the Necklace (2001)

There's really only one thing you need to know about this flick

[5/10 · 15 April 2003]

Napoleon once said that the French Revolution was caused by The Seven Years War, the Phylloxera grapevine fungus, and The Affair of the Necklace. It lasted for many years, eventually culminating in the Napoleonic Wars and the Empire Waist dress. It is surprising to the serious student of history that three causative factors were implicated, as the screenplay for the Affair of the Necklace alone is surely sufficient cause to put a few assorted heads on the block.

The Affair of the Necklace involves a historical scandal in the court of Marie Antoinette. Hilary Swank plays a young woman in a marriage of convenience to Adrien Brody's character, who feels her ancestral lands and family name were unjustly seized and taken from her by the French crown. She thinks if she can get to court and lay her tragic history before Queen Marie Antoinette, that the Queen's feminine heart will be moved by her plight. So, she marries the Compte de la Motte in order to get a title which will admit her to court. Marrying Adrian Brody has to rank right up there with La Gwyneth's marriage to Colin Firth in SIL on the all-time Top 10 ranking of "Least Odious Arranged Marriages of Convenience in Motion Picture History".

There's a lot of skullduggery involving licentious, ambitious Cardinals, jewelers who never hit on the fruity scheme of busting up an unsold necklace they were seriously in hock for making and selling off the diamonds individually, and a very odd charlatan psychic type mesmerist/seer played by the preternaturally-creepy Christopher Walken.

I could tell you more, but why? This movie is beautifully-photographed, lavishly costumed, and by and large, dreadfully acted, edited, and directed. I cannot even begin to tell you how bad Hilary Swank is in it. The 1,000 word limit precludes that entirely. And as for editing, when your cuts cause characters heads to jump around in the frame, that's bad.

I didn't expect much, though, since from the very get-go, the movie violated Surreyhill's First Law of Bad Historical Costume Drama: If the Dogs are wrong, forget the rest. They give Marie Antoinette a Chinese Crested as a lap dog, which is a big gaffe, since the first Cresteds were first brought to Europe in the mid 1850's, and this was to England, as part of a zoological exhibition. But then, I think that the Cresteds weren't the only members of the cast who were chosen for their interesting and unusual looks, as opposed to their actual suitability to play the part.

The Cast is pretty high-octane for a movie that basically bombed at the box office and garnered lukewarm reviews. Christopher Walken is joined by Swank and Brody, and let us not forget Jonathon Pryce. Simon Baker is appealing in a beige pantyhose sort of way as the hero, but when your hero is a gigolo who hopes to personally profit from the sale of what is essentially stolen property, you are entering interesting territory, particularly if your lipliner also wanders around a bit, as Baker's does. The problem with Baker is that he seemed to have great difficult taking his lines seriously, and one can see why. There are some real clunkers in this movie, and also, it relies heavily on voiceover narration to make the plot comprehensible, and this is another sign a movie is in big trouble. It violates almost every rule of "show, don't tell".

I was disgruntled to find much time elapsed before first appearance of Adrian Brody. However, he does play "The Compte" and Surreyhill's Second Corollary of bodice-ripping clearly states that any male character under 45 who has the title of "Compte de ________" is to be considered sexy, whether villainous or heroic, as Comptes are by definition, sexy.

This Compte mutters his lines in a weird "method" hybrid of Brando and Queens, while the rest of the cast is assuming an English accent, which causes cognitive dissonance, since the movie is set in France and stars mostly Americans.

Brody certainly does his best to kick some life into the plot, and he and Walken seem to be the only cast members who seem to have copped to the notion that they AREN'T in a serious, art-house type film which will accrue numerous Oscar nods, but that they are instead in the cheesiest of cheesy historical bodice-rippers and may as well have a bit of fun with it. There is little to ponder for most of the first third of the movie other than Simon Baker's neatly-tied queue, until this interesting and unusual-looking man shows up and starts waving a sword around. Apparently, there is some sort of rule in this movie that all fights must be Shirts/Skins, and in the case of the first duel, Simon Baker is shirtless while Brody is dressed to thrill.

