Kat's Film Reviews

Wonderfalls

2005-03-25T14:39:00.000-05:00

This is the kind of television that should be made. And may I go so far as to say that only this kind of television should be made. Take a Parker Posey doppelgänger, a popular tourist attraction, a gimmick to keep things interesting (oh, and don't forget the lesbian sibling), smush all that together with witty repartees and you have Wonderfalls. I've only watched 1.3 episodes so far, but I started adoring it after the first 15 minutes. Which means that once again, you'll get my diatribe on why the hell networks can't recognize good shows and give them a decent time to be discovered so they're not cancelled without being given a chance. Or (all together now) why is the viewing public such a bunch of dolts? Enough of that, it's so pointless. This sitcom's mostly about how people handle relationships, which when it comes down to it, is probably what all sitcoms are about. Still, is has a quirky misanthropic viewpoint that makes you feel uncomfortable and not alone at the same time. Might not be everyone's cup of tea (might appeal to twenty-somethings most), but I guarantee you'll see something of yourself in each episode.

year: 2004
length: 13 45-min. episodes
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361256/combined

The Wizard of Oz

2005-11-27T14:38:00.000-05:00

Advertising works! See the ad in Premiere, order the DVD the next day, spend the next few days hopping around in anticipation, and race home from work on the appointed day to ooh and aah over the new digital transfer of this beloved 1939 film. I was, as most kids, a huge fan and having to wait to see it once a year on television was downright depressing. Naturally, when it came out on VHS I ran out and got it right away. But the difference between that and the current DVD is like the difference between a Munchkin and Glinda. My husband got completely sick of me saying "that was the true color of the [insert whatever here]?!". It has to be seen to be believed. The DVD extras give you the low-down on how they created the new transfer, plus many mini- documentaries hosted by the charming Angela Lansbury that illumine and enlighten the process of putting this treasure on screen. What a hoot to see Liza Minelli in better days with her brother and sister (Judy Garland had three kids; yeah, I didn't know either). And Jack Haley and Ray Bolger reminiscing on how much they complained during filming about their makeup and the heat. Not to be missed is an extended scene of the first meeting between Dorothy and the Scarecrow that showcases Ray Bolger's dancing. What, was he made out of rubber?! I don't know many who don't love this film, so go buy the DVD and smile, smile, smile.

year: 1939
length: 101 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032138/combined

Withnail & I

2004-10-31T14:35:00.000-05:00

A few of the featurettes included on this DVD looked intriguing, so I flipped through some of them. But when I reached the one describing how the producers wanted to pull the plug on the film a week in and the director is bemusedly explaining this is because they thought the film wasn't funny, I snorted and turned it off. Damn straight this film isn't funny. The word I would use is excruciating. There is maximum one very funny scene (the one with the bull), but the rest of the film is unintelligible, and that has nothing to do with the British accents. Ostensibly the story of two friends in the 1960s who decide they need a vacation from their daily grind, consisting of desperately trying out for theatrical productions, the film meanders from one boring soliloquy to the next, interspersed with dialogue that has nothing to do with the plot (what plot?). It's also offensive to gay people, in its assumption that gays are natural predators. If you make it to the end, I'd be happy if you'd let me know what it was all about (like I said, what plot?). The only reason it gets that extra 1/2 point rating is because I adore watching Richard E. Grant do his stuff. Who cares if he's impossible to understand? It's his attitude and aura that are entrancing.

year: 1987
length: 107 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094336/combined

Wit

2003-03-25T14:33:00.000-05:00

It's very possible that I didn't understand everything there was to understand in this film. There are lots of overtones and undertones that would be difficult for your average film viewer and were doublefold difficult for me because of the amount of serious British poetry that's read onscreen. Whenever poetry is read (unless it's e e cummings, Emily Dickinson or Robert Frost) it's as if my mind shuts off and can't compute what the ears are hearing. A sad state of affairs, yes, I agree. This is not to imply that the film isn't moving, interesting, and ultimately uplifting. Emma Thompson plays a professor of 17th century poetry, specifically the John Dunne variety, who has been diagnosed with cancer. She's not a sentimental person and the film follows her course of extreme chemotherapy and how she copes with it, at first through logic and gradually with questions and doubts. At first I thought the title of the film reflected only her sense of humor, but realized as the film progressed that it encompasses all the definitions of wit -- reasoning power, mental soundness, astuteness, and "an imaginatively perceptive and articulate individual especially skilled in banter" (as defined by Merriam-Webster Online). What more perfect actor for this role than Thompson, then?

