Lofwer Reviews

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

What a terrible waste of film

[1/10 · 30 November 2000]

Requiem for a Dream is a movie that has its heart in the right place, but not much else. Much has been made of the technical aspects of this film. And some of the technique does impress. The rampant use of split screen very effectively, quickly, and cleverly underscores the selfishness of characters. They are literally separated from one another within the film frame. The repetition of certain elements--the rapid fire images that accompany every hit of heroin taken by the characters--is cool. Less cool are these crazy point of view shots, lots of odd angles. Why are they there? They do not enhance the film in any way. They are as pretentious and unnecessary as any technical thing in film this year.

The other thing about this movie is that I didn't care about most of it. Jared Leto Marlon Wayans and the girlfriend--sorry, can't remember her name--go through all these horrible things. And we're supposed to sympathize, feel their pain. Oh, look what drugs have done to those poor creatures. But look: these people are junkies and dealers, spoiled brats doing their own thing and paying the price. As callous as it may seem to say this, they deserve what they get. But look, here's the other thing. Aronofsky is so heavy handed and obvious about one fact--that these characters WILL BE PUNISHED--that it becomes almost laughable. I mean, these are cliches that even most hacks would steer clear of. Simplistic, naive, are the words I would use to describe Mr. Aronofsky's take on this whole thing.

He goes so far over the top--and he does this in the other main storyline, involving Ellen Burstyn--that he undercuts the potential power of his own piece. It becomes a movie of bombast, a trite piece of audience manipulation. Look at what drugs have done to this person and that person. I love that Aronofsky tried to make a really powerful anti-drug movie. But I hate how incredibly he failed.

Urban Legends: Final Cut (2000)

The unintentional comedy classic of the year!

[2/10 · 28 September 2000]

This movie is the best comedy of the year. Unfortunately, though, this movie is also not a comedy, but a horror film. Whoops. Coulda fooled me. And that, I would say, sums up Urban Legends: Final Cut. I will be extremely brief here, because I will feel like a loser if I exert any energy giving serious critical thought to this film. Some might ask, but aren't you a loser for going to see this terribly directed, written, acted, edited, shot, and conceived production? No. I went knowing it would be terrible, and also knowing that I would have a ball mocking it savagely for an hour and forty minutes. And I did. By golly I did. This is a terrible movie, make no doubts about it. One of the of the year. But if you go expecting that... Nay, looking forward to it.. ANd you come armed with lots and lots of energy to spend making fun of it... Then you will have a lot of fun. ANd that's about all I got to say about that. Bwa ha ha ha. So bad. Soooooo baaaaaaad!

The Way of the Gun (2000)

Yes. Yes yes yes.

[10/10 · 8 September 2000]

Does one usually go into an action film starring Ryan Phillipe expecting to think, expecting to be challenged. I did not, in this case. And so, as I found myself confronted by this extraordinarily cool contemporary crime/western, I was shocked. This has all the makings of a generic film. The philosophical/amoral central team... could've been Pulp Fiction redux. The wise older criminal sharing his wisdom with those below him... If I really went into all the elements of this movie that could've been handled as shameless rip offs of other films, that list alone would take me over 1,000 words.

The brilliance of this film is that MacQuarrie, impressively directing for the first time from his own script, takes familiar elements, tired cliches, and breaths new, inventive life into them. This is a neat hat trick, and not an easy one. Godard did it with HIS first film, Breathless. Tarantino did it with Pulp Fiction. And MacQuarrie does it here. Note that the aforementioned instance is the only place where you will hear a mention of Tarantino similarities in this review. Those who would criticize Way of the Gun as being derivative of Taranton's film are missing the point and not really watching the film.

This film reflects an utter familiarity with the conventions of CINEMA. Of the things that go into a great film. Knowing those thigns so well, as Godard did, allows MacQuarrie to become freed enough to work with them, change them, and make them become something knew. It is quite an achievement, and this is quite an awesome film.