But unfortunately for those of us who would prefer an extended shirts/skins dueling sequence, the plot grinds on and the necklace is put into play, and the Compte ends up being chased through the streets of Paris by a flatfooted officer of the guard. This has to be the lamest, most unathletic chase scene I've ever seen filmed. It also points up one of the main problems with the film, which is that some of the characters just were all over the map. The Compte has gone from being a agile hot-tempered duelist--quick to pull out his blade and make use of it, to an ineffectual drunk effete decadent, to a clever schemer, and now he is a man who cannot seem to get out of his own way, or out of the way of horses, fruitcarts, and peasants holding baskets of veggies. He finally escapes by jumping into a canal, or the Seine, or something, and presumably, this was in the days of open sewers, so the next place we encounter him is getting out of his bathtub claiming that he was so frightened he nearly soiled himself. He is bathing, moreover, in the presence of both his wife and her lover, Simon Baker. They're just all one big happy family of co-conspirators. Well, except that the Compte gets angered at some crack the lover makes about his manhood (they both mumbled their way through it as though both were embarrassed by the script so for all I know he was saying that the Compte's father was a hamster, and his mother smelt of elderberries), morphs into a dripping-wet, homicidal, Cesare Borgia clone, and goes after Simon Baker with a knife in one hand, while holding a towel around his waist with the other. I found it a bit tragic that the only conveniently-located weapon was a knife, and not a two-handed weapon, like a grenade launcher or Scottish claymore, for reasons that should be obvious, but the movie kept its R rating, I guess.

One more observation from my notebook--the filmmakers seemed to have the idea that they needed to establish the Compte's "Character" by having him be either drinking, holding a glass of some sort of alcoholic beverage as if about to take a drink, reaching for a bottle, or going over to the sidebar to fill himself a glass in every scene. Yes, even the scene in the towel. Even when he is riding a horse, for the love of all mercy! Even when he is eating a bon bon. Even when he is having a bullet extracted from his hiney. The only real exception was when he was going after the gigolo with the knife, as it would clearly have been difficult to hold a drink, the knife, AND the towel without dribbling Beaujolais down all over his, er, without getting it all over the front of his towel. And yet, the character is never actually shown as being sloppy drunk, despite drinking continuously from morning to night.

Clearly, our Compte has a head like a cast iron skillet. Or the filmmakers think that the audience does, and unless they beat us over the heads repeatedly, we won't get it straight.

Anyhow, there is really only one thing you need to know about this movie.

Bon Bon Scene + Adrien Brody = a Man Who Knows How to Use His Tongue.

Bread and Roses (2000)

The Anti-"Maid in Manhattan"

[8/10 · 7 April 2003]

In this movie, there are no purloined designer clothes to masquerade in, and Prince Charming doesn't come complete with a political career and a three-piece suit--he's a scruffy charmer in a baggy t-shirt with little more to offer than a megaphone and a cause.

This is a film made by a director who has to be spiritual kin to Michael Moore, but his subject matter is quite different. Here we see real immigrants (both legal and illegal) being used rather cynically by companies whose business plan includes hiring the most downtrodden and fearful and hand-to-mouth in our country, paying them the lowest possible wages, giving them absolutely no benefits whatsoever, and thereby winning contracts to provide custodial and other services over companies that pay a fair and living wage, plus benefits, to primarily unionized employees who are American citizens. You know this really happens. It does. The best remedy for the situation is certainly a matter for debate, but no matter what your political slant or position on labor unions and illegal immigrants, you will most definitely find food for thought herein.

OTOH, if you are also one of the drooling legions of newbie Adrien Brody fangirls, you will find even more food for thought. Brody is painfully cute in this movie-a piquant mixuture of earnest, funny, sincere, sweet, and fiery, topped off with a kinghell case of `bedhead'.

The three central players are Pilar Padilla, as idealistic illegal immigrant Maya, her overburdened sister Rosa, played by Elipidia Carillo, and Brody as Sam Shapiro, an organizer and activist for the cause. No fairy tale, this movie, though a few of the cast are reasonably good-looking. The cast, many of whom really are janitors and custodians, are as real as it gets. You can see a lifetime of hard labor and long hours in their faces, and the slump to their shoulders.

I really grew to like these struggling janitors and maids. None of them were "types"--they were all real people and their conflicts and concerns were illuminated very well, despite limited screen time being available to each. By treating these characters with respect and making them fully-fleshed out, it made the passion of the organizers for this particular cause more understandable, and not just as sometimes seems the case in some portrayals, a matter of someone who is bored or spoiled or has some sort of guilt-complex trying to find their identity and using do-gooderism as a means to that end. Through coming out from the shadows, and joining the great and messy American experience of organized dissent, you could practically see some of these characters changing into `Americans' before your eyes, no matter what their official papers might say. Thinking like Americans, standing up for their rights, making their voices heard. That's how it's supposed to work-isn't it? Isn't it?