year: 2001
length: 98 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243664/combined

Touching the Void

2005-03-10T14:30:00.000-05:00

The first thing that runs through your mind when seeing a climbing picture is: why? The second thing, and specifically for this film, is why do they climb as a pair? As they stress, you can pull your partner down with the slightest misstep. And if you're climbing in one push, if you make a bad mistake you're bound to die because there's no one at base camp to help you because there is no base camp. So, why tie yourself to another person in the first place? (I'm sure there's a good reason, but the film doesn't let on as to what it is.) A half-hour into the movie, you know how important it was that neither was climbing alone because without Simon, Joe would not have survived. And it's how Joe does survive that makes this climb legendary among mountaineers, and one of the most controversial decisions ever made in the climbing world. Part interview and part re-creation, the film is spellbinding -- similar to Everest in putting the human condition and the human spirit front and center. It is also a testament to the type-A personality, if I do say so. The little voice that keeps Joe moving from tiny goal to tiny goal sounds like a version of my own control freak nature. Erroneous to think that you could ever control your survival in places men were (most likely) never meant to go, but a stunning example of human nature at its indomitable best.

year: 2003
length: 106 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379557/combined

Touch of Evil

2003-04-30T14:28:00.000-04:00

This film has quite a famous story behind it. Orson Welles directed and starred as a broken-down, corrupt cop along the Mexican border who comes up against a murder that he can't turn in his favor. Presumably because of Welles's history in Hollywood -- his transparent portrayal of Howard Hughes in Citizen Kane caused him to essentially be blacklisted in that town -- the studio took this film and significantly edited it, resulting in a final product with little of Welles's vision left intact. Welles wrote a 40+ page memo to the studio asking for certain edits to be re-considered. Nothing doing. It wasn't until a few years ago that someone in the film industry unearthed this letter and used it to create the film that Welles always meant to make. Example: the opening shot, which is one continuous 4 minute 15 second shot (where do you think Brian de Palma got that trick from?) tracking Charlton Heston (the Mexican cop) and Janet Leigh, newlyweds, as they walk across the border. The bar music drifts in and out of the score, the shot rolls on, the characters develop, you tangibly feel what a border town is like. It's incredible, and the studio hacked it to pieces for the original release. Welles was also a master of suspense (you think Hitchcock had it sewn up?). As Welles's character gets out of a car at the beginning of the film, the camera is positioned below the running board of the car shooting upwards. This is typical for showing suspense and danger, but he uses it in places (like this one) where you wouldn't expect it. The very best thing about the film is how everything comes together. The plot is seamless (heck, even Welles's cane plays a part!) and the ending truly is a stroke of genius. Down to the last conversation.

year: 1958
length: 112 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052311/combined

Tombstone

2004-11-14T14:26:00.000-05:00

With lines like "Ain't that a daisy?" and "I'm your huckleberry." Val Kilmer steals this show, playing Doc Holiday, the thief with tuberculosis from the Earp brothers OK Corral tale. Spoken with a refined Southern accent the likes of which you've never heard before, he early on becomes the only reason to watch the film. Not ably assisted by Kurt Russell, Sam Elliott (who doesn't have much to say, so you can't blame him) and Bill Paxton the film devolves into the worst kind of maudlin sentiment, complete with hokey flirting scenes (worst among them the horse chasing scene). This is B-movie material and it's a great pity that Kilmer is in it as he shouldn't be relegated to drivel. I would recommend keeping one eye on the TV set and only putting down your knitting when you get to Val. Watch, rewind, re-watch, repeat. You won't be sorry.

year: 1993
length: 130 min.
rating: 1.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108358/combined

