Films I Watched - May, 2004
Submitted by lbangs on Sat, 05/01/2004 - 06:34
Tags:
- 5/31 - Spy Kids - Some clever writing and fantastic actors are swallowed up by some of the worst CGI crap ever to squirt on to the screen. Rodriguez should know what Pixar already knows - a children's film is no excuse for lameness. * 1/2
- 5/27 - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? - No wonder people were shocked. Forget the four-letter words coming out of the cinema speakers, and forget the rather explicit sexual language for its time. These lines blister the ears because they are often so incredibly cruel, shocking and burning like a splash of acid across the face. Mike Nichols is already impressing with his first direction, and Elizabeth Taylor gives a performance that finally justifies her reputation as something more than a perfume pusher. Wexler's images are perfect, and the film is barely less than. ****
- 5/22 - Roger Dodger - A witty, perceptive script bolsters a commanding performance from Campbell Scott to lift Roger Dodger above the average verbal comedy. Granted, there are some weak spots in that screenplay, but they are more troublesome on reflection than during the film's running time, so they are minor at best. Elizabeth Berkley, an actress I pretty much wrote off after Saved by the Bell and Showgirls, follows up her fine showing in The Real Blonde with a slightly even better job here. Jennifer Beals and Isabella Rossellini do their usual good work, and the actors playing high school kids actually seem to live in the same universe as real world teenagers. An exhilarating if flawed debut for director Dylan Kidd, whose upcoming P.S. I'll be keeping my eye on. ***
- 5/17 - The Salton Sea - D.J. Caruso crafted a very promising post-noir / junkie thriller with The Salton Sea, and I am so impressed, I'll ignore Taking Lives and still claim that he is a talent to keep an eye on. Adding to his tangled tale that mixes enough fresh elements into its genre's conventions to keep affairs fresh, Caruso's directing is fun and creative. Even more important, his casting is killer; Vincent D'Onofrio should have nailed an Oscar nomination for his incredible work here, and fine turns are delivered from the likes of Val Kilmer, Peter Sarsgaard, Deborah Kara Unger, Luis Guzman, and my man Adam Goldberg. Sure, there are a few shaky steps at points, and the internal conflict may be played up a bit too much and ring a bit too common, but still, this film is a nice discovery. Most likely, Caruso is as well. ***
- 5/7 - Sunset Blvd. - Billy Wilder is one of America's great directors, and for my money, this film is the best he ever got. It is not just that the performances by all involved, from the great, undersung William Holden to Gloria Swanson and Erich Von Stroheim down to cameos by Buster Keaton and Hedda Hopper, are incredible, nor that the directing is a shining example of the classic, nearly invisible Hollywood style (ironic, eh?), but this script is the stuff of great drama, a killer work that turns tables, exposes nerves, and bites the hand that feeds it. Andrew Lloyd Webber made it camp. Wilder made it a masterpiece. ****
- 5/3 - The Hours - Stephen Daldry now shares a prize I have previously bestowed upon Sam Raimi. It is the Ham Fist award, and I give it out to the director who infuses a good film with incredibly obvious, over-stated, and gratuitous symbolism. Like A Simple Plan, The Hours really pours the visual metaphors on thick and sticky. Besides Daldry's heavy hand, the scriptwriter (or, more probably, the book's author) lays it on a bit much as well, hammering the chronologically-latest plot line's parallels to the other stories much too far in the ground for any but the dimwitted, and after awhile, the whole affair really gets a bit much to bare. Luckily, the performances reward one's attention, and the story construction does yield surprising plot turns that add to the emotional weight of the whole. The Hours threatens to capsize under its own banal weight, but manages to stay afloat long enough to succeed as a good, though not great, film. ***
- 5/1 - Devil's Playground - In Amish communities, children who hit driving age plunge into rumspringa, a time of diving into the “English” (non-Amish) world. The teens are largely left alone for a period of time of their own choosing, usually around five years, to experience non-Amish life and therefore to be experienced enough to make a real choice as they become adults between the English and the Amish worlds. Devil’s Playground follows a group of these young teens finding their footings in this new world and struggling to cope with the fateful decision they will eventually have to make. Drugs, cars, clothes, and modernity pull them from one side while family, tradition, and religion yanks on the other arm. While supposedly following four or so of these teens around, the film becomes quite intrigued with two particularly. Faron is a deeply religious lad who now deals drugs, and Velda is young woman slowly learning that her depression is likely linked to feeling trapped within such a rigid, and frankly, sexist community. Devil’s Playground is barely over an hour long, and yet it offers insight into the lives of these teenagers going through a very strange period few ever have to endure (as if the teen years aren't hard enough alone for many!). They are human enough both to disappoint and to pleasantly surprise us. ***
