MatBrewster Reviews

The Long Goodbye (1973)

Subverting a Genre

[8/10 · 23 January 2006]

During a documentary extra on the DVD version of The Long Goodbye, director Robert Altman says they called Elliott Gould's version of Phillip Marlowe "Rip Van Marlowe" because it's like the iconic 1940's detective character fell asleep for 30 years and awoke in the 1970s.

True to form, the opening scene shows Marlowe being jolted out of a deep sleep. Gould plays Marlowe like he has stumbled out of hibernation and is completely baffled by everything going on around him. He does, however, take it with a 70's stoned indifference.

The film opens with interconnecting scenes between Phillip Marlowe and Terry Lennox (Jim Bouton). The soundtrack plays the same song through both scenes, but in completely different styles. Over Marlowe's scenes the music is soft and jazz like, while when Lennox is on screen it becomes more edgy, more rock influenced. It is a brilliant way to introduce characters and give us a sense of who they are.

This is not Howard Hawk's Raymond Chandler. Gone are the dark shadows, and production code of film noir. The sex and violence is no longer hidden under innuendo and suggestion. Here Marlowe's neighbors are drug ingesting nudists. This is Altman's subversion of a genre.

This is definitely a Robert Altman picture. There are plenty of trademark long shots, and overlapping dialogue. He is less interested in the Chandler story, than in a sense of style and the juxtaposition of classically moral 1930's detective in the amoral times of the swinging 1970s.

The story loosely follows Raymond Chandler's novel. Marlowe drives his friend, Lennox, to the Tijuana border only to return home to an apartment full of cops ready to arrest him for aiding and abetting Lennox, who is suspected of murdering his wife. Meanwhile Eileen Wade (Nina Van Pallandt) hires Marlowe to find her alcoholic husband who has disappeared. Between the cops and the missing husband Marlowe is accosted by local gangsters who want the money Lennox owes them. The three stories meet and interconnect in an ending that is vastly different from the novel.

There is a wonderful scene after the cops arrest Marlowe and are interrogating him. It begins as the standard interrogation scene with Marlowe in a small room being slapped around by tough cops, while others watch through a two way mirror. Altman invigorates the scene by inter-cutting the two rooms together. While the camera is in the interrogation room, the two way mirror is always in sight. When the scene moves into the outer room, we see through the mirror and can hear the Marlowe conversation as it overlaps with what the watching cops are saying.

Elliott Gould is brilliant as Phillip Marlowe. He seems completely amiss from his surroundings, oblivious to all the things going on all around him. He keeps the Chandler wisecracks going, but sends the tough guy gumshoe routine packing.

Though not a film for noir or even Chandler purists, it is a brilliant piece of cinema. In subverting a genre Altman has created a new kind of detective drama. One that is humorous, thrilling and cinematic.

Like this review? Go to www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com for more

28 Days Later (2002)

Good First Half

[7/10 · 10 May 2005]

The zombies are fast.

It's true that in Danny Boyle's 2002 film 28 Day's Later the crazed, flesh eating villains aren't technically zombies. In fact, Boyle has gone to great lengths to qualify them as humans infected with a virus known as RAGE. Yet, to this reviewer at least, the differences seem moot. In traditional zombie pictures, and in this film the creatures are mindless, they carry a real zeal for human flesh, they have a predilection for turning everyone else into their like, and they are fairly easy to kill. Whether the creatures are the living dead so to speak, or infected by an incurable virus doesn't make much of a difference. Though the zombies here, seem updated from their filmatic ancestors.

These zombies are fast.

Traditional zombies are a slow moving lot. Having been rotting in their own graves for untold years, their reanimated flesh is a little atrophied, causing them to move at a slow, sluggish pace. This has always been a helpful plot point for the heroes in zombie films, for they are easy to run away from. In fact, the means by which zombies generally kill their victims is through sheer numbers. Boyle has circumvented this convenience by allowing his monsters to run at normal human speeds. It is an excellent update to the genre, giving the ability for more scares.

Man, I dug the first half of this movie. Well, except for the very, very beginning. The opening scene gives us the origin of RAGE, with a bunch of Clockwork Orange inspired monkeys. I've never really dug origin scenes in zombie flicks. I think it's much scarier to just have the zombies running around eating brains, without any reason for their existence. Origins, generally, just seem dumb. And here, with the infected monkeys being freed by some Green Peace types doesn't really inspire any other feelings. Though, I suspect it was another move to plant this film outside the zombie track.

But after the dumb origins scene things get really good. We've got a naked guy named Jim (Cillian Murphy) hooked up to various tubes in a hospital bed. I always like it when there is a bit of male nudity in a flick, since there is always so much of the female variety. Anyways, Jim gets out of bed and wanders the streets of London. There are plenty of shots of Jim (fully clothed now) walking by big famous London monuments without another soul around. It seems London has been vacated. It is creepy and effective.

In a bit, Jim clamors into a church figuring to find some sanctuary, or at least have a few questions answered. What he finds is a bunch of dead folks piled up. In a good holy crap moment, Jim says, "Hello" to find a couple of the dead guys not so dead and jumping up. From there until the second half of the film, it is a constant run from the zombies.

The zombies really work in this film. They are fast, furious, and vicious. Jim eventually teams up with some other survivors and they set about trying to figure out what to do. Boyle really does a great job of adding tension to the film and keeping the scares up.

Then the film changes.

The group is rescued by a gang of all male military types, living in a compound. Turns out the military types are a bunch of psychos and the film turns from being a zombie flick into being a stranded-in-a-compound-with-a-bunch-of-psycho-military-types kind of film. To make sure we know this is no longer a zombie flick, a big group of zombies launches an attack on the compound only to be massacred with machine guns and land mines.

This half of the film, I don't dig nearly as much. Zombie flicks always have trouble filling out their whole hour and a half time slot. Even with a good introduction of characters, and a slow build to zombie free-for-all there is still plenty of filler time. Here, the filmmakers seem to have decided that they might as well dump the zombies and give us some other tension filled concoction. But, there isn't really enough time to develop the military end of the story and it feels wrong.

It's too bad too, because that first half was really promising.

Around the World in 80 Days (2004)

Poor Excuse For a Jackie Chan Film

[3/10 · 3 May 2005]

There are some films that I make no plans, nor have any desire to see. Yet, sometimes, through circumstance, see them is exactly what I do. Recently, I was invited to dinner at a friends house. Another invitee decided to rent this Jackie Chan vehicle. Never to be one to turn down a free movie, I watched.

They say Jacki Chan films are like pornos. The plots make no sense, the acting is horrid, and everyone is just waiting around for the action. If that is the case, then Around the World in 80 Days is like a bad soft core film on Cinemax. Unfortunately, for Chan fans, this seems to be pretty par for the course of late. His earlier, non English films, though containing worse overall production value, had more bang for you buck. His American made films seem to be bent on adding plot and characterization at the detriment of the action. This might be commendable if the additional plotting was any good. But more often than not, it's just a glossy version of the same old schlock. Around the World in 80 Days follows this formula.

Waiting thirty minutes into a Jackie Chan film for the first action sequence is an atrocity. When that action sequence is lame, you might as well take up the pooper scooper and walk the dog. The movie followed this pattern. Thirty minutes of mind numbing story development followed by tame, lame action sequences. At a 120 minute run time and any way you divide it that's way to little hockey socky.

The plot is old and rehashed. Loosely based on the Jules Verne novel of the same name, Chan plays Lau Xing masquerading as Passpartout, servant of snooty inventor Phileas Fogg (Steve Coogan). Through a bet they impart on a journey around the world in...oh, who cares? Who watches a Jackie Chan film for the plot? And if you don't know this story by now, stick around and I'm sure they'll make another TV movie of it shortly.

Chan's English has improved greatly over the last time I watched him, which really isn't saying a whole lot. Why is Hollywood bent on making this man who barely speaks the language, and can't act to save himself, spend most of his movies talking and acting? And all to keep him from doing the one thing he does very well: beating the crap out of people in creative and hilarious ways? The film is scattered with high profile cameos. Most interesting of which is the now California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger's turn as a Turkish prince. The others are mostly pointless and unfunny cameos designed to make the audience go "oh that's Rob Schneider" and miss the fact that he's amazingly unfunny and his character serves no particular point. The casting of Kathy Bates as the Queen seems most spectacularly ill placed. Her British accent is appalling. Was it to hard to find a real Brit to play this role? Some of my French friends have better British accents than that.

With the exception of but a few moments, the fight scenes, few that we get, are unspectacular. They joy of Jackie Chan is in his ability to stage acrobatic action sequences while using a odd array of props. Chairs, stools, flags, culinary devices have all served as weapons in previous pictures, yet here he is mostly intent on using his hands fighting against regular swords and blades. It's not that the action is terrible per say, but that they pale in comparison with so many of the others he has performed.

There is really nothing to recommend this movie. It is appropriate enough. There is little to offend the younger sensibilities (besides the acting, plot, and production values)If you have children, I suppose, they might find it silly enough to enjoy. But, with so many other quality films out there appropriate for children, I can't make myself recommend this one to them either.

