Change Your Image
correcamino
Reviews
Garbage Warrior (2007)
Heart seems to be in the right place
The early to mid-2000s have brought us a new genre, the environmental start-over film. Whether it's plastic, trash, food, plastic bags, this waste genre is one that has been crying out for exploration. In keeping with the overall cultural trend, the films are mostly documentaries. They do well raising our consciousness level, even if only temporarily. This film does not quite pull it off in my opinion, but it does have something to contribute.
At the beginning of Garbage Warrior we are presented with images of building in progress and, along with the narration, we are meant to see the structures as really impressive. But his houses are not things of beauty from the outside (they are better on the inside). It would have been better to have approached them from a more humble perspective. Meaning, show a leaky sewer system at first, and then build from there - these are impressive houses because they are self-sufficient - lower our expectations and then build them up. Presenting those rather misshapen structures as objects of impressive architecture left me skeptical right from the get-go, and that's not the way you want to start a film. I do come to the end and of it, and realize that the achievement of beauty is actually a lesser point, one perhaps that Reynolds might one day concede. Nevertheless, had his ego permitted, some architect with some taste as well as skill could have come to his aid and helped him produce nice-looking houses from the outside. This would have gone a long way towards furthering his overall goals of sustainable living, especially in the eyes of key decision-makers.
Second point: he says that cities are dead - that people are going into the cities to mine the materials. I had to ask myself, having lived in a city for 20 years and that is now adding 1,000 new residents every month, just what he was talking about.
I live in the city, and I don't have a car. I ride a bicycle. I live in much less space than those houses, that is for sure. Still, I realize that even American cities are very wasteful when it comes to energy efficiency, and until we take seriously not just per capita output, but also total output of carbon and pollution, we won't really have an honest discussion. What I'm trying to point out is how dishonest and a bit off the charts his notion is of cities being 'dead,' or energy inefficient.
What about the prime importance of community? Oh, and what about fossil fuels? It is undeniable that the inhabitants of those earthships have an extreme reliance on the car. What about all the plastic they use and I'm not talking about in the building (drinking out of plastic cups during the b'ball game - plastic containers of liquid soap)? He says his house has lasted 20 years. So what? Big whoop. You're an architect and you're bragging that a house you built has lasted 20 years? Shouldn't it? And so, they become a subdivision. Is that truly sustainable? Starting a new community on land where previously there were no humans? Can we see the sewage system, please??? Can we see how it all works? Heating and cooling? Prove it. We need proof.
I'd like to hear more about all the failures. I'm not sure he is a man who inspires a lot of trust.
Run in with the authorities - yes the situation around him is worse after he had to "conform." It's only at that point that I began to have a even a small amount of of sympathy for him. And the tsunami and going to Asia? Much more sympathy.
Also, I admire his lobbying efforts - more sympathy for him there. What a number this film does! But to be really really radical, retrofit an already existing community. Why do people think building is energy efficient? Retrofit old buildings. The more tastefully and beautifully, the better. Please - let's not leave style, aesthetics, and proportionality out of the picture.
From time to time, I see this type of passionate environmental idealist in the city. The problem is, so often these kinds of people get corrupted when they don't get their way and become small-scale dictators. I see it time and again, and what's worse is that they are very ineffective. Michael Reynolds was able to reach and go further and have a degree of success probably because of being in the West and perhaps because of his own integrity (hard to say) - that Baptist background was good for something afterall.
There were two concepts that he brought up that were intriguing. The idea of going outside the law to get the information. And the idea of his own personal evolution. I hear what he says and appreciate it. But still, there is a very very very fine line between renegade and ineffective, hypocritical hippie.
Brothers & Sisters (2006)
Family drama and moments of selfishness
Produced by a major alum of 30something, Brothers and Sisters features the characters in moments of escalating selfishness, one more so than the next, with dramatic relief and family unity coming in the form of, for example, a sick child. It's a pattern repeated throughout in the series, and one reason it's not a bad idea to watch it on DVD. You can fast forward through some of the more predictable cliché-ridden scenes.
(My favorite is when the doctor slowly and sympathetically asks the mother to keep her child in the hospital for a few more nights. Keep her in the hospital? Longer?! Only in Hollywood.)
The show is interesting on many levels to watch because it is an earnest examination of a class (the American rich and elite) on a flight from meaningfulness and connection. Ie, long on shallowness. And yet they are very serious when they ask you to take them seriously.
I rented the DVD only because one night a few weeks ago I happened to catch an episode from much later, I think season 3, that was full of intrigue in the family business, much meatier and more realistic stuff. I could really sink my teeth in. As Blockbuster is on its way down in a big way, their TV section is about the only thing they really put any effort into anymore, so I wandered over and thought why not? Still, the show has its moments as well. The whole tension about the father's affair was very good. Although - if as I've heard, three quarters of men cheat on their wives, I don't know why the men on the show would express their disappointment in their father as often as they do. The show also hangs together well as a series. And though it seems more and more American directors are looking for their talent offshore, particularly Australia (why is this? Are Americans so bad at acting?), some of the actors and actresses are very good (Sally Field, Patricia Wettig, and the woman who plays the sister with two kids). Calista Flockhart isn't bad, but she's had some disturbing plastic surgery, which ends up being distracting.
