January to June 2002 Movies

Though I enjoyed a hard to find indie starring Jacqueline Bisset ("Sleepy Time Gal") much better, this flick suggests that this summer will perhaps have some worthwhile movies. Surely, the same could not really be said about last summer, of which "summer blockbuster" was a label given to some overindulgent loser of a movie not really worth your time. It is perhaps the lower of expectations that lead some reviewers of this adaption of the Robert Ludlum spy thriller to praise with what amounts to somewhat faint praise. For instance, one review said it didn't really amount to much, but was an enjoyable and pretty well made trifle. This might sum up my feelings, including my respect for movies that wind up entertaining you for a few hours ... no classics, but you don't leave being annoyed at spending the $10. And if this is faint praise, well it's a lot better than a lot of movies offer these days.

Matt Damon plays an anemsia victim found in the middle of the Mediterrean on day with no clue to his identity except for a capsule with a Swiss bank account number in it. On the other hand, his sudden ability to speak various languages, fighting abilities, and other clues kind of suggest he is not your average Joe. Even with the help of a vagabond European woman who gives him a ride (the red headed star of the breezy German film "Run Lola Run"), it takes him a pretty long time ... including some fast paced escapes from those out to get him ... to start to figure things out. This plus the fact things take a while to get moving are two flaws in this film, but mindless summer enjoyment is not really meant to be thought provoking. And, Damon plays the part of Jason Bourne surprisingly well, and the movie is a pretty good put together spy/action flick -- and its "don't take this that seriously" mindset is comforting [more than its rather tired rogue government agency subplot]. Finally, Julia Stiles has a small part, and it's always good to see her.

For those who say that current films are based on silly premises, Oscar Wilde showed that things were not that much different a hundred years ago. After all, the crux of this film is two women who are enamored with the name "Earnest," which their two suitors use to set up fictional identities to escape from their humdrum upper class lives. Now, Wilde surely uses a lot more wit than is shown in some films today, though the makers of this adaptation felt the need to throw in some visuals to satisfy today's less patient audiences. These additions feel a bit weird and forced, and besides, those who go to see movie adaptations of Wilde do not really need such diversions. A better plan might have been to tighten and quicken the film a bit, since it felt a bit too mannered and slow at some points. On the other hand, perhaps I am just not used to 19th Century wit.

I do recommend this movie, since it provides a relatively pleasant diversion from typical American fare, but not too much to overstay its welcome. I enjoyed Colleen Firth, Frances O'Connor, and (perhaps surprisingly) Reese Witherspoon the most, but the cast as a whole was good. I enjoyed the turn of the century setting; a value of cinema is its ability to transport us to such far away places and times. Listen closely ... this movie greatly relies on the wit of its screenplay. Nonetheless, the broad and ultimately silly story (a shocking event is ignored, since obviously we are not to take this seriously) is easy enough to follow and enjoy. This type of movie is not for all tastes, and at times could have used a bit more energy, but other films would be well to imitate its use of language to entertain (a recent example would be "How To Kill Your Neighbor's Dog").

The screenplay of ?Memento? deserved to win an Academy Award; instead its director?s next film stars three Academy Award winners (Al Pacino, Hilary Swank, and Robin Williams). ?Insomnia? is a lot less tricky than Christopher Nolan?s previous film, but has its share of dramatic performances and settings. The remake of a Norwegian film concerns a LA police detective sent up to Alaska with his partner to help with a local murder investigation, but more importantly to avoid the pressure of an internal affairs investigation. Pacino?s partner is liable to make a deal, he has a family to think about, and this would put Pacino (and his life?s work) at risk next. Therefore, he has a lot on his mind, even before having to deal with more pressure on his conscience, as well as killer (Robin Williams, who is pretty good) that feels they are peas in a pod. Meanwhile, it?s so damn light all the time, it being the six months long Alaskan summer. Doesn?t help a guy who just wants to get some sleep!