Tokyo Godfathers

2004-09-30T14:23:00.000-04:00

I was enchanted by this film. It's got everything an animated film should have -- a good story, beautifully rendered "sets", and action that is partially rooted in reality. In this case, the latter does not mean fantastical action (like leaping off tall buildings and surviving), but action in terms of exaggerated facial expressions, slow-mo and a Martin Scorsese-like way of telling the story without showing all of the story. It's slow in parts, and then ramps up such that you almost can't keep up. It's also a film that will have you laughing one second and whimpering the next. Plus, while it's rooted in the Japanese psyche, it's not like Hayao Miyazaki's films and their potential to leave Westerners far behind. You'll "get" it, trust me. This is the tale of three homeless folk in Tokyo (as you guessed, it's in Japanese with subtitles) who find a baby and try and return it to its rightful mother. You may find yourself a little lost in places because the plot twists and turns all the time, so strap on your Mulholland Drive thinking cap and pay close attention. What a reward!

year: 2003
length: 92 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0388473/combined

Something's Gotta Give

2004-03-14T14:20:00.000-05:00

Somebody in the movie theater was tsk-ing through all the scenes of Diane Keaton sobbing over her broken heart, but in fact that's mostly what I liked about this film. Keaton's brilliance as an actor is in giving us something that looks very real; something we could do or could have done at some point in our lives. Unbelievably, I used to avoid films she was in because she irritated or annoyed me, but now I realize that she acts directly from the heart, and that's a gift. Nancy Meyers, though, must be kicking herself for not titling this film what she titled her previous film, What Women Want, since that's really what this film is about. Or at least, it's about what older women want...from men. Which makes this ultimately a date movie -- boys and girls of various ages falling into and out of love. Jack Nicholson, as the main man, is very good as is, believe it or not, Keanu Reeves (as the younger man who immediately sees Keaton's charms). The writing has its high points, but we unfortunately are tossed a typical Hollywood ending with babies and smiles, as if that's what life is all about. So, in the long run, even with Keaton's talents, the film leaves you wondering what you just saw and whether it actually meant anything.

year: 2003
length: 128 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337741/combined

Some Like It Hot

2003-03-02T14:18:00.000-05:00

I watched this again recently and was still amused, but remain bemused by the furor over Marilyn Monroe. Perhaps I'm unable to see her acting skills because her bombshell appearance is so diverting. It certainly seems to be for the men who watch the film...oh, sorry, who drool over the film! OK, maybe I'm just jealous. I can say with certainty, however, that without Jack Lemmon, that film would have been a dud. Imagine switching out Marilyn Monroe and Tony Curtis. Do-able, if difficult. Then imagine switching out Jack Lemmon. No go! He is a consummate comedian; all jokes naturally gravitate to him, and cross- dressing suits his acting style to a tee. Curtis is there as straight man (and pretty boy-girl) only. For those of you who've never seen it, Lemmon and Curtis dress up as women in an all- woman band (Monroe is the ukelele player and singer) to escape the mob who are tracking them for being witnesses to a mob crime. Hilarity, of course, ensues, and you will be kept giggling for the entire film. Except, perhaps, in the mob scenes. They're flat and boring, as if all the acting juice in the film was in the Monroe-Lemmon-Curtis scenes and everything else is filler.

year: 1959
length: 120 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053291/combined

Sleuth

2003-03-10T14:11:00.000-05:00

I gave this film good marks for its concept and its acting. The cinematography is negligible because it really is a play on film. You can't quite classify this film into the mystery genre, because although it has all the elements of a mystery, it wrenches and yanks those elements around to make something completely other than a mystery film. Maybe it's a meta-mystery film? Anyway, I can't really speak about the plot, because it would give away an important twist 1/3 of the way through. Suffice it to say that Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine act their butts off. They carry the film quite literally as they're the only actors you see. (And if you watch the DVD, be sure to watch the 20+ minute interview of the playwright. I'd be very interested in your reactions.)

year: 1972
length: 138 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069281/combined

