alafolle Reviews

Miss Gulag (2007)

Celebrating beauty in a cold, hard place

[8/10 · 26 June 2007]

Considering the extremes to which the reality TV phenomenon has been taken, it was only a matter of time before America was treated to a beauty pageant at a women's prison in Siberia. But this is actually a true story, and a surprisingly good film to boot.

Russian-American filmmakers Maria Yatskova and Irina Vodar give us an intimate glimpse into the lives of several current and former inmates of prison camp UF-91/9. These young women have struggled with the challenges of life in post-Soviet Russia, as drugs, poverty, and violence led them each onto the wrong side of the prison walls. It's a harsh work camp, where the women work long hours making uniforms for soldiers, but once a year they are allowed to use the sewing machines to express their own creativity and femininity. The inmates take their "Miss Spring" contest seriously, and the results are both amusing and endearing.

Despite a light, humorous tone to many of the scenes, "Miss Gulag" captures the frustration and despair felt by those who have been denied a share of the new prosperity and personal freedom in Russia. But it's also a testament to the power of human imagination to flourish in unlikely places. Highly recommended.

Audience of One (2007)

Documenting a delusion

[9/10 · 26 June 2007]

A pentecostal preacher sees his first movie at age 40. He receives a vision from God telling him to produce a science fiction epic. He convinces his family and parishioners to dedicate all their money and time to shooting this movie in Italy, on a 65 mm camera. The plan involves God providing a 200 million dollar budget after they start shooting. No, just in case you were wondering, this isn't going to end well.

Director Mike Jacobs gives us a front-row seat as Pastor Richard Gazowsky and his Christian WYSIWYG production company fight a losing battle against reality. Thirty years after Jim Jones led a similar San Francisco congregation on a descent into madness, there's an element to this tale of history repeating itself as farce. Yet Gazowzky comes off more like a deranged version of the Music Man than a sinister cult leader. He's a charming and naive huckster who has conned the people around him, including himself, into indulging his fantasy. When he bravely led his wife and kids onto the stage at the Silverdocs Festival to answer audience questions, it was hard not to feel some grudging admiration for a man who is so unwilling to let others discourage him from pursuing his dreams.

But "Audience of One" relentlessly chronicles his reckless abuse of other people's money and faith in pursuit of those dreams. At times, the terrible decision-making on display is stressful to watch. This is a fascinating character study, and a fair and honest treatment of a strain of religious faith that deserves to be seriously questioned.

It is a rich irony that God's plan for Richard Gazowsky gave us an excellent film after all.

Vores lykkes fjender (2006)

A profile in courage

[8/10 · 24 June 2007]

In 2003, as Afghanis assembled at their Loya Jirga to draft a new Constitution, and Western politicians and pundits celebrated the advent of freedom and democracy in Afghanistan, one young woman stood up in front of the assembly and asked a question that nobody wanted to answer: Why were the warlords, drug lords, and Islamic fundamentalists who destroyed her country participating in the new government, instead of standing trial for their crimes?

This documentary follows that bold young woman, Malalai Joya, as she campaigns to be one of the first women elected to the Afghan Parliament. Driven by a fierce belief in democracy, Joya fights to improve the lives of her countrymen, but she faces determined opposition from the traditional tribal leaders who seek to consolidate their power and preserve a way of life that treats women little better than slaves. As a result, powerful people want her dead and she (ironically) has to wear a burqa in public for her own protection.

The only real flaw in "Enemies of Happiness" is that it's too short. The film ends on a hopeful note, but Joya was recently kicked out of the Parliament and the US State Department had to fight to get her an exit visa so she could attend the screening at the Silverdocs Festival. There is more to this story than what was captured on film. But director Eva Mulvad did an impressive job in a dangerous environment, and she deserves praise for bringing us this profile in courage.

Children of Men (2006)

Love it or hate it, just don't miss it.

[10/10 · 23 February 2007]

Children of Men is the sort of film that elicits strong opinions, both positive and negative. Cuaron hurls his audience into an alternate world with minimal exposition and expects us to figure out what's happening on our own. The science-fictional plot device is absurd and no effort is made to provide a scientific explanation. The narrative is propelled by unlikely developments and the occasional deus ex machina. The dystopian future of 2027 bears an unfortunate resemblance to the worst neighborhoods of our own era, and those hoping for stylish futuristic sets (a la Blade Runner) will be disappointed.

But those who are drawn into Cuaron's world will be mesmerized. There is a vitality and immediacy to the cinematography and directing that has been all too rare in recent years. In the final 30 minutes of the film, viewers are dragged into the hell of a third world refugee camp and forced to experience the chaos and confusion of being innocent bystanders on a battlefield, with no guide book or interpreter. The emotional reaction is powerful and genuine, not coaxed out of us with fluttering flags and orchestral accompaniment. Despite being marketed as science fiction, the power of the movie comes from its extreme realism.

This is a film that takes itself seriously, but to me it was not the least bit stuffy or "pretentious." The action is intense and often fast-paced, and the characters do not deliver grandiose monologues. The depth of this film lies in its truths that are unspoken, and in its attention to detail. It can be seen in the way the characters grieve for a celebrity death rather than the routine tragedy of a street bombing. It can be glimpsed through a bus window in a refugee camp. It is ultimately driven home in an allusion to the World War 1 Christmas cease-fire, one of the most bizarre, yet illuminating moments in human history. This is not a "message movie," but there is more than one message here if you choose to look for it.

