SIDEWAYS (Alexander Payne, 2004)
English teacher and failed novelist Miles Raymond and his actor friend Jack take a week-long tour of California wine country in SIDEWAYS, the new film from director Alexander Payne. Paul Giamatti stars as the depressed and divorced Miles. Thomas Haden Church is the freewheeling Jack. He’s looking to blow off some steam before he gets married at the end of the week. If Jack can help Miles forget about his ex-wife, all the better. Virginia Madsen and Sandra Oh play the women the guys meet.
Payne and co-writer Jim Taylor favor prickly characters. Miles joins Laura Dern’s pregnant patio sealant huffer in CITIZEN RUTH, Reese Witherspoon’s excessively ambitious student in ELECTION, and Jack Nicholson’s curmudgeon in ABOUT SCHMIDT. Payne and Taylor excel at getting underneath these tough exteriors and portray these people for what they are, warts and all. Payne’s fluid direction and the four principal actors’ sterling performances in SIDEWAYS bring out the characters’ humanity with humor and deep feeling. Giamatti is especially good as Miles, a wounded man aware of who he is but incapable of letting others see it. The comedy and drama of these rich characters’ lives make SIDEWAYS a film to be savored.
Grade: A-
(Review first aired on the November 23, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie
THE SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS MOVIE (Stephen Hillenburg, 2004)
Life in tranquil Bikini Bottom will never be the same unless a sponge and a starfish can come to the rescue in THE SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS MOVIE. The popular Nickelodeon cartoon features the squeaky-voiced fry cook SpongeBob and his best friend Patrick Star. In their first film SpongeBob and Patrick are called upon to find and return King Neptune’s crown so they can save SpongeBob’s boss Mr. Krabs. The stolen crown is part of Sheldon J. Plankton’s scheme to ruin Mr. Krabs’ business and become an undersea overlord.
At 90 minutes THE SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS MOVIE can be a little much to endure, and it isn’t as clever as the filmmakers think. Still, SpongeBob’s resilient, Pollyana-like nature is hard to resist. The film possesses a generous spirit and successfully uses a go-for-broke strategy in telling jokes. A live action scene in a souvenir shop, SpongeBob and Patrick’s visit to a biker bar, and the songs are among the film’s best moments. These scenes showcase the writers’ strength in supreme silliness. At times THE SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS MOVIE’S unconventional nature can seem too carefully calibrated, as if it’s trying too hard to be hip and goofy. The cartoon is so hyperactive that it is probably best suited for watching as a television series than ingesting it all at once as a feature film.
Grade: B-
(Review first aired on the November 23, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Life in tranquil Bikini Bottom will never be the same unless a sponge and a starfish can come to the rescue in THE SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS MOVIE. The popular Nickelodeon cartoon features the squeaky-voiced fry cook SpongeBob and his best friend Patrick Star. In their first film SpongeBob and Patrick are called upon to find and return King Neptune’s crown so they can save SpongeBob’s boss Mr. Krabs. The stolen crown is part of Sheldon J. Plankton’s scheme to ruin Mr. Krabs’ business and become an undersea overlord.
At 90 minutes THE SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS MOVIE can be a little much to endure, and it isn’t as clever as the filmmakers think. Still, SpongeBob’s resilient, Pollyana-like nature is hard to resist. The film possesses a generous spirit and successfully uses a go-for-broke strategy in telling jokes. A live action scene in a souvenir shop, SpongeBob and Patrick’s visit to a biker bar, and the songs are among the film’s best moments. These scenes showcase the writers’ strength in supreme silliness. At times THE SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS MOVIE’S unconventional nature can seem too carefully calibrated, as if it’s trying too hard to be hip and goofy. The cartoon is so hyperactive that it is probably best suited for watching as a television series than ingesting it all at once as a feature film.
Grade: B-
(Review first aired on the November 23, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
After the Sunset
AFTER THE SUNSET (Brett Ratner, 2004)
In AFTER THE SUNSET Pierce Brosnan and Salma Hayek are Max and Lola, expert thieves who retire to the tropics after a final job in which they pilfer a diamond from the feds protecting it. Hoping to salvage his reputation, disgraced FBI agent Stan Lloyd, played by Woody Harrelson, tracks them down and tantalizes Max with information about a diamond being exhibited nearby on a cruise ship. Lola wants Max to focus on writing his marriage vows instead of stealing another rock, but the challenge facing him and the chance to embarrass Stan again may prove too great to ignore.
The Onion’s music writers compose an annual feature in which they pick each year’s least essential albums. They’re not selecting the worst, just those that are utterly unnecessary. If there were a least essential film list, AFTER THE SUNSET would be a lead candidate. I’ve seen at least fifty worse films this year but few as mediocre and inconsequential as Brett Ratner’s latest. AFTER THE SUNSET is completely derivative of Elmore Leonard’s books and the film adaptations of his work, like OUT OF SIGHT and THE BIG BOUNCE. The dialogue mimics the terseness without the snap or humor. Almost every word sounds recycled from another movie. The new stuff, such as a Tarantino-like riff on the music of The Mamas and the Papas, is pale imitation. Ratner keeps this breezy caper moving along, but his workmanlike direction lacks excitement. Apparently his biggest challenge was to find how many different ways he could shoot Hayek bending over in low cut tops. There are worse ways to spend ninety minutes than watching AFTER THE SUNSET, but there are many better things to do too.
Grade: C-
(Review first aired on the November 23, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
In AFTER THE SUNSET Pierce Brosnan and Salma Hayek are Max and Lola, expert thieves who retire to the tropics after a final job in which they pilfer a diamond from the feds protecting it. Hoping to salvage his reputation, disgraced FBI agent Stan Lloyd, played by Woody Harrelson, tracks them down and tantalizes Max with information about a diamond being exhibited nearby on a cruise ship. Lola wants Max to focus on writing his marriage vows instead of stealing another rock, but the challenge facing him and the chance to embarrass Stan again may prove too great to ignore.
The Onion’s music writers compose an annual feature in which they pick each year’s least essential albums. They’re not selecting the worst, just those that are utterly unnecessary. If there were a least essential film list, AFTER THE SUNSET would be a lead candidate. I’ve seen at least fifty worse films this year but few as mediocre and inconsequential as Brett Ratner’s latest. AFTER THE SUNSET is completely derivative of Elmore Leonard’s books and the film adaptations of his work, like OUT OF SIGHT and THE BIG BOUNCE. The dialogue mimics the terseness without the snap or humor. Almost every word sounds recycled from another movie. The new stuff, such as a Tarantino-like riff on the music of The Mamas and the Papas, is pale imitation. Ratner keeps this breezy caper moving along, but his workmanlike direction lacks excitement. Apparently his biggest challenge was to find how many different ways he could shoot Hayek bending over in low cut tops. There are worse ways to spend ninety minutes than watching AFTER THE SUNSET, but there are many better things to do too.
Grade: C-
(Review first aired on the November 23, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Kraa! The Sea Monster
KRAA! THE SEA MONSTER (Michael Deak, Aaron Osborne, and Dave Parker, 1998)
Anyone who has seen the awful B-movies of yesteryear can attest that bad movies hold the potential of being great fun to watch. Why else would Ed Wood's body of work or the poorly executed genre pictures of fifty years ago still find viewers who laugh themselves silly at the chintzy effects work and wooden acting? Unlike the typical standard used to judge art--or popular entertainment if the "a" word seems too high-falutin'--formal ineptitude is essential to the enjoyment of these particular films. Ideally the makers intended to produce good films even if they were working in schlock. Most bad movies are ordinary. The "good" bad movies display that the makers were serious in the efforts. For example, the failed, self-conscious spoof THE LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA demonstrated that it's not funny when the filmmakers are in on the joke. The humor comes from conviction in incompetence.
I don't hold any illusions that KRAA! THE SEA MONSTER was made with the highest artistic intentions, but the makers of this low budget, straight-to-video GODZILLA-STAR TREK-MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS hybrid turned out a cheap knock-off without the winking acknowledgements, not as if that would have excused the movie's shoddiness.
Lord Doom (Michael Guerin, with the voice of Jerry Lentz) resides on the cold, dark planet Proyas. In an effort to acquire a home with a more temperate climate, he dispatches the two hundred foot tall monster Kraa to Earth. Once the planet wrecker for hire has wiped Earth clean of civilization, Lord Doom and his diminuitive minions will move in.
The Planet Patrol team
Earth's only hope is Planet Patrol, protectors of the cosmos with more than two thousand outposts in the universe. Station 1645's multicultural teenage crew discovers the problem and attempts to intervene, but cannons breach the station's hull and knock the systems out of commission before headquarters can be alerted.
The crew is able to contact reserve interstellar police officer Mogyar (voice of J.W. Perra), an Italian-accented, semi-aquatic creature that resembles a turtle if it just had a shell, a retracted head with a rotting flesh-like face, and hands. Mogyar doesn't have any weapons aboard his pyramid-shaped ship, but he has a plan to harness the power of some secret weapons in Naples. Unfortunately he mistakenly crash lands in New Jersey. A biker and a diner owner are willing to help Mogyar, but before you know it those pesky feds have detained them all. Meanwhile, Kraa continues his world-destroying rampage, and Planet Patrol works on repairing their station.
Without a doubt KRAA! THE SEA MONSTER is grade A crud. The inattention to detail extends to the typo-riddled credits. The story is so thin that it must have been written on tissue paper. The production values are mostly laughable, except for a daytime sequence with Kraa that turned out well compared to the city miniatures. The acting and dialogue is hokey, but how else could it be? These aren't seasoned performers reciting Shakespeare.
Released in 1998, Full Moon Pictures likely wanted KRAA! to leech off of Roland Emmerich's GODZILLA remake. (Kraa tears through an advertisement for the competition, if there was any question.) Strangely enough, with the guy in the rubber suit stomping on obvious miniatures, KRAA! is truer in spirit to the GODZILLA films than Emmerich's expensive boondoggle, not that KRAA! merits favorable comparison to those Japanese films.
Even without the shameless appropriations from GODZILLA, KRAA! is thoroughly derivative, borrowing from several sci-fi and fantasy sources. Lord Doom looks similar to Skeletor, behaves like Darth Vader, and opens the film with the line "revenge is best served cold," a mangling of a familiar Klingon aphorism. Planet Patrol is a generic blend of the STAR TREK crew and the Power Rangers. Their station resembles the Death Star. Director Alex Proyas' DARK CITY came out in 1998, which must have been all that was needed to name the dark planet after him.
So yes, KRAA! THE SEA MONSTER is a bad film that wouldn't deserve to darken a theater's screen or air beside bargain basement syndicated television programs. Yet it is eminently funnier,in that special "bad" way, and more watchable than CHRISTMAS WITH THE KRANKS.
Alison Lohman as Planet Patrol member Curtis in Kraa! The Sea Monster
Normally I wouldn't waste my time watching something like KRAA! There are too many great films--or even mediocre ones--I haven't seen to make devoting an hour-plus to this junk worthwhile. Still, I was very curious to view KRAA! because it features the debut of Alison Lohman. She was outstanding in WHITE OLEANDER and MATCHSTICK MEN. I would go so far as to say that her performance in Ridley Scott's film was the best screen acting of 2003, be it leading or supporting, male or female. She's one to watch and can next be found in Atom Egoyan's WHERE THE TRUTH LIES. In her small role as Planet Patrol's psychic empath Lohman is unexceptional. (I expect the same is true in the 1999 sequel PLANET PATROL.) Considering the paucity of the material, this comes as no surprise. Reduced to delivering lame, overused jokes about Curtis' questionable psychic abilities, Lohman earns her first screen credit and adds an embarrassing curiosity to her filmography.
Aspiring performers should note that while this up-and-coming actress rose from an entry-level role to parts considered worthy of Oscar nominations, a quick look at the rest of the cast reveals non-starter acting careers. Candida Tolentino, who plays Lt. Able, has just one other minor credit on her Internet Movie Database filmography, although she is currently a contestant on the reality TV series THE REBEL BILLIONAIRE: BRANSON'S QUEST FOR THE BEST.
Koch Vision Entertainment presents KRAA! THE SEA MONSTER on DVD in the 1.33:1 ratio. I doubt this was shot in a ratio wider than this--it appears to have been composed for 4x3 TVs--but technical information is hard to come by on this title. It's a low budget film released as a budget DVD, so don't expect reference material. The video looks soft and has a grainy texture. All things considered, it looks okay. The 2.0 English language track cleanly presents the dialogue and sound effects. No subtitles are available. The DVD does have chapter stops. Ordinarily I wouldn't consider chapter stops a feature, but with a cheap title like this--I bought it for about $5--you never know.
Six Full Moon Pictures trailers are included. I wouldn't tell any parents that KRAA! THE SEA MONSTER makes good viewing on a family movie night, but content-wise it doesn't have anything unobjectionable for the kids. (The DVD box shows a PG rating.) The same can't be said for the trailers, which promote such titles as THE EROTIC HOUSE OF WAX and THE EXOTIC TIME MACHINE. Almost all of these trailers contain nudity. You have been warned.
I'm giving two grades for KRAA! THE SEA MONSTER. Obviously a film this bad merits Grade: F. Working from that assumption, it's more like Grade: C. Not a prime "good" bad movie, but one that has its moments.
Anyone who has seen the awful B-movies of yesteryear can attest that bad movies hold the potential of being great fun to watch. Why else would Ed Wood's body of work or the poorly executed genre pictures of fifty years ago still find viewers who laugh themselves silly at the chintzy effects work and wooden acting? Unlike the typical standard used to judge art--or popular entertainment if the "a" word seems too high-falutin'--formal ineptitude is essential to the enjoyment of these particular films. Ideally the makers intended to produce good films even if they were working in schlock. Most bad movies are ordinary. The "good" bad movies display that the makers were serious in the efforts. For example, the failed, self-conscious spoof THE LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA demonstrated that it's not funny when the filmmakers are in on the joke. The humor comes from conviction in incompetence.
I don't hold any illusions that KRAA! THE SEA MONSTER was made with the highest artistic intentions, but the makers of this low budget, straight-to-video GODZILLA-STAR TREK-MIGHTY MORPHIN POWER RANGERS hybrid turned out a cheap knock-off without the winking acknowledgements, not as if that would have excused the movie's shoddiness.
Lord Doom (Michael Guerin, with the voice of Jerry Lentz) resides on the cold, dark planet Proyas. In an effort to acquire a home with a more temperate climate, he dispatches the two hundred foot tall monster Kraa to Earth. Once the planet wrecker for hire has wiped Earth clean of civilization, Lord Doom and his diminuitive minions will move in.
The Planet Patrol team
Earth's only hope is Planet Patrol, protectors of the cosmos with more than two thousand outposts in the universe. Station 1645's multicultural teenage crew discovers the problem and attempts to intervene, but cannons breach the station's hull and knock the systems out of commission before headquarters can be alerted.
The crew is able to contact reserve interstellar police officer Mogyar (voice of J.W. Perra), an Italian-accented, semi-aquatic creature that resembles a turtle if it just had a shell, a retracted head with a rotting flesh-like face, and hands. Mogyar doesn't have any weapons aboard his pyramid-shaped ship, but he has a plan to harness the power of some secret weapons in Naples. Unfortunately he mistakenly crash lands in New Jersey. A biker and a diner owner are willing to help Mogyar, but before you know it those pesky feds have detained them all. Meanwhile, Kraa continues his world-destroying rampage, and Planet Patrol works on repairing their station.
Without a doubt KRAA! THE SEA MONSTER is grade A crud. The inattention to detail extends to the typo-riddled credits. The story is so thin that it must have been written on tissue paper. The production values are mostly laughable, except for a daytime sequence with Kraa that turned out well compared to the city miniatures. The acting and dialogue is hokey, but how else could it be? These aren't seasoned performers reciting Shakespeare.