- 5/1 - The Barbarian Invasions - I watched Denys Arcand’s excellent The Decline of the American Empire while I was still in high school, so one can understand my mixed emotions and expectations at hearing of a sequel of sorts rolling out seventeen years later. Luckily, this film is a complete delight. One does not have to have seen the first film to understand and to enjoy The Barbarian Invasions, but since I had, the reunion of the cast of freewheelin’, intellectual friends emits special warmth towards me. One of the group is dying, and as he muses on his deathbed on what he is convinced is the collapse of American civilization, a new, younger acquaintance notes that he may very well not be experiencing the crumbling decay of the world so much as the loss of his own fond youth. Arcand, bless his heart, is wise enough to know that this film really does not need to judge between its various hypotheses. Several characters chime in on what is going wrong with the world, and the director seldom seems to side definitively with any of the opinions. More telling, however, in the discussion I recalled above is the film’s refusal not only to decide between various political views, but also to choose whether it is a film focused on politics or relationships. Perhaps it knows enough to see the lack of any ultimate sure line between the two. In the end, the film sparkles with the sort of sharp intelligence and vivid drama between ordinary people Hollywood just can’t seem to give a rip about lately. This makes it unique. The incredible script, great acting, and delicate directing make it wonderful. ****
- 5/1 - Fight Club - Well, I finally watched this entire film through in one setting, and this film severely under-whelmed me. I am avoiding spoilers, so I will speak in very general terms. I know many have debated the thematic content of Fight Club, but for my money, the real sticking point here is the dramatic side of the coin. Simply put, this is yet another twist film that just does not earn its shock. I am not sure the surprise really works into the film without major problems, but even beyond that issue, the resolution of this film makes little real sense and raises the question of why the screenwriter even bothered. Fincher is being Fincher; there are some impressive stylistic tricks working around here, and the look of the film is appropriate and darkly alluring. The acting is terrific, with Bonham Carter somewhat expanding her little-seen role from Getting It Right and Norton and Pitt turning in fine jobs. In fact, it is the acting and directing which helps this film score as high on my scale as it does, as the ultimate raison d’etre of Fight Club is typical of the flashy, hollow, and illogical fodder that makes for so many manufactured cult films of the last five or six years. Fight Club is yet again another over-rated film from 1999, a banner year for over-praised mediocre. **
Fight Club is a re-watch for you right? I'm looking forward to your review, as I liked that one quite a bit, and am curious to hear what turned you off. I have The Devil's Playground in my queue, so naturally I'm looking forward to your thoughts on that. And I'm looking forward to your review of The Barbarian Invasions because you gave it four stars and it's not in my queue yet. Of course, I look forward to these reviews in general, so I suppose the specifics of my anticipation are interesting only to me. :-)
Well, this was my first time to watch Fight Club from beginning to end in one setting, and also my first time to see any of the final thirty minutes. Maybe I'll have to whip out the spoilers and go into more specific detail later.
I'll be very curious to hear your reactions on Devil's Playground. I bet you'll like it to some degree.
Thanks for the encouragement! It helped me get off my duff and actually write these reviews up!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Feel free to whip out the spoilers; I'm sure everyone who's seen the film would like to read your more detailed perspective. I have to warn you though, I'd watch out before saying that the surprise twist doesn't really work into the film. Just check out the IMDB trivia section - scroll down to after the yellow SPOILER bar and look at all the hints they give you.
Oh, and by the way, although I do agree with you about the resolution making not much sense (I'm not quite sure how someone can blow his brains out and not die), I do feel (unlike the IMDB trivia posters) that very little of this is really to be taken literally. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief to accept the mechanics of Fincher's message.
I think I'd have to give it a rewatch before I swear to any logistical problems. I suspect most of my issues will be somewhat like my issues with The Sixth Sense - people can logically explain them (it could've happened that way...), but on a dramatic plane, they might disappoint me (yeah, but is it at all likely that would've happened that way?). I certainly would have to watch the film from the start again to be sure.
My real problem is that the twist really didn't add much if anything for me. The resolution was very disappointing (and yup, partly for the reason you stated above; this solved the problem how? some sites have claimed the narrator had a tumor causing his problems, and there are indeed some possible hints to this in the film, but then we have to believe the shotgun blast managed to blow away the tumor while leaving the narrator alive and conscious? Huh? ).
Don't hold your breath for second viewing, though... ;)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Well, I mean, I think there's a layer of ironic symbolism here. I think the first half of the film references the surreal enough that it's not breaking its own rules. Of course one can't shoot himself in the head and live, and I think the screenwriter knows this. I think one should take the literal events of the film with a grain of salt, which may entail suspending one's disbelief for some of it. But it might just come down to, I liked the nature of the twist originally. I thought it was interesting that the anarchic character who grew too much for the Narrator to handle was actually just a savage side of himself. It reminded me of "Lord of the Flies." But I imagine if you didn't like the twist, then it's easy to show how it's literally illogical throughout the first part of the film.