If there are caricatures in this movie, then those would be some of the building administrators, but their screen time is so limited, and they are usually so surprised and besieged by Sam Shapiro's stunts and protests that their lack of articulate or sympathetic response seems realistic enough to me. But the one thing that stands out is more than anything else is the absolutely natural acting style. Nobody really seems to be "acting" in this movie. It's as if there was a very unobtrusive documentary maker following these folks around. The movie is, however, well-paced between scenes which are rousing or charming, and those which are raw and painful.

Although this movie is not a love story or romance, per se, Adrien's character does get some action in it. In fact, in one amusing scene, he is literally hauled into a janitor's closet by an enterprising female (smart girl!!) and snogged silly. One can but applaud that sort of enterprise and initiative on the part of a recent arrival to this great country of ours. That's the kind of can-do immigrant spirit that made this country great, and if I were there, I would be sure to tell her how much I admired that quality in her, when I visited her in the hospital to apologize for having accidentally whacked her out of the way with a long-handled mop.

But it can't all be funny and cute, and indeed, in this same section of the movie is a scene of such raw emotion, harsh language, honesty, and truth, between the two Mexican sisters that I cannot say I have ever seen anything like it. Even Ebert said in his review that it's the kind of scene that would win an Oscar if the Academy ever saw movies like this, which of course, they don't.

The ending is both feel-good triumphant, and bittersweet. I think that such an ending was very much in keeping with the tone and overall realism of this movie--yes, some things changed for the better, but for people like these, not everyone gets that happy ending and lives happily ever after. At least, not right away.

There's real passion here, on the part of everyone involved, and it feels genuine, not manipulative. It's a pleasure to see a movie with good quality production values and excellent acting which was made for a reason, not just to make money.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

It is a GIFT! (Spoilers)

[10/10 · 20 December 2002]

A gift to Tolkien geeks and fans of cutting-edge moviemaking everywhere.

I think that there will be quite a few people who won't like this movie at all, and even some who might go to see it not even understanding it's supposed to be a middle installment, and not something with a definite beginning and end. But for most of the Tolkien fanatics, I feel this movie delivers the visual goodies. Whether or not it delivers the heart--well, I say it does, but I can see where others might reasonably differ with me on that. It had a bit of the chopped-up, overly pruned quality in certain sections which I noted in the theatrical version of FOTR. Those missing sequences were restored in the extended-DVD, and it made for a much better film. I'm sure that will be the case with TTT as well. I have a feeling a lot of Fangorn Forest and Karl Urban ended up on the cutting room floor.

Still, I gave it a "10" for the many things about this movie which were either groundbreaking, or soul-satisfying.

Briefly, the high points were the acting of newcomers Bernard Hill and David Wenham, CGI Gollum, the exquisite score including the beautiful Rohan theme, the heartbreaking beauty of Shadowfax, and the overall complex, demanding, textural richness of the movie as a whole. It will take several viewings to really absorb it all. There is so bloody much here, and the money spent on it is all right there on the screen.

The Battle of Helm's Deep IS the most impressive battle sequence ever brought to the screen. Not only was the effects work impressive, and the agile athleticism and physical heroics of the actors up to the very best action/adventure standards, but someone involved here must have really studied Medieval warfare and seige tactics. This engaged the brain as well as the viscera. I think it will bear up extremely well under repeated viewings. I was entertained, thrilled, AND educated by it.

I'm glad everyone seems to have enjoyed Gollum as much as I did. One thing that struck me was that when he first came on screen, I was so repulsed by him that I seriously wondered if I was going to be able to stand looking at him for as much screen time as I expected him to have. But by about five minutes in, I was utterly fascinated by him, then charmed, then amused, and began to look forward to his next appearance. A real credit to all involved in his creation for the screen. BTW, my 9 year old son LOVED Gollum.

True delights for the Tolkien fan included the magnificent realization of the "fell beasts" and the use of Gimli, the Warrior Dwarf. Dwarves as comic relief were certainly a part of The Hobbit, and Gimli in this one manages to deliver both the comedic goods, and be a real stud in the battle scenes. The lack of chemistry between Gimli and Legolas and the underusage of the Gimli character was one of my few complaints about FOTR, but all that is a thing of the past here, as John Rhys-Davies gets to show his chops as both Gimli, and the voice of the venerable Treebeard. Oh! What a life! I have seen an Oliphaunt!

All the actors were excellent in this installment, and there were only three cringeworthy moments: Legolas' X-games staircase surf at Helm's Deep, the Maxfield Parrish Faux Romantic Interlude between Aragorn and Arwen, and what immediately followed--did anyone else find it funny when Aragorn was dreaming of being kissed by Arwen, only to wake up to find his horse nibbling on his face? I hope that was inadvertant.