Perhaps it's the overestablishment of family as the theme in Season 1 that ends up grating just as much as it draws you in.
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
Down Home
I recently re-read To Kill a Mockingbird and was as enchanted and charmed as ever by this wonderfully didactic fairy tale. It sounds funny to call it a fairy tale, but it's not a full out great novel, either. Maybe it is something that exists somewhere in between, delighting readers and challenging critics. ("Coming of age novel" minimizes it.)
Scout Finch is arguably the most charming female character in American fiction in the second half of the century, and the heart of the book is really her narration, and how she relates to everyone in her world, particularly her father. Through Scout's eyes we see the changing humanity of her older brother Jem. The author goes to great lengths to make Scout as adorable as possible and yes she is a little bit in love with her childhood self.
The book, set in the 30s, is flavored by the coming pressures of the times in which it was written, the 1950s and 60s. The living room conversations among the women about the differences between North and South in their treatment of blacks were very recognizable. But, the book's power, for me, does not lie in the Tom Robinson trial and his subsequent fate, true as it was. That part moved along predictably enough, and Atticus weathers the town's outrages nobly, holding the klieg light steady for all who so choose to see the way out of darkness. No one does.
Strangely, there was no portrayal of a married couple, to my reading. Most of the adult male characters' wives had died, and the women either lived alone or with a maid. Maybe it was meant to convey the dying South or maybe it reflects the author's own life or her assessment or faith (or lack of it) in the future of the South.
Still, To Kill a Mockingbird is a portrayal of a once noble family, and a very decent family, grounded in some pretty good values and going out to experience life eagerly and with honor, not shrinking from anything.
It's not a work of Great Fiction but there is something about it in line with great American works. What that something is, is hard to pin down. Maybe it is the richness in every sentence, the warmth and understanding. The recognizable history, the sweep of years and ages that one phrase embodies and evokes, and the nostalgia it stirs up. Maybe it is the everyday poetry of the language, instantly recognizable as classic American writing. Maybe it is the completely true characters, each one unique in a land where conformity was valued and enforced.
The film necessarily cuts out a significant portion of the book but for the most part the choices made for what was left in are good ones. Still, the omissions include the development of important characters (Miss Maudie, Mrs DuBose, and Calpurnia among others), while other characters are left out entirely (Aunt Alexandra). A lot of family back-story is also cut. The result is that the outlines are there (albeit with some pretty steep mountains in the background!) and that seems to have satisfied a good many people.
Phillip Alford as Jem was unquestionably the best casting choice of this movie, while Mary Badham's pampered background shows through. I picked up on a sullen, mocking reluctance in scenes requiring a demonstration of affection and lovingness. Alford, more down-home, does just fine, and is all boy, with a lovely voice. Dill is hardly anyone's notion of a beautiful child contest winner and is clearly not Southern. Peck certainly looks the part of Atticus Finch, and while Atticus clearly is a reserved man, I don't think he is a dead one. Too bad the one actor who most looked the part, the freckle-faced, tow-headed Walter Cunningham, did not also sound it.
Perhaps it is the experience of watching the movie so soon after having read the book. There simply is no comparison. Read the book! It is so much better.
House of Payne (2006)
Curtis Payne For President
I. Love. Curtis. Payne.
I mean, I hate him. But I love him!! How can you not keep your eyes off the man? He's something. He's rude, sweet, unreasonable, reasonable, hilarious, obnoxious, giving, stingy, committed, irresponsible. The man's got a certain kind of charisma. And he stays there, he doesn't leave. And that makes this show like comfort food.
There are a LOT of problems with this show, which is one of its main strengths, if you ask me. The problems ensure that there's still stuff left to work out, and I get the sense that they will. I love it that it's set in Atlanta. Love to hear "Lake Lanier." Finally, a place I've actually heard of referenced in a sitcom!
I'm not African American, and I'm not from Atlanta, but nearby. The show often leaves me scratching my head but I always watch it. I don't have TBS, I see it on local channels in the midAtlantic, and the episodes are not run in order, exactly, but it doesn't matter.
What is not believable is that they'd have that skinny a son.
Otherwise, 7/10 STARS.
Baby Mama (2008)
Mediocre at Best, But At the Same Time - Agreeable
I give this a generous four out of ten stars, or dots or markers, or something.
There were a grand total of two really really funny scenes in this movie. All the scenes with Amy P and Tina Fey and Greg Kinnear (Greg Kinnear!!) moved along agreeably enough.
Otherwise, the usual trafficking in stereotypes, blazing speed, rudely pushed along by a stupid soundtrack, and "soundtrack" is generous.
Anyway, the two really really funny scenes involved Amy P. She's just really hilarious in an animal kind of way. She's a mixture of that ape man skit that they do on SNL and Lucille Ball.
I hope they (Amy P and Tina Fey) just flat out admitted they did this for the money, because if by doing it, it gave birth to the Sarah Palin parodies, then I guess we can say, yeah, it was worth it to put the black guy back into the servant man role, who's really there to help you be more human.
