mercury-26 Reviews

Waking the Dead (2000)

2000's hidden gem is also its Crown Jewel

[10/10 · 30 March 2001]

Never mind `Traffic'. Forget `Gladiator'. To find 2000's finest, most nail-on-the-head perfect film, you'll need to look a little deeper. A small film that only enjoyed limited release in theaters and isn't getting much attention on DVD either, is Keith Gordon's latest, `Waking the Dead'.

Back in 1992, there was another under-appreciated independent film called `A Midnight Clear' that had the misfortune of being released alongside the likes of `Unforgiven' and `Last of the Mohicans'. For reasons I can't fathom, this brilliant film seemingly did nothing to help Gordon's career. His budgets stayed small, but he continued looking for the most daring and fascinating material. In 1996, he released `Mother Night', another war-themed film, only this time set in the aftermath of WWII.

With `Waking the Dead', Gordon outdoes himself. He casts Billy Crudup as Fielding Pierce, an ambitious Coast Guard officer who'd like to be president--and he means it. His world is turned upside-down when he meets Sarah Williams (Jennifer Connelly), who just wants to feel like she `lives on the planet'. Fielding and Sarah could not be more different, yet they cannot live without each other. Each is the antithesis of the other, which dooms their relationship and intensifies their love at the same time.

The film begins with the announcement of Sarah's death, and continues pulling you back and forth in time. Employing this storytelling technique and maintaining the momentum of the story is a difficult task. While we see Fielding wrestle with her memory, we're shown the powerful connection these two had during her life.

What's more, Fielding begins to see visions of her. Some of these visions are so real, he begins to believe she's alive. The hauntings come just as he begins campaigning for the U.S. House. It begins to affect his life and threatens his campaign. The question of whether Sarah is really alive is the dramatic carrot Gordon dangles in front of us. It's then we realize that she was his conscience in life and remains so in death. Gordon pours it on right until the very last frame. He gets the best performance of Connelly's career out of her, plus a jaw-dropping performance out of Crudup that's worthy of an Oscar. Whoever was in charge of plugging this film for awards nominations must have fallen asleep at the wheel (though I see it did win an Independent Spirit award for its script).

That this film or others in the same situation get no recognition is definitely for the best. The more popular a film becomes, the more idiots that come out of the woodwork to second-guess it. So best to leave it to be discovered by those willing to seek it out. It is 2000's crown jewel.

Grade: A (but only because there isn't a higher grade)

Jesus' Son (1999)

The year's weirdest film

[3/10 · 11 March 2001]

I like an offbeat film as much as the next guy. Heck, the weirder the better, I say. But this film crosses the line even for me. At least I could actually sit through this entire thing, unlike its older (even weirder) cousin, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas". I compare the two films because they're both drug-trippin', hallucinatory affairs. Both of them, for some reason, drew big names out of the woodwork to get involved. The star of "Jesus' Son" is Billy Crudup, along with the relatively unknown Samantha Morton. But also on board is Holly Hunter, Will Patton, Dennis Hopper, and Denis Leary in small roles.

These films' defining stamp is that they are told in an intentionally haphazard manner. Put simply, this makes a film that's difficult to watch. Both films are based on novels (I've read neither) and I can safely say this storytelling style befits the page more than it does the screen. It's supposed to make the experience more challenging for the audience, leaving them to try and piece this collection of strange occurrences into something that means anything. Let's just say I don't prefer this type of movie-going experience.

I didn't find anything particularly great about this film, nor did I find anything to be at all endearing. The result is an unsatisfying hour and a half of movie watching. Don't use drugs. Don't bother with "Jesus' Son".

Grade: D+

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

Is the Academy brave enough to vote this Best Picture?

[9/10 · 6 March 2001]

When was the last time you found a martial arts film beautiful and touching? Ang Lee wants to give you something that holds your interest because of its visuals. The story is tailored around the many fight sequences that it contains. The difference, as it turns out, is that these people are allowed to live and breathe and have depth. Lee is not afraid to stop and explore his characters in a way that action/adventure films never do (chicks and dudes alike will enjoy this one, but probably for different reasons).

The result is a completely unique cinematic experience. It didn't blow me away like it did for some. I haven't heard many people talk about how comedic this film really is. Lee can't help but borrow this trait from the Bruce Lee or even Jackie Chan school of filmmaking (the fight scenes were orchestrated by `Matrix' choreographer and long-time Jackie Chan collaborator Yuen Wo Ping). In this case, the humor is more obscure. For example, the climactic fight scene (which will go down in history as one of the best ever) between Shu Lien (Michelle Yeoh) and her would-be apprentice Jen Yu (Zhang Ziyi) begs for laughter. They fight in the middle of an arsenal. Lien keeps grabbing larger, more imposing weapons to use against the magical, indestructible sword Jen has stolen. It lasts quite a long time and by the end, still you wish it would go on.

Then there's the ‘Peter Pan' aspect of the combat these warriors use. It didn't work for me much of the time. To Lee's credit, though, at least he's attempted to create something fresh. At times, you can almost see the cable it's so obvious. At other times though, the effect is so cool you can't believe what you're seeing. I rule in favor of its incorporation, but wish they'd used it more sparingly.

