K
KANDAHAR (***1/2)- the most bizarre images you'll see in the movies this month won't be in the new "Star Wars"... they'll be in "Kandahar". Though it's filmed right here on planet Earth, the world presented in this film seems about as alien as anything George Lucas could ever dream up. Set in Afganistan, the movie follws the story of a young woman named Nefas who was born in Kandahar, but then moved to Canada with her parents when she was a child. They left her sister behind in Kandahar (although why they did this is never quite explained), and this sister has, when the movie opens, written a letter to Nefas stating that she will commit suicide during the next eclipse (which is only several days away). Nefas must make the treacherous journey through Afganistan to Kandahar, tape recording everything she hears in an effort to "find hope" for her sister. Along the way she encounters numerous obstacles and a variety of characters, ranging from a kind American doctor to a conniving child so desperate for money that he'll steal the ring off a skeleton's finger. Overall, "Kandahar" depicts a country so desolate, brutal, and fear-stricken that "finding hope" seems impossible. The middle section of the movie, for example, shows us a makeshift hospital where amputees have to wait literally a year to get their limbs replaced. Everyone at the hospital seems to be completley self centered, feeling sorry for themselves and begging the attention of the two available First Aid workers like school children begging for the teacher to call on them. It's hard to scoff, though, considering the reason the people are at the hospital in the first place is because they stepped on Russian land mines, which are so common in the country that kids have to be taught to avoid them. Yes, "Kandahar" is often difficult to watch, and the story is often difficult to follow, but in the end it's a movie I'd have to reccomend, not only because of the stunning visuals but because it captures the essence of a part of the world we in America hardly ever get to see from a non-American point of view.
KEEPING THE FAITH (***)- this is literally the longest movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Ok, not really. But it sure seemed long. It stars Ben Stiller and Edward Norton as a rabbi and a priest (respectively) who both fall in love with the same woman. This is dragged out for what seems like eons. Perhaps it's just because I had to go to the bathroom, but I just could not wait for the film to be over. Every time I thought it was coming to an end, something would happen and they would have to spend another three hours resolving it. Ugh... Anyway, it was directed by Edward Norton. That's the only notable thing I can think of right now. I'm sure... some other stuff about it is interesting. It's a romantic comedy, so it already had a strike against it in my book. I should probably be more open minded. Check this out if you're going to prison for a life sentence and want to pass the time. You can almost watch it twice.
KISS OF THE DRAGON (**)-imagine a Jackie Chan movie, but without Jackie. That means, no goofy humor, no bad dubbing, none of the things you love about Jackie Chan, except for the action. That's what this movie is. It's a movie that has absolutley no plot, the acting is terrible, the writing is awful, but... the fighting scenes are cool and plentiful. "Kiss of the Dragon" is a movie by a guy named Jet Lee, who is basically an un-funny Jackie Chan. He fights really fast, and knocks out a lot of bad guys, and that's about it. The plot... well, there isn't rally any. Something about a prostitute (played by Bridget Fonda, who must have been on lots of drugs when she agreed to be in the film) who has to get her daughter back from this incredibly evil guy named "Richard" who is, I guess, also the head of police, so he has a whole bunch of henchmen and guns. Oh yeah, and the whole thing inexplicably takes place in France, although no one in the film actually speaks French. Actually, that was one of the best parts, one of the most "Jakie Chan-ish" parts about the movie... of all places, why did it have to be set in France??? I don't think any of the characters were even supposed to be french in the first place. But, there you have it. Another interesting thing about the movie is the opening credits where it says, "Based on the Story by Jet Lee". This is interesting because there is no story. One more thing... the funniest part of the movie comes near the end, when one of the henchmen in the background is clearly reading a "Where's Waldo" book. It was possibly the highlight of the entire thing. I would not suggest it.
A KNIGHT'S TALE (***1/2)-suprisingly, this movie was not all that bad. It takes a relativley strightforward story idea (a peasent becomes a knight, wins the heart of a princess, has to fight a bad knight, etc.) and puts several interesting spins on it. This makes for a very entertaining, if not deep, movie. None of the actors, except for the star ("Heath" Ledger) are all that famous, but gave pretty good performances. It's one of those movies where you can tell that the people are having a good time even when they're not on screen. There's even one scene where one of the actors starts laughing, I think unintentionally, but sort of stumbles on with his lines, and they kept it. Everyone just sort of seems giddy to be acting. It's nice. Uh... what else? Oh yeah, the costumes and sets and everything are pretty good, as is the foley. I only have a few complaints, and if you want to hear them (doubtful) here they are: 1.) The movie seems to kind of fall apart toward the middle. There's a scene where the knight gets inexplicably angry at the princess, who not ten minutes previously he was in love with. It's weird, and from that point on everything just seems a bit out of place. 2.) There are several refrences to the modern day throught the film. For example, in the beginning the crowd watching the jousting match does the wave and sings "We Will Rock You". This is quirky, and kind of funny, and interesting, but then it's as if it never happened. The movie goes back to taking place in the regular middle ages. It leaves the viewer a bit thrown off, if you ask me. They ought to either go all the way with that kind of thing, or not do it at all. 3.) The villian. I know it's a simple movie, but man, these villians are all the same. Completley evil. No redeeming qualities at all. This is a complaint I have about many, many films, but I'm just writing about it here. The bad guys are all these two dimensional characters inserted into the movie simply to create conflict. Ugh. 4.) The movie gets to be pretty predictable. But, once again, this is a complaint I have about many movies. Suprise me. 5.)My last complaint comes from the previews, and by talking about it I might give away the ending, so don't read on if you really want to see the movie and not know the ending. Yeah. So, in the previews for the film, if you haven't seen them, they show a guy getting hit with a lance and doing a flip as he falls off of his horse. It's a big, exciting thing, and they show it in all the previews. So, of course, the whole time you're watching the movie you're waiting to see the guy flip. But it dosen't happen! You wait and wait, and then there's just the one jousting match left and you still haven't seen the flip. Thus, logically, you know that it HAS to happen in this last match. The ending is practically given away right in the preview. That's kind of a finnicky thing, I know, but it was just on my mind. Yeah. So, anyway, if you're still reading, I would certainly suggest this movie. It's better than Peral Harbor, and a lot easier to get into.
go home
Email: dumbsweater@aol.com