Blah. 4 outta 10 like I said is generous.
But no more, girls, OK? Oh, I almost forgot. The mom from "Two and a Half Men" is in this movie, and she's had some kind of plastic surgery, so that her mouth now looks like the mouth of a 30 year old, so every scene she's in, I'm like trying to rearrange her face, or put it together in my mind, or just answer the question, "No. Wait. Wait. HAS she had plastic surgery?" Because as a viewer, you really don't want her to have had plastic surgery.
Charlie Wilson's War (2007)
High Gloss West Wing
This is a formulaic, higher gloss version of the West Wing, written by Aaron Sorkin. I give it 7 out of 10 stars, so it is not an outright stinker, and the actors portraying the Pakistanis, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman portraying a worn-out CIA agent save the day with real acting.
But as is the case with so many moderately successful American movies, this one moves way too fast. If you listen to the initial scenes between Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts as if it were a play, without watching the screen, you realize their acting at this point is just plain bad. Again, the dialogue is too quick for its own good. Charlie Wilson is a Texan and as such, wouldn't he be a slowish talker? He would certainly have been deliberative in his decision making. There is no other word for Hanks' and Roberts' acting: rushed.
Part of this comes from the screenplay which too many American writers take to mean conversational one upmanship.
Charlie Wilson was a lustful man. Well, then, why do we not see Tom Hanks touch one boob during this entire movie? How prudish! Nor are there any such scenes between him and Roberts. Big stars cannot show frontal nudity or engage in lewd scenes. Well then if they can't, find some worthy actors who can! It's gotten to the point now that if you see a Tom Hanks, Brad Pitt, or so many other big stars in a film, then you know there won't be sex in it. Again, films are about the stars' private lives (which dictate no touching of others) and/or protection of their image/biggest asset.
One part I did appreciate about the character of Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts) was the scene when she is sweet talking Charlie on the phone while in bed with her husband it captured the utter tastelessness of some of the Texas Rich.
With his little lecture to the crèche man, the liberal producers and writers of the film have constructed the perfect congressman in Charlie Wilson: salty in private life, doing the predicable liberal thing in public life. But, again, to be fair, the film did round out Wilson's mediocrity as a legislator. Still, scenes like the crèche one seem stuck-in, as if to ham- handedly remind us: yes, people, we do have separation of church and state. Ugh.
Then Charlie Wilson goes to Pakistan. Aha! Here is some real acting. The actors portraying President Zia and the two intelligence officers are simply delivering classical acting at its finest. Good scene.
Julia Roberts has an extremely limited range of expression. Most of the time she is rushing her dialogue with an annoyed expression on her mouth. I'm sure she can do better, but has she?
Another thing I noticed: the Russians must have been terrible fighters. And to say the Afghans defeated the Russian army I am not so sure is completely accurate. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they defeated the Russian airplanes?
Finally, the tacked on message at the end that Charlie and right wing CIA agent really had nothing whatsoever to do with September 11th, because they did not want to ignore Afghanistan after the Soviets lost, everyone else did (Reagan and the Congress). Charlie Wilson wanted to spend $1 million to build schools. So there.
Double ugh.
I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With (2006)
Sarah Silverman Has Left the Building
Has the proliferation of relatively high quality shows on the proliferating TV networks made it possible for people to produce, direct, finance and/or star in their own films who might otherwise not have been able to? Is that a good thing?
This film does not answer the latter question either way, but it does appear that without Curb, Jeff Garlin would not have been able to make I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With.
Like most new producers/directors, Jeff Garlin's independent piece heaves a heavily more sensitive sigh than the vehicle he is primarily known for (Curb). And yet, is it a sensitive guy film? He isn't really a sensitive guy. Likable, sure. Relatable, indeed.
What this film really is about is a bit hard to say, I can only relate what I took away from it.
I rented the film because of the trailers, particularly the scene of a counselor portrayed by Amy Sedaris informing James Aaron (Garlin) that a particular woman is interested in him mainly because she is a "chubby chaser." I just about fell out of my seat. Based on that scene alone, I ran to my computer to write a note to myself to rent this movie. The reason - I thought the school counselor (Sedaris) was talking about Beth, portrayed by Sarah Silverman. I imagined a lightish romantic comedy between the foxy Silverman and the fat Garlin. I didn't think the story would be anything original, but that the dialogue would be snappy and the scenes would move along at a satisfying pace. In short, I thought it would be a comedy.
It was intriguing that the film started out that way but then took a much much more realistic turn when Beth gives James the heave ho because "I've never really been with a fat guy before." That is how brutally we live life, and it was completely realistic. I applaud the decision. It just meant that Beth has now left the building and with her, the one snappy person in the film.
James's relationship with his mother was also interesting. That part made me wonder if the whole concept did not start out as a play. It had that intricate feel to it. (The whole "Marty" movie within a movie thing was utterly lost on me, as I have never seen that film.)
There were serious doubts I had about the character of James Aaron, though. Is it really possible that at 39 he had not had a serious relationship? And he is an actor? That did not really square with me. To me, his persona was less actor-y, and more corporate. I could not really buy his ordinariness either. No doubt he was extremely disappointed that things with Beth did not work out. We felt that. But then, did he really care?