Released in 1998, Full Moon Pictures likely wanted KRAA! to leech off of Roland Emmerich's GODZILLA remake. (Kraa tears through an advertisement for the competition, if there was any question.) Strangely enough, with the guy in the rubber suit stomping on obvious miniatures, KRAA! is truer in spirit to the GODZILLA films than Emmerich's expensive boondoggle, not that KRAA! merits favorable comparison to those Japanese films.
Even without the shameless appropriations from GODZILLA, KRAA! is thoroughly derivative, borrowing from several sci-fi and fantasy sources. Lord Doom looks similar to Skeletor, behaves like Darth Vader, and opens the film with the line "revenge is best served cold," a mangling of a familiar Klingon aphorism. Planet Patrol is a generic blend of the STAR TREK crew and the Power Rangers. Their station resembles the Death Star. Director Alex Proyas' DARK CITY came out in 1998, which must have been all that was needed to name the dark planet after him.
So yes, KRAA! THE SEA MONSTER is a bad film that wouldn't deserve to darken a theater's screen or air beside bargain basement syndicated television programs. Yet it is eminently funnier,in that special "bad" way, and more watchable than CHRISTMAS WITH THE KRANKS.
Alison Lohman as Planet Patrol member Curtis in Kraa! The Sea Monster
Normally I wouldn't waste my time watching something like KRAA! There are too many great films--or even mediocre ones--I haven't seen to make devoting an hour-plus to this junk worthwhile. Still, I was very curious to view KRAA! because it features the debut of Alison Lohman. She was outstanding in WHITE OLEANDER and MATCHSTICK MEN. I would go so far as to say that her performance in Ridley Scott's film was the best screen acting of 2003, be it leading or supporting, male or female. She's one to watch and can next be found in Atom Egoyan's WHERE THE TRUTH LIES. In her small role as Planet Patrol's psychic empath Lohman is unexceptional. (I expect the same is true in the 1999 sequel PLANET PATROL.) Considering the paucity of the material, this comes as no surprise. Reduced to delivering lame, overused jokes about Curtis' questionable psychic abilities, Lohman earns her first screen credit and adds an embarrassing curiosity to her filmography.
Aspiring performers should note that while this up-and-coming actress rose from an entry-level role to parts considered worthy of Oscar nominations, a quick look at the rest of the cast reveals non-starter acting careers. Candida Tolentino, who plays Lt. Able, has just one other minor credit on her Internet Movie Database filmography, although she is currently a contestant on the reality TV series THE REBEL BILLIONAIRE: BRANSON'S QUEST FOR THE BEST.
Koch Vision Entertainment presents KRAA! THE SEA MONSTER on DVD in the 1.33:1 ratio. I doubt this was shot in a ratio wider than this--it appears to have been composed for 4x3 TVs--but technical information is hard to come by on this title. It's a low budget film released as a budget DVD, so don't expect reference material. The video looks soft and has a grainy texture. All things considered, it looks okay. The 2.0 English language track cleanly presents the dialogue and sound effects. No subtitles are available. The DVD does have chapter stops. Ordinarily I wouldn't consider chapter stops a feature, but with a cheap title like this--I bought it for about $5--you never know.
Six Full Moon Pictures trailers are included. I wouldn't tell any parents that KRAA! THE SEA MONSTER makes good viewing on a family movie night, but content-wise it doesn't have anything unobjectionable for the kids. (The DVD box shows a PG rating.) The same can't be said for the trailers, which promote such titles as THE EROTIC HOUSE OF WAX and THE EXOTIC TIME MACHINE. Almost all of these trailers contain nudity. You have been warned.
I'm giving two grades for KRAA! THE SEA MONSTER. Obviously a film this bad merits Grade: F. Working from that assumption, it's more like Grade: C. Not a prime "good" bad movie, but one that has its moments.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Odds and ends
Glowing leaves at Ohio State (Mark Pfeiffer/October 28, 2004)
A bargain bin’s selection of a photo, some ramblings, and links…
Are you keeping up with LOST? As with ALIAS, a family drama masquerading as a spy series, it isn’t what it appears. Oh, sure, the characters are stranded on a mysterious island, but that’s just the attention-grabbing scenario so that the creators can tell stories about people adrift in their personal lives being confronted with and forced to move through their past problems. LOST’S simple yet brilliant stroke for remaining viable through a season with twentysome episodes is to focus each show on a different character. With more than forty castaways and the secrets of the island, it can easily sustain multiple seasons without keeping them lost for years. LOST boasts some of the finest character-based storytelling that serial television offers. Bully for the ABC programming executives who are wisely moving ALIAS from 9:00 Sundays to Wednesdays. Bringing the J.J. Abrams shows together should give a ratings boost to Jennifer Garner and company.
I love, love, love WAKING LIFE, Richard Linklater’s transporting animated existentialist film. Wiley Wiggins is the main listener and participant in the philosophical discussions. He’s also a real person who keeps this blog. The first time I came across his blog he was linking to a news item about the lawsuit filed against Linklater by some guys who were the basis for characters in DAZED AND CONFUSED. (The Yahoo! News link seems to be dead. The AP story is also here.)
I took the photo of leaves during the John Kerry rally at Ohio State. There was a lot of waiting and then some more. Finding interesting things to shoot helped pass the time. (Not having to be selective with your shots is one major area where digital far exceeds film.) The bank of lights flooding the stage was also illuminating the leaves so that they gave off this glow.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Thai Me Up, Thai Me Down
This past weekend the Wexner Center hosted Thai film director Apichatpong Weerasethakul and showed three of his feature films, including this year's Cannes entry TROPICAL MALADY (SUD PRALAD). Weerasethakul possesses talent, but I'm not sure that TROPICAL MALADY, BLISSFULLY YOURS (SUD SANAEHA), and MYSTERIOUS OBJECT AT NOON (DOKFA NAI MEUMAN) realize his potential. All three films are difficult, which isn't a problem unto itself, but the oblique non-narratives become tedious after awhile.
Using the exquisite corpse technique to propel MYSTERIOUS OBJECT AT NOON, Weerasethakul tells the closest thing that amounts to a story in any of his films. On top of this construct he mixes documentary and fiction so that the disctinction between them are blurred. He interviews the people of Thailand and has them develop the story about a teacher and a crippled boy. The result can be ragged, but Weerasethakul effectively captures the spirit of the people. A girl who tells her part of the story via sign language is absolutely adorable, and a group of school kids concoct a hilarious conclusion that would be expected from boys of any culture. Of Weerasethakul's three films I felt most positive toward MYSTERIOUS OBJECT AT NOON, although seeing it split over two nights may have improved my opinion of it. (A reel and a half remained on Friday night when the power went out.) That said, I'm mixed on it.
In introducting BLISSFULLY YOURS and TROPICAL MALADY Weerasethakul advised the audience to absorb the images rather than think about what is being shown. That may be the right strategy, but it doesn't help after yet another long sequence of people driving. (Since GERRY was my top film of 2003, I realize the inherent hypocrisy of me being critical of such things. The difference is that Van Sant's film had a foreseeable destination whereas this film doesn't appear to be going anywhere.) When a credits sequence started about fifty minutes into BLISSFULLY YOURS, I thought I might have slept through half of the film. Instead it's a signal that the film is leaving the humdrum everyday world and entering into its Edenic section. Weerasethakul skillfully uses the sound design to evoke an otherworldly place in nature and has an eye for beautifully composed shots, but it feels like eternity is passing.
TROPICAL MALADY is more of the same, except this time the two sections are split into two male lovers enjoying themselves out on the town and a metaphorical tale of a soldier hunting a heavily tattoed young man who can also assume the form of a tiger. Weerasethakul's visual mastery comes to the forefront in the second half with the jungle sequences. Some of the best shots, like the moon's illumination of the contours of the soldier's face, are in almost total darkness. A wide shot of the tiger in a tree and the soldier below holding up a flashlight is stunning. TROPICAL MALADY'S second half contains Weerasethakul's strongest work, but his preference for the experimental over narrative too often gets in the way for my tastes.
I don't believe Weerasethakul is staging global cinema's equivalent of PUNK'D, with the world's critics and cineastes as the unwitting participants, but his films' affectations--subtitled monkey chatter in TROPICAL MALADY--and slow pulses, followed by the subsequent critical gushing, provide perfect ammunition for those who believe foreign film lovers think they're smarter than people with less adventurous tastes. Weerasethakul's films are important viewing for those keeping tabs on world cinema, but based on these films, I'm not sure he has yet become all he's cracked up to be. MYSTERIOUS OBJECT AT NOON, BLISSFULLY YOURS, and TROPICAL MALADY demand repeat viewings, and I can see revisiting them another time to see if they've revealed themselves more clearly. For now, the verdict is still out.
Using the exquisite corpse technique to propel MYSTERIOUS OBJECT AT NOON, Weerasethakul tells the closest thing that amounts to a story in any of his films. On top of this construct he mixes documentary and fiction so that the disctinction between them are blurred. He interviews the people of Thailand and has them develop the story about a teacher and a crippled boy. The result can be ragged, but Weerasethakul effectively captures the spirit of the people. A girl who tells her part of the story via sign language is absolutely adorable, and a group of school kids concoct a hilarious conclusion that would be expected from boys of any culture. Of Weerasethakul's three films I felt most positive toward MYSTERIOUS OBJECT AT NOON, although seeing it split over two nights may have improved my opinion of it. (A reel and a half remained on Friday night when the power went out.) That said, I'm mixed on it.
In introducting BLISSFULLY YOURS and TROPICAL MALADY Weerasethakul advised the audience to absorb the images rather than think about what is being shown. That may be the right strategy, but it doesn't help after yet another long sequence of people driving. (Since GERRY was my top film of 2003, I realize the inherent hypocrisy of me being critical of such things. The difference is that Van Sant's film had a foreseeable destination whereas this film doesn't appear to be going anywhere.) When a credits sequence started about fifty minutes into BLISSFULLY YOURS, I thought I might have slept through half of the film. Instead it's a signal that the film is leaving the humdrum everyday world and entering into its Edenic section. Weerasethakul skillfully uses the sound design to evoke an otherworldly place in nature and has an eye for beautifully composed shots, but it feels like eternity is passing.
TROPICAL MALADY is more of the same, except this time the two sections are split into two male lovers enjoying themselves out on the town and a metaphorical tale of a soldier hunting a heavily tattoed young man who can also assume the form of a tiger. Weerasethakul's visual mastery comes to the forefront in the second half with the jungle sequences. Some of the best shots, like the moon's illumination of the contours of the soldier's face, are in almost total darkness. A wide shot of the tiger in a tree and the soldier below holding up a flashlight is stunning. TROPICAL MALADY'S second half contains Weerasethakul's strongest work, but his preference for the experimental over narrative too often gets in the way for my tastes.
I don't believe Weerasethakul is staging global cinema's equivalent of PUNK'D, with the world's critics and cineastes as the unwitting participants, but his films' affectations--subtitled monkey chatter in TROPICAL MALADY--and slow pulses, followed by the subsequent critical gushing, provide perfect ammunition for those who believe foreign film lovers think they're smarter than people with less adventurous tastes. Weerasethakul's films are important viewing for those keeping tabs on world cinema, but based on these films, I'm not sure he has yet become all he's cracked up to be. MYSTERIOUS OBJECT AT NOON, BLISSFULLY YOURS, and TROPICAL MALADY demand repeat viewings, and I can see revisiting them another time to see if they've revealed themselves more clearly. For now, the verdict is still out.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Today's special
Pollo frito made by yours truly
EVERYDAY ITALIAN is one of Food Network's better shows, by which I mean the food seems relatively simple to make and I won't have to run to the grocery store to buy a bunch of ingredients that I don't have. Tonight I took a crack at making pollo frito. In other words, fried chicken. The difference in this recipe is marinating the chicken in lemon juice and extra virgin olive oil for a minimum of two hours and frying it in olive oil. It took longer than the instructions stated, but I didn't put as much oil in the frying pan as directed. Yes, the chicken was delicious, and no, I haven't eaten it all.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Birth
BIRTH (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)
BIRTH delivers Nicole Kidman as Anna, a woman who appears to be finally moving on from the death of her husband ten years ago. Anna is engaged to Joseph, played by Danny Huston, but she hesitates at the marriage when a ten-year-old boy named Sean tells her that he is the reincarnation of her deceased spouse.
Director Jonathan Glazer focuses a glimmer of Kubrick onto this sober chamber drama and floods it with Buñuel to evoke BIRTH’S heightened unreality. Invoking the Spanish surrealist master is by design. Co-screenwriter Jean-Claude Carrière wrote BELLE DE JOUR and THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE, among other Buñuel classics. BIRTH channels the style and tone of those films exceptionally well, but ultimately the dramatic resolution is unsatisfying. Kidman again demonstrates why she is one of the most interesting contemporary actresses. As the gamine Anna, she slogs through an emotional muddle. In one of BIRTH’S best moments Glazer holds the camera on her face for a long time to allow an intimate view as she processes the idea that her dead husband has returned. The film’s formal qualities are second to none. Harris Savides’ cinematography casts a gorgeous pall over the family’s baroque apartment. The use of music, including Alexandre Desplat’s original score, complements the darkened physical and emotional interiors. There’s much to admire in BIRTH despite its storytelling shortcomings.
Grade: C+
(Review first aired on the November 9, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
BIRTH delivers Nicole Kidman as Anna, a woman who appears to be finally moving on from the death of her husband ten years ago. Anna is engaged to Joseph, played by Danny Huston, but she hesitates at the marriage when a ten-year-old boy named Sean tells her that he is the reincarnation of her deceased spouse.
Director Jonathan Glazer focuses a glimmer of Kubrick onto this sober chamber drama and floods it with Buñuel to evoke BIRTH’S heightened unreality. Invoking the Spanish surrealist master is by design. Co-screenwriter Jean-Claude Carrière wrote BELLE DE JOUR and THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE, among other Buñuel classics. BIRTH channels the style and tone of those films exceptionally well, but ultimately the dramatic resolution is unsatisfying. Kidman again demonstrates why she is one of the most interesting contemporary actresses. As the gamine Anna, she slogs through an emotional muddle. In one of BIRTH’S best moments Glazer holds the camera on her face for a long time to allow an intimate view as she processes the idea that her dead husband has returned. The film’s formal qualities are second to none. Harris Savides’ cinematography casts a gorgeous pall over the family’s baroque apartment. The use of music, including Alexandre Desplat’s original score, complements the darkened physical and emotional interiors. There’s much to admire in BIRTH despite its storytelling shortcomings.
Grade: C+
(Review first aired on the November 9, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Ray
RAY (Taylor Hackford, 2004)
Taylor Hackford’s biopic RAY looks at the most important years in the development of Ray Charles into one of the nation’s great entertainers. Jamie Foxx stars as the popular singer and musical innovator whose personal life was riddled with drug addiction and womanizing.
RAY is packed with terrific music, a quality that helps the bloated running time pass by more easily. It was a wise decision to have Foxx lip sync to Ray Charles’ recordings. Any imitation of a voice as distinctive and familiar as his would distract. Foxx’s performance came prepackaged as one of the year’s best and the prohibitive Oscar favorite for Best Actor. Without a doubt, he is very good. Foxx is restrained as someone who exists in the popular imagination as larger than life. On a technical level he has Ray’s gestures and body language down. As the film gets deeper into its two and a half hours, the shapelessness becomes a problem. Hackford doesn’t have an end in sight, just more markers that must be reached along the journey. RAY is a flawed film, but Foxx’s captivating acting and a bustling soundtrack smooth the rough spots.
Grade: B-
(Review first aired on the November 9, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Taylor Hackford’s biopic RAY looks at the most important years in the development of Ray Charles into one of the nation’s great entertainers. Jamie Foxx stars as the popular singer and musical innovator whose personal life was riddled with drug addiction and womanizing.