For me whether or not the twist was a surprise was immaterial (and I know you already noted this, L). I just liked the concept of a guy fed up with his banal materialist existence but, unwilling or unable to craft a sane response (like throwing away the Ikea catalog), instead ends up producing this wacko alter ego who operates during our hero's ever-expanding bouts of "insomnia". Our hero woke up from his admiration of this shady self around the same time I did. Of course, getting rid of Durden is tricky after giving him free rein for so long. Our hero had to *want* to get rid of him. I figure our hero didn't truly commit to getting rid of him until pulling the trigger, which was his ultimate rejection of that side of himself (and all the movie seemingly glorifies, on the surface). So pulling the trigger was the physical representation of a psychological act. The latter abolished Durden, the former left our hero with a hole behind his ear (vaguely recalling how Norton was holding his neck). I don't think we're supposed to believe he physically blew out the Durden part of his brain. As for surviving such a wound, I don't think it's medically unprecedented to put a gun in your mouth, pull the trigger, and survive. It sure is a long shot (ahem) though.
Beyond the ending though, I too dug the acting, thought Fincher's cinematographic stunts were less superfluous here, and really enjoyed the dialog.
Oh, by the way, I thought for sure that crack about medicrity in 1999 was another Shakespeare in Love dig, but I guess that one came out in 1998. :-)
I certainly admired many elements of Fight Club, particularly some of the ones you've highlighted above. I really felt the film imploded beyond repair, though, and the ending just doesn't come anywhere to cutting it for me. Perhaps I *will* have to plan a second viewing before too long.
And nope, it wasn't Shakespeare in Love I had in mind, although for the sake of Listology, perhaps I'll just let my cheap potshot stand without creating a list... :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
As if I wasn't curious before! The Sixth Sense, perhaps? That's my guess for you. I'd give either American Beauty or Magnolia the honors.
I see your point of view. For me, however, if you let the film get that surreal at the end for resolution's sake, you're inching much too close to deus ex machina land for me (minus Euripides' satire). Bending the rules that far at the end when you've only bent them slightly up until that point just smacks of not abiding by the very world you've dictated me to believe in, and it is that radically shift in surrealism (if that's what it is; I've noticed mentions that the film ends differently from the film, so I'd love the know the screenwriter's intentions and the original ending) that sours me.
Or perhaps I'm just grumpy...
Probably the later... :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Glad you enjoyed Roger Dodger. I can definitely see how people think it's flawed and won't like it, and I've read quite a few reviews on it, but still, it's one of my favorites.
Thanks! It was a good film, and one I might not have seen without the attention it earned on Listology. Thanks, all!
Let's hope his next film (due soon, I believe) is as good or better!
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Mmmm, Elizabeth Taylor is AMAZING in that film. One of my favorite performances by an actress, ever.
Sorta leaves nearly every other performance she gave in the dust, eh?
You are correct - She is amazing there.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Ah, too bad about Spy Kids! I agree that the CGI was crap, but thought in this case that it played a distant, mostly-irrelevant second fiddle to the writing, energy, and cast. Also, while my knowledge of the budget should probably be treated separately from any critical appraisal of the film, screw it, I can't help admiring Rodriguez for delivering an effects-laden summer blockbusterish movie for a mere $35M. He hasn't stopped making movies on a shoestring (I love the bit in the making-of doc where they only build half the set and then mirror it with computers).
Sure, it was no Pixar movie, but what is? At the moment I can't think of a recent live-action kids movie so eminently watchable for the entire family. Of course, my allergic reaction to bad CGI is just a rash, not anaphylactic shock, so that helps. :-)
Ah, I'm just an old crank. I was having a rather good time until the jetpack scene, and I really never quite got into the swing of things again afterwards. I can see where it would make fine family fare for the young ones, but looking at some past two-star and two-and-a-half-star films on my list (Fight Club, 8 Women, Red Dragon, Hellboy), I have to give Spy Kids a lower rating. I thought it was weaker than the other films I listed above, hence the harsh rating.
Do remember, however, than I am pretty strict with the stars. Still, Spy Kids was a disappointment.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Aw c'mon, we both know you're a young crank. :-) I did fail to consider how your existing ratings might corral you before I posted though. Still, sorry to hear you were disappointed, especially if I did anything to build up your expectations! I know I have a glowing Spy Kids review around here somewhere...
Very informative article, thanks for sharing. Meanwhile, recession which hit everyone hard, even the places you would think to be recession proof, like Amish communities. Amish communities interact with the outside world out of necessity, and a lot of Amish fathers look for work in cities to make ends meet. Elkhart Goshen, Indiana, is one such place, and a lot of Amish workers were laid off when RV plants laid off workers or closed. Short term loans aren't exactly going to be what they look to, although some have filed for unemployment benefits, which goes against the grain of not accepting aid. The unemployment rate hits anywhere and everywhere, as there is a need for debt relief even in the Amish communities.