Another thing - how in the world can both he and his mother afford to move out at the same time? Hasn't he just lost his job? The last one he had? That was one reason he did not seem ordinary to me. Where's the funding for his life coming from?
And yet, I have read reviews that talk about the realistic portrayal of urban loneliness, so there is that. Yes, it is very realistic, the way we must be satisfied with what we have because it is all that we have. The way we sort of disappear from ourselves and each other in interactions (James and Stella), some kind of self-effacement that takes place just to move on to the next moment. That, contrasted with the possibility of defining ourselves through our moments, our thoughts the way James had with Beth, it's really crushing.
Very well done.
I Could Never Be Your Woman (2007)
a little bit rushed, bad actor
Michelle Pfieffer was great. Extremely sexy, knowing, and even funny. Paul Rudd needed a shot of testosterone. I think he was trying to be a quirky actor, but quirky does not mean asexual. He didn't deserve her sexiness. How many fantastic actors are there in the world these days who could have delivered? Like, nine hundred thousand, right? I'm not even sure there really ever was a script. If there was, it was a weak one, to put it generously, but the cast (excluding Rudd) brought their A game and tried to deliver as genuine a performance as possible.
And, wasn't there a brush on the set for his hair?
The kid was cute, and believable.
Michael Clayton (2007)
The language of success
All one has to do is take a look at the actor/actress listings and the insane pace at which they are working on this Web site to understand finally that movies are simply a reflection of the society they were made in. Tilda Swinton's listing is Kathy Crowder's day book.
Most characters are also personifications of producer personalities. In this case, with only one or two exceptions, that is not such a bad thing. The two worlds' reflections of each other is particularly apt.
My first time through watching the film I thought, 'wow, this really is the year (or year and a half) of the villainous woman.' First Jody Foster in The Inside Man and now Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton. But then I thought, nah, it's just their turn. (Although most of this year's Oscar nominated films are almost exclusively male.)
Is violence a natural extension of business?
In so many ways, this was an excellent film. In no way, though, did it approach perfection. The flaws are obvious: the lack of depth to the Clayton family characters, all of whom were very interesting. There simply was not enough time. Second, without a body, I am not so sure Michael Clayton's death would be believed as widely as it was.
This film really should be a series, like the Bourne franchise. It was not substantive enough to stand on its own. It has that series feel to it.
George Clooney was good, but especially brilliant was Tom Wilkinson. Everyone was great. The pace was excellent, emphasizing how important time is to the characters and how quickly annoyed they/we get when we even approach a waste of it. Everything is all about getting down to business. Hurry up and cut out the extraneous crap. Again, same thing in the director's commentary on the DVD. Movie-making then is a projection of process onto whatever subject one is making a film about. George Clooney's character is a "janitor" or a "fixer," his real life role to the beleaguered director who's been trying to get his film made for six years is that of a "godfather" or "kingmaker." Same thing. Hurry up and get from point a to point b and use this or that person to get you there.
The language of "success."
Interesting but not as interesting as we used to be.
Waitress (2007)
Were the good review just hype?
As an on-again, off again poor person, any movie scene featuring a poor person in a doctor's office which does not feature a nightmare of a waiting room, numerous forms, indifferent staff and dismissive doctors does not ring true.
Where are all those wonderful waitress jobs that allow multiple visits to doctor's offices with such great lighting and window treatment? And how come waitress gets her doctor on the phone in one minute or less? I want to live along those crunchy shell roadways with the vaguely tropical vegetation! I want a job in which I can serenely compose pies (which by the way, looked God-awful). Give me the poor life! Were all the great reviews I read just hype? None of the waitresses were overweight. It costs MONEY to stay that slender. Money!
But wait, there's even a bus service. The ultimate in movie making delusion a functional, reliable system of public transportation.
This is a wealthy person's romanticized version of being poor.
The lead actress is an "actor" on the DVD box, but the name of the film is not "Waiter?" I guess this was a "stylized" movie, but after watching just the first 15 minutes, I was too stunned and even upset to pay attention to what the film was actually about.
Thank You for Smoking (2005)
At Least It Was Filmed in Washington - otherwise no resemblance at all
For a compelling examination of how Washington works from a tobacco lobbyist's perspective, rent The Insider.
This is a stupid movie.
Aaron Eckhart portrays Nick Naylor, a lobbyist sometimes wrestling somewhat with the morality of what he does for a living, but more often having adventures like paying off the Marlboro Man, having a risky sexual relationship with a journalist every bit as ambitious as he is, and wooing Hollywood to feature smoking in as favorable a light as possible. Eckhart's performance is not God-awful, but somehow it was delivered as if from on high. The sudden stops in filming with the freeze-frames and then the voice-overs
a hackneyed technique that doesn't seem to work too well in a film depicting Washington.
The film is overproduced and not nearly clever enough. Wrong assumptions about Washington and spin, wrong facts and shaky science in a film about lobbying for tobacco are fatal.