There are many valid criticisms that can be made of Children of Men, but I strongly reject the claim that this is a work of political propaganda. The political message is powerful precisely because it is NOT propaganda. This film offers us no ideological heroes or easy answers. It simply takes the extremes of poverty, war, and hopelessness in our own world, and eliminates the distance between us and them. Cuaron isn't giving us a solution, but he's forcing us to confront the issues.

If you ask me, this is the most powerful and gripping movie I have seen in years. Your mileage may vary.

Stranger Than Fiction (2006)

Charlie Kaufman-lite isn't such a bad thing...

[8/10 · 4 December 2006]

"Stranger than Fiction" is a smart, entertaining film that doesn't quite achieve greatness, but it's definitely worth a trip to the theater.

This is the story of a stiff IRS Agent who slowly realizes that he's actually a character in an unfinished novel, narrated by a voice in his head, and he's slated for imminent death. It would have been an easy setup to play for cheap laughs, or as pseudo-intellectual Oscar bait that takes itself way too seriously. So I was pleasantly surprised to discover that this is actually a very good movie.

Will Ferrell's performance is so understated in the early scenes that it almost defeats the purpose of casting him in the role. But as the story builds up steam, he does a fine job of balancing the comic and serious aspects of his character. Ferrell also has surprisingly good chemistry with Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is terrific as usual. Although the romance is not well developed (which makes sense, I suppose, in a film about the formulaic and arbitrary nature of fiction) the scenes between the two are memorable. Queen Latifah is unfortunately wasted in an underdeveloped role, but the rest of the cast is pitch-perfect.

It's true that Zach Helm's script can be described as "Charlie Kaufman-lite", but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The dialogue generates laughs without forcing them, and the story is clever without aggressively reminding us about how clever it is. The metaphysical and literary themes of the story are handled with a light touch, which keeps the fantasy plot devices from feeling completely contrived. By focusing on the human side of the story, rather than just trying to dazzle us with narrative complexity, "Stranger than Fiction" is ultimately more satisfying than Kaufman's "Adaptation".

This may be lite literature, but it's very funny in places, it has a stellar soundtrack, and it doesn't require you to check your brain at the door. As far as I'm concerned, that's entertainment.

The Blood of My Brother (2005)

The footage is better than the film

[7/10 · 17 June 2006]

Although Andrew Berends was unable to piece together a compelling storyline from the footage he shot in Iraq, the footage often speaks for itself.

With incredible access into the lives of Iraqi Shiites during six crucial months in 2004, Berends shows scenes of turmoil from a variety of different perspectives -- the grieving family of a young man who was accidentally shot by US troops, an anti-American rally led by Moqtada al-Sadr, American soldiers on patrol, and Mehdi Army insurgents firing on the Americans. Many of the scenes are harrowing. Put together, these scenes don't add up to a comprehensive picture of Iraq that makes any sense, but this problem has plagued nearly all coverage of the Iraq War. The war itself makes very little sense.

Unfortunately, the film focuses too closely on Ibrahim, the younger brother of a slain Iraqi civilian. He's a petulant and unsympathetic figure, and it was probably a mistake to build a full-length feature film around his story. "Blood of My Brother" works best when Berends wades into the chaos of Baghdad's streets and lets the events speak for themselves.

Jesus Camp (2006)

The Culture War goes to summer camp.

[8/10 · 16 June 2006]

I saw this film at the Silverdocs festival, expecting it to be little more than an oddball slice of Americana, but I was pleasantly surprised.

"Jesus Camp" revolves around a pentecostal minister who hosts a summer camp for children in North Dakota, and the sectarian Christian conservative families who send their children to this camp. Directors Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady wisely chose to avoid the polemical tone of most politically-motivated films, and instead opt to present a mostly unfiltered glimpse of this odd subculture. But through carefully selected images and the use of talk radio commentary as a framing device, they construct a subtle, yet damning narrative about a religious movement that isolates its children from mainstream culture, indoctrinates them into right-wing causes, and uses them as political props.

At Jesus Camp, the daily activities include standard camp fare such as spelunking and go-karts, but they also include speaking in tongues and smashing coffee mugs emblazoned with the word "government". Children learn that "science doesn't prove anything," and learn to consider themselves part of an Army of God. They are compelled to pledge that they will fight to end abortion. They are even pushed into publicly confessing their impure thoughts, and many of them cry and wail charismatically.

The camp director explains that she admires the way Islamic cultures raise children so devoted they will risk their lives for their faith. When we ultimately see several of the campers being placed by their parents on the steps of the Capitol with tape over their mouths, protesting abortion, the real purpose of this camp is driven home.

But the most touching scenes are the ones where the children are alone, and we see the ways that this indoctrination creeps into the most innocent elements of childhood. 11 year old Tori loves dancing to Christian rock, but frets that it's not always easy to dance for God instead of "dancing for the flesh." On an outing to the bowling alley, 9 year old Rachael feels compelled to walk up to strangers and awkwardly evangelize to them, without being prompted. A roomful of boys telling ghost stories after dark are interrupted by an adult who warns them about stories that don't glorify God.