Frida (2002)

Visually Stunning

[7/10 · 3 May 2005]

When Frida was released into theatres I had absolutely no desire to see it. I'm neither a fan of Salma Hayek, biopics in general, and biopics about artists especially. Add to that my zero knowledge about the artist Frida herself and the movies fate was sealed into never being seen by the likes of me. However, my general lack of new movies here in France and being able to borrow it from a friend for free helped me to reconsider watching it. When I realized it was directed by Julie Taymor who also directed a marvelously beautiful version of Titus then I was actually excited by it (almost).

Like Titus, Frida is an amazingly visual movie. Taymor, who is known mainly for her Broadway adaptation of the Lion King, has an artists eye for visual flair. She has found away to take something as static as a painting and made it alive. Throughout the film she recreates several of Frida's works and makes them a part of the action. It's impossible to explain on paper (or cycberspace) but what she creates is something pure magic.

I can't say how accurately Frida is portrayed in this movie. The picture we get is of a rather flawed woman who lived with a great deal of suffering. Her suffering comes in both physical ways (stemming from an accident early in life) and emotionally (from a cheating husband and her own mistakes). Yet it is this suffering that creates such remarkable art. Taymor manages to create an interesting and moving story within her excellent images.

Both Salma Hayek and Alfred Molina pull out excellent performances. I was especially impressed with Molina portraying the very flawed and yet sympathetic Diega. I had pretty much written this actor after playing Doc Oc in the highly overrated Spiderman 2. But here he shows a real sensitivity to his character. Don't be fooled by the billing of this film. The cover of the DVD would have you believe that Ed Norton, Antonio Banderas, Ashley Judd and Geoffrey Rush all star in it. In fact, with the exception of Geoffrey Rush, all of them have more or less cameos in the picture. Rush is in the movie a bit more, but I wouldn't call even that a starring role.

Blue Velvet (1986)

Creepy Lyncy

[9/10 · 3 May 2005]

Blue Velvet is dark, scary, freaky, and really good. Which is how you cold describe most of David Lynch's films. His films are often filled with symbolism and it is easy to finish one of his films and have no real idea of what actually happened. They usually take two or three viewings, and a little research to get a good idea what the movie is actually trying to convey. Blue Velvet has a simpler plot that can generally be understood at a basic level upon first viewing, but there is plenty of symbolism and deeper meaning to make it "enjoyable" for further viewings. I put enjoyable in quotation marks because to many watching it is not an enjoyable experience. It is a movie deep seated in horror, with scenes that make you crawl under the covers and lock the doors. For the cinephile it is a type of pleasure to watch a lurid piece of cinema with enough depth to require multiple viewings. For the weekend movie watcher it is probably too much to stomach.

The film starts with an idyllic, picturesque small town. It's a town where every day has blue skies, manicured lawns, pretty flowers, and quiet simple people. Lynch fills the screen with gorgeous pictures straight out of fifties television shows. But this is a David Lynch movie and the pretty pictures don't last long. Quickly a nice old man who is watering his lawn falls down near death. The camera pans down past the convulsing man and deep into the grass. Digging into the earth until the camera is dark with freshly wet dirt and grotesque bugs. The idyllic town is only pretty on the surface. Underneath the top layer of goodness lies a darker, seedier town hidden from the eyes of most of its citizens.

The plot of the film revolves around Kyle MacLachlan and Laura Dern delving deeper and deeper into the darker side of the small town. MacLachlan finds a dismembered ear on his walk home from the hospital one afternoon. Finding such a macabre in his hometown sparks a quest to discover who's head the ear could belong to and why it was removed. He involves the good girl Laura Dern in his quest and they sink into darker waters. To tell more of the plot is to give away too much. I'll just say that it is not for the weak of heart.

Dennis Hopper plays one of cinemas creepiest villains to date. His psychosis is even more terrifying in that it is so real. Here is no Freddy Krueger, or even a Hannibal Lector. This is not some crazed psychopath lurking in the corner. Sure he is psychotic, and maniacal, but versions of him can be found almost nightly in any major city newspaper. He is not a homicidal maniac, but a violent, evil man made even more so by his addiction to unnamed drugs.

Isabella Rossellini plays Dorothy Valens with such beauty and sadness it breaks your heart as it squirms your stomach. Her character has taken such horrible abuse over her life she has come to like and enjoy it. Mixed with heavy amounts masochism her performance is remarkable.

There were several times while watching this with my wife, Amy that she said she couldn't keep watching it. After the credits rolled she said she would never watch it again. I suspect this is the sentiments of many viewers after watching Blue Velvet. But if you can stomach the violence, masochism and overall creepiness there is a lot of pure cinema to study.

Sweet Smell of Success (1957)

Classic

[10/10 · 3 May 2005]

This is the kind of film that could coin an expression like "They don't make 'em like that anymore," except that people have been using that line for every piece of crap that was made more than two years ago. Go ahead and say it to yourself, and I'll say that David Mamet's Glengarry, Glen Ross comes close. Both feature snarling, biting dialog. Both have irredeemable characters that will do anything for success. Mamet's characters are mostly down-and-outers who are scrapping at each other to find some sampling of their former successes. In Sweet Smell of Success there are successful characters and losers, both of which need each other to survive. It is a tale of a successful columnist and his need for a low life press agent. It is a bitter, bleak story of power, success and the desire to have more. Burt Lancaster plays JJ Hunsecker, a powerful, successful columnist who is at the top of his game. He gets what he wants, when he wants it with no questions asked. He can make or break celebrities with a quick blurb in his column. He dines with politicians and gets any girl he wants. Tony Curtis is Sidney Falco, a low rent press agent who needs Lancaster's blurbs for his clients to keep in business. Problem is, Hunsecker has cut Falco out of his columns because Falco hasn't delivered on a deal they made. Though Hunsecker can garner the love and admiration of anyone he chooses, the one woman he cannot win over is his own sister. As he repeatedly says throughout the film, she's all he has. Problem is she is in love with a jazz singer, and they plan to marry. Hunsecker can't bear the thought of losing his sister, so he forces Falco to get rid of the boy by any means necessary. The film is relentless. From beginning to end it never stops its pounding. There is never a breath of kindness. The two characters with some redeeming characteristics Hunsecker's sister, Susan (Susan Harrison) and her boyfriend, Steve Dallas (Martin Milner), are so overshadowed by the continual foul play by Hunsecker and Falco that they come away with a foul stench. Tony Curtis pulls a performance that reminded me of his turn as the Boston Strangler. It is not difficult to see his Falco turning to murder if it helped him succeed. Though as the strangler, he seems to have found some remorse for his actions, where Falco is irredeemable to the very end. There is a seen in the middle of the picture where Falco pulls a trick to convince a mid level performer to make Falco his press agent. At this point Falco needs all the clients he can get. Later the performer comes to Falco, ready to sign him as his agent. Falco, now feeling some signs of success brushes the performer off without a second thought. It is a telling scene of just how heartless and uncaring Falco has become. Where has Burt Lancaster been all my life? Sadly enough, the only film I can remember watching him in is the 1986 toss-off comedy Tough Guys. His performance here is nothing short of astonishing. He is the king of his castle, never stepping off his high throne, treating everyone as servants. Even his shows of affection for Susan are grotesque and menacing. This is a story that his hard to watch. It is brutal, and menacing with nary a redeeming aspect. But it is a film that must be watched. The craftsmanship of the filmmakers and the performances of the actors elevate it above so many others. It is nearly a morality tale of the horrors that befall humanities greed.

Army of Darkness (1992)

Better Than he First, Not As Good As The Second

[7/10 · 3 May 2005]

Army of Darkness is the third (and so far final) movie in the Evil Dead Series. Before director Sam Raimi went legit with a series of critically acclaimed dramas and the Spiderman series, he was a low budget horror genius. Army of Darkness begins right where Evil Dead II ended, with Bruce Campbell trapped in medieval times to battle the deadites once again.

The trilogy started out in Evil Dead as a pretty straight horror movie. A group of people discover a book of the dead and unleash gore filled horror upon themselves in a remote cabin. Evil Dead II basically re-tells the same story with a different cast (except for the ever present Bruce Campbell), bigger budget and plenty of slapstick. The second movie is by far my favorite in the series. It keeps the ghoulish gore while adding hilarious physical comedy and some classic one liners. Army of Darkness furthers this tradition by adding even more slap stick and one lines while removing almost all of the gore.

What little plot there is goes something like this: Stranded in the middle ages Bruce Campbell is at first captured by a small army for being mistaken for a member of a rival army. Bruce quickly uses his "boomstick" to gain clout with his captors and is sent on a quest to recover the Necronomicon which will both send Bruce back to his own time and save the army from evil. Bruce being Bruce he gets the book and unleashes an army of the dead. There are two endings released for this movie. One happier ending was released in US theatres and another sequel set up unhappy ending seen in a theatrical cut in the UK and on many US DVD versions.