RAY is packed with terrific music, a quality that helps the bloated running time pass by more easily. It was a wise decision to have Foxx lip sync to Ray Charles’ recordings. Any imitation of a voice as distinctive and familiar as his would distract. Foxx’s performance came prepackaged as one of the year’s best and the prohibitive Oscar favorite for Best Actor. Without a doubt, he is very good. Foxx is restrained as someone who exists in the popular imagination as larger than life. On a technical level he has Ray’s gestures and body language down. As the film gets deeper into its two and a half hours, the shapelessness becomes a problem. Hackford doesn’t have an end in sight, just more markers that must be reached along the journey. RAY is a flawed film, but Foxx’s captivating acting and a bustling soundtrack smooth the rough spots.
Grade: B-
(Review first aired on the November 9, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Alfie
ALFIE (Charles Shyer, 2004)
Jude Law stars in the remake of ALFIE thirty-eight years after Michael Caine played the title role of the unrepentant womanizer. Alfie drives a limousine for a living, but he’s more accomplished at and more interested in steering women into bed. Alfie wants freedom and a variety of women rather than a long-term relationship, but he reaches a point where he is forced to reexamine his way of life.
If ever there was someone born to be a movie star, Jude Law has to be it. His timeless good looks and effortless charisma make him the kind of leading man that Hollywood would produce from genetic experiments if they could. Law’s ability to charm us while we disapprove of Alfie’s actions is his greatest strength. Alfie directly addresses the audience throughout the film. This tactic could have been a tired gimmick, but instead it endears us to him. We become part of his very small circle of friends. Even if we question his decisions, there’s a thrill in seeing what’s it like to be a ladykiller of his caliber. Director Charles Shyer doesn’t judge Alfie or reform him. Rather, he depicts him warts and all to discover what’s beautiful and sad about his life.
Grade: B-
(Review first aired on the November 9, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Jude Law stars in the remake of ALFIE thirty-eight years after Michael Caine played the title role of the unrepentant womanizer. Alfie drives a limousine for a living, but he’s more accomplished at and more interested in steering women into bed. Alfie wants freedom and a variety of women rather than a long-term relationship, but he reaches a point where he is forced to reexamine his way of life.
If ever there was someone born to be a movie star, Jude Law has to be it. His timeless good looks and effortless charisma make him the kind of leading man that Hollywood would produce from genetic experiments if they could. Law’s ability to charm us while we disapprove of Alfie’s actions is his greatest strength. Alfie directly addresses the audience throughout the film. This tactic could have been a tired gimmick, but instead it endears us to him. We become part of his very small circle of friends. Even if we question his decisions, there’s a thrill in seeing what’s it like to be a ladykiller of his caliber. Director Charles Shyer doesn’t judge Alfie or reform him. Rather, he depicts him warts and all to discover what’s beautiful and sad about his life.
Grade: B-
(Review first aired on the November 9, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Friday, November 05, 2004
Trailer Park
(I'm going to give the politics a rest because I can't muster the energy for it, or anything else really. If ever the Hugger Busker was needed here, now is the time. I do have a few movie-related thoughts--imagine that--to plop down here, so we now return to our regularly scheduled programming.)
Since I've become a film critic, one aspect of moviegoing that has lost its luster is seeing trailers. Chances are I've seen some of them dozens of times, so the prospect of sitting through a two-minute preview of TAXI or RAISING HELEN becomes an endurance test. It isn't unusual for me to welcome a bad film's opening just so I won't have to suffer through the trailer again.
Nevertheless, I was interested to see the new STAR WARS trailer before my second viewing of THE INCREDIBLES. The theater where I saw it didn't have the EPISODE III trailer attached. I did get an early look at next year's Pixar film, CARS, which looks to be another sure thing from a studio that has yet to make a misstep.
Over at the arthouse I saw the trailer for HEAD IN THE CLOUDS yet again. I've always had a laugh at one line in the trailer, and this time I made a point to write it down. The voiceover includes the purple, parodic statement, "Forced to choose between desire and duty, they chose both." This is funnier than anything in that Jimmy Fallon-Queen Latifah movie, by the way.
The trailer for SEDUCING DOCTOR LEWIS reminded me of the strategy taken for foreign-language films. Don't let the audience know the film isn't in English. (The film in question appears to be a French-Canadian production.) The only dialogue we hear from or between characters are names, English words or those incorporated into the language, and easily understood foreign phrases (bon jour). Otherwise the plot is revealed through voiceover or text.
The trailer for VERA DRAKE, the new film from Mike Leigh, goes to great pains to obscure what the title character does. It's not for fear of spoiling the film but rather to smooth over content that would probably have people running from the theater than lining up to see it. If you're paying close enough attention you can probably figure out that Vera Drake is an abortionist. In all fairness, the word 'abortion' or a variant is only spoken three times in the film. Still, how many people plan to spend a Friday night watching a film about an abortionist, even if it is balanced and well made?
One other observation... The SIDEWAYS trailer adds another beat to the joke when Paul Giamatti asks Thomas Hayden Church's character if he's chewing gum while they're doing a winetasting. In the film the scene ends when he asks if he's chewing gum. The trailer cuts to a reaction shot of Church responding affirmatively and Giamatti telling him to spit it out. For what it's worth, the film's version works better.
Since I've become a film critic, one aspect of moviegoing that has lost its luster is seeing trailers. Chances are I've seen some of them dozens of times, so the prospect of sitting through a two-minute preview of TAXI or RAISING HELEN becomes an endurance test. It isn't unusual for me to welcome a bad film's opening just so I won't have to suffer through the trailer again.
Nevertheless, I was interested to see the new STAR WARS trailer before my second viewing of THE INCREDIBLES. The theater where I saw it didn't have the EPISODE III trailer attached. I did get an early look at next year's Pixar film, CARS, which looks to be another sure thing from a studio that has yet to make a misstep.
Over at the arthouse I saw the trailer for HEAD IN THE CLOUDS yet again. I've always had a laugh at one line in the trailer, and this time I made a point to write it down. The voiceover includes the purple, parodic statement, "Forced to choose between desire and duty, they chose both." This is funnier than anything in that Jimmy Fallon-Queen Latifah movie, by the way.
The trailer for SEDUCING DOCTOR LEWIS reminded me of the strategy taken for foreign-language films. Don't let the audience know the film isn't in English. (The film in question appears to be a French-Canadian production.) The only dialogue we hear from or between characters are names, English words or those incorporated into the language, and easily understood foreign phrases (bon jour). Otherwise the plot is revealed through voiceover or text.
The trailer for VERA DRAKE, the new film from Mike Leigh, goes to great pains to obscure what the title character does. It's not for fear of spoiling the film but rather to smooth over content that would probably have people running from the theater than lining up to see it. If you're paying close enough attention you can probably figure out that Vera Drake is an abortionist. In all fairness, the word 'abortion' or a variant is only spoken three times in the film. Still, how many people plan to spend a Friday night watching a film about an abortionist, even if it is balanced and well made?
One other observation... The SIDEWAYS trailer adds another beat to the joke when Paul Giamatti asks Thomas Hayden Church's character if he's chewing gum while they're doing a winetasting. In the film the scene ends when he asks if he's chewing gum. The trailer cuts to a reaction shot of Church responding affirmatively and Giamatti telling him to spit it out. For what it's worth, the film's version works better.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Here we go again
I just returned from downtown Columbus, about a block from the statehouse. Needless to say, the state capitol is likely to be the focal point of the nation and the world as the election mess of 2000 repeats. (The statehouse's west side was satellite truck central, if it's any indication.) Like all good sequels, we have a new location for counting votes and other legal challenges post-Election Day. At least the Democrats learned something from last time. The same goes for ABC, CBS, and CNN.
To say that I'm deflated would be understating things. I worked the phone banks for ten hours and was getting positive results. I felt like things were going the right way and fully expected a fun evening. Not quite. Jerry Springer was at the election party, though, for whatever that's worth.
My brain's totally fried at this point, so it's time I get some much needed sleep. Can Kerry pull it out? I have no idea, but the fight's still there.
To say that I'm deflated would be understating things. I worked the phone banks for ten hours and was getting positive results. I felt like things were going the right way and fully expected a fun evening. Not quite. Jerry Springer was at the election party, though, for whatever that's worth.
My brain's totally fried at this point, so it's time I get some much needed sleep. Can Kerry pull it out? I have no idea, but the fight's still there.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Election Day
I had a political diatribe percolating, but I have neither the time nor the rancor for spleen-venting this morning. It's probably for the best as I'm not interested in engaging in some political war of words. So, go out and vote. I'll be working the phone banks here for the Kerry-Edwards campaign in hopes of swinging this state the right direction. I feel confident in the Democratic party's chances. Hopefully there'll be room for celebration here later tonight.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
272
Today I passed last year's total for films seen theatrically, thus setting a new personal high for obsessive moviegoing. This morning's screening of THE INCREDIBLES, the aesthetically astonishing new Pixar film, broke 2003's 270 films. Early in the evening I added FESTIVAL EXPRESS for good measure. The music documentary has some good footage of The Band, Janis Joplin, The Grateful Dead, The Flying Burrito Brothers, Buddy Guy, and others, but some of the numbers are dated curiosities--what was the deal with Sha Na Na anyway?--or downright dull (Ian and Sylvia and the Great Speckled Bird, which is also possibly one of the worst band names ever). Including these performances was necessary to reflect what the concerts were like, but they really drag down the flow. The party scenes on the train are about as much fun as being the only sober person at a party where everyone else is inebriated.
But 272! And before November! Yikes!
But 272! And before November! Yikes!
Friday, October 29, 2004
More R.E.M. concert photos
R.E.M.'s Michael Stipe and Mike Mills
R.E.M. bassist Mike Mills
For your viewing pleasure, here are two more photos I took at Wednesday night's R.E.M. concert in Cincinnati. Whether I had the wrong scene setting on my digital camera, these guys move around too fast, or I move the camera too much when depressing the shutter, the smeared quality came out in more of these photos than I would have liked. Actually, I think the close-up of Mike Mills is pretty cool even if it is less than perfect technically. Click on it to see a bigger version. You'll get a better look at the ghost-like quality that one can easily achieve with a pinhole camera but which I didn't plan on capturing here. Or maybe I'm a regular Duchamp with a camera--for some reason I'm reminded of NUDE DESCENDING A STAIRCASE, although this isn't as abstract--and don't know it.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
The Boss on the Oval
Bruce Springsteen performing at a John Kerry rally at Ohio State (October 28, 2004/Mark Pfeiffer)
I've been on my feet almost all day for the John Kerry rally on the south Oval at Ohio State, so don't expect much in the way of words from me now. It pays to volunteer; otherwise I would have been nowhere near close enough to get even this pixellated shot with the digital zoom pushed to its limit. (I'd guess that I was fifty feet from the stage.) Check back in future days for more pictures and, if I can spare them, some words. For now, this article provides a good summary of what transpired, even if it is about the preceding event in Madison, Wisconsin.
Singing for change
R.E.M.'s Michael Stipe singing "Man on the Moon" in concert at the Taft Theatre in Cincinnati (October 27, 2004/Mark Pfeiffer)
"We're R.E.M. and we approved this concert."
My front row seat afforded me a good spot for photos, although it turns out that many of them have a smeary quality because the band didn't stand still. (Imagine that.) I'll post the setlist, my observations, and some other pictures later. If all works out right, I should have some pictures of Bruce Springsteen performing at the John Kerry rally this afternoon at Ohio State. For now, bed beckons...
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
I ♥ Huckabees
I ♥ HUCKABEES (David O. Russell, 2004)
We’ve had FREDDY VS. JASON and ALIEN VS. PREDATOR. Now comes another big showdown, existentialism versus nihilism, otherwise known as David O. Russell’s I ♥ HUCKABEES. Jason Schwartzman hires existential detectives Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin to uncover the meaning behind his coincidental encounters with an African man. Schwartzman’s environmentalist character Albert is also embroiled in a bitter philosophical dispute with his friend Brad, a department store executive played by Jude Law.
I ♥ HUCKABEES might be too smart for its own good, but that also seems to be the point. Russell extols liberal activism while deflating its self-importance with witty wordplay and slapstick. Underneath the dense philosophical banter and face-bashing with rubber balls lays a trenchant awareness of how practicality must accompany idealism to keep the dreams alive. Otherwise people become like Mark Wahlberg’s fatalist fireman spraying his hose on the lawn of a burning house. Righteous anger can be sustained for only so long before becoming all-consuming. Russell and co-screenwriter Jeff Baena pack the dialogue with lots of big concepts and complex philosophy, but that’s balanced with inventive sight gags and terrific physical comedy. For instance, Hoffman and Tomlin’s maneuvering through lawn sprinklers is priceless. I ♥ HUCKABEES is very silly and intellectually satisfying. That combination doesn’t come around often.
Grade: B+
(Review first aired on the October 26, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
We’ve had FREDDY VS. JASON and ALIEN VS. PREDATOR. Now comes another big showdown, existentialism versus nihilism, otherwise known as David O. Russell’s I ♥ HUCKABEES. Jason Schwartzman hires existential detectives Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin to uncover the meaning behind his coincidental encounters with an African man. Schwartzman’s environmentalist character Albert is also embroiled in a bitter philosophical dispute with his friend Brad, a department store executive played by Jude Law.
I ♥ HUCKABEES might be too smart for its own good, but that also seems to be the point. Russell extols liberal activism while deflating its self-importance with witty wordplay and slapstick. Underneath the dense philosophical banter and face-bashing with rubber balls lays a trenchant awareness of how practicality must accompany idealism to keep the dreams alive. Otherwise people become like Mark Wahlberg’s fatalist fireman spraying his hose on the lawn of a burning house. Righteous anger can be sustained for only so long before becoming all-consuming. Russell and co-screenwriter Jeff Baena pack the dialogue with lots of big concepts and complex philosophy, but that’s balanced with inventive sight gags and terrific physical comedy. For instance, Hoffman and Tomlin’s maneuvering through lawn sprinklers is priceless. I ♥ HUCKABEES is very silly and intellectually satisfying. That combination doesn’t come around often.
Grade: B+
(Review first aired on the October 26, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
The Grudge
THE GRUDGE (Takashi Shimizu, 2004)
The title cards for THE GRUDGE explain that when someone dies in a state of extreme anger or sadness, the emotion lingers in that place as a curse capable of harming the living. Sarah Michelle Gellar is Karen, an exchange student going to school in Japan. She helps at a care center, and one day she’s sent to an invalid American woman’s home, a place where strange things are happening.
Asian horror has enjoyed a renaissance the last few years. The American remakes are slowly arriving. First came THE RING, an above average creepfest, and now we get THE GRUDGE, which director Takashi Shimizu remade from his own film JU-ON. Eschewing plot and a linear timeline for a stylish exercise in mood, Shimizu sets the scenes with long silences and chilling images. This haunted house movie favors slow building terror over things jumping out of the dark, although the jump moments are effective too. Upon reflection, THE GRUDGE doesn’t add up to much. The back story isn’t especially surprising, and the characters lack dimension. Yet it works because Shimizu’s pacing and restraint eases us into the horror, like lobsters put into lukewarm water gradually raised to a boil.
Grade: B
(Review first aired on the October 26, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
The title cards for THE GRUDGE explain that when someone dies in a state of extreme anger or sadness, the emotion lingers in that place as a curse capable of harming the living. Sarah Michelle Gellar is Karen, an exchange student going to school in Japan. She helps at a care center, and one day she’s sent to an invalid American woman’s home, a place where strange things are happening.
Asian horror has enjoyed a renaissance the last few years. The American remakes are slowly arriving. First came THE RING, an above average creepfest, and now we get THE GRUDGE, which director Takashi Shimizu remade from his own film JU-ON. Eschewing plot and a linear timeline for a stylish exercise in mood, Shimizu sets the scenes with long silences and chilling images. This haunted house movie favors slow building terror over things jumping out of the dark, although the jump moments are effective too. Upon reflection, THE GRUDGE doesn’t add up to much. The back story isn’t especially surprising, and the characters lack dimension. Yet it works because Shimizu’s pacing and restraint eases us into the horror, like lobsters put into lukewarm water gradually raised to a boil.