The Cell (2000)

Oh the sadness that comes with wasted opportunities

[4/10 · 21 August 2000]

This could have been a really interesting, possibly great movie, but it is not. Not by a long shot. This movie is an empty, pretentious piece of garbage. Beautiful imagery flows by, but none of it has any meaning. Characters are hollow. Some would say they are simple, archetypal figures. I would say that they're shells, non-characters parading around AS characters with flimsy back stories and lame characterization devices. The exploration of a serial killer's mind is handled with exactly the type of smug pop psychology that marks only the worst films of the genre. It would have been more interesting if first time director Tarsem Singh had explored the morality of invading a person's mind. But there is none of that. There are no grand themes, there are no real ideas being explored here. The story is just a rickety excuse to show lots of purty pictures. Someone should tell Tarsem that purty pictures don't mean a thing if there is nothing behind them. People have compared this film to 2001, Se7en, The Silence of the Lambs, Fight Club. THey've compared Tarsem to a burgeoning figure amongst filmmakers, on par with Fincher, PT ANderson, Jonze, and worst of all, Stanley Kubrick. THis is ludircous, and quite insulting to those genuinely talented people, those genuinely inspired films. This is garbage. Jennifer Lopez is terrible, purring every line like she's in a cheap 80s video porno. Vince Vaughn looks like a drunken lout slumming as an actor.

Titan A.E. (2000)

interesting things abound

[8/10 · 27 June 2000]

The second animated feature from Fox Animation STudios, and a rael nice try all around. Animation is pretty spectacular, although a couple of the "money shots" don't quite work as well visually as one would have hoped. At other times, the wham-bang visuals seem a little superfluous, like this entire sequence where the Matt Damon-voiced hero flies a ship through some sort of energy field for no reason other than to plug another sound from the soundtrack. Whatever. The story is pretty much paint by numbers, ripping off Star Wars, Starship Troopers--heck, pretty much every science fiction man-against-aliens movie ever made. And that's all right. It's entertaining, darn it. I don't really know why the film is flopping so bad except. It's a pity. Doesn't deserve this type of treatment from the audience. Anyway, the voice work is decent--Matt Damon is good, though, as usual, a little on the Will Hunting side of things. Natahn Lane is amusing and sniveling as an alien. Bill Pullman is decent in his part. Drew Barrymore is terrible, as usual. Who really believes this girl can act? Well, not me, anyway. Also, and here's an interesting one, Titan A.E is the first animated film produced for a kid's audience in the U.S that I can remember to feature male dorsal nudity--that means we see the Matt Damon character's butt a couple of times. In fact, there's more of "Damon's" flesh on display here than in the entireity of The Talented Mr. Ripley. And it's a nice butt too. Good, not great movie, but lots of fun, and much more deserving of the success that it is not getting.

The Big Kahuna (1999)

A fantastic disaster of a movie

[1/10 · 7 May 2000]

The Big Kahuna is a pretentious, preachy, overblown film. To make matters worst, it is painfully uncinematic. It bears the scars of its lineage, meaning that it is obviously a play adapted to the screen. And it does not bear the transfer well. The director, a first timer, tries to work in interesting cinematic techniques, but he doesn't do it enough, and you end up feeling like you're watching a play. But the play isn't even good, as it was in other films with the same problem (I'm thinking of Oleanna here). THe simple fact of the matter is that this story didn't need to be told, didn't want to be told, and is not told well. The acting? Danny DeVito's alright, I suppose, but he has that earnest nice guy look he has in most of his work these days. Kevin Spacey sinks way below the heights he reached in American Beauty. Spacey bitches and moans and proves once more that he can overact with the best of them. The fact that Spacey also produced this film makes it even sadder: this was Spacey's idea of a good movie. This movie has nothing to recommend it. THe story is flat and uninteresting, and builds to an intense conclusion that is full of emotion and energy, but is completely undeserved by what came before it. This is a total piece of garbage. One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Gladiator (2000)

The first truly grand movie this year

[9/10 · 7 May 2000]

During the first five monthes of 2000, I sat through loads of dreck, waiting for some film to live up to the annus mirabilis that was 1999. I went to Erin Brockovich, and was repulsed by the manipulation of the audience in that film, not to mention the deification of Julia Roberts and passed through the film. I decided not to look for a good movie, just an entertaining one, and I went to U-571. Instead of giving solid action, it tried to build characters into a story that couldn't handle characters. They piled cliches on an unsturdy frame, and the all film colapsed. I really wanted Gladiator to be the film that I would love, and I truly did love it. The opening has echoes of Saving Private RYan in style, but goes beyond that film because it truly ties us in to Russell Crowe's character, instantly. We know who he is, we identify with him, and we are instantly willing to follow him through to the end of the film. All of the fight scenes are on a grand scale, perfectly mounted and expertly executed. But there is more to this film than action. Russell Crowe had better become a movie star with this movie, because after The Insider, he truyly deserves it. He is a romantic, heroic, nobleman in the grandest sense of the word. Joaquin Phoenix is suitably over the top at times, yet there is depth to his characters. He is a human villain, and yet a hissable one none the less. That is great movie making. The political aspects of the film are also magnificent, adding a sociological dimension to the film that at no time feels like the film is teaching the audience. It is worked into the story organically. It also manages to work this massive scope into the context of a conventional, though thoroughly compelling and engrossing, revenge story. All in all, this is extraordinary, majestic, wonderful work. Now that I've listed everything I can think of that is great about this movie, allow me to take this opportunity to curse the name of Hans Zimmer. His score is, until the last twenty or thirty minutes of the movie, horrible, and should be excised from the film and replaced with something else in later incarnations of this film. Hopefully this is less than 1,000 words.