I want to use the rest of this review to address two areas of controversy:

1) Elves coming to Helm's Deep--I liked the Elves coming to help out. I think it was done for those viewers who aren't steeped in Tolkien. It's not established WHY the "Time of the Elves is Passing", and it just looks like they are cowardly rats leaving a sinking ship if they don't try to help. In this time, when we expect allies of ours who have not been targeted by terrorism to lend us their support, I think Galadriel's sending some of her Elf archers to help the men was a hopeful message.

2)Faramir--Faramir has the same issues as Boromir did in the first movie, with the addition of knowing his brother set out with a company which included hobbits, and was later seen dead. He has NO idea how his brother died, and for all he knows, the hobbits might be responsible or at fault. He did not have the benefit of being at the Council of Elrond, where it was established how dangerous the ring would be for anyone other than Frodo to bear. So I found that his attitude towards the Hobbits AND the ring were both realistic and rational. Seeing with his own eyes, though, the power of the ring at its evil worst, and getting a good dressing-down from Samwise, he altered his position and agreed to let Frodo and Sam continue on, EVEN though it was against the laws of Gondor. How could you not get a shiver when he said "then, my life is forfeit"?

Movie Faramir IS different than Book Faramir. Different AND more interesting and BETTER. I can hardly wait to see where this character is going in ROTK. I like this arc, and want to put my trust in PJ and Co, because I really do believe they know how to make a movie that will stand the test of time.

Sliding Doors (1998)

What if John Hannah got offered more Leading Man roles?

[7/10 · 7 May 2002]

I have read most of the reviews on this site, and have little more to add to the plot summaries provided thus far. But I think that some of you have missed the point. This movie, putatively, is a vehicle for Gwyneth Palthrow. But in fact, it is a bid for John Hannah as a viable leading man.

This particularly delighted me because of this odd fantasy I had while watching "The Mummy". You want to hear about it?

Well, gather 'round, boys and girls.

What if John Hannah's character, instead of being the ne'er do well brother of the female lead, was the ne'er do well brother of the male lead? What if the female lead initially thought she was falling in love with Brendan Fraser, but after John Hannah's character undergoes a personal transformation because of the amazing events that transpire during the course of that glorified B-movie, she ends up falling in love with him? Wouldn't THAT have been a more interesting movie? I mean, how often does the prettiest girl in the flick and the most macho and handsome male end up smooching by the closing credits, with the promise of happily-ever-after? Like, about 95% of the time?

Well, are you tired of that?

I am.

What was so very cool about this movie was the way I got to see my little fantasy from The Mummy of John Hannah as a plausible romantic lead played out in exquisite and loving detail. It is no great stretch by anyone to see Brendan Fraser as a romantic lead. He has all the right parts and he is a big, manly-looking fellow. What I really LOVE to see, though, is someone who is a bit more unlikely presented in just the right way--the perfect way for them and their own look and body type--to make them sexy and lovable and attractive. The director, costumer, and cinematographer really got it right. I loved how they dressed him, how they did his hair, and watching the various camera angles and lighting based on how attractive we were supposed to find him at the time and how plausible and inevitable it was supposed to be for her to fall in love with him.

I didn't mind Gwyneth at all in this movie. Her character was sympathetic whether she caught the train or not. But the camera just loves her face, and so they didn't have as much work to do with her. But John Hannah--my goodness. He did such a great job with his lines and making his character sweet and funny and true, and he really did finish up by being tremendously attractive in an interesting way. My biggest complaint was the way the movie treated Helen's friend, Anna. She was there primarily to prop up Helen, but she was an attractive and appealing screen presence in her own right and I ended up feeling she got badly jobbed. It would have been an interesting subplot for her to fall for either James' restauranteur friend, or having Jerry's friend be unmarried and fall for her. That is the sort of touch that keeps a movie from just looking like a vanity project for Gwyneth.

In summary, I wouldn't call this a great movie, but it was incredibly pleasurable to watch and the primary reason was the cleverness of the concept and the delightful presence of John Hannah, who I can truly say has caught my eye one way or the other (I either loved him or wanted to punch his lights out) in every single thing I have seen him in. It is well worth a video or DVD-rental fee for a nice evening on the couch.

John Hannah is NOT as good-looking as either Colin Firth or Hugh Grant, but I liked this movie a lot better than BJD as a romantic triangle set in London, and I bought JH absolutely as a guy who could make a striking woman like Gwyneth's character Helen fall in love with him. It made me smile, which is the true litmus test of a romantic comedy for this reviewer.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

This movie is a feast

[10/10 · 16 January 2002]

This movie is feast. I greedily savored each and every millimetre of celluloid bliss.