Raimi once again does a nice job creating a mix of horror movie cliché's (which range from Jason and the Argonauts to Gulliver's Travels) with the slapstick of the Three Stooges. Unfortunately the comic elements seem to take over this picture leaving the horror end of it as more of a backdrop. It feels more like a Zucker brother's movie more than a horror film. Most of the evil dead are formed as skeletons which only crumble when destroyed rather than burst into a mess of blood and guts as they did in the first two movies. This may seem to be an absurd complaint, but as a fan of gory movies I felt disappointed with that choice.

The cinematography is actually quite well done throughout most of the picture. My DVD copy is actually quite beautiful in scenes. Especially the exterior shots around the windmill. The use of color and lighting is well above par for most horror films. The pre CGI special effects effect the quality of the print in several areas, but still hold up as goofy Raimi effects. I kept thinking the picture was too pretty for what was actually taking place on screen. Bruce Campbell once again does a nice job of making Ash come to life. He delivers his lines with the comic timing of a comedian while still delivering enough pain to make his albeit over-the-top beatings believable. The rest of the cast is hardly memorable as characters or for their acting.

Army of Darkness still makes a nice end to the trilogy. In a way it makes a nice bookend to Evil Dead's pure gore horror with the single middle book being a mix between bloody gore and slapstick comedy.

Alien (1979)

A Beautiful Start to a Classic Series

[10/10 · 3 May 2005]

Each film in the Alien quadrilogy has differed from each other. It has helped that they each had a distinctive and imaginative director. Ridley Scott created a slow, tension filled science fiction epic. James Cameron pumped it full of adrenaline and made an action packed masterpiece. David Fincher cut his teeth on the Alien3 by turning the action into a dark, mostly muddled mess. Jean-Pierre Jeunet tried to rescue the franchise, but had no story to work with. Like the Star Wars movies what we're left with is a couple of top notch flicks and a few others that while showing a few moments of visual brilliance leave ultimately leave the series limp.

But my review is not of the series as a whole, but on the movie that started it all. In considering the franchise it is sometimes forgotten that Alien never started out as a quadrilogy. There was only this one movie about a group of average workers sent to capture a monster. Scott does a superb job of creating suspense. It is some 30 minutes into the picture before we actually see an Alien. And even then the action is slow to evolve. For the audience this creates a great amount of tension. Even for those who have never seen an Alien movie, the creature has so penetrated our popular culture that everyone knows it's not an ET kind of alien. So, while watching it we know that the alien is creeping around some corner just waiting to devour the characters. And yet we hardly see the alien. We not only don't get to see any alien through a third of the film, but when the alien does come out and begin its slaughter, we only catch glimpses of the creature itself. It is seen in the dark creeping in a corner, or in a flash as it jumps out of the darkness to attack. Scott, instead, uses shots of the crew to show the fear in their eyes, before their destruction, rather than show the creature in action. There are only one or two moments where the audience sees the alien in full figure, and those last only a short time. Even then the alien does not move, never allowing us to see it kill. This stroke serves to scare the audience even more. For how many times have we seen a movies monster in action only to laugh at its poor design? The movie oozes with atmosphere. The cinematography is dark and shadowy. The ship's quarters are enclosed and tight, creating claustrophobic spaces in which to encounter the Alien. Then there is HR Giger's amazing design. His designs of the alien ship and the alien are absolutely perfect. The ship seems to slither and move as if it's alive. There are curves, ridges and smooth edges as on the alien itself. All of which creates an atmosphere, and mood that stimulates the horror to come.

All of the effects shot were done in without the use of CGI. Generally they still hold their ground. Sure, the glimpses we get of the alien standing look like a man in a rubber suit. But overall the effects look great. This is a testament to the genius of Giger. My main complaint is with MOTHER. Like other science fiction films the crew's ship, the Nostromo, has its brains in a giant computer. Here, MOTHER is housed in an inner room of the ship and only accessible by the ships captain. We see her captain, Dallas (Tom Skerritt) go to visit MOTHER for a "your eyes only" deal. Why a commercial ship needs this type of security is never mentioned. Mother turns out to be a Star Trekesque computer equipped with blinking lights and a faint whirring sound. All of this is so that the Dallas can sit down to a DOS prompt and ask silly questions like "What's the story, Mother?" They should have gone with a more 2001 approach and have the crew be able to actually speak to MOTHER.

All of the characters are very well acted and fleshed out. Each character is given their own personality and is fully realized. There is a nice scene in which the crew is searching for the recently unsucking face sucker has disappeared. Ripley (Signorney Weaver) has left the door open and Ash (Ian Holm) moves to shut it so the alien won't escape. The look Ash gives as he is doing this is incredible. Ash and Ripley have previously had a bit of a fight and you can see the anger and irritation at Ripley perfectly in Ash's face.

Signorney Weaver plays Ripley beautifully. This is a female action star that is sexy, but doesn't pander her sexuality (though they did manage to get her in her underwear.) She is tough as nails and intelligent. And Weaver plays her perfectly.

Alien is arguably the best in one of the most successful series in film history. It is also one of the best science fiction films Hollywood has ever made.

The Poseidon Adventure (1972)

Not Bad For What It Is

[7/10 · 3 May 2005]

There are a few movies I remember being surprised at as a child. These were movies that I saw on television or Beta/VHS that were made before my time and not meant as children's stories. Some of them were genuine classics like To Kill a Mockingbird that instilled in me a sense that beauty and art can be found in a film. Others were like the Poseidon Adventure that while not particularly masterful films still showed me that there were many other films out there besides the "family" films being churned out at the local cineplex. These films eventually opened up to me the world of cinema.

I first saw the Poseidon Adventure at Grandma and Papa's house. I had been dropped off by my mother for an afternoon while she went shopping or some other mundane task. After flipping channels awhile I came across this great sinking ship and fell mystified into a grand epic adventure. To this day I recall my mother coming home during the final 20 minutes or so and me making her stay because I just had to see the ending. She had seen the film, but praised it as a classic adventure and allowed me to see the end. Periodically I have caught bits and pieces of the movie again on cable and always pause to watch a scene or two. I bought it in a bargain bin a few months back and joyfully added it to my collection. Last night Amy and I decided to watch it.

Watching it on DVD I realize this was the first time I have ever actually seen the very beginning of the movie. As a child I caught the picture 10-20 minutes into and all subsequent viewings have all been by catching it part way through on television. I am afraid the movie as a whole doesn't hold up all that well to my childhood memory. Oh, it's a big, grand adventure, but like the ship of the movie, it starts to sink under its own enormousness.

It has a basic 70's disaster movie plot. Big ocean cruise liner is hit by enormous wave and is turned upside down, killing nearly everyone. A few survivors are followed as they make their way up (down?) the ship and try to escape. It is way over the top and it almost seems as if the director Ronald Neame told his actors to ham it up in every scene. Gene Hackman and Ernest Borgnine do their best howling at each other in every other scene.

The script follows very basic rules. It rolls like something you would see in a basic screenwriter's class. You start with an establishing shot, follow it with a basic introduction of your main characters while making sure their essential character motivation is directly handed to the audience in their first few minutes of screen time. Then you set your plot into action. It's disaster is even set into action by an evil corporate leader. Leslie Nielson plays the good captain who is hounded by a goon sent from the ships corporate owner to ensure it ports for its final time on the right date. The corporate goon orders Nielson's captain to increase speed though Nielson argues this will surely cause the old ship to sink. The corporate goon, of course, wins and sets up the disaster. On a side note it is unintentionally funny to watch Nielson in a serious role when everyone knows his slew of later, goofier roles in movies such as the Naked Gun and Airplane.

This film acts like it invented implausibly. Gene Hackman reverend moves, acts, and orders others around like he's the ship's captain though he has no previous knowledge of how the ship's design, or conceivably the physics of a cruise liner. Yet his motivation for acting like this was set up earlier. Before the ship sinks we get a sermon from this unorthodox preacher who believes in helping onesfelf instead of relying on Divine intervention. Likewise all the other characters follow along in their previously established types, never budging from this set character mold and certainly not evolving in any meaningful way.

All of this is not to say the film isn't enjoyable. It is not high art after all. It knows full well it's purpose is to entertain the audience and nothing more. It does this quite well. Though its plot is strained it moves along with a quick pace and maintains a claustrophobic tension throughout. I have not seen many of the other disaster movies of the era so I cannot place the Poseidon Adventure accordingly amongst their ranks. But as an action/adventure flick you could do worse.

American Beauty (1999)

Rather Silly, But Quite Enjoyable

[7/10 · 3 May 2005]

The first time I saw American Beauty it was the last in three consecutive weekend movie run. The other two films were Fight Club and Bringing Out the Dead. All three films are about men trying to come to terms to what it means to be a man in America in this day and age. Fight Club finds meaning in deconstructing everything down to base needs, feeling through pain. Bringing Out the Dead gives meaning to its character through drug use, but is was in American Beauty that I found some sense of hope.

In the film, Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) plays a middle aged, middle class suburbanite, with seemingly everything he could desire. He has a good, well paying job; a beautiful wife (Annette Bening); a large luxurious house; and a lovely daughter (Thora Birch). Yet, with all of this he is not happy. In fact, all of these things are not quite what they seem. His employer is facing cut backs, and he may soon lose his job. He marriage is in shambles, and his daughter openly hates him. Early, we see him masturbating in the shower, in narration; he states this is the highpoint of his day. All is not well in the house of Burnham.