The movie is basically as advertised, a well acted and put together psychological thriller with Al Pacino yet again playing a police officer having to deal with some stressful and complex crime investigation. Hilary Swank, who looks great here, gets a chance to for another good role after ?Boys Don?t Cry.? And Nolan shows his ability to direct superior psychologically deep movies. Nonetheless, as one of my fellow moviegoers told me, the movie did feel a bit forced. Overall, the movie follows a certain pattern, and is generally somewhat predictable. For instance, we have the dopey local cops, evil internal affairs guys, predictable scenes present in ton of crime movies, etc. Therefore, though one is provided with an enjoyable movie going experience, this is not quite ?Memento? caliber, but more good not great material. One kind of wished for a bit more given the talent involved, but overall I enjoyed the movie.

The first big summer blockbuster came almost a month before the traditional Memorial Day weekend premieres, and when I say "big," I mean over a million dollars the first weekend (and over two hundred by the time this is posted) big. I don't know if "Spiderman" was worth those numbers, but it is worthy of praise. The movie gives life to a comic book and does so with a story in which we care about the characters, so much that actually that it is ultimately the reason to see the film. Yes, Sam Raimi (of "Evil Dead," whose star has a cameo, as does Lucy Lawless from "Xena," which Raimi produced, and "Darkman") gives us the whole Spiderman experience ... from the bite to flying through the streets with a web, and his respect for the material shows. Nonetheless, the film doesn't have a great villain (though Willem Dafoe still gives a good performance), so its characters carry it.

Toby McGuire is a major reason this is so ... he is the perfect teenage nerd transformed to brooding superhero (and he has a lot to brood about ... not only did he lose his parents early, his aunt and uncle are threatened). Kirstin Durst plays the girl of his dreams, and I'm sure Peter Parker is not alone in this regard, especially after this film (she looks great as a redhead). There also are various fun supporting roles, from Cliff Robertson as his uncle, and the medical examiner from "Law and Order" as the cynical editor of the Daily Bugle. The movie is the first of a trilogy, and therefore has the burden of serving as the back-story of the series, and does so well. There were lags in the movie, where some action would have been appropriate. On the other hand, the action is the least exciting part of this movie ... by now (even before Star Wars II ... or V, however you count) character and a good story is what impresses me. A movie that combines the two with decent action deserves the big bucks it will get.

The fact Toby McGuire got a reasonably modest $4 million seems to be notable ... the film is not all on his shoulders, it has to be good as a whole. And, why are we getting previews of "The Incredible Hulk," release date 2003? On the other hand, I'm intrigued to see a movie, which not only has one of my favorite actresses (Jennifer Connolly), but also is directed by the person behind films such as "Ice Storm" (starring ... Toby McGuire), Ang Lee.

I was in a lousy mood when I went to see this movie, and for what it is worth, it was just what the doctor ordered ... quite enjoyable and often amusing. The movie is utterly predictable in most ways, but most films tend to be, and its charm is what makes such films special ... taking basic themes and storylines and putting them together in such a way that they feel fresh. Sidney Lumet (director of "Serpico" and many other classic movies) in his interesting book "Making Movies" discusses all that goes into making movies, including stars, a script, cinematography, music, costumes, and more. As shown by ?Spiderman,? even some good movies are not able to combine all the aspects required to make a great movie. "About A Boy" combines enough of them to provide the viewer with a good early summer movie experience.

The movie uses Nick Hornby for source material, probably best known to American viewers as the inspiration for the John Cusack movie "High Fidelity," though he also provided inspiration for other less known movies as well. Hornby is generally concerned with the angst of introspective male characters (generally in their thirties), who are struggling with the struggle between their idiosyncratic ways and relations with other people, especially people of the opposite sex. The characters in the few films I'm familiar with are somewhat immature in various ways, so the movies are also about their struggle with outside pressure for them to be more adult and considerate to others. Pressure they see as a violation of their philosophy of life, which at times the films express to us via voice over narration. Finally, the characters are concerned with some traditionally masculine passion, such as records ("High Fidelity"), soccer ("Fever Pitch"), and dating without need for serious relationships ("About A Boy"). Therefore, the movies have a message, which if done right, adds to the pleasure of the general practice in this country of having movies without any such charm to them.