No doubt some viewers will accuse the filmmakers of the dreaded liberal bias. But this is not a work of fiction, nor is it slanted reporting. These are real people and real events, captured on film. If the evangelical movement comes off badly in this film, the people on screen have no one but themselves to blame.

Minority Report (2002)

Should have been much better...

[7/10 · 13 January 2003]

This was an enjoyable movie, but ultimately disappointing because it should have been a truly memorable film.

Steven Spielberg should simply steer clear of any story that contains the slightest element of film noir. His directing style is completely unsuited to this type of project. This movie careens wildly between noir imagery and heartstring-tugging sentimentalism, between stylish action sequences and bubble-gum. It never builds any lasting tension. It never takes the time to revel in its glorious futurish sets. The camera rarely steps back from its claustrophobic POV to give us a sense of atmosphere. Spielberg is always more interested in pushing his viewers' emotional buttons than in creating a coherent work of art. This impulse serves him well when making family-oriented movies, but it has haunted him in his recent efforts to make serious adult-minded films.

To the extent that "Minority Report" succeeds in engaging us, it owes a great debt to its source material. Phillip K. Dick's short story, upon which the movie is based, was one of his classic brain-teasers. In the future, murders can be predicted in advance and prevented... but only if people are willing to cede many cherished safeguards of freedom to a creepily totalitarian government agency. It's a thought-provoking concept that the movie fleshes out fairly nicely... until a completely unnecessary and haphazardly tacked-on ending sequence opens up mile-wide plot holes and dilutes the impact of Dick's message.

This film worked best when it stepped away from its narrow storyline and engaged us with its its vision of 2053 America. The billboards which scan people's retinas and deliver individually-tailored ad pitches were a nice Orwellian touch. The oddball side characters (especially Peter Stormare as a creepy black-market eye surgeon) lent a unique character to the movie. The cyberpunkish set design was generally quite good. Unfortunately, the strengths of "Minority Report" were consistently undercut by its uneven direction and the weaknesses in the script.

This is what happens when a good film gets Spielberged.

I think most people will enjoy this movie, just don't set your expectations too high. And don't think too hard about how much better it could have been in the hands of a truly edgy and daring filmmaker.

Altered States (1980)

An interesting mess...

[6/10 · 16 October 2002]

It's probably not worth trying to explain "Altered States" to someone who hasn't seen it. This is an acid film, and since the only mind-altering substance at my disposal while watching this was a bottle of Labatt's, I don't think any explanation I can provide would really do this movie justice. As a story, it's a convoluted mess. But it succeeds to a great extent on the strength of its highly unique visual style.

William Hurt plays a brilliant (yet clearly schizophrenic) psychiatrist who becomes fascinated with studying the induction of hallucinogenic trance-states via a sensory deprivation chamber. He becomes convinced that within these "altered states" of consciousness lies the key to understanding some of the great secrets of life... death, religion, evolution, etc. This obsession leads him to a mountaintop in Mexico, where he obtains a powerful mushroom concoction that is not likely to be approved by the FDA in the near future, and begins to allow Hurt to physically regress into increasingly primal states of being. From there, the movie descends down some well-trodden paths (2001, Jekyll and Hyde) and culminates in a disappointingly conventional ending.

But "Altered States" only stumbles when it tries too hard to make sense-- and comes off as pretentious posing. When it trips out and turns on its visual power, this is an impressive bit of art. Bizarre religious imagery straight from the Book of Revelations captures beautifully the descent into the madness of a bad trip, and it only gets more mind-altering as the film progresses.

Charles Haid gives a strong supporting performance, as does Blair Brown (and she's not a bad bit of eye candy, either.) Ken Russell's direction is definitely over the top, but the special effects were quite well done, and made me long for the days before filmmakers were spoiled by today's hollow and lifeless CGI graphics. All in all... not a bad movie.

Foxfire (1996)

Worth a rental...

[6/10 · 1 October 2002]

This is not by any stretch of the imagination a great film. The characters are two-dimensional, the plot is clunky, the sound is spotty, the directing is uneven... but "Foxfire" is worth watching because a previously unknown young actress named Angelina Jolie waltzed onto the set and completely stole this movie.

From her memorable entrance, with the camera panning slowly up from her boots, this movie belongs to Jolie. Part riot-grrl James Dean, part goth Ingrid Bergman, smoldering with sexual tension-- she's simply perfect in this part.

The rest of the cast is pretty solid, the indie rock soundtrack is great, and the story manages to avoid being completely predictable... which is pretty rare for a teen flick. "Foxfire" is a schlocky movie, to be sure, but it's definitely a guilty pleasure.

The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)

The Coen brothers are a national treasure.

[9/10 · 29 July 2002]

Somehow, even now in the benighted 21st Century, Joel and Ethan Coen still continue to schnooker American studio bigwigs into paying them good money to make interesting, unique films. All I can say to them is, "Thank you".