All of this changes when Lester meets Angela (Mena Suvari), his daughter, Jane's gorgeous, cheerleader friend. On first seeing Angela during a cheer routine, Lester feel a special, lustful connection. Later that night, Lester overhears Angela playfully tell Jane that if he would only work out, he would be sexy. His lust over this teenage vixen becomes the catalyst for the film and Lester's very life.

Soon after Lester quits his job, in fact he bilks the company for a year's salary by threatening to disclose scandalous information that he has become privy to. He begins smoking pot, buys a hot rod.. He plays with remote control cars, takes a job at a fast food joint, and of course does start working out. In every way he reverts back to his teenage years. Even the soundtrack begins blaring out classic rock tunes from the 1970's. Finally after years, decades even, of feeling low, miserable, not alive, he feels great.

This reversion back to his glory days is only the beginning. It is a reversion back to the days when he had fun, when he felt alive. But he is not a man who will stop there. This is just a beginning point to a life long conversion of living a full life, as opposed to a life full of the right things, but that is ultimately empty. Or it would be if he was not shortly dead (this is not nearly the spoiler you might think it is, for Lester announced his death within the first minutes of the film.) Towards the end of the film we can see that Lester is already outgrowing his childish behavior. When he yells at his daughter, he immediately feels the sting of regret. When given the chance to indulge in his lusts, he backs away, understanding that it is not right. Just as the music changed to classic rock with the first change, here it has changed again, turning into the same classic rock being covered by newer, contemporary artists.

Many will probably say that using the lust for a teen, and illicit drug us as a catalyst for change, is not a change for the better. I can already hear my mother scolding me for having seen the movie, much less reviewed it from 2,000 miles away in Oklahoma. Yet, here it works, and works well. I don't believe the film is saying that these things should be the means to a change, these things only served as means for this character to break free from the rut that had become his life. There is a telling scene where Lester and his wife are overcome with sexual desire. As he dips his wife to kiss her, she stops the embrace because he is near to spilling his glass of wine on an expensive couch. An argument ensues with Lester proclaiming that "it's just a couch," while his wife is horrified at the thought of ruining said couch. There lies one of the central themes of the film. That these characters are so wrapped up in the material that they lose sight of the better pleasure of life, including love making.

It is not a perfect film. The Burnham's neighbor, Col. Fritts (Chris Cooper) seems a caricatured archetype. His plays a hateful, homophobe who really carries deep rooted homosexual tendencies is too outlandish to be considered real. Though it must be said the part is played marvelously by Chris Cooper. Jane's speech about being a freak too, may move the young kids who consider themselves the nonconformist, shy-type, but it is too after-school special for my tastes.

I've left out some of the best scenes and an important character, Ricky Fits (Wes Bentley). He plays the drug dealing son of Col. Fritts, who likes to record everything on his video camera. There is a moving scene in which he and Jane watch an old tape of his of a plastic bag floating through the air. It is a moving, poetic scene that conjures up thought of the futility of life and its very beauty. It is that type of movie. It creates beautiful, moving, simple scenes that bring a sense of hope to life, while at the same time, showing the ultimate horror of living it.

Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954)

Rip Roarin' Fun

[7/10 · 3 May 2005]

Read all my reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com Seven Brides for Seven Brothers is a pretty by the books MGM musical. It is based on a book entitled The Sobbin' Women which is in turn based on a Roman story titled The Rape of the Sabine Women. Which, like the title implies is about the kidnapping and rape of several young women who eventually come to 'love' their captors. How someone decided to make a musical out of this one wonders.

The movie is very sexist. The oldest brother, Adam, sets out at the beginning of the movie to find a wife. He doesn't do this because he is lonesome, or loveless, or in need of company. No, he seeks a wife because he lives in the mountains with six brothers and they need someone to cook for them and clean up after them. Even his method of finding a wife is pretty awful. He comes to town on to shop for various goods and reckons to add a wife to that goods list. The remainder of the story focuses on the wife he finds, named Millie, and how she manages to turn the brothers into refined gentlemen. The original story figures in with a kidnapping plot designed to win the hearts of potential brides for the remaining single brothers.

Sexist plot aside Seven Brides really does sparkle as a gem in the musical hat of MGM. This can be mainly attributed to some fine songs by Johnny Mercer (including the hillbilly charm of "Bless Your Beautiful Hide") and some incredible choreography by Michael Kid. The 'Barn Raising' scene is worth the price of the ticket alone. Add to that the subtle beauty of 'Lonesome Polecat' and you have a winner.

I have personal memories of this film being watched in a dormitory lobby in college. Some bubbly friends of mine insisted that we had to watch it immediately after finding I had never seen it. They proceeded to quote most of the lines, sing every song and practically dance along with every scene. They did so with such energy that I was swept along as well, hardly paying attention to the jokes or the plot. Upon viewing it again I couldn't help remember that enthusiasm, but this time I was unable to miss the bothersome plot. In the end one must realize the time and place this movie came from without overlooking what is a pretty disturbing bit of plotting. The songs and the movements will most assuredly win most of the skeptics over though.

More reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com

Ride with the Devil (I) (1999)

Disappointing

[6/10 · 3 May 2005]

Read all my reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com Director Ang Lee chose to follow up the excellent familial drama, The Ice Storm, with an epic Civil War film. The filmmakers put in much work to ensure that it was as historically accurate as possible. And on this end they did a wonderful job. Yet as a viewer of the film, with limited knowledge of Civil War history, many of the details seem false. Yes, there were black men who fought on the side of the South. It is true that there were many, intelligent, courageous, even good men who fought for the South as well. However, true these things are, my 21st century mind had difficulties believing them.

It goes against the grain of traditional Hollywood war, or even action, pictures. Our main characters are fighting on the losing, and wrong side. (Yes, there were many other factors contributing to the Civil War besides slavery, but this film does not get into them, and so neither shall my review.) We watch these characters commit many atrocities, including the murder of innocent people. Yet it also shows soldiers from the North commit similar atrocities. It seems more a film depicting the horrendous actions of coming-of-age men than any real declaration on the themes of the war itself.

There have been great movies made from the perspective of the wrong. These films show how even soldiers fighting on the wrong side of a war are still human. They have families, loved ones, hopes and dreams. If done well this type of film can show us the humanity in each person, and the atrocities of war. Yet in Ride with the Devil I never learned to care about any character. With few exceptions, the men we watch in this movie, are not sympathetic. Even the few with redeemable qualities are not given the space for us to care about their lives.

The story centers on a small community within the grand scale of the war. It takes place in Missouri, where literally brother fought against brother on both sides of the battle. Jake Roedel (Tobey Maguire) and Jack Bull Chiles (Skeet Ulrich) play friends who run off to join a gang of outlaws fighting on the side of the South. Here they meet George Clyde (Simon Baker) and a black man named Daniel Holt (Jeffrey Wright). Holt's reasons for fighting for the slave minded are only slightly revealed toward the end. Yet it is his relationship with the other three men that make up the central theme of the film. As each of these characters learns to trust and care for Holt, they must question the sense in fighting a war bent on keeping his fellow brothers enslaved. It is to Ang Lee's credit that he uses subtle hints to follow this theme rather than pounding it in with a sledge hammer. The characters change, and evolve, but in slow, slight movement that resemble real life rather than movie life. For even at the end of the pictures no one has made new resolves with life, or changed their beliefs drastically.

The action sequences, though well directed, still fall flat. Lee is unable to stir any real emotion out of the war's central motives or the intensity of its loss. It is when Lee focuses his attention of the relationships between his characters that this film succeeds. This is not surpassing when considering Lee's earlier films were small films focused on familial relationships. The bonds that grow between Roedel and Holt are moving. The love story between Sue Lee Shelley (a surprisingly good Jewel) and her suitors (to give names would be to give too much plot away) is also a treat. In Lee's next picture, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, he found a way to entwine both beautiful action sequences and smaller, meaningful exchanges of love. Here, he seems to be still growing into this ability.

For Civil War buffs this film offers a reliable package of history. For the rest of us, it is a well made film that ultimately doesn't generate enough interest to really care.

The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc (1999)

A Beautiful Mess

[4/10 · 3 May 2005]

Read all of my reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com What happens when you take a talented French director, his model cum singer cum actress wife, one of the greatest actors of the 70's and makes a movie about one of the most renowned saints of France? You get a giant mess is what. The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc is loaded with lots of talented people, is filmed gorgeously and is mostly a lousy, muddled film.

The story of Joan of Arc (or Jeanne d'Arc as they call her in France) is well known just about everywhere. Joan is a poor peasant living in a small village in France during the Hundred Years War with England. She begins seeing heavenly visions that tell her she is God's messenger to rid her country of the bloody English. Somehow she convinces Charles, the Dauphin with visions of being king, to give her an army to storm Orleans. Using unconventional methods she leads her army to victory. The Dauphin is crowned king and mostly forgets about Joan. She leads an unsuccessful siege on Paris is given over to the English, tried and burned at the stake, several hundred years later she is sainted by the Catholic church. The Messenger covers most of this relatively faithfully, and beautifully.

