Wed - October 29, 2003

Mystic River


Movie Review for Mystic River

If this really is Clint Eastwood's last movie as a director, then he may very well have saved the best for last.

I have always liked the work that Clint has done through the years as a director, much more so than his work as an actor, but have never really considered him to be of the first caliber, Oscar-worthy director group. I was actually rather surprised a decade ago when he won Best Director for Unforgiven, and even more so after I saw that film. I had heard the buzz that this film was generating a lot of Oscar talk, so, I went to see it, expecting to be let down.

Well, I was wrong. Clint and this film are definitely Oscar-worthy. The movie flows like a gritty jazz piece. Just to add to the mix, Clint wrote the music for the movie, so he is eligible for Best Score too -- don't hold your breath though, it is not THAT good, but it serves the picture well.

The movie revolves around three men, who as boys were touched by the terrible tragedy of one of them being abducted by two sexual predators and being abused for 4 days until he makes his escape. This part is not told in graphic detail as most filmmakers would resort to today, but in disjointed flashbacks that only hint at what happened. The boys drifted apart and are brought back together as adults when the daughter of one of them is brutally murdered. The movie at times feels like a well done Shakespearean tragedy, with themes of deceit and betrayal.

The ensemble cast is great. Sean Penn will probably be nominated and may possibly win the Oscar as a greasy street tough gone semi-straight whose daughter was murdered. You are never will sure if his character is truly what he seems, but you can't help but feel the pain over the loss of his daughter. Tim Robbins does his usual good work as the abducted boy as an adult; by his understated mannerisms and even the way he walks you believe that here is a man terribly scarred by what has happened to him. The real surprise of the cast is Kevin Bacon -- who I have always been less than impressed with -- is quite good as the cop investigating the murder. He is partnered with Laurence Fishburne and the rapport and banter between these two makes you believe they have been turning over rocks looking for scum for years. He will not get the notice that Sean and Tim will garner, but his performance is the best he has done since the River Wild and not nearly so over-the-top.

My only complaint with the whole film was near the end where it felt just a little disjointed and confused and that kept me from giving a perfect 10.

Rated R for language and violence.

Official Website

Nine out of 10 stars.

Posted at 12:20 PM     Read More  


Tue - December 30, 2003

Lord of the Rings: Return of the King


Movie Review for LOTR:ROTK

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

OK, before we begin, I must assume that any of my readers who are reading this have read the trilogy or at the very least have seen the first two films. I will try to avoid any spoilers, but if you aren't familiar with the trilogy, this review may give away more than you might like.

The three of us (Lynda, Heather and myself) went out to Showcase Stoneybrook the Saturday after the film opened. I normally expect to have to hunt hard to find a parking spot on Saturdays during the matinées, but was unprepared for the nearly endless cruising we had to endure. Of course, by the time we got into the theatre, the next showing was sold out, and the showing 30 minutes later was nearly so. I guess movietickets.com may be getting more of my business in the future. After getting our soft drinks, popcorn and my unsalted pretzel nuggets (with cheese), we went to stand in line to get into the theatre and wait. Waited long enough that I finished my nuggets, and the popcorn was nearly gone.

We finally made our way in to get our seats. Had been a long time since I had been in a sold-out movie; just glad it wasn't summer...

In the almost 50 years since the trilogy was published and the nearly 40 years since I read it, Tolkien fans have invested a lot of imagination in the visualization of Middle Earth of the Third Age, along with a long-lived kinship with the wizards, hobbits, elves, men and dwarves who inhabited that distant land and time. I suppose no one could have brought to the screen a vision that would satisfy every fan's inner version of what Middle Earth should be, but for my money, New Zealand in director Peter Jackson's hands will do nicely. The grand sweep of fantastic vistas, enhanced here and there with cutting-edge CGI work from WETA Workshop is close to how I imagined it would look all those years ago while reading and daydreaming rainy afternoons away.

The film opens with an exposition of how the Ring of Power came into the possession of Smeagol, and how its terrible influence turned a peaceful hobbit into a murderer and twisted and corrupted him into Gollum. It was nice seeing Andy Serkis actually get screen time as Smeagol without the CGI effects over his portrayal of Gollum. You feel more sympathy for the Smeagol character in his battle in duality with the covetously evil Gollum after this sequence.