This movie (taking place in England) concerns a solitary guy (Hugh Grant) who lives off the royalties of his father's hit song and feels he is living the good life. He discovers a new category of no strings girlfriends, recently divorced single moms, who would cut the relationship short because they are not ready for a serious relationship. In the midst of such a date, he meets up with a twelve-year-old boy struggling with a troubled single mom and trying to fit in. What he needs is "backup," since the mom is not enough to help him, especially after she tries to kill herself. Our selfish antihero seems to be a decent person to fill this role, and the boy (who beats to his own drummer himself, and has a strong sense that he deserves help through this troubling point in his life) makes it his business to try to make use of this resource. In the process, Grant himself is forced to think of someone beside himself, and realize that perhaps if he does, it wouldn?t be that bad of a deal. Into the mix is apparently his first serious attraction to the opposite sex (Rachel Weisz of "The Mummy," providing a nice supporting performance).

There are various aspects of this movie which helps make it well worth watching. The British setting, which is generally only shown by the accents and television shows (the movie stars with the Millionaire show ... no not that one), gives a fresh look to things. The voiceover narration by the older and younger male characters is done well and provides insights into both of their characters. The female characters (including Toni Collette as the boy?s mom) have complexities that add to the real feel to their characters, who probably would do well in a movie written through their point of view. The writing also is superior, which helps make a movie largely concerned with a somewhat well worn Hugh Grant character (British cad) interesting and fun. Finally, the movie knows ultimately it is not Shakespeare, but still tells a predictable story in an enjoyable way, while still managing to give more weight to it than found in others of the genre.

A love sick princess (Mira Sorvino) has a problem. She was wandering in the woods one day and happened on a young man bathing, and it was love at first site. Unfortunately, it turns out he is the son of the king her father unjustly overthrew, plus his wards are two philosophers who have taught him to hate love. What to do? Well, how about disguising herself as a man and going with her consort to try to seduce him, and somehow prove to the brother and sister (Ben Kingsley and Fiona Shaw) wards that love is a good emotion? Will love triumph in the end in this silly but slyly amusing romp? Well, it doesn't take away much to say that ultimately there are no deep surprises to this film, except for its enjoyable performances, and pleasant version of a centuries old play. Well worth checking out if it is playing in your area.

Matthew McConaughey needs more movies like this ? and if Bill Paxton ("Twister," "One False Move," etc.) is going to star and direct like this all the times, let?s hope he does it more often. The movie (told mostly in flashback) concerns a widower, who is an average loving dad of two young boys. The problem is one night he gets a message from God that there are demons out there disguised as people, and it is his job to kill them. This not surprisingly upsets the older boy, especially when he is forced to watch his dad kill the first "demon" (the killing is done off screen, showing well done horror need not be graphic). The dad, loving good man he is, understands ? and tries to help. One is not surprised when the older son goes to a FBI office some twenty years later to inform them his younger brother (who believes in the father) is the culprit in a recent series of murders.

Though the ending has a couple problems with it (the almost necessary not too smart person and an arguably philosophical problem), the film as a whole is very good. Though made before the events, it does explain how people can kill with hundreds with a clean conscience ? it?s for the greater good, you see? Also, the level of assurance shown here need not be based on a belief in God; any alternate belief system will do. The film does a good job to show how horror can be based not on monsters like Jason or Hannibal, but on forces that overwhelm ordinary people like these. The movie ultimately falls on the shoulders of dad and his two boys, and they (including a wonderful performance by Matthew O'Leary as the older son) carry it out beautifully.

Ashley Judd started out on the television show "Sisters," and her first major role was in the impressive indie "Ruby In Paradise." She also was in the offbeat crime drama "Normal Life," in a Marilyn Monroe HBO movie, and "Heat." All impressive roles, as played by an intelligent and talented actress. Nonetheless, of late she has been in more "Double Jeopardy" type crime melodramas as well as the weak comedy "Someone Like You" (a pale adaption of a book with a less generic name). "High Crimes" (co-starring Morgan Freeman) sadly is another waste of her talents, though actors like Judd and Freeman give films like these more weight than they quite deserve. Also, Amanda Peet (impressive in "The Whole Nine Yards") is wasted, a shame in itself.

