Change Your Image
DUSTYGRIMP
Reviews
View from the Top (2003)
Abysmal
This may have been the single worst large studio production I have ever seen. Beginning with the acting, Gwynneth Paltrow sleepwalks through this one like no actor I have ever seen. The one thing she displayed in this putrid mess was spectacular posture. Her dialog lacked life, which was largely due to it's laughable nature. Her attempts at physical comedy were so amateurish that I began to wonder if the whole thing was a spoof. Christina Appelgate couldn't have been worse if she were deceased. Candice Bergen tried desperately to reprise her Miss Congeniality role even though her character was written without any personal depth. Even the likable Mark Ruffalo came off poorly when confronted with the terrible direction and revolting writing that backed this travesty. When Mike Myers provides the best performance in your movie, you know you are in trouble.
I watched the movie alone and I asked myself, aloud, if this were the unfunniest comedy I had ever seen or the least moving drama. That is, the movie was so bad I was talking to myself. The story of a small town resident trying to get away has been done so frequently that undertaking it again requires something special. A View From the Top lacked that something. The nadir occurs when Appelgate and Paltrow fight in the galley of an otherwise empty plane, spilling peanuts and drink carts along the way. Maybe that sounds amusing, but when you see the actresses looking for things to knock over you know you are in the midst of a bad dream. Actually, check that. The nadir occurs when several of the students, including our heroine, first go to Sally Westin's (Bergen) house for dinner and we are subjected to a stream of jokes surrounding the homosexuality of Randy Jones (Josh Molina) that are at best unfunny and at worst offensively homophobic.
Before I get myself worked up any more over this, let me just say stay away from this film.
Dreamquest (2000)
Good Stuff
Wanna know how good this is? Two things. As for the story, my lady and I watched the whole thing together not pausing to get together until it was over. And as far as the sex is concerned, I came home to find my lady had been "watching" the movie on her own. This is a woman who never watched porn before she met me.
So the story was good enough to keep us riveted and the sex was hot enough to improve our sex life together and hers on her own. What more can you ask out of something blue?
Clearly the best scene was the icicles, but the scene with the scamp talking to Jenna was pretty cute too. I recommend this film greatly.
Hulk (2003)
Incredible
This is a great film. I understand that there are people who will be bored by this movie in the same way that they are bored by movies like Ordinary People, Life as a House and The Cider House Rules. The Hulk is not an action movie. If you want an action movie you will be disappointed. This is a finely crafted character study in the form of a sort of Zen fable. The movie is about, on its most profound level, the danger of repressing emotion (instead of accepting them) and the danger of what happens when those bottled up emotions come out. As an example I site the scene between Bruce and Betty after the dog fight sequence. When Banner tries to describe what happened unemotionally, there is a momentary lapse during which he grabs Betty's throat; I got chills.
Ang Lee gave this movie an almost Asian feel while still keeping it accessible to American audiences who know what they are getting. He deserves the Oscar for best direction. His subtle, minimalist use of music is striking, his use of several panels in depicting certain scenes adds a stylized touch that does not detract from the film like Spike Lee's machinations do. In my opinion, there has never been a better directed film. I am sure many will disagree with me, and I understand.
Many people have mentioned that Eric Bana seemed wooden. I submit that this is true, but that it was intentional. Criticizing Bana for being unemotional and stiff as Banner is like criticizing Russell Crowe for showing no range as Maximus in Gladiator. Crowe and Bana played their characters as they were written; in Bana's case that meant stiff, stodgy and wooden.
As far as the CGI is concerned, if the CGI in The Hulk was not good enough, the tool should be retired until it is improved. It may not be perfect, but it is the best we've seen.
The performances of the other actors in this film are also quite good. Jennifer Connelly is more than adequate for her role. Nick Nolte plays David Banner as a crazed, obsessed scientist who will stop at nothing to gain power, even at his son's expense. Sam Elliot was born to play roles like Thunderbolt Ross, although the trim job on his moustache was abysmal. Josh Lucas played a spectacular Talbot with a performance that blended seamlessly into the woodwork of the picture.
It will not happen as the filmmakers marketed this picture badly and it has polarized its audience, but I would like to see The Hulk garner some Oscar recognition. In my opinion, Spider-Man was more fun, but the Hulk is the best overall comic adaptation yet.
In the Bedroom (2001)
A Great Film
I thought sure I would find this movie tedious and difficult to watch as I have never been enthralled by the work of Sissy Spacek or Marissa Tomei (Never has a performance been as mistakenly lauded as her turn in My Cousin Vinny). After viewing the film, however, I found that the performances of Nick Stahl, Tom Wilkinson and, yes, Marissa Tomei showed subtlety, grace and depth. Their characterizations made the film. The script was on tenuous ground as it was a true slice of life type of drama: take ordinary people and put them in extraordinary situations and explore what happens. In the Bedroom falls apart if the performers strive to be larger than life. Only Sissy Spacek was guilty of that. This was a tremendous character study and a film that will be watched for years to come by anyone wanting to share in others insights into the human condition. A
Chicago (2002)
Not My Kinda Town
Chicago is not a great film. This is not the fault of the director or the performers. Catherine Zeta-Jones, Renee Zellweger, Richard Gere, John C. Reilly, and especially Queen Latifah really gave their all to make this movie barely watchable. No, the problem with Chicago is that it is an awful adaptation of a mediocre musical. The music, while it does flow with the story, is dull, certainly not catchy. The story has been done to death (see Cabaret, Natural Born Killers). The script is not funny enough to make this a comedy, nor is it poignant enough to make it a drama. The viewer feels nothing for the characters because they are all reprehensible. If Chicago is designed as a satire, it misses the mark at best or at worst it is completely obvious. If you want to see a great musical, see Cabaret with Joel Grey, The Music Man with Robert Preston, or any adaptation of Guys and Dolls. Avoid Chicago.
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
A Good Lark
Clearly there is a dearth of literature in this country. I sat down to read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone expecting a prime example of children's literature - what I got was a good story residing in a mediocre book. It was something akin to the novellas of Robin Cook. J.K. Rowling seems to have been given the tremendous gift of imagination. She creates a whole world outside our own to show us how Harry Potter learns to be a wizard, unfortunately, she lacks the grasp of the language required to turn her imaginings into a great work of children's literature. She is not to be blamed for it as it is a very rare gift, shared by greats such as Roald Dahl and in a different way, Dr. Seuss.
It is my honest opinion the movie was substantially better than the book. In most cases, the written word provides enough details to give the reader a clear image of what the author intended, leaving just enough to the imagination to allow the reader to create as scary, loving, ugly, or intense image as s/he chooses, this book did not. In the case of Harry Potter, Rowling provides too much detail in some places and not enough in others. Had this been written for a creative writing class, the instructor would no doubt have used up copious amounts of ink requesting that Rowling "show, not tell." The imagination of the movie maker must work differently. Those who create works for film are charged with dazzling the audience with their imaginations. Columbus succeeds in taking all the details from the book and making them larger than what had been put down in words by the author. Hagrid, the Quidditch match, the portraits on the walls all are crafted by Columbus with a view that seems to reach into the depths of J.K. Rowlings mind and extract all of the glory of what she was imagining, but failed to put down on paper.
The cast was remarkable as Alan Rickman and Richard Harris were both perfect for the roles in which they were cast and their performances were marvelous, as always. The other adult actors and the children all performed at top level as well.
In conclusion, I can certainly recommend this movie to virtually anyone. Their is only one word of caution. Read the book first, you won't enjoy the book once you have seen the film.