Sleepers

2004-06-18T14:10:00.000-04:00

I hate giving films about weighty subjects a poor rating. It feels wrong, since in most cases the filmmakers have made an effort to mirror the serious tone of their films in the cinematography, often leading to some stunning effects. Not so here. I love Barry Levinson's ode-to-Baltimore trilogy (Diner, Avalon, Liberty Heights -- well, not so much the last one). They're clever, meaningful, and without a lot of gloss. Still, his visuals have never fully connected with the story. I mean, what's the deal in this film with the repetitious subway train shots and the strange scenes in which characters soft-talk off-screen? The tunnel effects didn't work for me either. (Although, the chase scene in the beginning is pretty good.) The film is shot by the amazing Michael Ballhaus, so it's got to be Levinson's choice. Now, back to the premise. The film is about child abuse, namely abuse by guards at a boy's school (which is more like a prison). That's hefty stuff, and I certainly felt beyond-sad at times, but I expected something a bit more raw overall. This may be a factor of being a film addict -- the more well-done emotionally charged films I see, the more I need to see just those. In terms of the actors, Brad Pitt was awful (what, does he have marbles in his mouth?) and Jason Patric is, as usual, a lump on screen. The kids were uniformly good and Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman stole all their scenes, of course. And while the writing was okay, I'll bet the book is better.

year: 1996
length: 147 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117665/combined

Rosemary's Baby

2004-03-13T14:06:00.000-05:00

So, I ran right out and rented another horror film. Although this one isn't really horror. More of a suspense thriller. There are points where you expect nasty demons to pop out of the woodwork but that's only because you're a product of your times. In 1968, there wasn't a need to film things like that, particularly when you had the young, talented, still tragedy-free Roman Polanski on the project. Mia Farrow plays a young wife in a beautiful new apartment who just can't wait to get pregnant. She does, but she gradually starts to wonder if there's something all wrong about her conception and the cloying neighbors in her apartment building. The film builds gradually, the same way disbelief grows gradually, with no glitz or glamour, until the final scene which truly is horrific. Do you ever root for the main character! When she "escapes" and tries to find another doctor, you start smiling and release long pent-up breath. Farrow is not my favorite actor, but she works hard here, providing an illusion of a loving wife who can't quite figure out what's gone wrong. Major kudos to Ruth Gordon as the nosy neighbor. (Remember her from Harold and Maude?) Without her, the film would have lost a lot of its spark.

year: 1968
length: 136 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063522/combined

Road to Morocco

2005-01-12T14:04:00.000-05:00

Bing Crosby and Bob Hope. What more is there to say? That the rose-colored glasses of childhood are showing their age. Hope still tickles your ribs (his hourglass and cannibalism jokes had me in hysterics), and you can say nothing bad about Crosby's singing, but the rest of the film is capital-B-boring. I was giggling madly for the beginning and ending -- not surprisingly, where Crosby and Hope are on their own and the punch lines fly fast and furious -- but nearly nodded off for the rest of it. The twists that are necessary to get them from one place to the next are worse than any sequel-ized piece of trash put out today. The filmmakers are as cognizant of this as we are. Just listen to the title song...sung on the back of a camel, of course. If you love Hope or Crosby, it'll be worth it, but the rest of it you can pass up.

year: 1942
length: 83 min.
rating: 2.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035262/combined

Rivers and Tides

2003-07-29T17:11:00.000-04:00

Andy Goldsworthy is one of my two favorite artists (the other being Agnes Denes), so I had to go see this film. Goldsworthy creates art out of natural elements, i.e., things he finds lying around in the countryside. This film focuses on his artwork that reflects water, hence the title. As a friend of mine said, "he's a bit obsessive," and it's true that his work is highly fragile and requires him sometimes to re-create the same work more than once, but I think I'd characterize him more as someone who perseveres, who is driven to create. He mentions in the film that he has, naturally, good days and bad days and on the days when he's creating good art he never notices the cold, the wind, or the rain. As if it warms him from inside. I marvel at the apparent simplicity of such a life, even when I know that it can't really be that simple. The filmmaker has worked hard to weave the finished products with the process of creating them, and juxtaposes this with shots of nature on its own. I found that this gave me a glimpse through the artist's eye -- this is what Goldsworthy sees when he is starting to create a new piece. Goldsworthy does try to explain the "reasons" for his creations, but I confess I remember none of them because the pieces stand on their own -- beautiful creations mimicking and representative of nature, and also wholly manmade. If you want to see what I'm talking about, start here and use the previous and next buttons to view a few of his many artworks.

year: 2001
length: 90 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307385/combined