After all the set-up and meanderings of the first two films (spectacular though they were), this films brings everything into sharper focus. Gandolf (Sir Ian McKellen) and Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) work to unite the forces of Gondor and Rohan to battle the dark forces of Mordor at Minas Tirith. In this we have the central theme of the film; the uniting of disparate peoples for the a selfless common good — distracting Sauron, the Dark Lord of Mordor from his search for the One Ring so that Frodo (Elijah Wood) might have a chance of destroying the Ring in the fire of Mount Doom from which it was cast.

The sweep and scope of this film are truly amazing, your are eyes almost overwhelmed with powerful images, one after another for the whole length of the film. The computer effects are so seamless as to be all but invisible and this helps draw you deeper into the fantasy, almost making you feel a part of the action and bringing you closer to the characters — a grand achievement in storytelling and presentment.

The hobbits are back in this film after being pretty much left on the sidelines for the second film. Frodo and Sam (Sean Astin) have finally reached Mordor. Here Gollum shows them a high stairway into Mordor, that also leads to the lair of Shelob the spider, whom Gollum hopes will capture and kill Frodo and Sam so he may regain the Ring. I won't go into details here, but the fight between Shelob and the hobbits is extremely intense; don't take kids to see this film, it will give them nightmares.

The battle sequences are as horrific as the battles from Akira Kurosawa's movies. It is truly unreal what they can do with CGI today. Ten thousand troops of various species fighting and interacting in a believable way, like they used 10,000 extras to film these sequences. You will find yourself dodging swords and battle-axes and ducking flying fell-beast.

OK, now my gripes. I think it is time to bring back the Intermission to all films that approach or exceed a length of three hours. While I was emotionally drained at the end of the film, my butt was so numb I could barely stand up. The last chapter in the book is titled "Many Partings", and the film presents them all; it was only by virtue of having read the book that I actually knew when the film had really ended and that there was not another ending coming. I think there were six endings to the movie, but who was counting. But even with these, the movie is a wonderful achievement, and when taken as a whole (which by the way, is how the trilogy was filmed, all three films at once) it approaches masterpiece status.

Final rating: 9 stars out of 10.

PG-13
3 hours 21 minutes

Internet Movie Database Link
Official Website

Posted at 04:48 PM     Read More  


Thu - January 1, 2004

Something's Gotta Give


Movie Review for Something's Gotta Give

What a difference a week makes. The Saturday after Christmas and a week after suffering through the mass of humanity that had come out to see The Return of the King and our happy trio has wandered back to the cinema to see a Jack and Diane flick.

I went into this film with mixed expectation. We had seen the previews in the theatre and on TV and it looked like this was really going to be a good film, but we all know by now, that the 3 minute previews that show in the theatre or are put on the net for downloading are made up of choice bits, sometime taken from a sea of celluloid dreck so the studios can sell us their product, which they have usually paid way too much to produce, so you have a hard sell out of desperation. So, potential, but no quality assurance. Now, you have to go on the track record of the film's stars. I have to say that I have not really liked anything that Diane Keaton has done since Annie Hall and Looking for Mr. Goodbar from 1977 and 76 respectively. Uh-oh, cause for concern, even if this is only a matinée at $5.50 a pop (plus concessions). Now, I can honestly say about Jack Nicholson, that no matter how bad the movie he has been in during that same period, we can always count on a few "Jack moments" to carry us through and forgive the lapses in the film we are seeing or perhaps genuinely feel that the film has been lifted to a new level by his presence or performance. The notable exception to this rule in my opinion has been A Few Good Men. His Colonel Nathan R. Jessup character in the film I felt was just too derivative of Bogart's Captain (actually Lt. Commander) Queeg from the Caine Mutiny; the only things missing were a couple of ball bearings and strawberry ice cream. OK, now I don't know which way to bet on this film.

The film opens with Harry Sanborn (Jack), a 63-year-old owner of a hip-hop record label with a reputation for never dating a woman over 30, driving with his latest girlfriend Marin (Amanda Peet) to her mother's home in the Hamptons for the weekend. While looking for something in the fridge (pants-less, of course), Harry is surprised by the arrival of Marin's mother Erica Barry (Diane), a famous New York playwright and Erica's sister Zoe (Frances McDormand). the ensuing confusion and mistaken identity (burglar or daughter's house-guest/date, who knew?) is a bit funny and helps setup the situation. After much protestations from both sides, it is finally decided that they are all adults and there is no reason for anyone to drive back to NYC, so they will all stay and share the house for the weekend whatever the attendant discomfort.

