Change Your Image
DuChamp-3
Reviews
The Yards (2000)
when opinions are this polarized. . .
. . . you know you've got a movie that tried something different. Not NEW, necessarily, as The Yards is paced, structured and shot like it was made before 1976. But you don't see that often these days. The Yards is an entertaining and noble attempt at a tribute to crime films of that era. I have friends who don't have the attention span to sit through The Godfather(on some days neither do I) - I wouldn't recommend this film to them. Reared as our younger generation was on Spielbergian and MTV-cut films, the pacing of both that film and The Yards are slow and deliberate - sometimes hard to take. The Yards could have used a bit of tightening up in editing, just seconds off of a scene here, a scene there to move things along, but still, it's a strong film. The first thing that caught my eye was the sparse dialogue. There's a lot of acting going on here, and not of the scenery-chewing variety (recent Pacino). The actors are given a lot of room to act with their eyes and bodies. You're not hit over the head with 2-D stock characters, although it may appear so at first. The story is genre: ex-con, returning to his New York borough neighborhood falls right into the same circles that got him in trouble in the first place. What follows is a story of corruption, redemption and family; structured almost as a Greek Tragedy. But quietly. There are no "good guys" or "bad guys", as almost everyone is on the make. The overall impression projected is that everyone is protecting their own and trying to succeed in a system that they live in - not one they created or control.
Mark Wahlberg isn't a great actor, but he delivers what the character requires. Charlize Theron isn't in her element playing a Queens-chick, but aside from a faltering accent, she does pretty well. Excellent acting is delivered by Joachin Phoenix, as well as veterans Caan, Dunaway, and Ellen Burstyn. The Yards is a good movie, although admittedly, not for the "average" movie-going audience. It likely won't meet their expectations of what a "good" movie is.
Donnie Darko (2001)
exitentialist teen satire
Donnie Darko is the weirdest movie I've seen in a long time. And I mean that as a compliment. Through the first half of the film, the film switches gears back and forth between being a teenage American Beauty-style High School satire - and being a psychological drama that asks the question "what if Kurt Vonnegut re-wrote the classic film/play Harvey (Jimmy Stewart, 1950)? Ultimately, these 2 sensibilities become further intertwined throughout the running time, crashing together in the cataclysm of the end of the story.
Title character Donnie Darko is a horny teenage boy, roughly 17 years old. He has an "intimidating" IQ and appropriately, "emotional problems". Medicated and troubled, one late night, Donnie is drawn sleepwalking onto a golf course green by a mysterious voice and is confronted by Frank, a very scary 6-foot tall Rabbit (suit). Frank tells Donnie that the world will end, and at exactly what moment: in 28 days. . . . etc. Slowly, as this date and time approach, Donnie's tolerance for the hypocracy of polite society dissolves into open hostility for authority, mostly towards his Catholic High School. Appropriately, this dissolution is parallel to that of his apparent sanity, as his visions of Frank become more frequent and vivid, and it begins to appear that Donnie is being controlled by forces beyond him - or perhaps it's the onset of Paranoid Schizophrenia. The satire of this film lies largely in its setting of October, 1988. As such, there are well-written (and well-cast) references to Smurfs, Michael Dukakis, Patrick Swayze, Self-Help videos, Books Banned by the PTA, and Star Search. As well, there are scenes are dramatically scored with the songs of Tears For Fears, Echo and the Bunnymen (heh) and Duran Duran. While this could easily come off as a fetish - a nostalgic hook alone - these elements don't seem tacked-on or parody. This is the "American Beauty" part of Donnie Darko; a social satire of a specific time, age and personal crisis against authority. But that's the sugar to help the surreal and dark Psycho-drama go down. What this movie is really about is up to a lot of interpretation - but such would have to include: faith in God, Time Travel, Reality vs.Sanity, Self-Belief, Fear of Death, and the Apocalypse. Add to that a healthy dose of Religious Parable, and it's one strange, curious trip. Donnie Darko is not a film for people who like their movies to make concrete sense - concluding with a neat red bow on top. There is a lot to interpret, think and argue about here (mostly in the last 15 minutes). The ending is dramatic and undefined, and finally, filled with an sense of kindness, sympathy and resolution. The movie is by no means perfect: There are questionable acting/casting choices (Barrymore), and it can easily argued that the story never really ties up its loose ends. There's a latin phrase used in writing (and this film) - "Deus ex Machina": "God of the Machine". It has come to define what a writer will do when the story seems to have painted itself into a corner; let an "Act of God" sort it all out in the end. There's a bit of that in Donnie Darko. However, sharp writing, elegant and stylized visuals, and solid acting hold all of this together in an effective and intriguing way, helping the audience enjoy the ride while Donnie swirls round and round the drain - only to find that what's on the other side may not be so scary after all. [If you rent the DVD and really like the film, I highly recommend watching the 20 Deleted Scenes. Some are short inconsequential trims, but there are many that change and add imporant elements to the story. Especially if you're a fan of Watership Down.]