The Return

2004-05-25T16:21:00.000-04:00

As the poster says, this film is reminiscent of Andrei Tarkovsky's works. It differs in one huge respect, in that the first 3 minutes of the film contain more talking than in a 4 hour Tarkovsky film. Which means that this film is more accessible to the general public than anything Tarkovsky put out. (Brilliant filmmaker that he was, natch, his films are never easy to comprehend, or stay awake during.) This is Andrei Zvyagintsev's first film, and it is surprisingly masterful for a first-time director. The father of two boys returns after many years away and they go on a vacation together to a remote island. He is clearly "of the military" and treats his sons as he would treat soldiers, something that obviously doesn't work after so many years away. Of course there's a tragedy, and of course I'm not going to tell you what it is, because you should see the film. For the acting, for the cinematography and for the Tarkovsky-like enigmatic stillness. The boys are excellent actors, one more of a brown-noser, the other more of a punk. Your affections for either switch constantly throughout the movie, a testament to the quality of their acting. The cinematography is all about long shots, mostly of the landscape, whether that's endless miles of Russian farmland or endless miles of ocean. Most of these sequences (if you can call them sequences when most of them are single shots) are as near silent as possible, reminiscent of Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring. Plot is certainly not as important as the general feeling you get as you watch and interpret, and there are any number of interpretations you can make. As the film unwinds, it becomes more and more mysterious -- Where did the father come from? What is his job? Why is he taking the boys with him on a vacation that isn't a vacation? The silent cinematography is a big part of that mystery. And the ending shots (which are suggestive of The 400 Blows) leave you wondering, which completes the film's ambience.

original title: Vozvrashcheniye
year: 2003
length: 105 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376968/combined

Planet of the Apes

2003-05-07T16:58:00.000-04:00

Unfortunately I'd never seen this before but did know about the famous ending, which I won't ruin for those few who haven't seen it. Although my guess is that it would not be hard to figure out where the film is heading. Charlton Heston as an astronaut explorer crash-lands on a planet several thousand years after heading out from Earth. The film is rife with 60s social commentary. I particularly liked the remarks about "never trusting anyone over 30" and Heston's opening monologue in which he wonders if humans "still fight our brothers." Do we hear sentiments like this anymore? (Pity. Well, at least for the latter.) The pacing was good (never boring), the special effects really didn't seem that bad (even when compared to the excruciating 2001 re-make), and the overarching ideology (that we are not as superior as we think we are) was never force-fed. Filming in Utah at Glen Canyon underscored that ideology. These insignificant little humans traipsing across this never-ending landscape...what better way to visually prove your point?

year: 1968
length: 112 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063442/combined

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black P...

2003-07-29T16:52:00.000-04:00

I never expected to go see this flick. Action-adventure, tent-pole blockbuster, middle-of-summer trash is what I assumed. Then I heard inklings that it was a pile of fun so I succumbed. And it really is. It's all about pirates (duh), there's a complex plot plus love story, and a lot of money was spent on special effects. That's all you need to know going in, except maybe to get into the right mood first. What I mean is, it's rare that I've seen a film that relies so heavily on cliches. I'm sure that if I'd been in a sour mood this would have made my mood sourer, but if you're feelin' happy, this film will make you feel even more so. You have all the "Arrrrs!" you need, parrots on shoulders, gangplanks being walked, and more swordplay than you can shake a sword at. It's over the top, and it's supposed to be. The major drawback is its length. I love watching swordplay, but after 4 major fight scenes I was starting to wonder when they were going to wrap things up. Far and away the best thing about the film is Johnny Depp (although Orlando Bloom puts in a very nice performance). I think he's missed his calling. He should have been another Charlie Chaplin. He takes all those cliches and twists them around by creating a mad, fey character who will have you in stitches for nearly all of his scenes. Let's all keep our fingers crossed that he is chosen by Tim Burton for the title role in the new Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory film...

year: 2003
length: 143 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325980/combined