You know the film is not really authentic when it does not even show one person smoking.
The title is the tip off that the film suffers from an identity crisis.
Lonesome Jim (2005)
Lonesome train whistle sounding in rural rustbelt
You can object to the choice to make this film about a so-called depressive. You can object that Jim doesn't just snap out of it. But of all the things you can say about Lonesome Jim, you can't say it is badly made.
This film is like a meditation: it totally clears the mind of everything else and allows you to focus on what is there in front of you.
The grainy film did not strike me as low quality or cheap. It made the film like watching home movies; there is nothing glamorous about this scene. It was totally in keeping with the theme of muted emotion. The graininess sometimes slows things down so much that the characters appear to be talking through the haze of their dull surroundings, and they are the liveliest things about the situation. It almost transforms film into a cartoon drama by the younger sibling.
Is the main character Jim (Casey Affleck) suffering from depression? Well, alright. But that assessment papers over the interesting sources of the emotion stifling: the relationship between son and parents, and how he has subverted his personality with them; and the relationship he has with the rest of his hometown.
The whole thing is so real we especially digest meaning during Jim's driving scenes, inevitably at twilight when the post industrial fading rural landscape is at its most evocative, stirring feelings of profound longing and sadness.
(There must be a retrospective of Sensitive Boy flicks somewhere. To my recollection, Ordinary People could be the first in the series, but among the others, and I'm sure there are many, many more than I can think of here, are You Can Count on Me, and Imaginary Heroes. I've also heard that Garden State could be slotted in there, but I haven't seen it.)
This is a brilliant film.
So why not give it 10 out of 10? Because we do not know yet if it will stand the test of time. Already Ordinary People does not pack the same punch as did 20 odd years ago. Also, these films have a relatively small theme. So though while intense and delicate in emotional depiction, their reach is rather narrow and might not possess any universal themes. They are particularly US-centric. Which is fine, but it precludes them from greatness.
Collateral (2004)
Night Cab on the Teeth Whitening Expressway
I was all prepared to pan this film, and yes there is a lot that I find fault with. For instance, I was going to say "Javier Bardem finally sold out!" but then it dawned on me that his overlong Pedro Santa Claus story aside, he contributed a large part to making it the slightly interesting film that it is.
I also felt that Jamie Foxx does not really know exactly who his character is. This of course is not all his fault: the transformation he went through to wiggle out of a contretemps with thug Felix (Bardem) was not believable at all. It was interesting though.
Tom Cruise kind of plays the same guy in every film. You can count on him to deliver the understated yet overworked clichés after every episode of supercharged excitement.
The cinematography is lackluster and the directing uninspired.
Trite: the sad music and the spotting of the coyotes on a desolate street was Max the cab driver (Foxx) meant to be perceived as crying during this part?
Jada Pinkett's and Jamie Foxx's teeth are too white. Foxx's upper teeth make it look like he's wearing a mouthguard. Get your money back from the plastic surgeon! So sad that in Hollywood everyone has over-sized but perfect and glow in the dark teeth. Tom Cruise no doubt had his done as well, but as he was lit to look green (or "dark") all you could see was the structural perfection & sameness. The overwhiteness was not as apparent.
Back to Javier Bardem's Santa helper story. Do bad crime films have in common these interminable story-telling moments on the part of a crime boss?
Best acting job in the film goes to the jazz player, and the way his face goes from plump and excited full of life as he is recounting his meeting with Miles Davis, to stone cold mean and scared as he is exposed for something he's done in the past. Though probably a "good" guy at the end of it all, the audience sees both the good-hearted musician and the bloodless criminal or wannabe criminal. Kudos to that actor.
Overall, I'd equate this film with a really good episode of Miami Vice or Law & Order. (6 out of 10)
Crónicas (2004)
You have got to see Cronicas
I hate to start a review this way, but you have got to see Crónicas. If you like good Latin American films, if you like thrillers, if you like good acting, writing and directing, you will not be disappointed.
At first, this film is difficult to watch, given the subject matter of violence against children. Soon it becomes obvious that there is more to it than that, and that is where the hook comes in.
One of the reasons the Crónicas is so compelling is that the theme of ambition cuts through the disturbing material.
Others have written about this film much better than I ever could, so I will just end by saying that this is one of those films that in my reveries as a lottery winner, I am giving large sums of money to talented young directors all over the Americas.
Imaginary Heroes (2004)
The Un-NYT Review
The NYT review says that Sigourney Weaver's character is taut and frustrated, and, later, that she could be the sister of MTM's character in Ordinary People. Say, WHAT? No way. This lady was quirky from the start. NOTHING like MTM in Ordinary People. Sorry.
Next, the NYT goes on to say that Sigourney Weaver's Sandy Travis and Jeff Daniel's Ben Travis are 40-something year olds, "children of the 60s." Ms Weaver must be dancing a jig. I believe at the time she made Imaginary Heroes she was in fact 55 years old. She was born in 1949.
NYT perception corrections aside, this was a pretty good movie considering it was made by someone so young. Obviously Sigourney Weaver thought so, and so did Jeff Daniels. The young man playing Tim was outstanding.