"The Man who Wasn't There" takes its sweet time to build up tension, and never quite reaches a conventional climax. The plot meanders through various left turns, random scenes that don't fit into the narrative, and scenes that seem to take place merely to allow the Coens and cinematographer Roger Deakins to play around with light and smoke and enjoy how cool it all looks on B&W film. No matter. The whole thing is a load of fun. Unlike the overly slapsticky "O Brother", this movie is played completely deadpan, which requires the viewer to pay close attention in order to catch the underlying comedy, but the payoff is worth the effort.

The pacing is, as many here have noted, quite slow and deliberate, but the Coens have a wonderful sense of the absurd that keeps the movie from falling into boredom or melancholy. While the conservative, conformist dullness of post-war America would seem to be an overly easy target for satire, the Coens manage to avoid most of the easy choices. The true villain here isn't greed, or heavy-handed government, or social conservatism, or any of the usual targets of film noir... although all of these evils make an appearance. Rather, the villains of this movie are the lives of quiet desperation that ordinary people lead after they sell out their dreams in exchange for security. Ed Crane's life falls apart after his schemes backfire... but he is somehow curiously redeemed as a human being.

Billy Bob Thornton is simply perfect in the lead role, displaying an amazing range of emotions without ever cracking a smile or raising his voice. Tony Shalhoub chews up scenery as a celebrity defense lawyer. Frances McDormand is stellar as always... I suspect Joel Coen would cast her in his movies even if she wasn't married to him. It's simply a top-notch film... and even in the places where it takes a wrong turn, it still manages to be worth watching.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Lowered Expectations Save the Day

[7/10 · 17 June 2002]

After the disappointing Episode One, and reading so many bitterly negative reviews here at IMDB, I went into "Attack of the Clones" expecting to see a lame movie... and I was pleasantly surprised.

This one ain't bad!

(...but it's not all that great)

There is much to enjoy about this flick. The series returns to its old atmosphere of lively action sequences, bizarre alien creatures, seedy bars full of lowlife scum, wisecracking heroes, and mythic duels between good and evil. The love scenes and political intrigue aren't nearly as long and boring as I was led to believe they would be. The goofy slapstick and lame pseudoscience of The Phantom Menace have all but disappeared. By and large, this FEELS LIKE a Star Wars movie. Sure, the symbolism is heavy-handed and the plot devices are wildly implausible. But the Star Wars series has never been anything more, or less, than B-movie space operas for kids with inflated special-effects budgets. That's why we love them.

But, as with Episode One, we are forced to wonder just how much better this movie could have been had Lucas hired a good director, and allowed his script to be edited by professionals. Christopher and Portman are forced to act stiff and unnatural, and recite some of the lamest dialogue ever written. Samuel L. Jackson is wasted except for his battle scene. As in so many recent CGI-heavy action movies, the pacing is too fast and the camera changes are too abrupt to get a clear sense of the action. But on the plus side, Ewan McGregor has grown gracefully into his role as Obi Wan, and he almost single-handedly makes the story work.

Lucas has stated that current technology has now allowed him to make the movies he always wanted to make... but I can't help feeling that he made better movies when he was restricted by the laws of nature and forced to creatively improvise special effects. Now he just jam-packs every frame of the movie with whatever ideas pop into his head. Sometimes this process works brilliantly, but many sequences are a jumbled, cartoonish mess. Furthermore, the lack of edgy, dangerous, morally ambiguous heroes such as Han Solo and Chewbacca makes the simplistic good vs. evil overtones that we tolerated in the original series become genuinely annoying. This one-two punch of overused special effects and increased character blandness ruined the "Special Editions" of the original trilogy, and prevents the prequel trilogy from living up to our expectations.

Despite all that, I found Episode Two to be reasonably enjoyable. It's worth the time and money to see it on the big screen. And the overall theme of the movie (how the threat of war can be manipulated to turn a republic into an evil empire) is actually quite timely and important.

Until the End of the World (1991)

It's quite good until the part where the world ends

[6/10 · 4 June 2002]

The cinematography is beautiful... the soundtrack is near-perfect... the director's vision is unique... for the first two-thirds of the film, I was hooked. But then it all goes wrong.

Wim Wenders creates an intriguing universe for his characters to inhabit-- a science-fictional 1999 imagined during the heady days of German reunification. It's a somewhat creepy techno-globalized and paranoid world facing an uncertain future, with an out-of-control Indian nuclear satellite looming ominously in the sky. Solveig Dommartin plays a flighty and impulsive femme fatale, who stalks a mysterious loner (William Hurt) across the bleak futuristic landscape, one step ahead of a ragtag assortment of bounty hunters, oddball bank robbers, and an ex-boyfriend (Sam Neill) who narrates. The moody, scenic, slow-building style is quintessential Wenders, and it's possibly his finest work.

But once we reach the promised "end of the world", in the Australian outback, the film takes a sharp left turn into third-rate psychodrama and ultimately comes unglued, with a long, dragging denouement that should have been cut entirely. The film clocks in at roughly three hours, but it feels more like four.

Fans of Wenders' other works should definitely check this one out, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.

Get Over It (2001)

Nearly impossible to sit through...

[2/10 · 3 June 2002]

Wow. This movie was awful.