After dinner (be sure to eat BEFORE seeing this movie, food in it looked very good), Harry and Marin retire to the bedroom to uh, er play, which leads to Harry having a heart attack. I suppose someone should have told Erica that one only performs mouth-to-mouth on a person who is unconscious and NOT breathing, but then, we would have missed another "Jack moment", so, just let it slide.

At the hospital, we meet Dr. Julian Mercer (Keanu Reeves) who will be helping Harry in his recovery and who is also a big fan of Erica's plays. The 36-year-old Dr. Mercer is also more than little taken with Erica herself, but more on this later. Just when you thought they had all been done, there is also a fresh Viagra gag here, but...

OK, we have the set up. The doctor won't let Harry travel back to New York, so he winds up recuperating at Erica's home, while Marin and Zoe return to the city. Over the course of the next few days, the inevitable bumping of heads and ego of two people who do not much for one another and are trapped in the same house together is fodder for several gags. Erica has the added complication of dealing with the attentions of a much younger suitor in Dr. Mercer; although intrigued by these attentions, she seems unsure of herself. Of course, you know what is happening back home with Harry and Erica by this time; yep, they are falling in love, or so we think. But at least she gets cured of her writer's block.

Harry of course has problems changing the way he is and Erica channels what has happened to her into her new play (the title of which would have made a better title for the film), complete with dancing Harrys.

I won't go into what happens from there. I wound up liking the film very much, there were plenty of laughs, lots of connection with the characters, and the suspense of really not knowing what was going to happen to these two in the end. My only complaints were that the setup in the beginning went on a few minutes too long and needed a little tightening up. Also, I think they could have done more with the Zoe character other than the couple of zinger lines she got.

Jack and Diane go together well. Good date movie that both will enjoy, get out and see it.

Final rating: 8 stars out of 10.

PG-13
1 hours 57 minutes

Internet Movie Database Link
Official Website

Posted at 12:31 PM     Read More  


Sun - March 14, 2004

The Passion of the Christ


Movie Review for The Passion of the Christ

A week ago Saturday, we went to the new Cinema Deluxe 16 on Preston Highway and decided to catch Mel Gibson's new movie, The Passion in one of the fancy Directors Halls.

Normally, I try to write my reviews the same weekend I see the film, just to make sure that what I write is fresh in my mind, and that what I write is out here on the blog in a timely manner, for films are only in theatres for a limited time nowadays. For this film, however, I waited a week to further contemplate what I had seen, and to reflect upon what the film may ultimately come to mean. When you come to the end of this piece, you my gentle readers, may regard it a wasted week in light of my final opinion of the film, but there are some serious questions raised by the film and the reaction to it, and I am afraid this, more than most films of late, will have more import as a social flashpoint, than it will as the poor film my review will proport it to be.

Before we begin, I must state (though most of you already know this) that I am not, nor have I ever been a Christian. That said, I am familiar with most of the teachings of the faith and I am always respectful of the religion and its followers. Keep in mind, that negative comments in this review are over the Gospel according to St. Mel and should not by extension, be construed as a denigration of the Gospels found in the New Testament.

In opening my review of The Passion of the Christ, I am afraid I must address the controversy that has surrounded this film since last fall: its percieved anti-Semitism. Is the film anti-Semitic? In and of itself, no. Some of the criticism of the film on this score is unjustified; one point of contention would be that Caiaphas (Mattia Sbragia) and the priests of the Temple are portrayed in a negative, almost sinister stereotypical light, and it is here that Mr. Gibson dances upon the razor's edge between artistic license and an anti-Semitic portrayal that he has gone out of his way to deny in the weeks leading up to the release, but even here one must keep in mind the motivations of the religious hierarchy which I will address later in this review. Any intelligent interpretation of the film within the historical context of the times will show this film to not be anti-Semitic. That being said, there will always be those whose beliefs and/or upbringing will lead to different interpretations beyond the control of Mr. Gibson, or any other director who might have chosen to film this story from the perspective taken in this film. The seeds of hate will always find their roots in the fertile soil of the weak-minded.