Stunning and imaginative visuals that looked almost, but not quite, like places we recall seeing on postcards of distant lands we always meant to visit, if we could only find the money and time. (Places, in short, not unlike New Zealand.) Faces--freakish, evil, kind, and merry that are almost, but not quite, like those of people we know. Emotions--strong and true, but uncomplicated.

Middle Earth should be a place which is recognizable to us on some deep and unconscious level. Something that I have always marveled at was how similar my own conception of Middle Earth, and the appearance and demeanor of the main characters of the various races, was to that of other readers of the books. It is only some of the illustrators of the various abridged versions through the years who I feel somehow miss out on Tolkien's sense of whimsy and natural wonder, and are all canned fantasy 1970's heavy-metal album cover art cliche. This tells me that Tolkien was successful in transmitting his own vision to each of us readers in a remarkably similar way, and I think the only way that I would truly have been disappointed with the FOTR would have been if PJ's version was a vision I did not recognize.

I do not consider myself a Tolkien geek. However, I spent the entire movie sighing with satisfaction--yes, Yes, YES!! He got the look of the characters and settings all just right. I can hardly wait for Ents.

Most of my piddling complaints had to do with the Mines of Moria and with Lothlorien. I felt the Watcher in the Water sequences could have been better handled. It was too murky and the pace was off there. Also, they said when they entered that it would take three days to get through the mines, but on film, it seemed just a few hours. Another element that I felt was lacking was the chemistry between Gimli and Legolas, which is one of the best things in the novels, and the parts where Gimli's being a dwarf causes problems getting the group into Lothlorien (that was the part where the Fellowship really came together, I think, supporting Gimli, and I missed seeing it), AND I missed the part where Galadriel gives her gifts to all the company, and they also receive the vital elven provisions that will sustain the hobbits in the action to come. I missed seeing Galadriel give her lock of hair to Gimli. That was not only the start of better relations between dwarves and elves, but also sets up some conflict later on between Gimli and humans who speak negatively of the elf-queen. I guess that will be cut out of the story, too, but I really felt for the lovelorn dwarf and was sorry to see that not appear in this movie.

Less time could have been spent watching Saruman build his uruk-hai army and given over to that sort of thing. But DAMN! I would love to see the Isengard scenes in IMAX.

I only had one other nit to pick, and this is a nit that this movie shares with Harry Potter--the soundtrack DID become intrusive at times, with the Wagneresque background operatic-type bombast.

High points--the Council of Elrond, particularly when shown from poor little homesick Frodo's point of view. The battle with the Cave Troll (I LIKED it! This was a bit of action that didn't read very well to me in the original novel). The inside joke for Sharpe fans ;o). The Shire and Bag End--perfect, just too perfect. Everything to do, visually, with Isengard. EVERY scene involving hobbits. Gandalf was just as one pictured him, of course, strong and wise and quite amused by hobbits. All the actors were terrific, and really inhabited their characters. I am reserving judgement, though, on Viggo. I hope Aragorn will get a little more dimensional as the films progress. But he was limited by Tolkien and the script, more so than by his own acting, so I shan't criticize him.

But in the end, this movie, like the quest itself, succeeds or fails on the backs of the littlest persons--the hobbits. The hobbits were perfection. I cannot imagine better casting. They were the most adorable things I ever saw; I could eat them with a spoon and yet, they were completely plausible as beings with heart and courage and nobility of character. The Merry/Pippin pairing in particular displayed what Tolkien called "the slow-kindled courage of their race".

The elements of friendship that Peter Jackson spoke of wishing to focus on in this movie were extremely well realized between the hobbits. I am very turned-off my manufactured "buddy" chemistry. I can handle the manufactured romance between Arwen and Aragorn since it was like that in the novel, too, but I could not bear it if the relationships between the hobbits did not ring true.

You can see why Frodo is a person that the other three would follow, and why Sam would want to protect him and watch over him like a faithful dog. You can see what Sam brings to the friendship that keeps Frodo sane and his spirits from flagging. You can see why Merry and Pippin's personalities complimented each other, and how they both are starting to come of age in this movie. The actor who plays Pippin has enormous on-screen charisma, and I have a painful crush on him. I don't know if his unique "look" will suit him for many types of roles, but he definitely has star quality and was a real joy to discover. He WAS Pippin Took, and as such, he and Merry provided badly-needed comic relief!

Now, if Gimli and Legolas can just be given enough script and less action-oriented scenes in the upcoming movies to bring their own mutual-antagonism-dissolving-into-respect-then-friendship to life onscreen. But I thought the way that the different fighting styles of the races of Middle Earth were portrayed were excellent.

This movie was a highly auspicious start to the Trilogy.