Grade: B
(Review first aired on the October 26, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Team America: World Police
TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE (Matt Stone, 2004)
SOUTH PARK’S Trey Parker and Matt Stone bring their vulgar brand of comedy to the marionette action film TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE. A foul-mouthed THUNDERBIRDS-like fighting force travels around the globe to battle terrorists. For their latest mission they recruit a great stage actor to infiltrate a terrorist cell.
The first half of Parker and Stone’s audacious film contains some of the funniest moments from any movie this year. Their merciless mockery of Hollywood action clichés, particularly those found in Jerry Bruckheimer’s productions, couldn’t be more accurate. That puppets are reenacting the carnage, and in one scene, vigorous gymnastic lovemaking, makes it even funnier. Stone and Parker also get comedic mileage from the limitations of working with puppets, sneaking in postmodern jokes regarding the difficulty of executing precise marionette movements. The gags aren’t quite as inspired in TEAM AMERICA’S second half. Parker and Stone stoop to borderline homophobic humor and espouse questionable politics. Those issues aside, TEAM AMERICA is probably worth seeing for the extreme makeover scene alone. And when’s the last time a film has challenged MONTY PYTHON’S THE MEANING OF LIFE for the best projectile vomiting scene? TEAM AMERICA isn’t for the easily offended, but for those with stronger constitutions, it's worth a look.
Grade: B
(Review first aired on the October 26, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
SOUTH PARK’S Trey Parker and Matt Stone bring their vulgar brand of comedy to the marionette action film TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE. A foul-mouthed THUNDERBIRDS-like fighting force travels around the globe to battle terrorists. For their latest mission they recruit a great stage actor to infiltrate a terrorist cell.
The first half of Parker and Stone’s audacious film contains some of the funniest moments from any movie this year. Their merciless mockery of Hollywood action clichés, particularly those found in Jerry Bruckheimer’s productions, couldn’t be more accurate. That puppets are reenacting the carnage, and in one scene, vigorous gymnastic lovemaking, makes it even funnier. Stone and Parker also get comedic mileage from the limitations of working with puppets, sneaking in postmodern jokes regarding the difficulty of executing precise marionette movements. The gags aren’t quite as inspired in TEAM AMERICA’S second half. Parker and Stone stoop to borderline homophobic humor and espouse questionable politics. Those issues aside, TEAM AMERICA is probably worth seeing for the extreme makeover scene alone. And when’s the last time a film has challenged MONTY PYTHON’S THE MEANING OF LIFE for the best projectile vomiting scene? TEAM AMERICA isn’t for the easily offended, but for those with stronger constitutions, it's worth a look.
Grade: B
(Review first aired on the October 26, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Around the Bend
AROUND THE BEND (Jordan Roberts, 2004)
Four generations of men are brought together in AROUND THE BEND. Michael Caine plays the family patriarch Henry. He raised his grandson Jason, played by Josh Lucas, and lives with Jason and his son Zach. Jason’s father, Turner, a small time criminal played by Christopher Walken, has been out of touch for years but returns shortly before Henry dies. Henry’s final wish was for Turner, Jason, and Zach to take a road trip following a map and instructions he left in several fast food bags.
AROUND THE BEND is composed of familiar stuff for indie film debuts. Writer-director Jordan Roberts’ film oozes sentimentality for the plight of these mildly eccentric characters on a journey to reunite a broken family. The problem isn’t the film’s gooey center but the flavorless, formulaic substance surrounding it. Walken is always a good hedge to keep the proceedings from becoming too conventional, and indeed his trademark weirdness is welcome as it pokes through AROUND THE BEND. In a driving scene Turner cranks up the radio only to have Jason demand that he turn it down. Turner explains that Henry wanted them to play it loud and gets Jason to concede. Then, with a twinkle in his eye, he explains that he was just kidding. Walken plays it beautifully, spicing an overly glum film with his mischievousness.
Grade: C-
(Review first aired on the October 26, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Four generations of men are brought together in AROUND THE BEND. Michael Caine plays the family patriarch Henry. He raised his grandson Jason, played by Josh Lucas, and lives with Jason and his son Zach. Jason’s father, Turner, a small time criminal played by Christopher Walken, has been out of touch for years but returns shortly before Henry dies. Henry’s final wish was for Turner, Jason, and Zach to take a road trip following a map and instructions he left in several fast food bags.
AROUND THE BEND is composed of familiar stuff for indie film debuts. Writer-director Jordan Roberts’ film oozes sentimentality for the plight of these mildly eccentric characters on a journey to reunite a broken family. The problem isn’t the film’s gooey center but the flavorless, formulaic substance surrounding it. Walken is always a good hedge to keep the proceedings from becoming too conventional, and indeed his trademark weirdness is welcome as it pokes through AROUND THE BEND. In a driving scene Turner cranks up the radio only to have Jason demand that he turn it down. Turner explains that Henry wanted them to play it loud and gets Jason to concede. Then, with a twinkle in his eye, he explains that he was just kidding. Walken plays it beautifully, spicing an overly glum film with his mischievousness.
Grade: C-
(Review first aired on the October 26, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Saturday Night Lame
SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE may be a television institution, but who cares when it's this lame? I didn't watch the show for several years but saw parts of it over the last year or so. I've seen the new episodes this season. Does anyone really think this show is remotely funny? The political sketches are painful to watch because they're little more than winking rehashes of the debates. The funniest thing in the opening HARDBALL sketch was how red Will Forte turned when doing his Zell Miller impersonation. He looked like his head really was going to explode. Of course, isn't this, oh, almost two months after Zell challenged Chris Matthews to a duel? Way to be timely.
The funniest part of the show was when musical guest Ashlee Simpson walked off stage during her second song. The band started playing, and then you heard her vocals being piped in. She did a little dance, the vocals from her hit single were brought up again, and she left. When the cast gave their goodbyes Ashlee said that her band played the wrong song. Way to live up to the old "show must go on" ethos and just walk off. I'm not convinced that it was the band's fault but a snafu caused by whoever potted up her prerecorded vocals at the wrong time. (I didn't watch her first song, but it would seem that she was lip syncing.)
The funniest part of the show was when musical guest Ashlee Simpson walked off stage during her second song. The band started playing, and then you heard her vocals being piped in. She did a little dance, the vocals from her hit single were brought up again, and she left. When the cast gave their goodbyes Ashlee said that her band played the wrong song. Way to live up to the old "show must go on" ethos and just walk off. I'm not convinced that it was the band's fault but a snafu caused by whoever potted up her prerecorded vocals at the wrong time. (I didn't watch her first song, but it would seem that she was lip syncing.)
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Guided By Voices No Longer
My signed Guided By Voices Vampire on Titus/Propeller CD
Thursday night Guided By Voices played their farewell Columbus show at the Alrosa Villa. Despite being a big GBV fan, I didn't go to the concert. It was a simple matter of mistakenly thinking they were playing next week, which would have made for a busy three evenings since I'm seeing R.E.M. in Cincinnati and a Q&A with Claire Denis at the Wexner Center.
I first saw Guided By Voices in 1994 at Special Occasions in Dayton. I seem to recall that the venue had previously been a restaurant and was being operated by Trader Vic, a local record store owner. It wasn't a big place or a natural performance space, but the concert was something of a musical revelation. I knew of GBV from articles in the Dayton Daily News and sampling their VAMPIRE ON TITUS/PROPELLER album at area record shops. Their story was a good one then (and still is). The band had gone through (and would go through) many permutations while making a bunch of four track recordings at their homes. Lead singer Robert Pollard, the GBV mastermind, was a local elementary school teacher.
So here were these "older" guys, especially for a mostly unknown rock band, pumping out rough sounding pop nuggets reminiscent of classic Beatles and The Who. GBV played very short songs--four minutes would have been epic length--punctuated with a fair amount of noise that gave their live performances the lo-fi sound found on their records. I hadn't heard anything like it and was hooked. I also got Pollard to sign my copy of VAMPIRE ON TITUS/PROPELLER, a nice memento of the evening unlike the mild tinnitus I still have in my right ear. (Wear those earplugs kids!)
Little did I know at the time how prolific GBV was. In an age when most bands release albums every two or three years, Guided By Voices has been an exception. Just take a look at their huge discography. I became a more serious fan after I started using the internet in 1995. There I found out about all of these other albums, singles, EPs, and bootleg live records. I also got onto Postal Blowfish, the fan e-mail list. Obtaining the newest GBV proper or side project release was fun when it wasn't frustrating. Like the baseball card explosion, which watered down the market with anyone and everyone putting out sets, the deluge of GBV releases got to the point where it was hard to keep up with everything.
I remain a fan even if my level of obsession with all things GBV has waned in the last five years. The recent albums haven't matched the greatness of BEE THOUSAND, ALIEN LANES, and UNDER THE BUSHES, UNDER THE STARS, but Pollard has still been doing good work even if it tends to repeat his better days. The concerts are usually a blast, at least when they don't devolve into situations where fans constantly parade across the stage to sing along or when the band is very sloppy (musically and drunk). I found out about Thursday's show in time to go, but with the biggest part of my music collection reserved for one group and a decade of concerts, it didn't seem necessary.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
What I'm Watching On TV
The sixth season of THE AMAZING RACE is finally on CBS' fall schedule. With the current season of SURVIVOR proving to be lackluster so far--would someone please step up and be interesting?--and the season premieres of ALIAS and 24 delayed until January, this is just what the TV doctor ordered.
The best new series I've seen is LOST, the latest from ALIAS creator J.J. Abrams. Since I have a digital video recorder in my cable box, I have returned to watching the above average comedy SCRUBS. I decided to give JOAN OF ARCADIA a shot. I'm surprised to find it to be more nuanced than I expected. The plan is to stick with it a while longer.
Director Robert Altman and writer Garry Trudeau's TANNER ON TANNER four-episode series on the Sundance Channel has left me underwhelmed. The new episodes focus on Alex Tanner (Cynthia Nixon) and her documentary film about her dad. Alex got on my nerves in TANNER '88, and she's more irritating in this.
Oh, MYTHBUSTERS has new episodes on Discovery. If you've never seen this show, you should.
The best new series I've seen is LOST, the latest from ALIAS creator J.J. Abrams. Since I have a digital video recorder in my cable box, I have returned to watching the above average comedy SCRUBS. I decided to give JOAN OF ARCADIA a shot. I'm surprised to find it to be more nuanced than I expected. The plan is to stick with it a while longer.
Director Robert Altman and writer Garry Trudeau's TANNER ON TANNER four-episode series on the Sundance Channel has left me underwhelmed. The new episodes focus on Alex Tanner (Cynthia Nixon) and her documentary film about her dad. Alex got on my nerves in TANNER '88, and she's more irritating in this.
Oh, MYTHBUSTERS has new episodes on Discovery. If you've never seen this show, you should.
Moviegoing Milestone Passing
In 2001 I started keeping track of how many films I saw theatrically. (It's possible I left out some as I didn't begin the list until July 18, 2001 and hadn't made any edits to the list after December 21. I just added RUSH HOUR 2, which was accidentally omitted.) That year I finished with a respectable 238. It's interesting to look back and see what films I had more or less forgotten. Whether I disliked them (JUST VISITING, WHAT'S THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN?) or liked them (BORN ROMANTIC, HEARTS IN ATLANTIS) didn't matter.
In 2002 I kept more thorough records, including my grades and the dates and locations of the screenings. I also listed some DVDs of films I saw for the first time. (For what it's worth, I don't believe the DVD list to be exhaustive.) My total for the year increased to 260.
My 2003 list should include everything I saw, whether I'd seen the films before or saw them on television, screener tape, or DVD. The yearly total grew to a personal best 270.
Take a peek at my 2004 list and it's safe to say that my 2003 total will be toast. I passed the 2001 total on September 30 when I saw SILVER CITY. Last night I passed my 2002 total when I saw the new remake of ALFIE. 2003 may fall before October ends. There's an outside chance that I could reach 300 before December.
I realize that many will consider such movie gorging a tremendous waste of time. For those people it probably would be. For me, expanding the number and types of films I see helps refine my opinions.
OK, enough numbers talk. If I get my act together, I'll finally post a long moldering review of EVERGREEN and hopefully complete my write-up of I ♥ HUCKABEES.
In 2002 I kept more thorough records, including my grades and the dates and locations of the screenings. I also listed some DVDs of films I saw for the first time. (For what it's worth, I don't believe the DVD list to be exhaustive.) My total for the year increased to 260.
My 2003 list should include everything I saw, whether I'd seen the films before or saw them on television, screener tape, or DVD. The yearly total grew to a personal best 270.
Take a peek at my 2004 list and it's safe to say that my 2003 total will be toast. I passed the 2001 total on September 30 when I saw SILVER CITY. Last night I passed my 2002 total when I saw the new remake of ALFIE. 2003 may fall before October ends. There's an outside chance that I could reach 300 before December.
I realize that many will consider such movie gorging a tremendous waste of time. For those people it probably would be. For me, expanding the number and types of films I see helps refine my opinions.
OK, enough numbers talk. If I get my act together, I'll finally post a long moldering review of EVERGREEN and hopefully complete my write-up of I ♥ HUCKABEES.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Silver City
SILVER CITY (John Sayles, 2004)
John Sayles’ latest film SILVER CITY dips into the political world, in particular the Colorado governor’s race. Chris Cooper plays Dickie Pilager, the dim bulb son of a well-connected, well-heeled Congressman. During a campaign ad shoot at a lake, Dickie reels in a corpse. His advisers keep the incident out of the press and hire discredited journalist turned private investigator Danny O’Brien, played by Danny Huston, to find out who they believe is trying to sabotage Dickie’s election.
SILVER CITY isn’t among Sayles’ best films, but this cynical view of contemporary American politics and big business provides enough sizzle to make it worth a look. The first half has its funny moments, with Dickie’s mangled syntax and tortured logic clearly echoing a real world counterpart. Sayles gets in his jabs, but SILVER CITY’S strength is connecting the dots in the media and political cycles. Sayles traces how rumor, conjecture, and outright lies seep into the discussion and drive it. He also illustrates how those in power can be dirty while keeping their hands clean and innocent yet somehow corrupt. Essentially SILVER CITY is a reworking of CHINATOWN, with Huston’s private eye walking in Jack Nicholson’s Jake Gittes’ shoes. SILVER CITY doesn’t reach the artistic level of Polanski’s classic, but it works as an insightful dissection of how things are done today.
Grade: B-
(Review first aired on the October 12, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
John Sayles’ latest film SILVER CITY dips into the political world, in particular the Colorado governor’s race. Chris Cooper plays Dickie Pilager, the dim bulb son of a well-connected, well-heeled Congressman. During a campaign ad shoot at a lake, Dickie reels in a corpse. His advisers keep the incident out of the press and hire discredited journalist turned private investigator Danny O’Brien, played by Danny Huston, to find out who they believe is trying to sabotage Dickie’s election.
SILVER CITY isn’t among Sayles’ best films, but this cynical view of contemporary American politics and big business provides enough sizzle to make it worth a look. The first half has its funny moments, with Dickie’s mangled syntax and tortured logic clearly echoing a real world counterpart. Sayles gets in his jabs, but SILVER CITY’S strength is connecting the dots in the media and political cycles. Sayles traces how rumor, conjecture, and outright lies seep into the discussion and drive it. He also illustrates how those in power can be dirty while keeping their hands clean and innocent yet somehow corrupt. Essentially SILVER CITY is a reworking of CHINATOWN, with Huston’s private eye walking in Jack Nicholson’s Jake Gittes’ shoes. SILVER CITY doesn’t reach the artistic level of Polanski’s classic, but it works as an insightful dissection of how things are done today.