Clockwatchers (1997)
cool.
asking why this film was made, as another reviewer did, is like asking why "office Space" was made. Both are stories of fearful employees finding transformation spurred by the depths the boredom and de-humanization corporate Ant-dom drove them to. And they are both pretty funny. Other than that, they are very different movies. Whereas "Office" was broad comedy and male-oriented, this movie is small, quiet, subtle and a "chick flick" of sorts. It's about women hanging out and becoming friends and talking about work mostly - life rarely. The acting is good - the writing is sharp - the pace is slow. It feels like a well-done independant film - which it is. Parker Posey is her standard "energetic and neurotic nearly to the point of psychosis" role. And Toni Collette and L. Kudrow are very good as well. The friends of mine who really like this movie - well, they have lived this lifestyle (temp workers). That's probably the best kind of review a film like this can get.
Little Noises (1991)
"Normal" Crispin?
Yes, Crispin Glover as a seemingly "normal"character. I've only seen this once - and not completely. However, it was one of those times when you run across something on TV and it grabs you. A nice story about greed and guilt and wanting more than you deserve. Strong performances from Crispin and Tatum O'Neal. A small film worth a look. .For some reason I'm thinking of "Five Corners" with Jodie Foster and Tim Robbins, a similarly unusual-yet-normal Character-driven film.
Mute Witness (1995)
A good low-budget thriller
Despite a little blood (in the post-Tarantino age), this is not a horror film but a Hitchcockian Thriller. The Hitchcock comparison applies directly to the good use of a "gimmick" - the main character and "witness" being Mute; well acted by a Russian actress as an American. Without this device, the film would falter greatly, but it's still well made enough to grab your attention within the first few minutes and keep it for the duration. Several times I thought I knew where it was going (who the bad guy was) - but that's exactly what the filmmaker wanted. Worth seeing for a good thriller. Interesting side note (spoiler?): Alec Guinness isn't credited in the credits. Legend (read: magazine I read years ago) has it that the director shot the footage of Guinness years before the rest of the film was shot, and held onto it until the film could be completed. In the time that passed, the setting of the film moved to Russia, among other changes, I'm sure. This explains why he's not in shots with any other actors. His scenes are pretty well edited, considering.
Consenting Adults (1992)
not good. . .
. . .but the weirdest thing is - it is eerily similar to the Aykroyd/Belushi film "Neighbors." Heavily derided in it's time, it matters not whether you liked it, it had some really weird elements to it. NOW - take out the weird elements and leave a basic plot: "Exciting" guy with a bad bleach-job and his sexy wife move in next door to thoroughly-mundane guy and his attractive wife; who, by the way have a sexless marriage. Kline/Belushi are set up as "marks" immediately, and almost as immediately the new neighbors begin a contrived "seduction of the innocent". Soon, the mundane guy finds himself trapped in an existential hell of Blondie's making(Spacey/Aykroyd). Well. Consenting Adults is not a good movie - or even interesting. Spacey gives a charismatic performance as usual, but the script lacks any originality. This was another entry in the ". . .from Hell" high-concept series of scripts from the early-90's. Babysitter. . .Cop. . .Neighbor. . .Dentist. ..I wish I could say that the best parts of this film ended up on the editing room floor - considering the cast - but there's no way this script was ever anything but stale.