There are some critical comments I could make about the script. Such as that I never really got a good sense of why Sandy Travis missed her son. Her sort of blown apart behavior was perhaps triggered by his death, but that such behavior lasted ¾ of the way through the film I felt had more to do with her stagnation marriage, her relationship with Tim, and where he really came from, and other unresolved issues, than from any mourning of her elder son. Ben's mourning was much more clear.
So Matt Travis was an asshole. Did his mom think so too? Still, a very watchable film. What is becoming clearer and clearer is not that there are no roles for women over a certain age, rather that what it takes is a director such as this one to be so clearly in love with an older woman (Ms Weaver) and to almost make his film an homage to her. Sort of an anti-Woody Allen.
Elle est des nôtres (2003)
Comme ci, comme ca
Will the person who understands why protagonist Christine Blanc killed her temp agency boss please clap twice -- silently and in slow motion? I for one did not. As someone who has temped a LOT, I can say that the first, pre-murder part rang true. However, the notion of alienation and impersonalness in an office, as a temp, is starting to wear a bit thin. Or at least become extremely predictable. Nevertheless, I can usually be lulled into a hearty round of self-pity. Especially if I am in the capable hands of even an adequate French director. The French have a way of seeing cinematically that is so interesting and different. They can evoke emotions so effortlessly in their shots, and always without words.
In some ways, the director captured the temp/perm dilemma perfectly: temp, and you feel a bit outside of everything; once you are permanent, you are so busy and things change to such an extent that it is not funny. Or maybe I am just massively projecting.
I'm afraid this one was just so-so for me.
The Interpreter (2005)
Nailed the feel of the UN
This was not a stinker of a film, and I appreciate the director's desire to get to know the culture at the UN. As someone who works at a large international quasi-governmental agency, I thought the characters and the tone were right on. A huge relief, no doubt, considering the trouble Sydney Pollack and the UN went to to make the building available for filming. I agree with some other comments that perhaps the characters were loaded with too much backstory. This is certainly true of Keller (Sean Penn), less true of Silvia (Nicole Kidman). Penn's scenes of mourning and sadness were burdensome. And, as others have noted, this is perhaps the result of bad editing on the director's part who, with one exception, otherwise did a fine job.
In the director's comments on the DVD, Pollack mentions how complex the plot is and how his biggest challenge was to lay the foundation so that later in the film the viewer would not be confused. I am not sure he succeeded. Maybe others got it, but I had to watch it twice to fully understand who everyone was. Specifically, they needed to clarify the two rebels' identities and names more.
Having watched too many DVD's lately, one thing I've been noticing, which may be a no-duh to some, is that often the most charismatic actor or actress is not the lead; the best-looking actor is. This is probably true with The Interpreter. Catherine Keener is electric to anyone who cares to really look, while Nicole Kidman is fragile and luminous. (But actually I'm not even sure she is better-looking than Catherine Keener.) 6 1/2 out of 10.
Heights (2005)
A Film Grounded in Solid Writing of a Good Play
I understand a lot of the criticisms I've read so far of this film. I can see how the characters might bug some people with their self-absorption. But for me, the movie had a central pillar of integrity because it was originally a play, and I thought the writing gave it intelligent coherence. For me, there always was a point.
What most struck me about the film from the get-go with Diana Lee's scene (Glenn Close) teaching the master acting class was the notion that we've all become cel phone-talking, latte-drinking, status conscious zombies afraid to bust out and take a damn risk. I thought the director sort of layered this idea on top of the film in a way that I imagined Crash tried, unsuccessfully, to do. The result was, as some have noted, not a plot driven movie but a character-based one, one in which we are not surprised by much, but, again as someone else pointed out, the point is the characters' reactions to each other. I really gravitated to this idea that we have sold our souls to ambition, our future, and feeling secure in it. This idea has particular resonance for me. In their own ways, living like this dehumanized the characters. This was particularly obvious for the fiancé, Jonathan.
Elizabeth Banks looks remarkably like another actress these days, not Parker Posey, but someone else -- Julia Stiles or Kirsten Dunst. I thought the entire cast was pretty decent and interesting. Isabella Rosellini's scene was excellent she captured that subtly bullying personality perfectly.
Unlike a lot of others, I actually thought Glenn Close was a little flat in her scenes away from the theater. Maybe she was supposed to be.
Roger Ebert's review had some weird grammatical or spelling and sense mistakes.
Rightly or wrongly the notion that corporations have won and have won us really grabbed me while watching Heights.
This was one of those quiet movies. I don't mean quiet film as in understated, but literally a quiet movie/sound script. It's one of those dvds you can fall asleep to. It's so soothing, no loud noises, slow, nice, tinkling soundtrack, everyone's voices are soft. It wasn't boring. I watched it once, then started it over and fell asleep to it the second time.
Weeds (2005)
SEASON ONE: Be real & dealing dope ain't no big thing. SEASON TWO: Whoa Nelly! Runaway Train
Do rich or used-to be rich suburbanites really cuss that much? I mean...really? Yeah, I get it: they're holding in so much anger through trying to be nice and happy all the time that it comes out in their nasty language. But, it's excessive and crosses over into unrealistic.