I've found that teen flicks tend to be underrated by most critics. While it is true that most such movies follow formulaic and predictable storylines, the genre usually provides harmless fun and often showcases innovative direction and talented young actors.

"Get Over It", however, is an unmitigated disaster. Trying to cash in on the recent spate of teen Shakespeare updates such as the enjoyable "Ten Things I Hate About You", the filmmakers serve up a lame teen break-up movie centered around a painfully unfunny parody of a high school musical production of "A Midsummer's Night's Dream". The musical numbers were so long and dull that my fingers inevitably found my way to the fast-forward button. With the sole exception of Kirsten Dunst, the actors seem too visibly embarrassed by the lousy script to put any effort into their work. Martin Short's egomaniacal producer shtick is woefully old and tired, and should be buried at sea, ASAP. I laughed exactly once, at the culmination of a running gag involving the main character's oversexed dog. Mostly I just cringed.

Only the cuteness power of Kirsten Dunst saves this turkey from being completely unwatchable. I charitably give it 2 out of 10. I advise you to stay far, far away from it.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

A picturesque train wreck of a movie

[4/10 · 17 April 2002]

Beautiful, lavishly constructed sets. An energetic and charming lead actress. Creative special effects. But somehow the whole production goes down in flames, writhing and screaming.

Simon West appears to be the sort of director who will hire a crack team of programmers to model and develop a whiz-bang expensive CGI monster, painstakingly detailed down to the color of its toenails, and then grant the monster 1.5 seconds of screen time, during which it is moving too damn fast for the viewer to actually see it. The movie is visually impressive, but the pacing is so terrible that we don't have a chance to enjoy it. It's a character-driven action movie, but we don't get to know the characters, and the action is rammed down our throats so hard that we don't get to savor it.

I propose a new Hollywood Production Code. All directors of future "Raiders of the Lost Ark" rip-offs shall be forced to study the aforementioned movie and take notes on the lost art of building suspense.

Angelina Jolie deserves praise for throwing herself gamely into this physically demanding role and carrying herself like a Grade-A movie star. The rest of the actors are barely noticeable... only one or two characters seem to have identifiable purposes in life other than to battle animated monsters. The two most memorable characters other than Lara Croft herself are Ms. Jolie's horrifyingly massive CGI breasts, which deliver a nuanced performance by subtly waxing and waning in size during the course of the action, and by moving in a gravity-and-logic-defying manner relative to the rest of the actress.

Overall, "Tomb Raider" scores only two boobs out of a possible five. Although the DVD is worth renting just to see the elaborately cool introduction, I'd recommend waiting until it's on the discount rack.

Mulholland Drive (2001)

No need for plot and character, if you've got enough style.

[9/10 · 16 April 2002]

---Contains Spoilers---

Much time and energy on this site has gone into efforts to reconstruct the plot and timeline of this film from its shattered fragments. Some have even proposed solutions to the puzzle that ALMOST fit. But not quite. As just one example, in the first portion of the film, Diane is dead and Adam is still married. In the second portion, Adam's divorce is finalized, but Diane is still alive. It is simply impossible to piece the shards of narrative together, and that (of course) is precisely the point of "Mulholland Drive". David Lynch doesn't merely rearrange the timeline of the story, as happens in such films as "Pulp Fiction" or "Memento", he completely destroys the continuity of the characters. This is a much more jarring disruption of the story, which apparently sends many viewers running headlong for the exits, but makes this flick pretty darn enjoyable for geeks such as myself.

By completely stripping away such artificial details as plot and character, Lynch puts the emphasis on the basic truth contained within the film. Watching the movie in real-time we see the following: Naïve, bright-eyed ingenue comes to Hollywood hoping to be in the movies... she is sexually used, betrayed, manipulated by unseen powers, cheated out of parts by a less-talented actress who sleeps with the director... she ends up jaded, bitter, and insane. We learn that Hollywood is full of freaks, ghouls, murderers, loose women, directors who compromise their idealism under pressure, bizarre and powerful men who manipulate the movie industry, etc. Our heroine falls in love with an exotic amnesiac and tries to help her uncover her mysterious identity, but the woman turns out to be a conniving bitch. Tragedy ensues. Roll credits.

In the hands of a typical director, this basic story would result in a cheap, formulaic commercial movie. The story isn't particularly interesting... it's been told a thousand times before. Why should we care? We all know that plot and character are contrived concepts designed to hook viewers into digesting familiar stories... and to care enough about the ending to sit still for 2 hours and ultimately recommend the movie to their friends. So Lynch comes to the process in a different manner. He manipulates plot and character to build suspense, and then dispenses with them when they are no longer necessary. This allows him to tell the old story in a new, interesting way. It provides a medium for a bunch of really cool camera shots of Hollywood at night, creepy music, steamy sex scenes, surprising twists, and oddball side characters. Abstraction and surrealism have been used in literature and visual art for a very long time, and it's surprising how few filmmakers dabble in these techniques. Some people enjoy it, some don't. Considering how the entertainment industry strives relentlessly to reach the maximum possible audience with every single production, I find it quite refreshing to see that there are still movie directors who would rather make half their audience angry than worry about maximizing their profits.