Bad Ronald (1974)
couldn't turn if off
Unlike most of the reviewers (it seems), I've actually seen this movie since 1974. I ran across it on TBS or such LATE at night a few years ago, and found it captivating. Some of the acting is pathetic by any standards. Some of it is great - giving wonderful glimpses of actors such as Dabney Coleman before his fame in "9-to-5" and his fall in "Dragnet." He showed more depth than allowed to for most of his career. The story of Bad Ronald is the clincher though; the "weird" kid in the neighborhood accidently kills a bully by pushing him onto the ground onto a sharp rock - he runs home to his clearly deranged mother, who hides him away in the space under the stairs, filling his mind with paranoia about being convicted of murder. She keeps him fed and cared for until. . .she suddenly dies. He stays under the stairs, the house is sold, and he falls in love with a young girl who moves in with her family. His sense of reality completely twisted, he starts constructing a neo-camelot fantasy world where she is a princess, he is a hero, and her boyfriend must be defeated. The climax is pitifully staged and awkward - but in a strange way, perfect. I would imagine this was one of the weirdest TV movies of the 70's. I stayed up till 3:30 am to finish it. I don't regret it one bit.
Safe Men (1998)
worth the rent
OK - it helps if you are Jewish or have Jewish friends. It's a culture thing. Besides that, it's a good Mob comedy. REAL mob movies take place in New York and Italy. This is Providence, RI. Knowing the Prov. Reputation makes the jewish Mob bit even funnier. Lead guy Sam has a Carrey-in-Dumb-and-Dumber haircut, and has the same sorta "incompetent charm wins the girl" thing going. Otherwise, there is little similarity to the Farrely film. The kind of movie where you aren't at all suprised to see a Dwarf hit-man. Good dialogue. Great acting. Strange tone. Fun movie.
Floundering (1994)
I liked it, but. . .
Floundering is a film I could really relate with when I was fresh out of college, lost and feeling overwhelmed. It is well acted. Direction is passable, though not real important. It's well written if you don't mind breaking the cardinal rule of not having an interior monologue Voiced-over the whole movie by the protagonist. It's THAT kind of movie - where the most interesting action takes place in the characters' head and fantasies. It was also written in Los Angeles immediately following the Riots - which dates the film to anyone who has no memories of the event or climate of the time. (Merryl Fence = Daryl Gates. . . ) This is a character-driven film about a guy in a very confused, bad head-space. And it's good. . .until the end where the Elvis Costello kicks in and the theme of the film is kicked into your teeth with lots of bad singing. For anyone who has been 24 and depressed in the 90's, I'd recommend.
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
a challenge to the audience
Stanley Kubrick made films that proved opinions about people and society. He proved that we are: Self-destructive buffoons (Strangelove), Arrogant (2001), Vicious and Unrepentant (Clockwork), Fragile and Destructive(Shining), Cowards and Ugly Heroes(Full Metal.) Seems many have walked into Eyes Wide Shut thinking this is the film where he shows us how Horny we are. I'm afraid not. This is a movie about how Selfish we are. The film is a stew of honesty, lies, dream and reality - and how each can intermingle and mix - and ultimately, that it may not matter which is which. In his final statement as an artist, Kubrick made a movie that does not pander to the audience. Many moral lines are drawn and erased in this film, and there are no moments of clarity where you have no question what to feel. Or what the director intends. Movies are a massive tool of manipulation, and in this film, Kubrick doesn't tell us how to feel - he asks us to figure that out. This film is incredibly beautiful. Its motion flows. Brightly-lit colors and shadows are used for great emotional effect. Compositions are near-perfect. It's visually amazing in the most subtle way. It's rare to find a major motion picture that is as reluctant to loudly define itself to the audience as EWS is. Tom and Nicole impressed the hell out of me. Through Kubrick's lense, Cruise is neither as handsome nor as strong as we remember him. Kidman is the opposite - never more perfect, sometimes to the detriment of her character's likability. I have no doubt that was intentional - there was nothing this director did that wasn't, for good or ill. Accusations have been made that there is a lack of intimacy and chemistry between the married actors. They have the chemistry of two people who were once very close, who think they know the other very well, but have driven each other away. The characters have a clinical distance between them, even in "love-making". This could easily be mistaken on the surface for "lack of chemistry". It's a subtle distinction some audience members may not have the patience to find. Unlike Kubrick other films, this film casts little satire or moral judgement on its characters or the audience. I'm not sure yet whether I enjoyed this film. At times, it is meandering and confusing. It forces you to either pay close attention or get bored. I obviously respect it. The fact that I'm still trying to determine my opinion 24 hours later says a lot about this film.