I went into this film trying to maintain an open mind, and put all the stories of controversy over its anti-Semitism, its graphic violence and other issues out of my head and just judge the film on its merits as a medium of story-telling. However, one of the criticism could not be overlooked once we started watching the film; in over 40 years of watching films, this has to be the most graphically violent film I have ever seen. The unflinching eye of the camera did not keep this member of the audience from flinching repeatedly. The 15 minute ordeal of the scourging left me nearly incapable of watching the screen, nauseated, and at times it felt as if the sharpened flails were biting into my own flesh. The 45 minute procession to Golgotha was nothing but a brutal anticlimax after watching the Romans in their bloodlust. If there was ever an example of a film being more deserving of an NC-17 rating, rather than the R that the MPAA gave it, it would be this film.

Most of the time, I go to the movies for escapism, to be transported to another place or another time. Sometimes, I go to get lost in the images on the screen. Other times, for "Important" films, I go to be enlightened, or to receive a message. The Passion succeeds in transporting me to another place and time, but its message was lost in its barbaric brutality. The cinematography was in places quite beautiful, but then the camera spent far too much time lingering over images of torn flesh, to the point where it approached bestial pornography. Enlightenment and/or transcendence is nearly impossible attainments under such a heavy hand.

The film opens without titles or credits with a downward panning shot into the moonlit mist shrouding the Garden of Gethsemene. Jesus (James Caviezel) is waiting for Caiaphas' troops while battling his fears and self-doubts with a sly taunting by Satan (Rosalinda Celentano) from the shadows. The clichéd use of light and shadow to add weight to this conflict, to say nothing of the more-than-a-little obvious dash of sinister music would be forgivable were it not for the androgynous Satan, who in her robes looked like a casting reject from a Lucas film. From this point, the story is the familiar one and I will not retell it here.

The decision to film the story in Latin (though a street version of Latin and not the classic form I learned in school) and Aramaic with English subtitles is an inspired one; adding to the sense of distancing oneself into 1st century Jerusalem. It is simply too bad that more attention could not have been given to present a more historically accurate story. I have always had a problem believing that Pilate (Hristo Shopov) would have dithered so long over of a question of whether to crucify or not. This was a man noted for his ruthlessness, having more than once lined the roads with crosses to keep order in the Roman way. It would be more believable had he sent Jesus on his way to Golgotha and washed his hands of a nuisance rather than over a moral conflict. By modern standards, there was no nobility in the Roman rulers of the provinces any more than there was in Rome itself, but it was the way Pax Romanus was maintained. The Judaic establishment probably had a more political reason to see the execution carried out; Jesus and his followers represented a possible threat to their power, but of more immediate concern was their worry that He might be considered a potential instigator of rebellion by the Romans, and rather than let the wrath of Rome be brought down upon their heads and upon their people, Jesus must be eliminated.

I will not waste any more space here to describe the tortures and the Crucifixion, but before one defends the depiction of violence in this film as a acceptable representation of the acts visited upon Jesus, and that what he endured was for all our sins, I must remind those who would listen, that He was not singled out for cruelty; scourging was a common form of punishment and even execution at that time, as was crucifixion. The scenes could have carried as much weight if shown not so graphically. Perhaps the message that I thought Christianity was meant to convey, that of love and kindness toward one's fellow man, even toward one's enemies could have been told, instead of the glaring showcasing of the cruelty that we are capable of even today, writ large on the screen. There were moments of flashback in the story, from the Sermon on the Mount to the Last Supper and even touching moments of Him as a child with Mary (Maia Morgenstern) that were told so lovingly that it is a shame that they had to be juxtaposed with so many images of horrific inhumanity. The film may be a true depiction of scourging and crucifixion, but is that cruelty really the message?

A final point to consider, one that I admit is a minor quibble: what was with the choice of music at the Resurrection? The music was more martial than uplifting or spiritual, something that would have sounded less out of place in a film like Gladiator. What did it signify, that it is time to go out and kick non-believer butt?

After my week of reflection, my summation is that the film is a Gospel that has the wrong message. I am still stunned by the experience, but what troubles me most is the fact that I saw children (pre-teens) in the theatre, which makes me wonder what possible message they will carry from the film. Even though, as I stated earlier that I am not a Christian, I do believe that a message such as Jesus brought with its theme of Love and Hope is what the world should be striving for, it has been a sad fact that too often, the message has been twisted and distorted to suit the wishes of the one bearing the message at the expense of the truth. Is this the message those children will carry into our future? Will a glorification of hatred be our legacy? Was this only a bad movie?

Time will tell...

Final Rating: 1 out of 10 stars.

Rated R
2 hours 7 minutes

Internet Movie Database Link
Official Website

Posted at 03:21 PM     Read More  

©