So much happens to these characters, particularly the main character Nancy, in the course of a day that you're just thinking, "No way. If all that happened to me, I'd be dead."
The brother-in-law gets a letter from the Army reserves saying he has to go to Iraq. So he freaks out, goes swimming, and -- still freaking out -- and still a total stoner and still being drafted to Iraq, he pulls it together enough to give his sister-in-law some important family advice: the most important thing is to be real with your kids. Tell them you're dealing and you'll have less stress and fewer problems with your kids, and more harmony within the family. Just be real.
See now, a real show would show the the rapid, ugly and stunning plunge from upperclass life when the dad died and its impact on the family. How they'd have to move out, into another neighborhood, then a worse one. They might even have to...WORK! Then the mom would start smoking pot herself. It would show a real economic impact. In "Weeds", that impact is presented as nothing more than a distraction with a surprisingly strong moral code, relatively little danger and almost no fear of getting caught.
Still -- a pretty entertaining distraction.
Let's just keep our focus here: this is more than pure fiction. It's an idealized world - comic book story. No life lessons to speak of.
SEASON TWO: Well the chickens have certainly come home to roost with this show. I thought it was always a bit far-fetched first season -- so much was jampacked into one person's life, and yet she barely exhaled at the end of the day. Season two is the logical extension of that. Last year, they were barely holding on to a script that was about to careen out of control. This year, gone. The producers, writers, whoever, are gonna have to grab the reins back and fast or the show risks totally blowing itself up. Because at this point, Nancy is pretty much an accessory to murder, and Conrad pretty much is a murderer, and how we gon pretty that one up? Will the makers of this show ever acknowledge the amorality of their characters, or do they just think their high-consumin' viewers are happy just getting some slick product and won't ask questions?
The Great Santini (1979)
Simplistic and Good
If you are ever pining for a film that espouses wholesome family values but most of what you find is syrup-y, The Great Santini is the film for you.
The theme of this movie is that love is a force of almost limitless, even frightening power, and life is all about the search for qualities to temper this force so that we can do it (love) with more ease, regularity and goodness. That we may get good at it, learn to live in it and speak it.
The characters all have a lust for life, act unself-consciously and unapologetically. This is a portrait of a truly loving family.
The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio (2005)
Organization over storytelling
Did this movie seem a bit lifeless to you? Did it seem at times claustrophobic, slow and lugubrious? Were you wondering, what is the point? Then by all means, don't watch the director's comments. It will bring the experience to a screeching halt.
Every scene was clean and tidy. Everyone was in their places. Control was omnipresent. The director was not being a director so much as a compulsive tidier and organizer. All life was drained out of this film. And I must ask was it really that great an idea or story to begin with? Perhaps with some re-working the story could have been more dynamic, but as it was, who really wants to watch a peppy woman sit in front of a TV set with her 10 children, watching, with a notebook in her hand while her husband in the kitchen has a boring temper tantrum because "he doesn't live up to the image of what it means to be a man in the 50s?" A big mistake was made in emphasizing the whole contest angle (& secondarily, some predictable commentary on being a woman in the 50s) over the soul of a woman who not only had 10 children and a drunk for a husband, but raised her children well (apparently) and kept her composure doing it (supposedly). The children were abstractions - punctuation marks, wallpaper; again, the focus was on clean and tidy scenes, on set design rather than storytelling.
As for the mother, Evelyn Ryan, herself, one suspects that in actuality she was a bit saucier in real life, and probably had her own temper tantrums from time to time. Sometimes the movie rang false because of its seemingly childlike insistence on seeing the mother as a saint. We get it: she took lemons and made lemon aide, but she did so in a flat way that did not engage the viewer's credulity, imagination or intellect. Perhaps that's really how it was.
Technically semi well- but unimaginatively-done.
Crazy/Beautiful (2001)
Fresh New Everwood!
I saw this film after having watched a Prime Time Live in which a particularly disturbed step family is profiled using fixed cameras throughout their home. The father-daughter relationship portrayed in Crazy Beautiful struck me as pretty authentic: the dad, distracted by his new wife and baby, constantly takes the wife's side in her battles with his daughter, and blames his daughter for just about everything. Not only does she not get Dad's attention, she gets his blame. The whole thing felt completely real.
So the two main characters are from different classes, but given their relatively young age, it doesn't impede their love. Love and realizing that that love can make them whole is tantalizingly palpable in Crazy Beautiful and overrides everything. It, not class, is the point. I could believe that years from now, they would be each other's strength. They were meant to be together.
And yet
.the happy ending was pursued with a uniquely American zeal. A zeal for neat and tidy endings. All the complications that had spilled out so beautifully had to be swept up into orderly piles so that Dad no longer resented ANYthing, and for her family it was smooth sailing from here on out. How Carlos's mother felt about the crazy American girl, I guess is completely inconsequential.
Indecent Proposal (1993)
Fatal Attraction for the Juvie Set
A good example of the differences between American and foreign cinema can be seen in a film I recently watched on television: Indecent Proposal.