The film concerns her husband, who it turns out is living a double life to escape from his past as a secret operative in Latin America. The film opens with a shot of victims of an attack that is just too raw and unpleasant for a film this cheap. Cheap is what you call the repeated use of false alarms (and actual danger), PG-13 shots of sleaze, and Judd's outbursts at stereotypically heartless military figures. Judd joins with Freeman (and a stereotypical innocent young military defense attorney) to defend her husband. One might forgive the questionable tactic of a civilian attorney defending her husband, who she knows less than she thinks she does, if she was as smart and calmly professional as the film suggests early on. As the movie goes on, such an assumption starts to feel a bit less sound.

Genre flicks like this at times still supply overall enjoyment if we accept the limits of the genre. "Double Jeopardy" was based on a mistaken view of the law (killing your husband after you are wrongly convicted of killing him is not legal), but had a charm, if you didn't give it much thought. This film has too many flaws to even pass this lower threshold. The false alarms after awhile get annoyed. A few serious scenes don't work because the film doesn't supply the necessary moral weight to make them defensible. All the danger seems to be not taken seriously, including one scene where she is left in the middle of nowhere alone at dark, and just gets a lift back. Finally, Judd herself seems to know all of this, since even she after awhile seems to realize no one really is taking this seriously.

Oh, and is the evil military stereotype acceptable now? I'm all for realizing the government should be taken with a grain of salt, but how many go along with movies like this, but cringe when someone suggests our national policy is worthy of criticism? Movies like these touch upon some of our inner fears and concerns, which make them perhaps more valuable or at least worthy of concern than we might think. Let me also say that the twist in the movie makes sense, as far as it goes, and critics who suggest it doesn't, are shall we say idiots.

I saw this highly praised movie on video recently and enjoyed it, but not so much that I'd class it as a great piece of film making. It did win the award for animated film, but it didn't have that much competition. The movie is about an ogre with a heart of gold who rescues a princess in order to bring her back to marry an evil (very short) prince. The prince has barred various storybook characters from his domain to keep it pristine (some ribbing of Disney here), and they all gathered around the solitary ogre's home. The ogre agreed (joined by an annoying but "lovable" talking donkey voiced by Eddie Murphy) to rescue the princess (voiced by Cameron Diaz) to get them off his land.

The Disney satire, good writing, and message of tolerance of individuality makes this movie worthwhile. Nonetheless, a story about a grumpy character with a heart of gold that is eventually recognized by others is nothing special. The love story plays out rather quickly, and the princess' secret can be seen as a bit of a cheat. Also, the princess turns out to be a less complex and full character in the end (where is the woman who beat up Robin Hood?). The Eddie Murphy character is standard fare and a tad annoying (and arguably at least a bit racist). I personally liked the first half a lot better than the second half, which was rather predictable and standard fare. The fact a good but not great film was seen by made as one of the best films of the year says something about what is out there.

This perhaps badly named movie started out as a movie shown on the Starz network, and I could have caught it there (now I don't have the channel), and did catch a few minutes of it. If I actually watched the whole thing, I would have saved ten dollars. On the other hand, it was a well written and acted movie that I enjoyed a lot, so it wasn't that bad of a bargain. Kenneth Branagh plays a struggling playwright that doesn't like children (trouble since his wife wants a child) that bonds with a young neighbor with a slight disability in order to help in write a more realistic child character in his new play. This is but one strand of a movie with lots of subplots (e.g. the rehersal of the new play, a neighbor stalker, and an interview on a morning talk show) that allow the skillful cast to shine as much as the writing. Nothing profound here, except a well done witty but still serious film that should serve as a model to a lot of inferior (if more successful) works out there.