I personally consider this to be an outstanding film. Naomi Watts gives an outstanding performance in a complex double role. The score is bone-chillingly perfect. The scenery and mood are captivating. The weird parts are blissfully bizarre. In other words... it's David Lynch at his Lynchian best.

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

A Success!

[9/10 · 29 January 2002]

Very rarely has a popular book been so successfully adapted to the screen. Peter Jackson's "Fellowship of the Ring" manages to appeal to die-hard Tolkien fans without pandering to them, and the world he creates remains true to the books without being constrained by them. This achievement, in and of itself, is worthy of high praise.

The cinematography is gorgeous, the attention to detail is staggering, and Jackson's creative vision of Middle Earth builds upon Tolkien's rather than just replicating it by the numbers. In the background we see ruins of past civilizations, trolls turned to stone, giant statues of legendary kings... we are completely transported into another world. The special effects are, for the most part, seamlessly integrated into the film and have a flair of originality long missing from factory-issue Hollywood blockbusters. Not only did "Fellowship" out-Star-Wars the Star Wars trilogy, it made the unpleasant memory of "The Phantom Menace" begin to fade from my consciousness entirely.

While the dialogue occasionally bordered on cheesey and/or pretentious, Jackson was wise enough to follow the number one rule of fantasy filmmaking: If you want silly made-up words to sound cool, hire Shakespearean-trained British actors. Indeed, Sir Ian McKellan has effectively rendered it impossible for anyone else to ever play the part of Gandalf. He was perfect. The rest of the casting was generally quite good, too. Elijah Wood may not be the world's finest actor, but he certainly does look like a hobbit. He may actually BE a hobbit. I was also very impressed with Sean Bean as Boromir. His part is actually much better written and more sympathetic than it was in the book, and Bean plays the role with just the right mix of pomposity and good cheer.

Just a few minor quibbles... the "Frodo falls flat on his back" motif is repeated far too many times. The duel between Gandalf and Saruman is poorly done, despite excellent performances by both actors. The battle scenes suffer a bit from the herky-jerky camera work that plagues nearly all contemporary action movies. The plot trajectory is uneven and some scenes feel a bit contrived-- although, given the sheer weight of the source material, I think the editing was better than we had any right to expect.

On the whole, this is the best big-budget action movie in many, many years. Kudos to the cast and crew for tackling such a difficult project and bringing it to life on the screen.

Amélie (2001)

A film that no sentient creature could possibly dislike.

[9/10 · 12 December 2001]

French cinema often leaves me underwhelmed, so I was pleasantly shocked by "Amelie". Rarely, if ever, has a film so perfectly captured the spirit of a unique character and thoroughly infected its viewers with her charm. But what really caught me off-guard was the film's wonderful sense of humor. Amelie is so many light years more romantic, funny, and creative than Hollywood's recent so-called "romantic comedies", that the makers of such movies should be forced to quit their professions, move to Uzbekistan, and take up goat-herding.

The only meaningful comparison is to "Breakfast at Tiffany's", but "Amelie" is significantly more entertaining. Much like a certain other actress named Audrey, Ms. Tautou is absolutely charming. Indeed, the entire cast is stellar, breathing a real vitality into the troop of oddball characters that inhabit Amelie's world. Jean-Pierre Jeunet takes obvious delight in capturing the quirks and oddities of life, adding surprising depth to characters and events that might otherwise feel clichéd.

I've heard many people say that they don't like to watch films with subtitles. I say that anyone who can read at a high school level, and possesses a soul, should enjoy "Amelie". You'll love it.

If nothing else, you will never look at gnomes the same way again.

Memento (2000)

Just enjoy the movie!

[9/10 · 12 December 2001]

"Memento" is not really one of the ten greatest films of all time, but that's hardly an insult. It's a very intelligent, stylish neo-noir film with a creative concept and solid execution. The concept is actually quite simple, but effective-- the backward narrative allows us to slowly uncover the mysterious beginning. And, much like the protagonist, we are never actually certain what is really going on. "Memento" isn't as complex and innovative as some would have you believe, but it certainly deserves its hype more than, say, "Being John Malkovich".

The brilliance of the film actually lies in how beautifully and thoroughly the narrative conveys the basic theme-- memory is subjective. We all make sense of our lives through little mementoes and fragments of memories, believing in whatever stories we have told ourselves to give meaning to those memories... stories which may be completely inaccurate. Lenny is just an extreme case of a condition that we all experience.

***Mild spoilers***

The ending of the film only furthers this notion. Some reviewers have complained about plot holes, and the uncertainty over whether the background story told by Teddy near the end is accurate. And yet this is precisely the point. All memories have gaps. All events in real life have plot holes to those who experience them-- we don't have access to a narrator providing explanatory voice-overs. And all of us center our lives around a set of questionable assumptions. Does it really matter if Lenny got the right guy... or if his wife was really murdered... or if Sammy really existed? Of course not. All that matters, and all that you ultimately have, are a few little crumbs of hard evidence and your own interpretation.

And that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is the way life works.