Grade: B-
(Review first aired on the October 12, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Raise Your Voice
RAISE YOUR VOICE (Sean McNamara, 2004)
Hilary Duff plays an aspiring singer at a performing arts school in RAISE YOUR VOICE. Duff is Terri Fletcher, a bubbly Flagstaff, Arizona high school student who earns admission to a competitive summer music program. Overprotective dad fears for her safety in Los Angeles and refuses to let her go. Terri’s mom and aunt decide that it’s important she attend, so they concoct a story that will get her to the school while keeping her father in the dark.
Hilary Duff’s persistently sunny disposition makes her a likable movie presence, but I’ve yet to see anything from her that demonstrates much beyond a “let’s put on a show” high school drama club enthusiasm. Duff’s as squeaky clean as anyone since Sandra Dee. RAISE YOUR VOICE even makes her character’s prominent but non-discussed Christianity a valuable quality. While Duff’s perky, go-getter attitude is appreciated, her effort is mostly wasted in a watered down FAME retread. The pop songs, like every element in RAISE YOUR VOICE, are vanilla and instantly forgettable. It doesn’t help that Duff lacks the musical chops for the limited classical repertoire in the film. I suspect that someone else is singing for her in those scenes or that the vocals have been so highly processed to eliminate any trace of her voice. RAISE YOUR VOICE also could have done without Terri’s cartoonishly priggish, toothpick chomping father, who serves as the film’s dramatic engine.
Grade: C-
(Review first aired on the October 12, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Hilary Duff plays an aspiring singer at a performing arts school in RAISE YOUR VOICE. Duff is Terri Fletcher, a bubbly Flagstaff, Arizona high school student who earns admission to a competitive summer music program. Overprotective dad fears for her safety in Los Angeles and refuses to let her go. Terri’s mom and aunt decide that it’s important she attend, so they concoct a story that will get her to the school while keeping her father in the dark.
Hilary Duff’s persistently sunny disposition makes her a likable movie presence, but I’ve yet to see anything from her that demonstrates much beyond a “let’s put on a show” high school drama club enthusiasm. Duff’s as squeaky clean as anyone since Sandra Dee. RAISE YOUR VOICE even makes her character’s prominent but non-discussed Christianity a valuable quality. While Duff’s perky, go-getter attitude is appreciated, her effort is mostly wasted in a watered down FAME retread. The pop songs, like every element in RAISE YOUR VOICE, are vanilla and instantly forgettable. It doesn’t help that Duff lacks the musical chops for the limited classical repertoire in the film. I suspect that someone else is singing for her in those scenes or that the vocals have been so highly processed to eliminate any trace of her voice. RAISE YOUR VOICE also could have done without Terri’s cartoonishly priggish, toothpick chomping father, who serves as the film’s dramatic engine.
Grade: C-
(Review first aired on the October 12, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Ladder 49
LADDER 49 (Jay Russell, 2004)
LADDER 49 follows Joaquin Phoenix as Jack Morrison, a new firefighter at a Baltimore station. John Travolta is his mentor Captain Mike Kennedy. Jack is the lead man on the hose when the firemen go to extinguish the city’s blazes. Gradually he works his way up to a rescue position. It’s a dangerous job that causes Jack’s wife Linda to worry constantly.
LADDER 49 wants to honor firefighters for their courage and selflessness. The action scenes convey this effectively even if a couple of them are overcooked. Yet at every turn LADDER 49 undercuts itself. The firemen are shown screwing off on the job except for the rare times when they go out on a call. When they’re off the job the film portrays them getting hammered with regularity and ignoring family and friends’ warranted concerns for their safety. A more complex take on the material might have made it work, but here stock characters are propped up to fit our vision of the ideal and those trying to destroy it. Director Jay Russell demonstrated a more nuanced understanding of courage and sacrifice in MY DOG SKIP than he does in LADDER 49.
Grade: C
(Review first aired on the October 12, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
LADDER 49 follows Joaquin Phoenix as Jack Morrison, a new firefighter at a Baltimore station. John Travolta is his mentor Captain Mike Kennedy. Jack is the lead man on the hose when the firemen go to extinguish the city’s blazes. Gradually he works his way up to a rescue position. It’s a dangerous job that causes Jack’s wife Linda to worry constantly.
LADDER 49 wants to honor firefighters for their courage and selflessness. The action scenes convey this effectively even if a couple of them are overcooked. Yet at every turn LADDER 49 undercuts itself. The firemen are shown screwing off on the job except for the rare times when they go out on a call. When they’re off the job the film portrays them getting hammered with regularity and ignoring family and friends’ warranted concerns for their safety. A more complex take on the material might have made it work, but here stock characters are propped up to fit our vision of the ideal and those trying to destroy it. Director Jay Russell demonstrated a more nuanced understanding of courage and sacrifice in MY DOG SKIP than he does in LADDER 49.
Grade: C
(Review first aired on the October 12, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Shark Tale
SHARK TALE (Bibo Bergeron, Vicky Jenson, and Rob Letterman, 2004)
A vegetarian shark and a materialistic fish join forces in the computer-animated film SHARK TALE. Oscar the fish, voiced by Will Smith, dreams of the penthouse but is stuck at the whale wash. Through a misunderstanding that Oscar perpetuates, everyone believes that he has slain a shark. Jack Black voices Lenny, a shark who knows the truth. Rather than reveal Oscar’s lie, Lenny utilizes it in his favor. He comes from a carnivorous family of mobsters and wants to break from them. Together Oscar and Lenny plan to stage Lenny’s death, giving the shark a way out and the fish a boost to his fame and wealth.
SHARK TALE is loaded with pop culture references, frequently riffing on gangster movies and the 1970s. This desperate attempt at hipness reeks of stale jokes. The craven product placement stinks even more. You’d think that an animated film set underwater would be ad-free, but the filmmakers liberally insert billboards and products with names given an oceanic twist. Nine years after TOY STORY, the novelty of computer animation has worn off. Story and character need to capture our imagination. SHARK TALE fails because it has nothing to tell us except for some endlessly recycled jokes from other movies. In one of the film’s few nice touches, the characters resemble their voiceover actors. Robert DeNiro’s godfather shark sports the actor’s mole. The blowfish voiced by Martin Scorsese has his bushy eyebrows. Scorsese’s a real surprise. His manic line readings are funnier than anything Black or Smith says.
Grade: C-
(Review first aired on the October 12, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
A vegetarian shark and a materialistic fish join forces in the computer-animated film SHARK TALE. Oscar the fish, voiced by Will Smith, dreams of the penthouse but is stuck at the whale wash. Through a misunderstanding that Oscar perpetuates, everyone believes that he has slain a shark. Jack Black voices Lenny, a shark who knows the truth. Rather than reveal Oscar’s lie, Lenny utilizes it in his favor. He comes from a carnivorous family of mobsters and wants to break from them. Together Oscar and Lenny plan to stage Lenny’s death, giving the shark a way out and the fish a boost to his fame and wealth.
SHARK TALE is loaded with pop culture references, frequently riffing on gangster movies and the 1970s. This desperate attempt at hipness reeks of stale jokes. The craven product placement stinks even more. You’d think that an animated film set underwater would be ad-free, but the filmmakers liberally insert billboards and products with names given an oceanic twist. Nine years after TOY STORY, the novelty of computer animation has worn off. Story and character need to capture our imagination. SHARK TALE fails because it has nothing to tell us except for some endlessly recycled jokes from other movies. In one of the film’s few nice touches, the characters resemble their voiceover actors. Robert DeNiro’s godfather shark sports the actor’s mole. The blowfish voiced by Martin Scorsese has his bushy eyebrows. Scorsese’s a real surprise. His manic line readings are funnier than anything Black or Smith says.
Grade: C-
(Review first aired on the October 12, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Monday, October 11, 2004
The Man Behind the Curtain
Self portrait with Van Dyke (October 11, 2004)
I've been less than eager to post any pictures of myself online, so I suppose what you see above is a threshold crossing. I've been writing for DVDMON.com since 2000, and on a few occasions webmaster Levi Wallach has asked if I have a picture I'd like to include with my bio and list of reviews. (The answer is still no, by the way, although I may come around eventually.) Most of the time I loathe having my picture taken. I realize there's a disconnect considering I'm on television, but who am I to understand my own contradictions?
I've been working on a Van Dyke for the last week and a half. (Although a Van Dyke is often referred to as a goatee, the Van Dyke has a mustache.) Growing it started out of laziness and continued out of curiosity. Does the Van Dyke make me look erudite? Yes. Does it make me look hard? Yes. Did I ever intend to keep it? No.
The caveat attached to my self portrait is that I don't usually look like that and most likely won't come tomorrow morning. With a NOW PLAYING taping looming tomorrow, the time is near for the facial hair to end up in the sink. Maybe I'll keep a soul patch. (Probably not.)
I've felt like I'm in disguise with the Van Dyke, although by no means does it render me unrecognizable. Since I like documentation, taking my own picture and, yes, even sharing it here seemed like the right thing to do. Keep the wise remarks to yourselves, though.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Jim Brown: All-American
JIM BROWN: ALL-AMERICAN (Spike Lee, 2002)
In the Buddhist parable of the blind men and the elephant each man feels a different part of the animal. Understandably, this leads to their varying perceptions of what an elephant is.
A group of people need not be blind to hold diverging views of who they think Jim Brown is. He’s the Cleveland Browns running back and all-time NFL great who hung up his cleats while still in his prime. He’s the action star who appeared in THE DIRTY DOZEN and THREE THE HARD WAY. He’s an activist in the African-American community who founded the Amer-I-Can Foundation. He’s a controversial figure whose history with women has led to brushes with the law, including accusations of throwing a girlfriend over a balcony and raping a woman.
Spike Lee’s HBO documentary JIM BROWN: ALL-AMERICAN looks at the different facets of this polarizing man. Lee traces a familiar biographical arc, going to Brown’s birthplace of St. Simon’s Island, documenting his rise in amateur and professional football, and concluding with his post-NFL life.
Lee, a well-documented sports fan, assembles the football section with gusto. Plays are broken down so that even non-fans can appreciate what Brown accomplished on the field. The excellent use of spot shadowing helps the untrained eye follow how plays are executed.
The energy employed in showing Brown’s athletic achievements doesn’t carry over to the rest of the film, though. Usually Lee is a dynamic filmmaker, but whether it’s the documentary format or his admiration for his subject, he seems to be restraining his style rather than ratcheting up the political and social elements. JIM BROWN: ALL-AMERICAN is a staid film. Considering the provocative material, it’s an approach least expected, especially from this director.
Throughout his career Lee has been criticized for his portrayal of women. He isn’t doing himself any favors when it comes to how he handles Brown’s rocky history with women. While one of the last sections addresses the more notable incidents, including his wife Monique’s call to the police in 1999 and an accusation thirty years earlier of throwing his girlfriend over a balcony, there’s a lingering sense that we’re getting skewed versions of the truth. Most bothersome is that the women accept the blame. His wife even suggests that Brown was the victim. In separating the alleged balcony toss from the film’s mostly linear timeline, the impression is that in delaying troublesome revelations it is hoped we will already like Brown enough to forgive his transgressions. Treating the incidents with kid gloves allows JIM BROWN: ALL-AMERICAN to fit into the encomium template, but a more forthright approach is demanded.
HBO Video presents JIM BROWN: ALL-AMERICAN in its original 1.85: aspect ratio. The rich colors and image’s texture are nicely reproduced in this anamorphic transfer. Even the old game film from Brown’s college and pro days looks excellent. The Dolby Digital 2.0 surround soundtrack gets the job done in its clean presentation of the many interview soundbites. Sound effects have been added to give the archival footage more punch, a technique that calls attention to itself in an otherwise naturalistic film. Optional English, French, and Spanish subtitles are available.
The DVD cover calls this a director’s cut, a term in the DVD age that has been so grossly overused that it has almost lost any value. The DVD has a running time of 132 minutes. The Internet Movie Database entry lists the film’s duration as 140 minutes. Considering that Lee didn’t seem very picky about what he included in the DVD version, I can’t imagine that eight minutes were deleted from the cable telecast; however, assuming faulty information isn’t on IMDB, this may be one of those rare occasions where a director’s cut is shorter than the original.
The lone supplement is a Spike Lee audio commentary. Whether you agree with Lee or not, it stands to reason that it is worth hearing what an important director has to say. Not this time. This is a dry commentary track with silent stretches, particularly during the part touching on Brown’s domestic violence charges. Lee claims that he is letting two people tell their story and allowing us to decide, but it doesn’t strike me as being that simple.
Grade: C
(This review was previously published on DVDMon.com.)
In the Buddhist parable of the blind men and the elephant each man feels a different part of the animal. Understandably, this leads to their varying perceptions of what an elephant is.
A group of people need not be blind to hold diverging views of who they think Jim Brown is. He’s the Cleveland Browns running back and all-time NFL great who hung up his cleats while still in his prime. He’s the action star who appeared in THE DIRTY DOZEN and THREE THE HARD WAY. He’s an activist in the African-American community who founded the Amer-I-Can Foundation. He’s a controversial figure whose history with women has led to brushes with the law, including accusations of throwing a girlfriend over a balcony and raping a woman.
Spike Lee’s HBO documentary JIM BROWN: ALL-AMERICAN looks at the different facets of this polarizing man. Lee traces a familiar biographical arc, going to Brown’s birthplace of St. Simon’s Island, documenting his rise in amateur and professional football, and concluding with his post-NFL life.
Lee, a well-documented sports fan, assembles the football section with gusto. Plays are broken down so that even non-fans can appreciate what Brown accomplished on the field. The excellent use of spot shadowing helps the untrained eye follow how plays are executed.
The energy employed in showing Brown’s athletic achievements doesn’t carry over to the rest of the film, though. Usually Lee is a dynamic filmmaker, but whether it’s the documentary format or his admiration for his subject, he seems to be restraining his style rather than ratcheting up the political and social elements. JIM BROWN: ALL-AMERICAN is a staid film. Considering the provocative material, it’s an approach least expected, especially from this director.
Throughout his career Lee has been criticized for his portrayal of women. He isn’t doing himself any favors when it comes to how he handles Brown’s rocky history with women. While one of the last sections addresses the more notable incidents, including his wife Monique’s call to the police in 1999 and an accusation thirty years earlier of throwing his girlfriend over a balcony, there’s a lingering sense that we’re getting skewed versions of the truth. Most bothersome is that the women accept the blame. His wife even suggests that Brown was the victim. In separating the alleged balcony toss from the film’s mostly linear timeline, the impression is that in delaying troublesome revelations it is hoped we will already like Brown enough to forgive his transgressions. Treating the incidents with kid gloves allows JIM BROWN: ALL-AMERICAN to fit into the encomium template, but a more forthright approach is demanded.
HBO Video presents JIM BROWN: ALL-AMERICAN in its original 1.85: aspect ratio. The rich colors and image’s texture are nicely reproduced in this anamorphic transfer. Even the old game film from Brown’s college and pro days looks excellent. The Dolby Digital 2.0 surround soundtrack gets the job done in its clean presentation of the many interview soundbites. Sound effects have been added to give the archival footage more punch, a technique that calls attention to itself in an otherwise naturalistic film. Optional English, French, and Spanish subtitles are available.
The DVD cover calls this a director’s cut, a term in the DVD age that has been so grossly overused that it has almost lost any value. The DVD has a running time of 132 minutes. The Internet Movie Database entry lists the film’s duration as 140 minutes. Considering that Lee didn’t seem very picky about what he included in the DVD version, I can’t imagine that eight minutes were deleted from the cable telecast; however, assuming faulty information isn’t on IMDB, this may be one of those rare occasions where a director’s cut is shorter than the original.
The lone supplement is a Spike Lee audio commentary. Whether you agree with Lee or not, it stands to reason that it is worth hearing what an important director has to say. Not this time. This is a dry commentary track with silent stretches, particularly during the part touching on Brown’s domestic violence charges. Lee claims that he is letting two people tell their story and allowing us to decide, but it doesn’t strike me as being that simple.