The title refers to an annoying neighbor's dog that helps add to playwright's insomnia. It also reflects the biting nature of some of the film's wit, a wit that gives the movie a nice sense of maturity that films geared to teenagers often lack. The movie deals with some serious topics (for instance, his mother-in-law's illness), and the title suggests the darker side of the movie. Finally, it clearly doesn't hurt that the title gains our attention, and perhaps is a factor in choosing to view the film. Therefore, though some might be upset at the title, it is not just a trivial throwaway that can be removed without losing something in the process. At any rate, if you get a chance, see this film ... it's well deserving of a wider audience than it is likely to get.

William Shakespeare has been the bane of students for a long time, but he also is the source of some good stories (it is to be noted even in his time, much of the material was not new). "West Side Story" is an older example of how the material was used in modern day contexts, "10 Things I Hate About You" and "O" (to name Julia Stiles movies) are two more recent ones. "Scotland, Pa" shows that even Shakespeare's tragedies can be used for light purposes, while maintaining some of their serious nature. This film visualizes Macbeth as taking place at a burger joint in a small Pennsylvanian town in the mid-1970s.

I read the play in high school, but have forgotten most of it. Nonetheless, though a few parts and references found in the movie benefits from some knowledge of the play (e.g. the wife in the original keeps seeing a bloodstain only she sees), but overall such details aren't that important. The movie retains its period charm and sense of the absurd even if you don't know the source material, and Maura Tierney (Pat McBeth, driving her husband to kill to get ahead in the burger business) and Christopher Walken (vegetarian crime investigator McDuff) stand out in a game cast. Let it be noted that the incentive for making this movie was as much to make a satire on working at a burger joint as much as Shakespeare. Overall, it does a decent job on both fronts, though it slacks a bit toward the end, but comes back with a good finish.

Nicole Kidman shined in an enjoyable thriller entitled "Dead Calm" around ten years ago. Likewise, she was very good in "The Others," a ghost story that many people overlooked last Summer. Kidman is best known for movies starring her former husband Tom Cruise and late for the musical "Moulin Rouge," but its her smaller films in which she is perhaps most appealing. Such films are no classics of cinema, but are well made genre pictures that are enjoyable to watch. It is perhaps sad that average to good workmanlike works should be such a surprise, but over the last couple years, widescreen releases have shown this to be the case.

Kidman is the reason why I saw "Birthday Girl," though her co-star Ben Chaplin (love interest in "The Truth About Cats and Dogs") is good as well. She plays a supposedly innocent Russian mail order bride, a chain smoking non-English speaking (Kidman's Russian sounds pretty good for what this nonspeaker's opinion is worth) sexually open dream girl for boring banking employee Chaplin. Unfortunately for him, she and her increasingly threatening Russian "cousins" are not who they at first appear to be. The consequences carry them to a series of twists and turns that is not that surprising or quite believable, but overall is a fun ride. The film was made a couple years ago while Cruise was filming the "blockbuster" movie "Mission Impossible 2," but ultimately this movie is much more enjoyable, if a harder fit in recent Hollywood fare.

As for the rating, there is cursing and a few quick shots of porn, but yet again the film is much more mature (in a good way) and worthwhile than much of the fare teenagers watch. Likewise, Kidman is quite a sight fully dressed (we do get a shot, if its hers, of her butt)... her tall, thin, and very pale complextion (her red lipstick stands out) would be perfect for modeling. I personally think she could do with a tad bit more color and weight (a look that fit her light defecient character in "The Others," but looks a tad sickly overall), but that's just me.

I finally got around to see a couple foreign films at a favorite movie house of mine (Lincoln Plaza near 62nd and B'way). Both were rather serious films, though "Italian For Beginners" (R ... Danish) is promoted as a romantic comedy. Yes, it is in some ways, and ultimately you leave with a smile on your face. Nonetheless, these eight are troubled souls (three have to deal with death), and the film makes sure to includes a few scenes to make us remember the fact. This adds weight to a film that is at heart a lighthearted one, and only makes us that much happier when they find happiness. A well made and acted film; it is in the "Dogma" style, which is a film technique taken quite seriously by those involved in it, but is really isn't much of a concern for the ordinary movie goer [except for the lack of much music ... all Dogma music must be natural to the scene, not just on the soundtrack].