Fight Club (1999)

A totally brilliant, woefully underappreciated film

[10/10 · 7 May 2000]

I read comments that call Fight Club depraved and I cringe. I hear people talk about its ludicrous, totally unsupported plot twist, and my jaw drops in shock and horror. THis is a brilliant film, one of the five best ever made, and I am not some knee-jerk, violence loving fanboy. I have seen this film four times, and it becomes better with every viewing. First of all, the plot twist. Without giving it away, I guarantee that if you watch carefully, you will be able to see, in hindsight, how brilliantly and perfectly the twist is set up. But you have to WATCH the movie. You cannot simply let the movie wash over you. This film requires thoughtful, attentive viewing. Secondly, the movie doesn't even come close to glorifying violence. The fight clubs are at first a mode for expressing repressed emotionality in the men who attend the fights. beating each other is the only way they can make themselves feel, so they do it. It is a symbol for greater things. The film has three stages. Ultimately, the extreme philosophy that emerges in the second act of the film is rejected. It does not glorify or encourage fighting or violence. And this is not even to mention the glorious style of this film, with its atmospheric, nearly expressionistic lighting, its extraordinarily sophisticated and complex use of the camera, and its truly amazing sound mix. This is, on all levels, a brilliant film. It has a dark streak which makes it inaccessable and susceptable to the ravings of the naive, those who see a violent act and automatically begin to cry out about irresponsability in filmaking and everything else dangerous to film form. This film is a ten, an A+, four stars.

The Conversation (1974)

Coppola's best film, and one of the best films ever made

[10/10 · 26 April 2000]

Francis Ford Coppola's The Conversation was the movie that the director made between the first and second installation in the Godfather Saga. That said, this film is nothing like those two epics. It has none of the sweep and grandeur of those films, and suffers not one iota for it. This film is an exquisitely crafted character study. The character is Harry Caul, a brilliant eaves dropper, the best surveillance guy in the country. But he is troubled by the consequences of his past jobs, with these concerns and feelings of guilt brought to a head with his new job. This film is really about accountability, in an almost Biblical sense, with Harry having to face, eventually the consequences of his "sins." The film is clearly an indictment of voyeurism, and drives that concept home all the more poignantly by drawing attention to the act of moviegoing itself as a form of voyeurism. We are made to feel as if we are snooping on Harry Caul, intruding in his life. And we are meant, in some ways, to feel responsible for some of the events that transpire. A powerful, haunting, brilliant film from a brilliant director. Gene Hackmen is amazing as Harry Caul.

Cradle Will Rock (1999)

Great film with one big problem.

[8/10 · 11 December 1999]

Cradle Will Rock is, without a doubt, a great piece of filmaking. It is Tim Robbins most technically ambitious and skilled production, and the script is filled with intelligence, complexities, and comedy. Hank Azaria, the Cusack siblings, and especially Bill Murray are excellent, as are Emily Watson, Phillip Baker Hall, and Ruben Blade. That said, I absolutely hated the film's treatment of John Houseman and, especially, Orson Welles. If you're a fan of Welles, you won't like Angus Macfadyn's portrayel. It is utterly impossible to catch even a glimpse, in this film, of the genius that would give the world Citizen kane, The Magnificent Ambersons, and Touch of Evil. Welles himself went on record as saying that he was arrogant and belligerent in his younger days, especially in the theater, but this is not a realistic portrayel. It is a mean spirited caricature that jabs its thumb violently into Welles legacy and joins the ranks of those that are still trying to drag down the genius.

As hard as it may be to believe after this harangue of mine, the film really is extremely good, with Bill Murray's storyline ranking as the most effective and emotionally touching of the bunch. The final four way cross cutting finale is extremely well done, and has great power. The final shot of the film, which I won't describe, packs a punch. This is a film with great artistic and social merit, and is a great achievement in both senses. Except for everything having to do with Orson Welles. That all sucks.