Grade: C
(This review was previously published on DVDMon.com.)
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Shaun of the Dead
SHAUN OF THE DEAD (Edgar Wright, 2004)
What do you do when your girlfriend dumps you and the next day you wake up to discover the city crawling with zombies? If you’re the protagonist in SHAUN OF THE DEAD, it’s time to splatter some undead brains and win back your woman. Shaun is stuck in a routine in which he goes to his dead end electronics store job and then retires to the neighborhood pub each night. His girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield) fears Shaun will never change and breaks up with him. Distraught over the end of the relationship Shaun and his roommate Ed go on a bender only to awaken to a fate worse than a hangover. Zombies are terrorizing London, so Shaun and Ed set out to save his mom and Liz.
SHAUN OF THE DEAD is a romantic comedy steeped in the tradition of George Romero’s zombie films. Writer-director Edgar Wright and co-writer and star Simon Pegg have terrific fun riffing on zombie lore. The best recurring joke is that there isn’t an appreciable difference how everyone behaves in their pre-zombie and undead states, aside from wanting to munch on the brains of the living. SHAUN OF THE DEAD follows the familiar arc of a zombie film and populates the story with archetypal characters. Somehow, though, the love story and relationships become critically important and pull their dramatic weight in an otherwise silly film. Rather than standing for rampant consumerism, here the undead and potential zombies represent obstacles to two people committing to a relationship. It doesn’t sound like it should work but it does.
Grade: B-
(Review first aired on the September 28, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
What do you do when your girlfriend dumps you and the next day you wake up to discover the city crawling with zombies? If you’re the protagonist in SHAUN OF THE DEAD, it’s time to splatter some undead brains and win back your woman. Shaun is stuck in a routine in which he goes to his dead end electronics store job and then retires to the neighborhood pub each night. His girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield) fears Shaun will never change and breaks up with him. Distraught over the end of the relationship Shaun and his roommate Ed go on a bender only to awaken to a fate worse than a hangover. Zombies are terrorizing London, so Shaun and Ed set out to save his mom and Liz.
SHAUN OF THE DEAD is a romantic comedy steeped in the tradition of George Romero’s zombie films. Writer-director Edgar Wright and co-writer and star Simon Pegg have terrific fun riffing on zombie lore. The best recurring joke is that there isn’t an appreciable difference how everyone behaves in their pre-zombie and undead states, aside from wanting to munch on the brains of the living. SHAUN OF THE DEAD follows the familiar arc of a zombie film and populates the story with archetypal characters. Somehow, though, the love story and relationships become critically important and pull their dramatic weight in an otherwise silly film. Rather than standing for rampant consumerism, here the undead and potential zombies represent obstacles to two people committing to a relationship. It doesn’t sound like it should work but it does.
Grade: B-
(Review first aired on the September 28, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Wimbledon
WIMBLEDON (Richard Loncraine, 2004)
In WIMBLEDON Paul Bettany is pro tennis player Peter Colt, a once highly ranked competitor whose best days are behind him. He hopes to advance a round or two at Wimbledon before retiring. Then he meets rising American tennis star Lizzie Bradury, played by Kirsten Dunst. Sparks fly between them, and soon Peter is playing the best he has in years.
WIMBLEDON succeeds at being an agreeable sports romance. Much of it is conventional, but there’s a reason why film after film follows the formula. It works. Bettany and Dunst make a cute couple that is as fiercely competitive in their love lives as they are on the court. Yet WIMBLEDON strikes me as being Peter’s story. How does an athlete who is very good at what he does deal with falling short of greatness? How does his mind work as he confronts the immediate challenge of playing tennis while personal issues spin through his head? WIMBLEDON explores these competition details enough to complement the light comedy. The film may not amount to much more than the cinematic equivalent of strawberries and cream, but sometimes that hits the spot.
Grade: B-
(Review first aired on the September 28, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
In WIMBLEDON Paul Bettany is pro tennis player Peter Colt, a once highly ranked competitor whose best days are behind him. He hopes to advance a round or two at Wimbledon before retiring. Then he meets rising American tennis star Lizzie Bradury, played by Kirsten Dunst. Sparks fly between them, and soon Peter is playing the best he has in years.
WIMBLEDON succeeds at being an agreeable sports romance. Much of it is conventional, but there’s a reason why film after film follows the formula. It works. Bettany and Dunst make a cute couple that is as fiercely competitive in their love lives as they are on the court. Yet WIMBLEDON strikes me as being Peter’s story. How does an athlete who is very good at what he does deal with falling short of greatness? How does his mind work as he confronts the immediate challenge of playing tennis while personal issues spin through his head? WIMBLEDON explores these competition details enough to complement the light comedy. The film may not amount to much more than the cinematic equivalent of strawberries and cream, but sometimes that hits the spot.
Grade: B-
(Review first aired on the September 28, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Intimate Strangers (Confidences trop intimes)
INTIMATE STRANGERS (CONFIDENCES TROP INTIMES) (Patrice Leconte, 2004)
INTIMATE STRANGERS pairs the mysterious Anna, played by Sandrine Bonnaire, with the lonely William, played by Fabrice Luchini. They meet when Anna enters William’s office and begins telling some secrets. She mistakenly believes he is the therapist with whom she has an appointment. William doesn’t realize what’s going on until it’s too late to correct her. Even after he acknowledges that he’s not a psychologist, Anna wishes to continue their sessions.
INTIMATE STRANGERS comes from director Patrice Leconte, who has been on a role the last five years with MAN ON THE TRAIN, THE WIDOW OF ST. PIERRE, and GIRL ON THE BRIDGE. He’s among the best today at turning out films in the classic French mode. He’s interested in how humans interact and what they say to one another. INTIMATE STRANGERS is a dialogue driven film that thrills through carefully selected words and actions. Jérôme Tonnerre’s screenplay develops tension by having the characters strategically reveal and hold back information. It’s riveting, especially as the stakes get higher in Anna and William’s game. Bonnaire and Luchini thrive in this setting as they try to peel back the layers of each other. Bonnaire in particular remains inscrutable until the deeply satisfying conclusion. The score indicates that INTIMATE STRANGERS shares traits with film noir. Like William, Leconte makes us work to uncover what that might mean, but it’s worth it in the end.
Grade: B+
(Review first aired on the September 28, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
INTIMATE STRANGERS pairs the mysterious Anna, played by Sandrine Bonnaire, with the lonely William, played by Fabrice Luchini. They meet when Anna enters William’s office and begins telling some secrets. She mistakenly believes he is the therapist with whom she has an appointment. William doesn’t realize what’s going on until it’s too late to correct her. Even after he acknowledges that he’s not a psychologist, Anna wishes to continue their sessions.
INTIMATE STRANGERS comes from director Patrice Leconte, who has been on a role the last five years with MAN ON THE TRAIN, THE WIDOW OF ST. PIERRE, and GIRL ON THE BRIDGE. He’s among the best today at turning out films in the classic French mode. He’s interested in how humans interact and what they say to one another. INTIMATE STRANGERS is a dialogue driven film that thrills through carefully selected words and actions. Jérôme Tonnerre’s screenplay develops tension by having the characters strategically reveal and hold back information. It’s riveting, especially as the stakes get higher in Anna and William’s game. Bonnaire and Luchini thrive in this setting as they try to peel back the layers of each other. Bonnaire in particular remains inscrutable until the deeply satisfying conclusion. The score indicates that INTIMATE STRANGERS shares traits with film noir. Like William, Leconte makes us work to uncover what that might mean, but it’s worth it in the end.
Grade: B+
(Review first aired on the September 28, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW (Kerry Conran, 2004)
The menacingly named Dr. Totenkopf dispatches giant robots around the planet to do his bidding in SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW. Jude Law stars as Joe Sullivan, also known as Sky Captain, the leader of an elite private air force. He and reporter Polly Perkins, played by Gwyneth Paltrow, try to thwart the evil doctor’s plans, whatever they may be.
SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW is the fanboy film of 1940 that never was. Writer-director Kerry Conran imagines an adventure cobbled together from serials, comic books, and radio dramas of the 30s and 40s, making something derivative yet unique. It’s an unironic return to screwball comedy banter and rip-roaring action through the innovative use of modern technology. Everything on screen except for the actors and props was created inside a computer. The result is frequently dazzling. Conran is free to indulge the techniques of the era to create something fresh by looking backward. Law and Paltrow’s classic appearances and demeanors make them perfect choices for this sepia-toned throwback film. Many of today’s big special effects pictures feel like the life has been drained from them by too many test screenings and studio executives. SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW is a breath of fresh air, an ambitious, stylized epic that entertains with every frame.
Grade: B
(Review first aired on the September 28, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
The menacingly named Dr. Totenkopf dispatches giant robots around the planet to do his bidding in SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW. Jude Law stars as Joe Sullivan, also known as Sky Captain, the leader of an elite private air force. He and reporter Polly Perkins, played by Gwyneth Paltrow, try to thwart the evil doctor’s plans, whatever they may be.
SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW is the fanboy film of 1940 that never was. Writer-director Kerry Conran imagines an adventure cobbled together from serials, comic books, and radio dramas of the 30s and 40s, making something derivative yet unique. It’s an unironic return to screwball comedy banter and rip-roaring action through the innovative use of modern technology. Everything on screen except for the actors and props was created inside a computer. The result is frequently dazzling. Conran is free to indulge the techniques of the era to create something fresh by looking backward. Law and Paltrow’s classic appearances and demeanors make them perfect choices for this sepia-toned throwback film. Many of today’s big special effects pictures feel like the life has been drained from them by too many test screenings and studio executives. SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW is a breath of fresh air, an ambitious, stylized epic that entertains with every frame.
Grade: B
(Review first aired on the September 28, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Sunday, October 03, 2004
The 101st Post
What better way to commemorate my 100th post to this blog than a little self-promotion. My review of John Waters' A DIRTY SHAME--first available here--can be found in the latest edition of The Film Journal. Issue 10 focuses on genre cinema and features pieces by some of my film critic friends and acquaintances, so check it out. Editor Rick Curnutte has also given the site a striking new look for this issue. Today's Greencine blog entry recaps The Film Journal's contents, including a four-word quote from my review to summarize my thoughts on A DIRTY SHAME.
I have a lot of things on the back burner but hope to catch up on posting more this week and next. (My priorities are on the front burner, which is the place for them as those who have seen John Sayles' SILVER CITY know.)
(October 6, 2004 edit: Apparently the counter on my dashboard page is stuck on 99 as this is actually the 101st post.)
I have a lot of things on the back burner but hope to catch up on posting more this week and next. (My priorities are on the front burner, which is the place for them as those who have seen John Sayles' SILVER CITY know.)
(October 6, 2004 edit: Apparently the counter on my dashboard page is stuck on 99 as this is actually the 101st post.)
Friday, September 24, 2004
Bleak Friday
So what did I do for fun on a Friday night? I watched a documentary about the Cambodian genocide and a verite-style fiction film about two students plotting a school shooting. What a barrel of laughs, right?
OK, so I planned to see S21: THE KHMER ROUGE KILLING MACHINE, although if a second film weren't playing at the Wexner Center tonight, I don't know that I would have bothered with it. I'd read some generally good things about it, and since I was already going to be down there, I figured I might as well catch the first film and avoid the hassle of locating a decent parking place around Ohio State.
S21: THE KHMER ROUGE KILLING MACHINE can be a little dry and repetitive, but I'll cut it some slack because director Rithy Panh often relates the story with one jawdropping technique. Panh has former Khmer Rouge prison camp guards reenact their duties at the actual site. (Needless to say, he didn't ask the same of the rare S21 survivor.) The results are often spooky. The men seem as emotionally distant now as they must have been then to do what they did. It's mindboggling the awful things men could inflict on their fellow countrymen, women and children. Other than the assertion that they were only following orders, the guards are as lost for an answer as anyone.
The main reason I went to the Wexner was for their second offering of SECRET CINEMA. The catch is that you don't know what you will see until the film starts. (Promotional materials promise viewers a rare classic, a new international hit, or "something too bizarre to put in print".) I must admit that I'm a sucker for this gimmick. It's like Christmas for the movie buff, except that you may end up getting something you didn't want. You pay your three dollars and take your chances. The first time the Wexner folk tried this they showed Samuel Fuller's FORTY GUNS, which supposedly has never been released on home video in the United States.
Tonight's surprise turned out to be ZERO DAY, a film that had the misfortune to come out the same time as Gus Van Sant's Palme D'Or-winning, similarly themed ELEPHANT. After learning about the atrocities the Khmer Rouge inflicted, this wasn't how I would have chosen to polish off an evening of moviegoing. Nevertheless, ZERO DAY is a very fine film that tracks two teenage boys in the ten months leading up to their assault on the high school.
The two main characters use a camcorder to document their preparations and their thoughts so that a record will remain for the media. The film is shot and assembled like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, which gives it such a strong sense of realism that it's startling and unsettling. It's also a tribute to the excellent performances by these amateurs that ZERO DAY plays like found footage than fiction filmmaking.
Director Ben Coccio gives us full access to the killers at their most unguarded and posturing moments. In giving us this insight into their privacy ZERO DAY turns our expectations upside down. The most troubling aspect is how likeable Andre (Andre Keuck) and Calvin (Calvin Robertson) are. They're funny and personable, at least with each other, family members, and, in Calvin's case, with a girlfriend. The natural inclination is to hope they won't follow through with their plans because we don't want to see innocents slaughtered. The feeling strengthens, though, because we get to know these two guys and don't want things to turn out badly for them. It's a weird cognitive dissonance that intensifies as zero day approaches. The humor in this film also throws off one's bearings. It's ghoulish to laugh when the guys are preparing to kill themselves and debate whether they should shoot on four (or "go") when counting to three or shoot on three.
I think ZERO DAY is a more satisying film than ELEPHANT. Coccio's film feels immediate and real, so much so that anyone who didn't follow the news for awhile might believe this really happened. Van Sant's film is more recognizably art with a capital a. He's aiming for lyricism and a study in tone. While there's value in this approach, the ending is somewhat underwhelming.
OK, so I planned to see S21: THE KHMER ROUGE KILLING MACHINE, although if a second film weren't playing at the Wexner Center tonight, I don't know that I would have bothered with it. I'd read some generally good things about it, and since I was already going to be down there, I figured I might as well catch the first film and avoid the hassle of locating a decent parking place around Ohio State.
S21: THE KHMER ROUGE KILLING MACHINE can be a little dry and repetitive, but I'll cut it some slack because director Rithy Panh often relates the story with one jawdropping technique. Panh has former Khmer Rouge prison camp guards reenact their duties at the actual site. (Needless to say, he didn't ask the same of the rare S21 survivor.) The results are often spooky. The men seem as emotionally distant now as they must have been then to do what they did. It's mindboggling the awful things men could inflict on their fellow countrymen, women and children. Other than the assertion that they were only following orders, the guards are as lost for an answer as anyone.
The main reason I went to the Wexner was for their second offering of SECRET CINEMA. The catch is that you don't know what you will see until the film starts. (Promotional materials promise viewers a rare classic, a new international hit, or "something too bizarre to put in print".) I must admit that I'm a sucker for this gimmick. It's like Christmas for the movie buff, except that you may end up getting something you didn't want. You pay your three dollars and take your chances. The first time the Wexner folk tried this they showed Samuel Fuller's FORTY GUNS, which supposedly has never been released on home video in the United States.
Tonight's surprise turned out to be ZERO DAY, a film that had the misfortune to come out the same time as Gus Van Sant's Palme D'Or-winning, similarly themed ELEPHANT. After learning about the atrocities the Khmer Rouge inflicted, this wasn't how I would have chosen to polish off an evening of moviegoing. Nevertheless, ZERO DAY is a very fine film that tracks two teenage boys in the ten months leading up to their assault on the high school.