Luc Besson is a talented director filming such classics as Le Femme Nikita and The Professional. His talent is presented here in his ability to create interesting and beautiful shots, but is lost in creating a cohesive story. He doesn't seem to know what to do with the story about the young saint. In parts it seems earnest in it's recreation of this revolutionary with heavenly visions, but then it sinks into near parody of itself and in the ends sinks towards a reinventing of the events themselves asking Joan herself whether or not her visions were real or mere psychosis.

Milla Jovovich is a pretty face who has mostly been in forgettable, silly comedies and the Resident Evil franchise which might as well be considered a silly comedy for all its worth. Here, she has two modes of acting, a strange amphetamine delivery of her lines as if she couldn't spit them out fast enough, or a snarled scream as if acting was merely being the loudest person on the set. It is not a nuanced performance. For the entirety of the film she seems completely out of place.

The battle or Orleans is tame at best. There are virtually no scenes of real ambitious spectacle. We are given nothing to inform us of her revolutionary forms of combat. Instead her method seems to be screaming a lot and jumping a horse over the enemies fence. Later the storming of Paris is so humorous it is sad. Joan screams and screams that she needs back up while a few soldiers randomly knock on what must be the Paris gates. These soldiers are so bewildered a pathetic looking they seem more out of a Monty Python sketch than a serious film about war.

Beyond the visual elements the only saving grace is Dustin Hoffman's performance as the Grand Inquisitor or Conscience. It is a fine performance from a fine actor, but it is a peculiar character. He spends his time questioning Joan's own sanity. Could her visions in fact be some form of psychosis or fantasy? Could crucial moments in her life like finding a sword in a field in fact be simple coincidence? Good questions in the history of the real Joan of Arc, but they seem out of place here. Nowhere in the film are we led to believe Joan is nothing but the real thing. Why bring these questions into play during its climactic ending. The film would have worked much better believing whole heartedly in Joan's purpose and vision. Or questioning her visions from the beginning, a re-visioning of the myth could be very interesting. Instead it kicks its legs out from under itself by bringing her into question so late in the film.

What we get in this portrayal of Joan of Arc is some pretty visuals and a find performance from Dustin Hoffman. Try renting one of Luc Besson's earlier films and pick up anything from Hoffman's hey day in the 70's, they will be worth your dollar and your time far more than anything thing to be found here.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

A Little Disappointing

[7/10 · 3 May 2005]

Read all of my reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com Wes Anderson pictures are always an event. His first three pictures (Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, and the Royal Tenenbaums) have all been brilliant bits of quirky genius. I have waited not so patiently for his fourth picture, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, to make it to France. Though, I tried to read little in the way of reviews, I couldn't help but notice quite a bit of negativity being garnered its way. After viewing the film, I too, couldn't help but feel a little let down, but this has more to say about my expectations of a Wes Anderson picture, than the actual picture itself.

Bill Murray proves once again that he is a better actor post 50, than anyone could have imagined. He plays Steve Zissou, a Jacques Cousteau-esquire oceanographer who has seen better days. He has spent the last decade scrounging harder and harder to find the funding for his voyages and the subsequent documentaries from them. It seems the critics have been harsher as his fans have become increasingly few. The film opens with Zissou showing his latest documentary to a bored audience. He is attempting to find funding for a second voyage, one that will allow him to exact revenge upon the jaguar shark that killed his friend. He finds the money through Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson) who may be Zissou's son, but no one is really quite sure.

Zissou and his might-be son, are accompanied by a rag tag crew and a reporter, Jane Winslet-Richardson (Cate Blanchett) who forms some kind of love triangle with Zissou and Plimpton. Aboard the rusty, ancient Belefante all hands set out to find the mythical shark. Though before they find the beast they encounter many adventures such as found in any road trip film.

Anderson fills his film once again with plenty of quirky, odd ball characters. This time he seems to have filled the action as a means to play homage to various movies and television shows from the 70's and 80's. There is an action sequence towards the middle that is straight out of a Charlie's Angels or A-Team episode. The much discussed animated fish seem to be copied from the Incredible Mr. Limpett. Many of the camera movements, including extensive use of close up zoom on a single character only to zoom out and zoom out again to find the character surrounded by others, seem to be out of some classic television directors guide book. Before I realized Anderson was mimicking that style I was annoyed with the whole thing. Once I caught on I found a few of these moments to be brilliant put-ons, but often I felt like I was watching the last 15 minutes of Adaptation. Where yes I get the joke, and yes I find it funny, but it got tiresome rather quickly.

One of the joys of The Royal Tenenbaums is that each character is fleshed out to some degree. It is a large ensemble picture, but even the smaller roles have moments in which to give them some dimension, to make them real. The Life Aquatic similarly has a large cast, but all but the major characters are never given a chance to become three dimensional. Why, for instance, does the navigator spend most of the film topless? If this is to present that she is a free spirit, why does she argue with Zissou over sailing over unprotected waters? Or why is she so upset with him for stealing the equipment? Her character is given no reasoning behind her behavior, and her actions only force the plot along without any purpose. She is not the only character like this. Either Anderson is again mimicking the plot less plot-lines of classic television, or he has done a poor job of filling in the details of his characters.

There are many things that work in the Life Aquatic. Bill Murray proves again he is more than just a funny, funny man. The characters that are filled out, are aptly acted. Though just what is the deal with Cate Blanchett's accent? She sounded like she was still hanging onto a bit of Katherine Hepburn. Anderson has again made a fun, funny, quirk of a movie. Yet, when compared to the rest of his output, I can't help but feel a little disappointed. Here's to his next film, and hoping his brilliance continues to shine for a little while longer.

More reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com

A Hole in the Head (1959)

There is Better Carpra, Sinatra, and Robinson Out There

[5/10 · 3 May 2005]

Read all my reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com

I received A Hole in the Head for my birthday in a Frank Sinatra double pack with the original Manchurian Candidate. I had put off watching it because it did not seem like a movie I would particularly enjoy. But in my quest to watch and review all of my movies, I had no choice but to put it in the player. Of course the fact that my wife wanted to watch it prompted me a little further even to the point of watching it out of alphabetical order.

Frank Capra is the great godfather of sentimental movies. Many of these are deservedly hailed by fans and critics. From Mr Smith Goes to Washington to It's a Wonderful Life Capra made movies about the little guys fighting the system and coming out on top. These movies are sentimental enough to be dubbed "Capracorn" by the system, but are handled with masterful hands that rise above the schmaltz created by so many others. Besides little guys he also flooded his movies with eccentric characters standing out in a world full or normal folk. Arsenic and Old Lace and You Can't Take it With You are standouts of this form. Sadly, A Hole in the Head tries to mix both of these Capra types and fails on both accounts.

The film is the second to last picture ever made by Capra and was the beginning of an attempted comeback from a few years break from making Hollywood pictures. But instead of a comeback this film serves only to remind us of what Capra used to be. Frank Sinatra plays a down on his luck big dreamer who is about to be evicted from his hotel business in Miami, Florida. He calls up his brother, Edward G Robinson and sister-in-law Thelma Ritter for help pretending his son is sick. Robinson and wife quickly head down from New York to see what's going on. Hilarity and sentimentality ensue. Swinging Sinatra butts heads with button down Robinson until a quick ending and easy solution are found.

The performances of the stars are fine. At this point in their careers Sinatra and Robinson are essentially playing themselves. Although Sinatra is more up and coming to the declining Robinson. There are some good jokes and the simple story is fair enough as it is. Capra fills Sinatra's hotel with an odd collection of eccentrics that seem to have no other purpose but to fill up some time and tell a few jokes. The ending of the movie seems tied on and creates changes to some characters without any real provocation. The cheese factor is high even for a Capra film and it's not subdued by any superb performances. The drama is not elevated above the schlock you would see in a made for TV movie.

The stand out of the film is Sinatra and son singing the classic "High Hopes." Being a fan of Sinatra more as a singer than actor this amusing break in the middle of the picture helped keep my hopes up for a decent picture. Those hopes were not shattered, nor were they completely fulfilled. For beginners of "Capracorn" you should pick out some of his earlier, superior films. But for a lonely night in need of some corny sentiment, this is some fluffy candy that just might fill.

More reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

Minus Doris Day This Would Be Classic

[7/10 · 3 May 2005]

Read all of my reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com

I suppose if you were to pick anyone to remake the classic Alfred Hitchcock film The Man Who Knew Too Much Hitchock himself would not a bad choice. And that is just what the master of suspense did in 1956. In fact this version feels more like an extended, director's cut than a remake. The story is essentially the same. Ben (James Stewart) and Jo MacKenna(Doris Day)are vacationing in French Morocco with their son (Christopher Olson). They are quickly caught up in international intrigue and must try to stop an unknown diplomats assassination and keep their son from being harmed.