Pieces of April

2003-11-13T16:40:00.000-05:00

I would have given this film my highest rating but for the digital medium in which it was filmed. You could argue that this type of film is perfect for a hand-held digital camera -- the character's edges are prickly and blurry just as the images are. And for most of the film, you don't notice it all that much. Except for the shots where the camera pans and all the colors bleed out the trailing edge. Or the shots outside which are horribly overexposed (although I'll concede that point if the filmmaker meant it to happen). It's clear it was made on the cheap, but the story itself isn't. An estranged daughter invites her family to NYC for a Thanksgiving dinner she and her boyfriend make. As the film progresses we see her undeniably sad cooking skills juxtaposed with the tensions that build in the family car. It's a sweet and tender film with some fantastic character actors, in particular Patricia Clarkson (from Far From Heaven fame) and Derek Luke (new it-boy from Antwone Fisher) and the ever-fresh Katie Holmes (from, believe it or not, Dawson's Creek). You can expect a true-meaning-of-Thanksgiving ending, with an extra added fillip to bring the story full circle.

year: 2003
length: 81 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0311648/combined

Picnic at Hanging Rock

2003-03-02T16:36:00.000-05:00

This film will haunt you. It's slow-paced, so for those of you who like action or animated discourse...this one isn't for you. A group of Victorian college girls picnic at an Australian landmark, Hanging Rock, one Valentine's Day and several of the party go missing. The dominoes keeping the college functioning start to topple from the weight of the mystery of the disappearances. All the elements of the film serve the same purpose -- the music (this low thrumming that causes your hackles to rise immediately), the repeated-image cinematography (okay, we've seen that rocky outcropping half a dozen times now and it gets creepier each time!), and the story itself (the mystery's never been solved). One scene (actually multiple scenes) in particular was designed to frighten. Many times the film takes us towards a passage in the rocks where whatever happened happened, and each time we get a little closer to seeing what's beyond those rocks, but never quite get there. And that's the beauty of the film -- Peter Weir took an unsolved mystery and filmed it so we feel that mystery the entire time we're watching its story.

year: 1975
length: 115 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073540/combined

Moulin Rouge!

2003-08-24T16:27:00.000-04:00

I saw this for the first time on the big screen in Rome after having been told by a film friend to make sure my eyes were wide open to drink in all that craziness Baz Luhrmann had created. It is a crazy film, with its multiplicity of colors, characters and music, but it really does work. Luhrmann states that this is the last of his Red Curtain Trilogy films, each one of which focuses on problems surrounding falling in love. I admit that this is not my favorite of the three (Strictly Ballroom has a tighter story and has all that great ballroom dancing in it) but that's not saying much because I loved this film as a rental as much as I did in the theater. For most filmgoers, the big surprise was Ewan McGregor's incredible tenor voice. He downplays this in the making-of documentary on the DVD, insisting that he'd never done it before, but I find that quite hard to believe. He knows when to sing soft and when to sing loud and he simply steals the show. To be fair, Nicole Kidman's voice is a beautiful alto, she's just upstaged. There are numerous weirdly done homages, such as the dance in the elephant turning into every film Gene Kelly made and "Like a Virgin" morphing into a vampire film. Luhrmann requires audience participation in his films, and perhaps that's why there is so much cutting and such an over-the-top style. We remain in our reality and enjoy the film as the spectacular spectacle that it is.

year: 2001
length: 127 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0203009/combined

Monster

2005-02-23T16:24:00.000-05:00

I understand now why Charlize Theron got the Oscar for this. I thought going in that she would dirty herself up a bit and act a bit more raunchily, but rarely have I seen a transformation like this. Based on some of the original footage of Aileen Wuornos in the featurette, she became this woman in looks and in character. Dubbed the first woman serial killer, she was a big, strong, foul-mouthed, psychologically devastated prostitute. Theron becomes that, and you never get a peek of the glamorous movie star. (She does seem to have a bit of trouble with the fake teeth, but it fits in well with Wuornos' fidgety nature.) The director, Patty Jenkins, adamantly portrays Wuornos as a complete woman, one who loved deeply (her partner played by Christina Ricci), heartbreakingly tried to break away from prostitution, and wholeheartedly believed she was ridding the human race of evil men. Whether all of this is the absolute truth isn't possible to know, although they relied heavily on frequent correspondence between Wuornos and a childhood friend. The truth probably isn't as important as the solidity of Jenkins' case and the power of Theron's transfiguration. Theron says at the end of the featurette that on most films there are a couple-three scenes that you brace yourself for, but that in this film it was every single one. That's the truth.