The two main characters use a camcorder to document their preparations and their thoughts so that a record will remain for the media. The film is shot and assembled like THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, which gives it such a strong sense of realism that it's startling and unsettling. It's also a tribute to the excellent performances by these amateurs that ZERO DAY plays like found footage than fiction filmmaking.
Director Ben Coccio gives us full access to the killers at their most unguarded and posturing moments. In giving us this insight into their privacy ZERO DAY turns our expectations upside down. The most troubling aspect is how likeable Andre (Andre Keuck) and Calvin (Calvin Robertson) are. They're funny and personable, at least with each other, family members, and, in Calvin's case, with a girlfriend. The natural inclination is to hope they won't follow through with their plans because we don't want to see innocents slaughtered. The feeling strengthens, though, because we get to know these two guys and don't want things to turn out badly for them. It's a weird cognitive dissonance that intensifies as zero day approaches. The humor in this film also throws off one's bearings. It's ghoulish to laugh when the guys are preparing to kill themselves and debate whether they should shoot on four (or "go") when counting to three or shoot on three.
I think ZERO DAY is a more satisying film than ELEPHANT. Coccio's film feels immediate and real, so much so that anyone who didn't follow the news for awhile might believe this really happened. Van Sant's film is more recognizably art with a capital a. He's aiming for lyricism and a study in tone. While there's value in this approach, the ending is somewhat underwhelming.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
In Defense of Gwyneth
Gwyneth Paltrow on the cover of the September 17,
2004 Entertainment Weekly
Gwyneth Paltrow is one of my favorite actresses, but, as Charles Taylor points out in this excellent essay, she inspires much loathing in her detractors. Usually she makes interesting films with talented filmmakers. HARD EIGHT (Paul Thomas Anderson, 1997), EMMA (Douglas McGrath, 1996), SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE (John Madden, 1998), THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY (Anthony Minghella, 1999), and THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS (Wes Anderson, 2001) made my top tens. POSSESSION (Neil LaBute, 2002) made my honorable mentions.
Paltrow has scored the most attention for EMMA, a delightful introduction that showcased her grace and ability to carry a film, and SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE. She also turned in very good work in HARD EIGHT and POSSESSION. In general, though, those films have good critical reputations. I thought she turned in one of 2003's best lead performances by a female in SYLVIA, but the minefield crossed in depicting Sylvia Plath's life distracted from a good film and Paltrow's great acting. There are few actresses who could have pulled off the highwire act required in SHALLOW HAL. As Taylor's salon.com piece points out, this lovely performance and the film was largely overshadowed by those with political agendas creating a stir even though they missed the Farrelly brothers' point. Although she plays a minor role in THE ANNIVERSARY PARTY, Paltrow is very funny as a ditzy actress. I was glad to see Taylor support her work in Alfonso Cuaron's GREAT EXPECTATIONS, a remake that works very well in capturing the spirit of the Dickens novel while updating the setting. (At the time I recall reading negative reviews complaining about the film not succeeding as a love story. Of course, this overlooks the fact that it's a coming of age film, not a romance.) I was also pleased that he points out SLIDING DOORS, a wonderful film which I suspect has built a respectable fanbase on home video.
Of her films since 1996, I'd go to bat for all of them except HUSH (Jonathan Darby, 1998), DUETS (Bruce Paltrow, 2000), and VIEW FROM THE TOP (Bruno Barreto, 2003). HUSH is easily the worst of the bunch and possibly the worst of her career. (I haven't seen most of her pre-HARD EIGHT films, going by the order in her Internet Movie Database filmography.) I remember little about the film other than being thankful that it was bad but hilarious. DUETS didn't strike me as the disaster that most were expecting and proclaiming at the time of its release. VIEW FROM THE TOP'S problems are directorial. The film is indecisive about whether it's kitsch or not, although it's almost amusing enough to pull it off.
Currently Paltrow is in SKY CAPTAIN AND THE WORLD OF TOMORROW. Her performance won't garner awards consideration. It shouldn't, not because she's bad--she's perfect for the part and good in it--but because it isn't that sort of thing. She reteams with Madden for PROOF. I've heard nothing but great things about the David Auburn play on which it is based. I look forward to what could be another great performance in an accomplished body of work. The naysayers will just have to deal with it.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
A Dirty Shame
A DIRTY SHAME (John Waters, 2004)
Charging John Waters' latest film A DIRTY SHAME with tastelessness sounds more like a seal of approval than condemnation. Tacky and crude is what Waters does. Only the most unsuspecting moviegoer, one oblivious to the director's filmography, the marketing campaign, and the film's NC-17 rating, will be shocked to see what Waters puts on the screen.
A DIRTY SHAME sends up sexual Puritanism in this country, a topic ripe for the satirical treatment in a year with the much overblown Super Bowl halftime show controversy. Waters borrows the tone of 1950s reactionary films but subverts the genre by positioning the deviants as heroes.
Baltimore housewife and convenience store worker Sylvia Stickles (Tracey Ullman) is uninterested in sex, if not sickened by it. She spurns husband Vaughn's (Chris Isaak) advances in favor of frying scrapple and has locked up gargantuan-breasted exhibitionist daughter Caprice (Selma Blair) to keep her from flaunting her goods at area clubs. An accidental blow to the head awakens Sylvia's carnal stirrings. Before you know it she's slinking around town in leopard print clothes and soliciting any man willing to give her cunnilingus.
Sex saint Ray-Ray (Johnny Knoxville) reveals to Sylvia that she is one of the twelve apostles who will bring about the "resurr-sex-ion" with the discovery of a new sex act. Her fellow freaks include an adult baby, husky and hairy gay men called bears, and a dirt fetishist who gets off from licking the ground and tires, among other unsanitary things. The other apostles also received inadvertent concussions that brought their sexual liberation to the surface.
Needless to say, the good citizens of the community are appalled that Ray-Ray's disciples are practicing and preaching their erotic gospel in public. Big Ethel (Suzanne Shepherd), Sylvia's frigid mother, organizes decency rallies of sexually repressed likeminded "neuters" to fight the indecency.
A DIRTY SHAME is outrageous for the sake of being outrageous, but unlike some of Waters' other films, it's neither shocking nor funny. In recent years the line of good taste has been crossed in mainstream comedies, making it more difficult for Waters to push the envelope like he did with PINK FLAMINGOS and POLYESTER. (THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and NATIONAL LAMPOON'S VAN WILDER, to pick examples on opposing ends of the quality spectrum, feature gross-out gags that would be at home in Waters' films.) Waters and his cast think they're being naughty, but the bawdy jokes, repeated ad nauseam, are feeble and frequently telegraphed. Waters loves B and C-list celebrities, but haven't enough David Hasselhoff jokes been made to eliminate any humor in having the BAYWATCH star's CGI turds bonk Chris Isaak on the head? Only Ullman's sex club version of "The Hokey Pokey" performed at a retirement home sustains any comedic momentum.
A DIRTY SHAME also comes across as ideologically confused. The film's sex-positive message is offset by how the repression is erased. Only the concussed are enlightened. Perhaps it's Waters' way of poking fun at those who desire sexual permissiveness, but that isn't the impression A DIRTY SHAME leaves. The prudes serve as the main target, but even the most liberal viewers are likely to object to the notion that public masturbation and intercourse in the streets is healthy for society.
Waters has never been considered the most polished of filmmakers, and that won't change with A DIRTY SHAME. This time around, though, don't expect a Broadway musical adaptation to follow.
Grade: D-
Charging John Waters' latest film A DIRTY SHAME with tastelessness sounds more like a seal of approval than condemnation. Tacky and crude is what Waters does. Only the most unsuspecting moviegoer, one oblivious to the director's filmography, the marketing campaign, and the film's NC-17 rating, will be shocked to see what Waters puts on the screen.
A DIRTY SHAME sends up sexual Puritanism in this country, a topic ripe for the satirical treatment in a year with the much overblown Super Bowl halftime show controversy. Waters borrows the tone of 1950s reactionary films but subverts the genre by positioning the deviants as heroes.
Baltimore housewife and convenience store worker Sylvia Stickles (Tracey Ullman) is uninterested in sex, if not sickened by it. She spurns husband Vaughn's (Chris Isaak) advances in favor of frying scrapple and has locked up gargantuan-breasted exhibitionist daughter Caprice (Selma Blair) to keep her from flaunting her goods at area clubs. An accidental blow to the head awakens Sylvia's carnal stirrings. Before you know it she's slinking around town in leopard print clothes and soliciting any man willing to give her cunnilingus.
Sex saint Ray-Ray (Johnny Knoxville) reveals to Sylvia that she is one of the twelve apostles who will bring about the "resurr-sex-ion" with the discovery of a new sex act. Her fellow freaks include an adult baby, husky and hairy gay men called bears, and a dirt fetishist who gets off from licking the ground and tires, among other unsanitary things. The other apostles also received inadvertent concussions that brought their sexual liberation to the surface.
Needless to say, the good citizens of the community are appalled that Ray-Ray's disciples are practicing and preaching their erotic gospel in public. Big Ethel (Suzanne Shepherd), Sylvia's frigid mother, organizes decency rallies of sexually repressed likeminded "neuters" to fight the indecency.
A DIRTY SHAME is outrageous for the sake of being outrageous, but unlike some of Waters' other films, it's neither shocking nor funny. In recent years the line of good taste has been crossed in mainstream comedies, making it more difficult for Waters to push the envelope like he did with PINK FLAMINGOS and POLYESTER. (THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY and NATIONAL LAMPOON'S VAN WILDER, to pick examples on opposing ends of the quality spectrum, feature gross-out gags that would be at home in Waters' films.) Waters and his cast think they're being naughty, but the bawdy jokes, repeated ad nauseam, are feeble and frequently telegraphed. Waters loves B and C-list celebrities, but haven't enough David Hasselhoff jokes been made to eliminate any humor in having the BAYWATCH star's CGI turds bonk Chris Isaak on the head? Only Ullman's sex club version of "The Hokey Pokey" performed at a retirement home sustains any comedic momentum.
A DIRTY SHAME also comes across as ideologically confused. The film's sex-positive message is offset by how the repression is erased. Only the concussed are enlightened. Perhaps it's Waters' way of poking fun at those who desire sexual permissiveness, but that isn't the impression A DIRTY SHAME leaves. The prudes serve as the main target, but even the most liberal viewers are likely to object to the notion that public masturbation and intercourse in the streets is healthy for society.
Waters has never been considered the most polished of filmmakers, and that won't change with A DIRTY SHAME. This time around, though, don't expect a Broadway musical adaptation to follow.
Grade: D-
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Vanity Fair
Vanity Fair poster at a bus stop on the corner of Dupont and Spadina in Toronto (August 27, 2004)
VANITY FAIR (Mira Nair, 2004)
In VANITY FAIR Reese Witherspoon’s Becky Sharp intends to climb the social ladder even if it means trampling others to get higher. She adapts from a poor orphan into an educated governess. This job helps introduce her to a husband, who she hopes will aid her quest to rise in society.
Director Mira Nair follows up her wonderful MONSOON WEDDING with another film that explores the intricacies of social custom. Becky’s adept maneuvering through upper society’s pitfalls is sometimes muddled from too many characters and too little explanation, but Witherspoon remains fun to watch as a spitfire whose desires will not be denied. There’s less separation from the calculation found here and in reality TV’s BIG BROTHER than you might think. VANITY FAIR is at its best when the characters are most selfish and selfless. Eileen Atkins is deliciously sharp-tongued as Miss Matilda Crawley, the crone who gives Becky entrée to a better place in her world. Nair injects a strong Indian flavor to the adaptation of the British novel by Thackeray. The lavish set design, art direction, and costumes provide a stunning backdrop for the competition played according to the rules of the game.
Grade: B-
(Review first aired on the September 14, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Wicker Park
WICKER PARK (Paul McGuigan, 2004)
The love of Josh Hartnett’s life disappears without a trace in WICKER PARK. A couple years later Matthew thinks he catches a glimpse of her, which sets off an obsessive search for Diane Kruger as Lisa. Matthew has been thinking of marrying his current girlfriend, but he still wonders what became of the woman he wanted to marry and why she vanished.
WICKER PARK is a remake of the excellent French film L’APPARTEMENT. I saw Gilles Mimouni’s Hitchcockian film about a year ago, and as far as I recall, this Hollywood version hews reasonably close to the original. Sets, color schemes, and some shots duplicate their forebears so much that they could have been cribbed from L’APPARTEMENT. The twisty storyline and plot structure are followed too, yet this remake pales compared to the source material. The obsession is present, but the passion is lacking. A tone deaf Matthew Lillard supporting performance, tuned more toward comedy, doesn’t help. A problem I don’t remember the original having is the belief-stretching coincidences and easily resolved misunderstandings needed to keep Matthew and Lisa apart. WICKER PARK frustrates to no end when a smidgen of common sense on anyone’s behalf would clear up everything. Although I knew the outcome, WICKER PARK kept me interested as a puzzle movie. It’s a case of the right ingredients being combined incorrectly.
Grade: C
(Review first aired on the September 14, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
The love of Josh Hartnett’s life disappears without a trace in WICKER PARK. A couple years later Matthew thinks he catches a glimpse of her, which sets off an obsessive search for Diane Kruger as Lisa. Matthew has been thinking of marrying his current girlfriend, but he still wonders what became of the woman he wanted to marry and why she vanished.
WICKER PARK is a remake of the excellent French film L’APPARTEMENT. I saw Gilles Mimouni’s Hitchcockian film about a year ago, and as far as I recall, this Hollywood version hews reasonably close to the original. Sets, color schemes, and some shots duplicate their forebears so much that they could have been cribbed from L’APPARTEMENT. The twisty storyline and plot structure are followed too, yet this remake pales compared to the source material. The obsession is present, but the passion is lacking. A tone deaf Matthew Lillard supporting performance, tuned more toward comedy, doesn’t help. A problem I don’t remember the original having is the belief-stretching coincidences and easily resolved misunderstandings needed to keep Matthew and Lisa apart. WICKER PARK frustrates to no end when a smidgen of common sense on anyone’s behalf would clear up everything. Although I knew the outcome, WICKER PARK kept me interested as a puzzle movie. It’s a case of the right ingredients being combined incorrectly.
Grade: C
(Review first aired on the September 14, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Maria Full of Grace
MARIA FULL OF GRACE (Joshua Marston, 2004)
Writer-director Joshua Marston’s MARIA FULL OF GRACE may be a fictional film about a young woman who becomes a drug mule, but it’s a well researched, documentary-like look at the path someone like the main character would take. Catalina Sandino Moreno stars as Maria. The prospect of earning a large sum of money for a few days’ work entices this Columbian woman into becoming a mule. She must ingest many thumb-sized pellets full of cocaine, board a plane to New York City, and deliver the drugs without being caught by the authorities or having a pellet lethally leak in transit. Naturally, not everything goes according to plan.
MARIA FULL OF GRACE provides an authentic and compelling view of a drug mule’s experience. The difficulties of carrying the pellets, not to mention the danger, are spelled out in a few terrific scenes. Maria must practice by swallowing grapes, but that doesn’t prepare her or the audience for the long, arduous process of downing sixty-two of these pellets. The flight to New York City and need to pass through customs unnoticed are as tense as any conventional chase scene. Moreno is natural and assured in her debut performance. She makes it understandable why an intelligent young woman with a future would choose to get involved with something as unsavory as being a drug courier. In that way it would make a fine companion piece with Santosh Sivan’s THE TERRORIST, a 1999 film that tracks a woman who decides to become a suicide assassination bomber.