While the original stays mainly indoors keeping its action to a few set pieces. In this new version Hitchcock thrills in taking his characters, and the audience, to wild, colorful places around the world. It begins in Northern Africa and here we see many lovely shots of the country side. The action moves to London where there numerous shots inside enormous, gorgeous buildings like the Royal Albert Hall.

The opening credit sequence is beautifully done. Hitchock shoots a half orchestra playing the opening music. It takes a few moments to realize that the typical orchestrated number you are hearing over the credits is visibly being played by real people on the picture. This inventive bit is promptly ruined by an uninteresting title card played over the cymbalist.

I own the original 1934 version and recently watched it. There are many debates raging over the internet on which version is superior. Frankly, I find both version to be lacking. The original was paced quicker but suffered from several jolts in plot which created some confusion and no sympathy for the protagonists. The newer version tries to help this out by giving us over long and unmoving scenes in which the protagonists try to stretch out their characters. Jimmy Stewart does a marvelous job as usual, but Dorris Day is annoying in nearly every scene. She is pretty and plays the part of a normal, cheerful American girl, but she grits my teeth while she's on the screen. Maybe I'm just not a fan. In a scene towards the end she sings "Que Sera Sera" and to my ears it sounds like she's howling the number. One could argue that she is singing loudly for a plot purpose, but I would say it would serve the movie better if it was pretty and not harsh. In an interesting bit of trivia Ms. Day apparently didn't like the song to the point of nearly refusing to record it. It turned out to be her biggest hit, and won the Oscar that year.

There is an ingenious bit of film making in the latter 3/4ths of the movie filmed in the Royal Albert Hall. There is some 12 minutes when not a word of dialogue is spoken and the only sound heard is the music played by the orchestra. It is a beautifully crafted scene that builds tension like a bullet.

There are several plot elements that make me ill at ease. The Scotland Yard seems terribly inept. We are made to believe that these detectives are willing to allow the MacKenna's to run around the streets of London trying to solve the crime by themselves even though Mr. MacKenna knows important details about the assassination of an important diplomat. Why would an assassin use a small pistol to kill the diplomat from a long distance? After the assassination attempt why is everyone allowed to run free? There are other questions and ineptitude that go unanswered except to allow a movie to tie up loose ends quickly and move the plot along.

Hitchcock was a master at manipulating audiences. He is in fine form throughout this movie quickly moving the viewer through the scenery with a good bit of humor and suspense. This is not a bad movie by any stretch. There is a great deal to enjoy as a carefree audience member and for anyone interested in the craft and art of film. However, it is far from Hitchcock's greatest film, and I find its flaws to be more disappointing considering the masterful hands that created it.

More reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com

Harvey (1950)

Too Sentimental

[7/10 · 3 May 2005]

Read all of my reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com

Towards the end of the 1950 film, Harvey, Elwood P Dowd (played by James Stewart in an Academy Award nominated role) says this:

"In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." It is a memorable line, and one that sums up the film quite well. For the picture is filled with lots of smart people, and a few pleasant ones. It, in fact, seems to be the film's central theme. Dowd is an alcoholic and mentally ill, all of which creates quite a disturbance throughout the film, but is ultimately washed over because he smiles a lot, allows others to pass through the door first, and speaks in a gentle, even voice.

Perhaps I'm being too unkind myself, it is after all a harmless comedy, slap stick and all. At that, it fairs well enough. The catch of the film, if you've somehow managed to not hear it before in the 55 years since its release, or forgot to look at the picture on the front of the DVD box, is that Dowd's best friends happens to be an invisible 6 foot rabbit, named Harvey. Much of the film's humor, and a great deal of it's heart, come from that rabbit, which the audience never sees.

The conflict comes from Dowd's sister, Veta Louise Simmons (Josephine Hall) and her daughter Myrtle Mae (Victoria Horne). They have grown tired of Dowd's antics with Harvey, and the embarrassment of having such a relative has caused untold grief for their social positions. Early in the film they decide to have Dowd committed to an insane asylum. Slapstick ensues when Verta is mistaken for the crazy one.

I found it to be a fine, humorous film. All of the cast members are firing on all cylinders and create a wonderful ensemble cast. Stewart and Hall are particularly fine as Dowd and his sister. The jokes work well enough, at least they are not particularly unfunny, and are pleasant enough. I think this is where my complaint comes in; it is all just too pleasant. Even the Simmons' are rather sweet and kind while they try to put Dowd away.

It was slightly disturbing to me to watch a man with an obvious mental illness be touted as the film's hero, and a character that we should all emulate. But again, I'm probably being too unpleasant again. I realize that the film is being more Peter Pan than Awakenings in this aspect. For Harvey seems more fantastical than hallucination, but Dowd never once hints that the giant rabbit might not be real. I know, I know, I'm being too much the tired cynic at this point. Dowd did give me the same brief desire of improvement that Atticus Finch give me while watching To Kill a Mockingbird. Though Finch never spotted giant rabbits, just a black man served more injustice.

It is difficult to complain about a film that really just wishes we would all be happy and kind to one another. Indeed a brief searching of the IMDb's user comments finds an agreement with everyone that this is a wonderful, joyful film.

It is a heartwarming film, which only managed to kindle a low flame in my heart. This is a weird feeling. It is as I feel the chastisement of a million fans calling me a cold hearted son of a son of a sailor. It just failed to make me laugh enough, or move me enough to declare it wonderful. While I don't have any hard complaints about the picture, it is not something that I'll be placing on any top films list.

More reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com

Finding Neverland (2004)

Just Read the Review

[7/10 · 3 May 2005]

All my reviews are at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com

Peter Pan, is of course, the immensely popular story of a boy who wouldn't grow up. The Internet Movie Data Base lists 8 movies with that title, and there are many more films that have been made using the same story. It actually began as an immensely popular play on the London stage. Finding Neverland is the film based on the plays author, JM Barrie and his relationship with the Davies family and how they inspired Barrie to write the play.

We begin the film finding Barrie (Johnny Depp) having just completed the staging of a very expensive, new play, which also turns out to be a bomb. His marriage is falling apart because while Barrie is himself a childlike man, his wife seems to be very much the adult who cannot participate in her husband's whims and dreams. Enter Sylvia Davies (Kate Winslet), a widow trying to support four children with very little money. Barrie immediately falls in love with her children. He takes them to the park, plays cowboys and Indians, dances with bears, and indulges every childlike fantasy they can dream up. He is every bit the child they are. They in turn are the muses for his next play. Throughout the film, we see the children acting out bits, we know of from Peter Pan. We see his inspiration on celluloid.

This is a good, well made film. It is aptly directed, and the actors all do fine jobs. My English friend notes that Depp does a decent job with a Scottish accent, and as always, the remainder of his performance is top notch.

My problem with the film lies within the characterization of Barrie, himself. He is made out to be a wonderful, beautiful dreamer. A man who has the heart of a child. He is someone who lives in his imagination. We see the world through his eyes. While dancing in the park with his dog, we see it transform into a circus and the dog into a bear. Anyone who dares to question his fancies, to expect him to act as an adult, is shown in a unfavorable light. Both Barries' wife, Mary (Rahda Mitchell) and Davies' mother, Emma Du Maurier (Julie Christie) do not care for Barrie's behavior and both are made out to be villains. Yet his behavior is to be frowned upon. A married man gallivanting about town with a widow and her children is neither acceptable nor Right.

The film does its best to show us that the Barries' marriage is not doing well besides the problems with the Davies household. They quibble about other issues and we can tell there has not been much love under that roof for quite some time. It is also quick to point out that the relationship between Barrie and Ms. Davies is anything but sexual. In fact Barrie seems to be quite asexual. There is never a hint of masculinity or sexuality portrayed at all. But these are all excuses for allowing a grown, married man to spend all of his time with a woman who is not his wife, and four children who are not his own.

The film wants us to believe. It wants us to believe that life is worth dreaming about. That the eyes of a child can see mysterious forgotten by the likes of grown ups. That they contain a secret joy we too, could experience if only we believed. It also wants us to see that if we do not behave as children, if our minds are lost in the responsibilities of adults, than we are missing out on life. It is hard to refute such beliefs. Life is hard. To be able to escape into a world of pirates and fairies is a miraculous thing. We should all be able to slip into the world of fantasy and make believe for just awhile and let the stress of being and adult slip away. But, there is the cusp of the matter, we can slip away and dream for a time, but life demands that we return. It is irresponsible and shameful to drop the responsibilities of our life, to live our fantasies. To leave the bonds of marriage for another woman, even if you never technically have an affair, is irredeemable. To accept and love a character for doing that very thing is irresponsible.

All of this is not to say that Finding Neverland is without merit. In fact it is an enjoyable, well made film. It is an interesting portrait of the author of one of the English languages most beloved stories. Barrie, as seen here, was a gifted, flawed man. It is a beautiful thing to see a man filled with such whimsy. But we must be careful not to believe that being whimsical gives us the freedom to give up on being grown up.

More reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com

The Elephant Man (1980)

Sentimental Lynch

[8/10 · 3 May 2005]

Read all of my reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com David Lynch's second full length film contains the odd assortment of freakish characters we've become accustomed to in his film. Yet, despite one of the more outlandish characters he has ever put on celluloid, it remains his most sentimental.