The Million Dollar Hotel (2000)

Beautiful film-- but definitely not for everyone

[8/10 · 3 June 2001]

Here's a brief guide to help you determine if you should see "The Million Dollar Hotel"

If you...

a) Enjoy Jerry Bruckheimer and Michael Bay collaborations b) Thirst insatiably for explosions, car chases and sex scenes featuring silicone-enhanced blondes c) Are considering this film only because you're a Mel Gibson fan...

THEN DON'T RENT "THE MILLION DOLLAR HOTEL"! YOU WILL LIKELY HATE IT!

Otherwise, you might want to give this one a shot. MDH is far, far off the beaten Hollywood path. It's a quiet, understated film that finds beauty and grace in very unlikely places. Bono and Wim Wenders have put together a love story so unconventional that it nearly defies description... it is certainly NOT a "tragi-comic, romantic whodunnit", despite the IMDb plot summary. It's a tale of quiet desperation and pervasive sadness that dares to violate pretty much every unwritten rule in the movie business... further off the wall than "Being John Malkovich" but infinitely more subtle and ultimately smarter.

On the surface it's a tale narrated by an idiot (a dead one at that) which signifies very little. Set in a run-down hotel in which mentally-ill derelicts and freaks are squatting, the film primarily follows Tom-Tom (Jeremy Daviess), a deceptively simple fool who is madly in love with a schizophrenic girl (Milla Jovovich)--who is a heartachingly beautiful hybrid of the Virgin Mary and the Whore of Babylon. The plot is fairly intriguing-- Hardass cop Mel Gibson is investigating the mysterious death of a tycoon's prodigal junkie son. The crazies at the hotel devise an elaborate con job to profit from this tragedy... provided they can bluff a snooty art critic and keep the cops distracted.

Some humorous moments ensue. But the plot is almost irrelevant here. The film works because of the engaging oddball characters (especially Peter Stormare as an obsessive Beatles fan and Jimmy Smits as a bizarre Native American "artist"), because of the brilliantly surreal, postapocalyptic cinematography, and because the sheer naked unhappiness of the film crawls inside of you and doesn't go away for several days. Bono's script, like the best of his music, is deeply cynical about society, but retains a faith in the salvation of individuals. It is neither a comedy, a drama, or a romance... it really just plays out like a bittersweet existential ballad. The only romantic scene features an idiot and a schizoid whore who never actually have sex... but it's one of the most touching love scenes ever captured on film. If that sounds like your cup of tea, check out "The Million Dollar Hotel". I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Gladiator (2000)

Best Picture???

[7/10 · 4 April 2001]

"Gladiator" is by no means a bad movie, but it doesn't hold a candle to "Traffic" or "Crouching Tiger".

It seems that Hollywood wanted to celebrate the rebirth of a classic genre, the Roman epic, but it's a shame that such an unspectacular film has received so many accolades.

In particular, I was highly disappointed with the cinematography. Why, oh why, do all modern directors (other than Ang Lee) think that every action scene must feature a shaking camera and intermittently altered film speed, both of which interfere with the viewer's ability to actually SEE what's going on? The battle scenes, while impressively staged, were not filmed nearly as well as "Braveheart", the swordplay looks quite tame compared to "Crouching Tiger", and you can find more impressive Colosseum action in "Spartacus" and "Ben Hur". The plot and dialogue were hack writing at best and revisionist history at worst, with clearly American sentiments filling in for anything recognizably Roman.

There is actually a lot to like about this movie. The sets are dazzling, the acting is quite good, and the drama is often quite real... although it isn't sustained throughout. Russell Crowe gives a strong performance and commands a tremendous screen presence, although he displays less range than in his earlier work. Joaquin Phoenix manages (barely) to avoid falling into the realm of camp, although he is dealt quite a few inane lines. In fact, all the main actors deserve tremendous kudos for salvaging what could have been a bomb in less capable hands. It's worth noting that "Gladiator" received Oscars for acting and costumes, not for directing, cinematography, or screenplay.

But Best Picture? Are you kidding me? This isn't even Ridley Scott's best picture. I demand a recount.

Boys Don't Cry (1999)

Quite good in a terrible sort of way

[8/10 · 5 January 2001]

This is one of those films that everyone respects, but nobody enjoys watching. "Boys Don't Cry" is a slow-motion train wreck of a movie that is watched with a deer-in-the-headlights sort of morbid fixation. It's a work of art not meant to be enjoyed, but rather to be felt viscerally. It's quite a good movie... but definitely not for the faint of heart.

Director Kimberly Peirce deftly exposes the dark underbelly of small-town life, while simultaneously finding the humanity in even the most evil characters. The villains here aren't faceless monsters, nor is the victim an innocent angel-- we see them all, for good or ill, as real people. Much of the production has an amateurish quality to it, however, with silly visual effects and melodramatic close-ups that detract from the mood. Peirce would have been wise to keep the sensationalism to a minimum and focus more on character development. In the end, "Boys Don't Cry" is saved from mediocrity by the compelling tragedy of the story, and the strong performances of Hilary Swank, Chloe Sevigny, and Peter Sarsgaard.

I recommend viewers watch the movie first and learn about the actual case second, as I did. I was absolutely shocked by one of the events at the end of the movie, and the film had more of an impact on me than it would have if I'd known exactly what was going to happen.