Grade: B+
(Review first aired on the September 14, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Writer-director Joshua Marston’s MARIA FULL OF GRACE may be a fictional film about a young woman who becomes a drug mule, but it’s a well researched, documentary-like look at the path someone like the main character would take. Catalina Sandino Moreno stars as Maria. The prospect of earning a large sum of money for a few days’ work entices this Columbian woman into becoming a mule. She must ingest many thumb-sized pellets full of cocaine, board a plane to New York City, and deliver the drugs without being caught by the authorities or having a pellet lethally leak in transit. Naturally, not everything goes according to plan.
MARIA FULL OF GRACE provides an authentic and compelling view of a drug mule’s experience. The difficulties of carrying the pellets, not to mention the danger, are spelled out in a few terrific scenes. Maria must practice by swallowing grapes, but that doesn’t prepare her or the audience for the long, arduous process of downing sixty-two of these pellets. The flight to New York City and need to pass through customs unnoticed are as tense as any conventional chase scene. Moreno is natural and assured in her debut performance. She makes it understandable why an intelligent young woman with a future would choose to get involved with something as unsavory as being a drug courier. In that way it would make a fine companion piece with Santosh Sivan’s THE TERRORIST, a 1999 film that tracks a woman who decides to become a suicide assassination bomber.
Grade: B+
(Review first aired on the September 14, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Cellular
I've decided to put my NOW PLAYING intros and reviews here rather than let them molder on my hard drive. Obviously I have truncated plot summaries as much as possible for telecast purposes, and the reviews are less comprehensive too. I have excised any clip introduction since that portion is irrelevant here. If the last line was "I recommend..." or "I don't recommend...", I've cut that as well. It seems unnecessary, although this removal may make for an abrupt end. You'll notice some minor differences--actors names in the flow of sentences instead of being in parentheses--due to these reviews being read aloud.
I'll post the reviews throughout the day. Links will also be provided under capusle reviews.
CELLULAR (David R. Ellis, 2004)
In CELLULAR an abducted woman’s random call to a cell phone provides the only chance she has of being rescued. Kim Basinger plays Jessica Martin, a biology teacher who thugs take from her home and hold against her will for information about her husband’s whereabouts. The abductors are unaware that a resourceful Jessica is experimenting with a smashed phone to try and contact anyone. Chris Evans is Ryan, the stranger who answers her call for help.
Someone with a sense of humor might have chosen MOBILE PHONE BOOTH as an alternate title for CELLULAR. The conflict is the same in PHONE BOOTH and this film. Someone will likely die if a phone call is ended. Rather than being limited to one location, CELLULAR allows the hero to roam as long as he keeps the connection. The similarities aren’t by accident. PHONE BOOTH screenwriter Larry Cohen wrote the story on which Chris Morgan’s CELLULAR screenplay is based. Suffused with an Old Testament contemplation of sin and forgiveness, PHONE BOOTH has more heft compared to CELLULAR’S lightweight genre thrills. Still, CELLULAR utilizes remarkable efficiency and ingenious construction to realize an exciting and funny story that seems plausible enough under the circumstances. Basinger’s performance is too serious for something this silly. William H. Macy shines in a rare chance to play the hero. He also gets the film’s funniest line.
Grade: B-
(Review first aired on the September 14, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
I'll post the reviews throughout the day. Links will also be provided under capusle reviews.
CELLULAR (David R. Ellis, 2004)
In CELLULAR an abducted woman’s random call to a cell phone provides the only chance she has of being rescued. Kim Basinger plays Jessica Martin, a biology teacher who thugs take from her home and hold against her will for information about her husband’s whereabouts. The abductors are unaware that a resourceful Jessica is experimenting with a smashed phone to try and contact anyone. Chris Evans is Ryan, the stranger who answers her call for help.
Someone with a sense of humor might have chosen MOBILE PHONE BOOTH as an alternate title for CELLULAR. The conflict is the same in PHONE BOOTH and this film. Someone will likely die if a phone call is ended. Rather than being limited to one location, CELLULAR allows the hero to roam as long as he keeps the connection. The similarities aren’t by accident. PHONE BOOTH screenwriter Larry Cohen wrote the story on which Chris Morgan’s CELLULAR screenplay is based. Suffused with an Old Testament contemplation of sin and forgiveness, PHONE BOOTH has more heft compared to CELLULAR’S lightweight genre thrills. Still, CELLULAR utilizes remarkable efficiency and ingenious construction to realize an exciting and funny story that seems plausible enough under the circumstances. Basinger’s performance is too serious for something this silly. William H. Macy shines in a rare chance to play the hero. He also gets the film’s funniest line.
Grade: B-
(Review first aired on the September 14, 2004 NOW PLAYING)
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Reality TV and The Benefactor
Salon.com's Heather Havrilesky writes a worthy defense of reality television. (Per the site's protocol, you'll need to click on an ad to read the article.) It's fashionable to deride the genre, but I'll openly admit to liking some of the shows. SURVIVOR and THE AMAZING RACE are two of TV's most entertaining programs. (I've mentioned before that THE AMAZING RACE might be the best show on the tube.) Even though I came around late last season to THE APPRENTICE, I was pleasantly surprised that it makes for fun viewing. (The second season looks good so far, especially if Raj, the guy who looks like he stepped out of an F. Scott Fitzgerald novel, sticks around.) BIG BROTHER, which has usually held more of a train wreck appeal than anything, has made big strides in quality in its fifth season, although I still hesitate to call the show "good".
Yes, but what about EXTREME MAKEOVER and THE SWAN or one-off projects THE LITTLEST GROOM and MAN VS. BEAST, you ask? What about them? Where is it written that reality TV must be defined by its (presumably) worst examples? After all, SEINFELD isn't considered disreputable because THE SECRET DIARY OF DESMOND PFEIFFER, another sitcom, is widely thought to be awful.
For the time being, the average reality show is more interesting than a run-of-the-mill comedy or drama. Because they center on competition, the twists and results are often less predictable than you get in more conventional fare. Even when a traditional sitcom or drama uncorks a shocker, chances are viewers already know, whether from spoiler-heavy promos or entertainment reports of departing cast members. The best reality shows have the open-ended conclusion of a sporting event.
Which brings me to THE BENEFACTOR, the latest reality show I've come across. Billionaire Dallas Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban brings in sixteen people to put them to the test for a million dollar prize. In the first episode the premise plays like a B-movie in which some obscenely wealthy, half-cocked guy invites a group to his mansion to compete for money and then proceeds to terrorize them.
THE BENEFACTOR looks to be more freeform than its brethren. Cuban can dimsiss who he wants, when he wants, for whatever reason he wants rather than follow a format. Last night he eliminated three contestants for the following reasons: one called the game stupid, another didn't seem to match the risk-taking spirit she showed in her entry video, and a third lost a game of Jenga. Granted, he can't send three people packing each week, but the rules for staying in the game are more loosely defined. Essentially, you want to keep Cuban happy. This opens up the show to more potential producer interference and manipulation of the results than you would get on THE AMAZING RACE. I won't be surprised if those with photogenic looks and large personalities stick around longer to enhance the entertainment aspect. Still, the show's random nature might give it the zing it needs to differentiate from the competition.
Say what you will about Cuban--some are certain to find him to be an arrogant jackass--but he isn't boring. (As a pro sports franchise owner, he's serious about winning too.) This guy ought to be more entertaining than Fox's reality show with billionaire Richard Branson. Oh yeah, and he keeps a a blog.
THE BENEFACTOR doesn't look like it will equal the better reality shows, but it's a good lead-in to Monday Night Football. Better this than a couple of bland domestic sitcoms or another news magazine show.
Yes, but what about EXTREME MAKEOVER and THE SWAN or one-off projects THE LITTLEST GROOM and MAN VS. BEAST, you ask? What about them? Where is it written that reality TV must be defined by its (presumably) worst examples? After all, SEINFELD isn't considered disreputable because THE SECRET DIARY OF DESMOND PFEIFFER, another sitcom, is widely thought to be awful.
For the time being, the average reality show is more interesting than a run-of-the-mill comedy or drama. Because they center on competition, the twists and results are often less predictable than you get in more conventional fare. Even when a traditional sitcom or drama uncorks a shocker, chances are viewers already know, whether from spoiler-heavy promos or entertainment reports of departing cast members. The best reality shows have the open-ended conclusion of a sporting event.
Which brings me to THE BENEFACTOR, the latest reality show I've come across. Billionaire Dallas Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban brings in sixteen people to put them to the test for a million dollar prize. In the first episode the premise plays like a B-movie in which some obscenely wealthy, half-cocked guy invites a group to his mansion to compete for money and then proceeds to terrorize them.
THE BENEFACTOR looks to be more freeform than its brethren. Cuban can dimsiss who he wants, when he wants, for whatever reason he wants rather than follow a format. Last night he eliminated three contestants for the following reasons: one called the game stupid, another didn't seem to match the risk-taking spirit she showed in her entry video, and a third lost a game of Jenga. Granted, he can't send three people packing each week, but the rules for staying in the game are more loosely defined. Essentially, you want to keep Cuban happy. This opens up the show to more potential producer interference and manipulation of the results than you would get on THE AMAZING RACE. I won't be surprised if those with photogenic looks and large personalities stick around longer to enhance the entertainment aspect. Still, the show's random nature might give it the zing it needs to differentiate from the competition.
Say what you will about Cuban--some are certain to find him to be an arrogant jackass--but he isn't boring. (As a pro sports franchise owner, he's serious about winning too.) This guy ought to be more entertaining than Fox's reality show with billionaire Richard Branson. Oh yeah, and he keeps a a blog.
THE BENEFACTOR doesn't look like it will equal the better reality shows, but it's a good lead-in to Monday Night Football. Better this than a couple of bland domestic sitcoms or another news magazine show.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Today's birthdays
Who shares a birthday with me?
Shannon Elizabeth (AMERICAN PIE) and Diane Farr (THE JOB and MTV's LOVELINE) were born on the same day in the same year. Others with birthdays today include Evan Rachel Wood (THIRTEEN), Devon Sawa (IDLE HANDS), former Major League Baseball players Darren Bragg and Joe Rudi, model and B-movie actress Angie Everhart, OSAMA director Siddiq Barmak, syrupy song composer Diane Warren, pianist Michael Feinstein, Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers' keyboardist Benmont Tench, Corbin Bernsen (L.A. LAW), film composer Mark Isham (OCTOBER SKY, THE COOLER), The Pretenders' Chrissie Hynde, Julie Kavner (voice of Marge on THE SIMPSONS), disco queen Gloria Gaynor (the ubiquitous "I Will Survive"), Italian horror master Dario Argento (SUSPIRIA, PHENOMENA), and jazz musician Sonny Rollins.
Rocker Buddy Holly, former basketball coach and TV analyst Al McGuire, Rat Pack member Peter Lawford (OCEAN'S ELEVEN), director Elia Kazan (A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, ON THE WATERFRONT), and artist Grandma Moses have all passed on but were born on this day.
And, just for kicks, married on this day include former 24 stars Xander Berkeley and Sarah Clarke, the short-lived Janet Jackson-James DeBarge union in 1984, and Rita Hayworth and Orson Welles in 1943.
This fascinating information and more was found at the Internet Movie Database.
Shannon Elizabeth (AMERICAN PIE) and Diane Farr (THE JOB and MTV's LOVELINE) were born on the same day in the same year. Others with birthdays today include Evan Rachel Wood (THIRTEEN), Devon Sawa (IDLE HANDS), former Major League Baseball players Darren Bragg and Joe Rudi, model and B-movie actress Angie Everhart, OSAMA director Siddiq Barmak, syrupy song composer Diane Warren, pianist Michael Feinstein, Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers' keyboardist Benmont Tench, Corbin Bernsen (L.A. LAW), film composer Mark Isham (OCTOBER SKY, THE COOLER), The Pretenders' Chrissie Hynde, Julie Kavner (voice of Marge on THE SIMPSONS), disco queen Gloria Gaynor (the ubiquitous "I Will Survive"), Italian horror master Dario Argento (SUSPIRIA, PHENOMENA), and jazz musician Sonny Rollins.
Rocker Buddy Holly, former basketball coach and TV analyst Al McGuire, Rat Pack member Peter Lawford (OCEAN'S ELEVEN), director Elia Kazan (A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, ON THE WATERFRONT), and artist Grandma Moses have all passed on but were born on this day.
And, just for kicks, married on this day include former 24 stars Xander Berkeley and Sarah Clarke, the short-lived Janet Jackson-James DeBarge union in 1984, and Rita Hayworth and Orson Welles in 1943.
This fascinating information and more was found at the Internet Movie Database.
Happy Birthday to Me
OK, so my birthday isn't a national holiday this year--I'll have to wait until 2009 for that if I've calculated correctly--but there is cause for celebration.
Levi, the man who puts the mon in DVDMon.com, has given the site a facelift. Many of the reviews weren't accessible in the past few months but are now back and same as they ever were. The good news for me is that I can recover the published reviews I lost when my computer unexpectedly melted down at Christmas. (You can find a list of all my reviews on the site by following this link.)
If you haven't noticed, a couple weeks ago I added direct links in the righthand sidebar for the reviews I've posted on this blog.
In blog news, from the "strange but true (as far as I can tell)" department, I received an actual e-mail from an actual reader. The note caught me by surprise as it was from Kristen McGary, the director of THE ADVENTURES OF OCIEE NASH. Considering that I've done virtually nothing to publicize this blog except for telling some friends and putting the link in the signature to my Home Theater Forum posts, any legitimate correspondence comes as a complete surprise. I'm guessing that she found my review by plugging the film's name into Google, as second page results direct searchers here.
Of course, the internet being what it is, I can't verify with total certainty that the e-mail is from who the writer claims to be. I don't have any reason to believe otherwise, so I'm taking it at face value. Her e-mail was very kind, much more than I expected since I was highly critical of her film. (I gave it a D.) She made some good points about her film and the process, but that's as much as I'm willing to divulge from the private correspondence. I wrote her back requesting permission to post her e-mail to the blog. If she agrees, I'll tack it up here.
I guess the lesson is that you never know who is reading, which may be for the best when you're posting pictures of Canadian construction barrels instead of writing something substantive.
Levi, the man who puts the mon in DVDMon.com, has given the site a facelift. Many of the reviews weren't accessible in the past few months but are now back and same as they ever were. The good news for me is that I can recover the published reviews I lost when my computer unexpectedly melted down at Christmas. (You can find a list of all my reviews on the site by following this link.)
If you haven't noticed, a couple weeks ago I added direct links in the righthand sidebar for the reviews I've posted on this blog.
In blog news, from the "strange but true (as far as I can tell)" department, I received an actual e-mail from an actual reader. The note caught me by surprise as it was from Kristen McGary, the director of THE ADVENTURES OF OCIEE NASH. Considering that I've done virtually nothing to publicize this blog except for telling some friends and putting the link in the signature to my Home Theater Forum posts, any legitimate correspondence comes as a complete surprise. I'm guessing that she found my review by plugging the film's name into Google, as second page results direct searchers here.
Of course, the internet being what it is, I can't verify with total certainty that the e-mail is from who the writer claims to be. I don't have any reason to believe otherwise, so I'm taking it at face value. Her e-mail was very kind, much more than I expected since I was highly critical of her film. (I gave it a D.) She made some good points about her film and the process, but that's as much as I'm willing to divulge from the private correspondence. I wrote her back requesting permission to post her e-mail to the blog. If she agrees, I'll tack it up here.
I guess the lesson is that you never know who is reading, which may be for the best when you're posting pictures of Canadian construction barrels instead of writing something substantive.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
Everyday Canadian
Crosswalk light at Rue Saint Laurent and Rue Rene Levesque in Montreal (August 26, 2004)
Construction barrel on Carlton St. near Toronto's Maple Leaf Gardens (August 28, 2004)
OK, so Canada isn't some exotic place wildly different from the United States, but I was somewhat fascinated with the common things that don't quite look the same as their equivalents here. I like the walk symbol. That guy looks jaunty, as if he's going to cross the street in style. The tiger-striped construction barrels are slimmer than those in the U.S. (One might also query if the same is true of the citizens.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)