The Elephant Man is based upon the true story of John Merrick, a 19th century Englishman with massive deformities throughout his body. He performed in freak shows for many years until he was found by Dr. Treves who cared for him and placed him in Whitechapel hospital. It is his time in this hospital that the film concerns itself with. For here, Merrick is able to life, more or less, as a gentleman. He is well fed, well kept, and educated. He can read, write, speak eloquently and even begins to entertain well-to-dos of society.

It is filmed beautifully in black and white. It is a very well made piece of cinema. Lynch, for the most part, stays away from his trade mark imagery and symbolism, and sticks to more traditional story telling, although the elephant involving opening sequence is straight Lynch nightmare. That the characters come from real life and not Lynch's twisted imagination only serve to add to the surrealism of the film.

It has been said that Lynch is too sentimental in this movie. That he manipulates the audience too much. Ebert even goes as far as saying Lynch tricks the audience into believing that Merrick is a noble and courageous man. He suggests, that rather than being noble, Merrick is merely doing the best that he can, under poor circumstances. It is true that the film is sentimental. There is hardly a scene that does not prick the audiences emotions. Yet how can an audience not feel emotion when they see a kind, intelligent man live with such deformities. How many of us would dare to get out of bed each day with similar atrocities. And here, this man, though physically plagued, manages to keep up his spirits and even write and build card sculptures. It would be a poor director at that who could not produce a tear at such a sight. If we pretend it is not a noble feat for such a creature to retain his humanity and good cheer, while being constantly bombarded with inhumane indecencies are we any better than those who stand outside the carnival and jeer? Yet there is something in these critiques of sentimentalism. Lynch continues to use his tricks as a director to keep our eyes wet. There is a scene in which Merrick meets Dr. Treve's wife and breaks down with tears at her simple kind acts. His tears state that no one has been so kind to him as to treat him like a gentleman. Though effective, this is using the craft of film-making to do nothing but manipulate emotions. In other films I would lambaste this type of sentimentalism and chastise the audience for falling for it. Yet the overall sadness throughout the story makes me fall for it here. I cannot commend such use of it in film anywhere, and yet it works for me in this particular instance.

Overall, the Elephant Man is a fine achievement for a young director. Lynch would go on to make more articulate, less sentimental films. But here we find him assured in his imagery and storytelling. He effectively sweeps the viewer into the emotional turmoil of such a sad, hopeless story.

More reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

Wonderful

[10/10 · 3 May 2005]

Read all of my reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com

This movie is pure joy to me. There were a few difference with this viewing than in previous viewings. First I have actually been to the Devils Tower in Wyoming. Having actual seen this natural monument takes a little mystery out of it in the film. For years it seemed more like something out of the filmmakers imagination, something of the dreams of Hollywood, than something real. Something made of rocks and dirt. The mysterious glow that surrounded the rock in the film, and especially the first actual appearance in the film on television, has been dimmed a little. Likewise as Richard Dryfuss sculpts the mount in the beginning I wanted to shout at him to flatten the top.

Secondly, I am now quite familiar with a number of Francois Truffaut's films. He plays the mysterious French scientist in the film, but is in reality, a gifted director and pioneer in the French New Wave. Being familiar with who the actor is, gave the character more depth and mystery. I wonder how Spielberg talked him into becoming an actor in his film. If he had any influence on the direction of the film. How much English he speaks.

I have also, for the past few years, lived in Indiana. Much of the movie takes place in Muncie, Indiana and I found the same joy that I always find when a movie, book, or song takes place somewhere I know or have been to. As if it becomes more real simply because I know the places it occurs.

To me, the film is less about aliens and more about a sense of wonderment. In a famous scene, a small boy stands in front of an open door which is ablaze in a fiery glow. You cannot see what is outside, but you have spend the previous minutes watching the boys mother become very frightened as the aliens attempt to enter the house. Yet the boy standing close to these unseen and unknown creatures stands unafraid, even curious. There are many beautiful shots of a night sky with billions of brilliant stars sparkling. Throughout the film Spielberg seems to be using space and aliens as a means to express wonder and amazement at the unknown. Richard Dreyfuss' character loses interest in his family and outside life except for the mystery of the things he saw in the night sky and the recurrent thought of the mysterious mountain. Several times as he builds the mountain out of clay, dirt, mashed potatoes he proclaims that it must mean something, but isn't sure of what. Even in the last scene when he boards the alien craft there is no final meaning given. It's as if Spielberg is saying that it is the search for meaning in the universe, it is in looking with wonder at the great mysteries of the world that we in fact find some purpose, some meaning.

I was reading a review of Steven Spielberg as a director and one of the things it discussed was the directors tendency of not moving his camera. That he tends to allow action come to the camera's view instead of following the action with the camera. So as I watched this film I kept a keen eye out for camera movement. I did find this to be true, throughout the film the camera is still allowing the action to to move into view. That's not to say the camera was only in one place. In fact it often was placed in different parts of a room for a scene, but in any given shot there was little movement. No sweeping shots, no long tracking scenes. The biggest movement I saw was when Richard Dreyfuss and Melinda Dillon arrive at the Devils Tower. The camera then sweeps over the car and follows the characters up a hill to reveal, finally, the giant rock in a real shot. I'm not sure what to make of this, but found it interesting.

As in many of Spielbergs films there is distress in a marriage. Richard Dreyfuss and Terri Garrs marriage literally falls apart as Dreyfuss becomes more and more obsessed with his visions. There is one scene in particular where Dreyfuss is locked in a shower crying and Terri Garr begins to scream at him and scream at the children to go to their rooms. Spielberg uses several close up shots of the children to show how this fighting disturbs them. Spielberg has been on record to say that his own parent's divorce disturbed him deeply. Many of his films either show the distress of an unhealthy marriage, or the products of divorced. Yet in this film the creator of this unhappiness in marriage, Richard Dreyfuss' character, is the hero, is whisked away in the wonderful alien ship. I view this not as a detraction from the film but as an artistic endeavor. Spielberg takes time out of his alien picture to show the hurt and pain Dreyfuss causes. Dreyfuss's character also shows remorse over his actions yet cannot turn away from his obsession. As he begins to tear down his scrapbooks of alien abductions he tears the pointy top of his clay Devil's Tower and becomes obsessed all over again. Though in reality I wold see such a person's actions in disgust and contempt in the context of the film I see it as a broader artistic action toward the overall goal of seeking deeper meaning and wonderment. Just as I can cheer for the violent destruction of the bad guy in an action movie when the reality which be abhorrent and gruesome.

More reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com

The Big Sleep (1946)

Classic Noir

[9/10 · 3 May 2005]

Read all of my reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com This classic film noir has very few of techniques generally associated with noir. It contains no skewed camera angles; and though it is darkly lit, it is not overcome with murky, obscuring shadows. The hero is not down-and-out, poor, or desperate. There is no retrospective narration, or flashbacks. Yet, the Big Sleep is widely considered to be one of the very best of this genre. It is a cynical, perverse, murderous world filled with loads of confusing action and unknown motives. It is, in fact, one of the great films of one of the screens greatest actors (for my personal top 10 actors list, click here), and most talented directors.

It was directed by Howard Hawks fresh off of the successful pairing of Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Becall in To Have and Have Not. The two star here again and it is easy to see why they made another two films together. Based on a Raymond Chandler novel of the same name, many people complain that this film is incomprehensible. Somewhat famously it is reported that Bogart and Hawks, after arguing over who killed one of the characters, called up Chandler to get the correct answer. Chandler didn't have the slightest idea, for the novel is rather vague on this point. It's true that both the novel and film leave many plot points as to who did what to whom more than unclear, but there is so much style in both that it's hard to make a convincing argument against them.

A good deal of the confusion within the film comes from the production codes in effect at the time it was produced. Chandler's novel deals with murder, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and pornography. At the time, these things were deemed unfit to show on a movie screen and so Hawks had to hint at them using various subtle methods. For instance, when Carmen Sternwood (Martha Vickers) is found by detective Phillip Marlow (Bogart) in the novel she is completely nude and sitting posed for a hidden camera. Since pornography is explicitly against code, in the movie she is dressed in a silky, Japanese gown. There is still a hidden camera, and its missing film becomes a catalyst for much of the action in the film. We must infer from the exotic nature of the gown that there was more than just pictures of a woman in a gown going on. There are many similar instances in the film like this. For an audience member who has not read the book, they must pay close attention to the subtext, or the film will seem baffling.

Personally, I am very much a fan of the book, and all of Chandler's work. While I appreciate that some of the finer plot points are a bit vague in this film, I also understand that the film succeeds not in the details of the story, but in a sinister sense of style. The film oozes with a dark, disquieting atmosphere. Nearly everyone Marlowe meets is hiding something, and is of less than upstanding moral character. Hawks does a great job of keeping nearly every scene in the dark or in the rain, or both. There are so many characters coming in and out of the shadows and with their own shady character that it is difficult to keep up.