The real Teena Brandon has probably been lost forever in the dramatization of her/his life and the subsequent political crossfire. Both the left and the right seem to be caught up in discussing gay issues and "tolerance". The tragedy of Teena Brandon is not one of "intolerance" (any guy who lies, steals, and seduces girls under false pretenses is not going to be tolerated.) It is a tragedy of a person who was deeply unsatisfied with who she was, of a culture which labels people rather than accepting them as individuals, and of a couple of scumbags who felt that rape and murder were justifiable punishments for violating the unwritten male code of honor.

Meet the Parents (2000)

Just a good old-fashioned comedy

[8/10 · 4 January 2001]

Once upon a time, comedy writers sought to create humor through plot and character development, rather than merely packing the script with crude sight gags and one-liners. "Meet the Parents" is a long-overdue renaissance of this lost art form. While most modern comedy films are all punch lines and no joke, this one earns its laughs the old-fashioned way--building comedic situations and using its one-liners as mere icing on the cake. As a result, "Meet the Parents" bears more resemblance to "Some Like it Hot" than it does to "There's Something About Mary".

Having recently been married myself, (inheriting a stern set of in-laws) I found myself identifying strongly with the ill-fated Ben Stiller character. The increasingly complicated situations in which he becomes ensnared were physically stressful to watch. The father (Robert DeNiro) is demanding and intrusive. The girlfriend (Teri Polo) is too self-absorbed to notice how badly things are going. The hapless suitor makes increasingly boneheaded decisions in a desperate effort to curry favor. We've all been there. We see ourselves in the characters, and we're forced to laugh at the sheer absurdity of it all.

The acting is solid, the script is as tightly wound as a good episode of "Seinfeld", and the laughs are abundant. You can't ask much more than that from a comedy.

Election (1999)

A movie that succeeds where countless others have failed

[8/10 · 11 September 2000]

Satire is perhaps the most frequently attempted form of comedy, and yet also the most difficult to pull off. For many filmmakers this has become a tired formula: See people. See them fit into tidy little stereotypes. See their quirky character traits exaggerated and mocked. See the bad ones get what they deserve. Roll credits.

Alexander Payne's "Election" is much too smart for that. It builds a broad social commentary around a farcical and nasty school election, while deftly dodging all the traps that similar movies fall into. Although the characters' quirks are exaggerated for laughs (most memorably Reece Witherspoon as the conniving overachiever Tracy Flick), they are still well-developed 3-dimensional human beings. Payne forces us to understand these people and sympathize with them, even as we watch them do very, very bad things. The four interwoven narratives show the events of the movie from each main character's perspective-- a fresh idea that gives "Election" a unique quality.

Movie cliches are smashed left and right, and we are never quite able to guess what's going to happen next. The acting is generally outstanding, particularly from Witherspoon and Broderick. The humor ranges from extremely subtle to outright slapstick, from cute and sweet to merciless and black. Everyone gets what they deserve... or do they? The ending is at once hilarious, unexpected, and somewhat fitting. "Election" is the sort of comedy that hits uncomfortably close to home and makes us laugh (and squirm a little) at that which is all-to-familiar. In other words, it's a satire in the truest meaning of the word. And that's a real treat.

Starship Troopers (1997)

Hmm...

[5/10 · 11 September 2000]

On the surface, "Starship Troopers" is a slick homage to old-school sci fi monster movies and 1940's war movies, with enough sex and gore to satisfy modern audiences. It's a reasonably entertaining action movie. There has been much disagreement, however, about the deeper meaning of "Starship Troopers" (like most of Mr. Verhoeven's movies). If taken at face value, it plays like an ode to global fascism, so we can only hope that it was not intended to be taken literally. It does not, however, succeed as a satire.

Verhoeven's concept of satire involves taking all the worst cliched excesses of a movie genre, throwing them on the screen, and raking in dough from the masses who take the movie seriously. This is deeply cynical, manipulative, and irresponsible. True satire distinguishes itself from its target by exaggerating its negative aspects, providing a clear message, winking at the audience with self-aware humor and causing us to laugh at the target of the satire. Apart from the hilarious phony war newsreels and some very obscure in-jokes, "Starship Troopers" plays it straight. The good guys win by sneering at death, and blowing up everything in sight. The movie upholds all the bad values that Verhoeven thinks he is satirizing.

The clever trick is that the beginning and end of the movie make it seem that the whole thing might be a propaganda film for the movie's fictitious quasi-fascist global government. This is too clever. It is too subtle, and most people don't seem to get it. Unless you figure this out, the movie plays not as a satire of war propaganda, but as actual straight-faced war propaganda. Militaristic types and soap opera fans who see "Starship Troopers" take it as just another 100 minutes of sex and violence upholding their view of the world. Verhoeven is more than happy to take their money, I'm sure, but a movie with a message needs to sell its message to the audience, not merely reinforce everyone's existing views and turn a profit.

Verhoeven's earlier films like "Robocop" managed to successfully mix over-the-top action with serious political statements. Now he just peddles trash like "Showgirls", "Basic Instinct" and "Starship Troopers" and tries to pass it off as art. I ain't buying it. This was a moderately enjoyable sleazy B-movie and nothing more.