Lantana also concerns characters that must deal with loss and troubled lives, but the couples in this Australian film (with some familiar faces, including Barbara Hershey and Geoffrey Rush) ultimately will have a much tougher time of it. Anthony LaPaglia plays a troubled middle aged police officer, but the murder investigation that comes about midway is not the heart of the movie. It is more concerned about the relationships of its characters, all troubled souls trying to find a meaning in life, but each having trouble doing so. Characters drive movies like these, and all perform well ... they know the script and direction is superior, and do their best to work to its level. "Lantana" is a weed, introduced to Australia for its apparent good qualities.

Leopold is an English duke (Hugh Jackman) in 1870s New York City, a scientist and romantic, who is not happy with his life or family pressures to marry for money instead of love. Kate is a career woman in modern day New York City, a product research analyst who is tired of the grind as well as having to do it alone. Deep down she is more romantic and soft than her tough exterior suggests, and not surprisingly, she is played by Meg Ryan. A bit of time travelling brings them together, and the rest is predictable, including some not to be taken seriously history/science and various plot points.

First off, though one is right to be concerned when historical films such as "A Beautiful Mind" plays around with history, it is a bit silly to do so with fantasies of this nature. After all, the credits of the film itself felt compelled to note the fact Leopold invented th elevator was itself an invention (the elevator being invented before the 1870s). Second, playing around with some facts is acceptable when a film is as well acted, written (amusing and perfect for light entertainment), and put together as this one. Finally, for a Meg Ryan film, this is relatively painless (for those not fans), partly because the time travel elements as well as other characters (including excellent Jackman) has as much screen time as she does. Such restraint helps, even if she still gets top billing.

The underlining theme of the film is one of competiting attitudes, the romanticism of the past, and the more cynical (and fake) manners of the present. Ryan's problems with the duke actually has truth in them (as she says, his romantic notions works better when one lives a life of privilige, and her life does require more mundane concerns), and her dreams of romance is something we all share to some degree. She still doesn't come off as a well rounded individual as much as a type, and is probably the weakest part of the film. I wondered how a 1800s woman in modern day times would have looked like, but even Ryan was okay. The film overall was much more fun and pleasant than I expected, showing how well made genre fare can be quite enjoyable.

There has been a lack lately of movies that I feel like seeing, though "Lord of the Rings" (why not wait to all three are out, so I can watch the storyline in sequence?) and "Black Hawk Down" (said to be biased) are out there unseen by me. So, I decided to do something that I have not done for awhile, namely rent a video. Actually, I decided upon a DVD, since the price was the same and the movies were not available on VHS. "The Hotel New Hampshire" is a 1980s adaption of a book by John Irving, known for his serious novels of offkilter families. The movie had a lot of familiar faces, including Rob Lowe and Jodie Foster as two of the children, and Beau Bridges as the dad. The movie was decent, if episodic and a bit slow, redeemed by good performances overall and loyalty to the novel. Changes for film are usually necessary, but often the source material is worthwhile on its own; thus, loyalty is usually a good thing as well. "The Cider House Rules" is a recent Irving adaption worth watching, though the book has time to be more complex. The movie is still loyal to the book, while changing it to fit the media style involved.

Earlier, purchased my first DVD for my DVD/VCR player, Sprite: Between Two Worlds. This is a Japanese anime feature concerning a college student (apparently originally a high school student aged because of the nudity and sex involved) who has a "bad girl" personality inside her that sometimes comes out. A childhood friend's visit makes things even more complicated. The episodes are comic at spots but the animation and characterizations are rather well done, as well as being for adults (or mature teens) because of the forementioned sexual content. The sexual and visual imagery possibilities of the genre can also be seen in Perfect Blue. Another worthwhile anime to check out is "Vampire Princess: Initiation," (one of various places to see the character) which is not as sexual, but does provide some of the charms of anime. I personally only saw a few example of anime myself, but these suggest it would be a good idea for me to check out some more.