year: 2003
length: 109 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0340855/combined

Minority Report

2003-06-25T16:20:00.000-04:00

It's surprising to me that the film industry doesn't do more to honor Steven Spielberg. Isn't he due for at least four lifetime achievement awards? His two films last year, this one and Catch Me If You Can, are both masterful, entertaining and thoughtful. In this film, he creates a believable future 50 years from now (I can definitely see personalized advertising on a walk through the mall in my lifetime) showcasing a police force that can capture you just as you are about to commit a murder. His long-time collaborater, Janusz Kaminski, uses overexposure to create harshly bright images with unfocused edges, perfect for a futuristic film. And it stars two of my favorite actors -- Tom Cruise and Colin Farrell (the latter one of my three favorite actors under 35; I'll let you guess the other two). As well as Samantha Morton, who ranks up there with Emily Watson in terms of heartfelt, passionate acting. Naturally, since it's Spielberg, the themes of family are very close to the surface, and that works very nicely until the second to last scene, which was so like the last scene of Bend It Like Beckham that I had to roll my eyes. Despite a few missteps, the film is one of the few fantastic sci-fi flicks around, hence the rating.

year: 2002
length: 145 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/combined

Million Dollar Baby

2005-02-23T16:12:00.000-05:00

Cate Blanchett and Meryl Streep may be the chameleons of acting, but Hilary Swank is made out of modeling clay. You saw this in Boys Don't Cry (her first and, fingers crossed, not only Oscar) and you'll see the effect again in this film. Working out 4 hours a day, including 1 1/2 hours of boxing, 6 days a week for 4 months helps quite a bit, but you could do that and just be another Ahnuld. Swank morphs before our eyes from a driven, unskilled woman with a dream to a world-class boxer. Because it is a Clint Eastwood film, it is spare and quiet (except when they're pounding the crap out of each other) and forcefully understated. Without giving too much away, a typical Eastwood moral is in store. It is achieved without the usual drama queen atmosphere, making it that much more powerful. Eastwood is creating a better film every time he tries (as opposed to Shyamalan, for instance), although each remains a bit cold. I don't know if that's due to its plainspoken-ness and precision but you, as the audience, are always slightly disengaged from what's happening on screen. It carries an emotional impact, but not as visceral a one as, say, Schindler's List. A minor complaint, however. If Swank doesn't win the Oscar, any respect I may have had for the Academy will vanish.

year: 2004
length: 137 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405159/combined

Wings of Desire

2003-07-21T15:31:00.000-04:00

This was my first Wim Wenders film, and I wasn't aware of his process for creating film. There was no script, just dialogue written by a scriptwriter friend that he received each day of filming. Perhaps that was his method for just this film? 'Cause I would consider that fairly scary for all involved! The film concerns angels watching over Berlin (the translated German title is Heaven over Berlin), and the need for one of them to fall to Earth and become human in order to touch, taste, see and feel for himself. As my hubby says, it's lyrical, and at times I'm afraid that the lack of script made it a bit too lyrical, i.e., lengthy and ponderous when it didn't need to be (remember, I have trouble with poetry). And yet it's one of those films that will be etched in memory for a long, long time. I, unfortunately, watched the "remake" of this -- City of Angels -- before seeing the original. Could have been a very bad mistake, but in fact it was an exercise in contrasts and similarities. While the remake is in the final analysis banal, the director did use the same library scenes, and I remember enjoying the equating of libraries with peace, quiet and spirituality, as well as a place where the angels seem to get their reading done. And Peter Falk! I didn't know he played himself, and so enchantingly. I'm a bit too young to have gotten into Colombo, but I was aware when I lived in Germany that they thought the world of that series, so it's no surprise that Wenders asked Falk to be in the film. In the end, what struck me most were the shots of the Wall (this was filmed before it fell) and the grittiness of Berlin and that entire 1980s punk-pop era that was at its heyday when I lived in Germany. And the idea that angels watch over Berlin, that sad, proud city.

original title: Der Himmel über Berlin
year: 1987
length: 127 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093191/combined