Bogart, of course, does a marvelous job as Marlowe. He seems to understand a lot more information than the audience is ever given. Chandler wrote Marlowe as a detective who sticks by his own set up morals, remaining somewhat of a noble creature trying to stay afloat amongst the muck and sewers of the city. Lauren Bacall does a very good job portraying Vivian Sternwood Rutledge, in a role that is much different than the one in the book. Like many films from this era, they create a romance that wasn't really in the source material. I don't mind though, because Bogart and Bacall really sizzle.

What can I say that hasn't been said before? This is really classic noir at its best. It's got Bogart and Bacall. It was directed by Howard Hawks, written by William Faulkner from a novel by Raymond Chandler. What more could a lover of classic cinema want? More reviews at www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com

About Schmidt (2002)

Misery Needs Company

[8/10 · 2 May 2005]

Alexander Payne's 2002 film, About Schmidt, is just as much the transformation of it's star Jack Nicholson as it is the transformation of the character Jack plays "Warren Schmidt." Here Nicholson is no longer the swaggering, smart alecked, tough guy we have seen throughout his long, illustrious career but a quiet, shell of a nice guy trying to understand his life after retirement. Nicholson does such an amazing job portraying this loser of a character one wonders why he hasn't been playing this type all along.

The movie begins with the retirement of Warren Schmidt. He is a typical Midwestern "good guy" who is retiring as an executive from an insurance company. Schmidt is an everyman schlub. He has worked hard to have a "normal" life. He has a good job, a long standing wife, and a nice daughter. Yet upon retiring, the death of a loved one, and his daughters imminent marriage Schmidt must take a harder look at his life. In doing so he comes to realize there isn't much to it, really. The bulk of the movie centers on Schmidt traveling to Colorado to try to stop his daughter from marrying a redneck boob.

Theerer are numerous perfect spoofs of Midwestern living. From Schmidt's life, to his retirement plans of living in a trailer the details of a typical Midwestern life are just about perfect. While on the road, Schmidt stops at numerous Interstate museums that are so banal it is hilarious. Once he arrives in Colorado the characterizations of the fiancée and his family are both hilarious and frighteningly real. Dermot Mulroney plays the mullett wearing, salesman fiancée and Kathy Bathes plays the still living in the 60's time of free love soon to be mother-in-law. The family dinner before the wedding is reminiscent of real life, mixing hilarity and sadness with the eye of an artist. The actual wedding is so dead on perfect that I believe I have actually attended that very ceremony. From the off key singing of the schmaltzy "Longer" to the self written vows (I will love you every day, and when I say day I mean all 24 hours, and when I say hours I mean...) the ceremony is hilarious in its real life cheezeball hokeyness and yet manages to remain as sweet.

This is what makes the film so memorable. While it pokes fun and satirizes everyday Midwestern life it is full of rich glowing love for that very life. Schmidt is an normal schmuck who has lived his life by the rules. While at the end of his life he begins to regret that simple life, I don't believe the film is suggesting that this type of life is meaningless. Just the opposite in fact, I believe it is showing all of us everyday schmucks that living a normal life can be glorious in its own way when we help those around us.

Shadows and Fog (1991)

Style Over Substance

[8/10 · 21 April 2005]

Woody Allen's tribute to German expressionism is better than most critics would have you believe. Sure there is very little plot to speak of, it's more a series of vignettes and gags than a cohesive narrative. Sure, it ends rather abruptly, never solving the mystery, but none of this stopped my thorough enjoyment of this film.

As the title suggests the entire movie is designed in shadows and fog. Shot with beautiful black and white photography, Allen and cinematographer Carlo Di Palma create the look and feel of an unnamed East European city as seen in such films as M and Nosferatu. The lighting is set up so that in nearly every shot underlying shadows engulf the scene. In the exteriors a vicious fog rolls across the night sky obscuring most details. Through the fog bumbles Kleinman (Allen is his typical neurotic schmuck role) trying to find his role in a vigilante mob's plan to stop a serial killer roaming the streets. From dark night until dawn, Kleinman wanders from place to place meeting a wide variety of curious characters (played by an even more curious group of celebrities), the most endearing of which is a desperate sword swallower (Mia Farrow)who is has wandered into a brothel after fleeing her cheating boyfriend/clown (John Malcovich).

It is a little unsettling to watch Allen do his normal schtick while the characters around him are murdered, subjected to racial prejudice, beaten by the police and discuss such subjects as love, sex, and meaning. There is a subtext involving the plight of the Jews between the World Wars, foreshadowing the Nazis. Yet the gags remain as solid as any Woody Allen film. Amongst the seriousness of his subtext and the films he is paying homage to, Allen finds away to bring full bellied laughter. Though his quirky neurosis isn't as resolutely hilarious as it is in such films as Annie Hall, it is still enough to fill the film with mirth.

The film ends rather abruptly with Kleinman having never learned his role in the plan, nor the killer having been caught. Yet as the credits role we realize the mystery was not so much the reason behind the story as method in creating it.

Cape Fear (1962)

The Original

[8/10 · 21 April 2005]

Gregory Peck is so linked in my mind to the simplicity and grace of Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird, that it is always surprising to see him in anything else. To find him in the gritty, dirty piece of film noir that is the original Cape Fear is something of a shock. Yet, as always he does a marvelous job, and some of that grace manages to shine through the grime.

The story is a pretty basic noir plot. Max Cady (Robert Mitchum) is an ex convict who just got out of prison. He has come back to town to haunt Sam Bowden (Gregory Peck) who testified against Cady for attacking a woman. Cady has spent his time in prison well, and has studied up on the law. He manages to terrify Bowden and his family and still remain within the confines of the law.

Though Peck gets top billing, this is truly Robert Mitchum's film. He plays Cady with a swagger and menacing smile that is simply magnificent. We can see inside his swarthy confident charm and see the evil, menacing psychopath. The brilliance of the role is that we almost never see the violence that hides just behind the mask. Yet it seethes and oozes out, ready to strike at any time.

J. Lee Thompson keeps the tension pumping throughout the 105 minute film. There is hardly a moment to relax before something else occurs to tense us right back up. Yet the tension doesn't come from boogie men jumping out from behind closets. It is a slow, boiling tension that tightens as we imagine just what might happen. When the climax finally does occur it is almost a let down. The censor at the time would not allow the type of action packed blood bath it does now, but the film doesn't suffer for it. What we get is plenty good, but is in the nature of the genre that the climax leads to the come down. But, the ride getting to that point, is well worth the time.

Like this review? Go to www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com for more

The Village (2004)

Only Watch It Once

[7/10 · 21 April 2005]

The problem with most thrillers is that once you've watched them one time, there is nothing left. Too many of these films spend all of their creative energy trying to give the audience a scare. The best directors of the genre create truly great films, which just happened to give the audience a scare. While M. Night Shyamalan is an excellent craftsman, he tends to be unable to elevate his films into the realms of true cinema. The Village is no exception.

The story centers around a small village that seems to be set in the later part of the 1800's. The Villagers have worked out a complicated deal with strange creatures ("Those We Do Not Speak Of") lurking in the near woods. Problems arise and the long held pact begins to break down. This causes there to be a need for one of the villagers to venture through the woods into the larger towns.

The biggest problem with the Village and the last several of Shyamalan's films is his surprise endings. I read somewhere several years ago that he didn't want to be pigeonholed into doing the same supernatural type stories with twist ending. I wish he had kept to his word. Instead everyone goes into the theatre expecting, waiting on the surprise at the end. This is a distraction taken away from the whole of the film; it is a gimmick that has run thin. A truly surprising ending for the director now, would be no surprise at all.

Where Shyamalan excels is his Hitchcockian use of suspense. He understands that some of the best thrills come not from something jumping straight out at the audience, but in what we don't see. It is a long time in the Village before we see "The Things We Don't Speak Of" and even then we only catch a glimpse. For Shyamalan understands that our imaginations are more powerful than any piece of costuming or CG effect. There were, in fact, several moments during my first viewing of the film that hand my hair standing on end. These were tense, beautifully paced moments.

The film also creates a masterful sense of mood. The color scheme, set design and costuming are all top notch. They give the film a true sense of paranoia and suspense. The acting, for the most part, is quite good. Which is not surprising considering the cast is made up of the likes of William Hurt, Sigorney Weaver, Joaquin Phoenix, and Adrian Brody amongst others. There several interweaving human stories set amongst the supernatural tale, some of which are quite moving. Yet it is the supernatural aspect that shines brightest, and ultimately, falls flat upon subsequent viewings. Watching the film a second time, knowing the surprises, I felt a tinge of boredom. The story no longer captivated me as it did the first time. Knowing the truth, there were too many plot points, and character actions that seemed false, or self serving.

It is a film worth a first viewing. Shyalaman is a true talent, and I look forward to his next film. In a sense the Village is really two stories. One is a suspenseful tale of creatures lurking in the dark, and the other of a quaint village dealing with extraordinary circumstances. I believe the fault lies with the merging of the two. The suspense doesn't hold up under subsequent viewings. It does not serve the other aspect of its story. Likewise, the more human story is broken apart too much by the mystical aspects.

Like this review? Go to www.midnitcafe.blogspot.com for more.