Indecent Proposal's two protagonists, David and Diane Murphy are played Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore. I'm not sure if it was their total lack of chemistry or that they were not acting well, but why we should care so much whether these two stay together was beyond me. Love, affection, playfulness, attraction none of these materialized on screen in their interactions together.
Since I knew that eventually Robert Redford would show up, it was clear from the beginning that the good part, the meat of the movie, would be the scenes between him and Demi Moore. Poor Woody Harrelson just could not muster any emotion at all for the film. He seemed to be holding back, preoccupied with his receding hairline.
OK, so fast forward. What idiots these two (Diane and David) are for thinking they can win back the $50,000 they owe by gambling. No acting faux pas there, just hideously bad, lazy, unforgivable writing. Of course they lose all their money. Surprised? I know I wasn't. Enter Robert Redford (John Gage in the film) a romantic, perhaps emotionally frigid man, an updated Gatsby. A very good role and though not a great, great actor, next to those two, Redford looks like Olivier. He immediately falls in love and lust with Diane and we the viewers for once FEEL it. This is how to love a woman! Not David's way, trading gum mouth to mouth with Diane on a slimy pier. (Did I see that right?) As Gage, Redford wears a suit and tie in every scene. Yes it's meant to instruct the seemingly brain dead audience that here is a Rich Man, but he also looks damn good and by this point the brain dead audience appreciates it! Other wardrobe symbolism includes David's now-ironed shirts at the end of the film, signifying resolve, getting it together after a long interlude of forlorn wrinkled shirt wearing.
And what is it with California garden parties as depicted in Hollywood movies? Suddenly everyone appears British, complete with lacy dresses, three piece suits for the men, hats (HATS!) and of course the parasol. Yes Diane, her transformation to Rich Man's fiancée now complete, is there at the auction daintily twirling a parasol. Though she insisted that she couldn't be bought, she succumbed at last to the sexual tension. Here is where the film branches off into pure Americana. I mean, of course David and Diane will end up together, my question is: WHY? Diane was bored with David, why not let her ride the Robert Redford wave? And I mean for a good long while? How can she pull herself out of the sexual-romantic thrall of this sexy older man so easily just because Woody Harrelson brings his receding hairline to the garden party, sits himself down and looks Demi Moore in the eyes. That's just not how it goes. He was so WEAK.
But we must have our happy ending. We have to swallow the Moral Lesson. We're not sophisticated enough yet to have it otherwise. Director Lyn tried to make a Fatal Attraction for the juvie set, the young'uns.
In addition to garden parties in which there's nary an SUV, tee shirt, or baseball cap in sight, such films also feature a reliable public transportation system that connects far-flung California cities and municipalities. How else to symbolize the return to middle class or working class life?
Lost (2004)
Oh, for what could have been!
First of all, guess who survives the plane crash? Only those between the ages of 20 and 35. Yes, the odd over and under slip past, but you get the idea. Make-up? Intact! Hair? Never greasy or disheveled! Temperament? Smooth sailing. Someone wrote a review that said how great Lost is because there's never any mugging for the camera. I'm not sure what that person meant, but there are lots and lots of clichés and whatever the au courant, hyper sarcastic jargon is these days, it's used. In spades. The whole idea behind the show is so terrific, and that is what compounds the disappointment. Nevertheless, I hang on, hoping week after week for a glimmer of realized potential. But mostly I come away with scenes, dialogue, characters that bug the living *@&*& out of me. Can't we - once and for all - ban the word 'dude?' As for the overweight guy, wouldn't someone with such an obviously high caloric intake at some point or another be manic for food? For that matter, where's everyone's temper, their despair? It's quite the opposite for Kate, the young American who now has three men digging her. It seems like the writers decided that being stranded on an island without food, electricity etc is a great place for people to get in touch with their issues, neatly resolve them with each other, helping each other. It's like a bunch of short story writers met one weekend in Vermont, read each other their stories and then a panel selected their most vivid characters, put them on a plane, and had it crash on a far-off island. (The pop psychologists took it from there.) Not one character's life was dull, they all had super charged emotional issues to wrangle with, or else fantastic life stories, like Said's. Speaking of Said, I at first found it a tad cruel and ironic that the writers gave the lone Muslim on the show a history of using torture. Nevertheless, up to this point (November), he is one of the show's most compelling characters. Overall: B-
The Quiller Memorandum (1966)
Needs Better Male Lead
What was so obviously lacking in The Quiller Memorandum was a solid male lead. George Segal just does not cut it. It was crying out for a 'vehicle' to drive it, á la Cary Grant. With him in the role, or someone like him, the film, passably interesting at best, would have revolved around him and kept the viewer engaged. For this reason, it was a bit of a frustrating experience watching it, watching George Segal preparing his cavalier line deliverance style for the future likes of Shoot Me. Though he might be city-wise, he is not worldly, and he lacked the necessary interest level to get from one end of the film to the other. I'll give him this, though: the romance scene was pretty steamy. But that is the extent of his dynamism on screen in this film.
Perhaps it is only after years of watching Segal in forgettable sit-coms like Shoot Me that it is difficult to take him seriously in the role of Quiller.