`Tiger' deserves the acclaim it's received as much as any movie this year. What makes `Tiger' so appealing is that it's not trying to be an Oscar contender, nor any other kind of contender. It's like Crash Davis (you know, from `Bull Durham'). It just wants to Be. Same can be said of all the films nominated for a lot of hardware this year, `Traffic', `Gladiator', `Almost Famous' for example: they just ended up being really good. For one reason or another, they were weeded out of that vast pool of worthy films (well, not so vast this particular year). `Tiger' is certainly worthy. If it cleans up on March 25, I'll be happy for it.

Grade: B

Shadow of the Vampire (2000)

Unforgettable

[10/10 · 4 March 2001]

The idea behind this film is one that was just waiting to be utilized. So great is this material for cinema, once the idea is actually executed, more is the shame if it's not done with a sure hand. I'm pleased to report that "Shadow" is one of 2000's finest. I still giggle at the genius of the its premise, that the mysterious star of the 1922 vampire classic "Nosferatu", Max Schreck, was a real vampire! True, after his debut, Schreck went on to make many more films. But "Shadow" offers a tasty 'what if' scenario that's irresistible.

F.W. Murnau, the obsessive director of "Nosferatu" doesn't feel he can make a realistic enough vampire movie with an actor in the title role. While traveling through Transylvania Murnau meets Count Orlock, an actual bloodsucker and makes a deal with him to star in his new film. Because the director has cast a genuine monster as his lead, his cast and crew start to disappear until finally...well, not exactly. Orlock isn't the kind of vampire we've come to imagine because of Hollywood, but a simple recluse living alone in a castle. That's the coup that director E. Elias Mehridge and writer Stephen Katz pull. There is no attempt to make this a horror film. It's as scary as the old black-and-white silent horror films are to us in our computer effects-driven era of movies. Most of the time these films are good for a laugh from a modern audience. But the directors of those old films were always after something dark, deep, and meaningful. The screams they produced were simply a side effect.

The problems that Murnau encounters arise out of Schreck's very real vampire needs. For starters, he's cast a man who is not an actor. "Shadow" is not a comedy, but it's funny seeing Murnau's idea of a vampire clash with Schreck's. Schreck can't possibly act like a vampire. He IS one. The first scenes they use him in (he'll only appear at night of course) are disastrous. He doesn't follow direction, doesn't follow the script, and just acts weird. Willem Dafoe, under tons of make-up, perfectly portrays a guy who obviously doesn't get out very much. Eventually the cast and crew change their opinion of Schreck from believing he's awful to seeing him as a very committed method actor (the producer and writer witness him catch a bat in mid-flight and eat it).

Mehridge goes out of his way to bring the audience something completely original and succeeds. Even though "shadow" is based on the making of another film, every image, every word of dialogue seems painstakingly crafted to give you something you've never seen before. Mehridge is definitely one to watch.

Grade: A

Quills (2000)

Torture

[4 March 2001]

Why is everyone falling over themselves over this film? Just because it's a period film starring Geoffery Rush doesn't automatically mean it's good. Truth is, "Quills" is not good, and I don't mean that it just needs a spanking. Its mission is to rise to the level of its subject matter by creating scene after scene of people being naughty.

That the Marquis De Sade's imprisonment, torture, and silencing symbolizes the right-wing censorship of the entertainment industry today is a bit too obvious. No one deserves to be tortured for their personal beliefs or art, but the Marquis is almost made out to be a heroic figure, a saint. In truth, he was a very sick man, and not even a very talented one, judging from the little of his writings the film exposes us to.

There is still much controversy over the degree the entertainment industry is to be held accountable for acts of violence it inspires. "Quills" wants you to cherish the freedom of expression we have in a free society. What left me cold throughout the experience of watching "Quills" was that the garbage that the Marquis was dumping on his society. I had to ask what made this drivel so worthy of the struggle. If only the Marquis had actually been a good writer and not just a pervert with an overly active imagination. I suppose the point is that freedom of expression is freedom of expression, no matter what that expression happens to be.

The Marquis' captors made the mistake of trying to silence him. The more they tried, the louder his voice got. They made a martyr out of a man who didn't deserve to be.

Grade: C-

The Gift (2000)

Haunts you

[8/10 · 3 March 2001]

Sam Raimi's work here shows a lot of growth. He's on his way to perfecting the psychological thriller, taking a step up from the also great "A Simple Plan".

Cate Blanchett is Annie Wilson, a small town clairvoyant and fortune teller who reads tarot cards for a group of regular customers. She claims she can't do it for financial gain or it won't work. So any compensation she receives for her services are conveniently called 'donations'. If there is any benefit to her at all, her gift doesn't work. It's not just money either. She can't tell her own fortune, for instance, because her emotions block the way.

The main question the film wants the audience to ask is, by telling people their futures, is she really helping them? Her clientele are among the town's most fragile, desperate, afraid. In a way, she's taking advantage of them. At the same time people like Buddy (the amazing Giovanni Ribisi) need her like a drug. She's become his guardian angel, protecting him from himself. Another client, Valerie (Hillary Swank), comes to Annie often to see if her future holds anything better than her abusive husband Donnie.

The first plot point is the disappearance of Jessica King (Katie Holmes). Having no leads and no suspects, the skeptical town authorities go to Annie and ask for her help. Not only is the woman missing, Annie finds, but she's dead. A suspect is found, tried, and convicted, but Annie's name and profession are dragged through the mud in the process. What's worse, Annie begins to fear she may have helped to convict the wrong guy. From this point on it becomes a pretty good whodunnit, with many possible suspects. The big secret isn't revealed until nearly the last scene.

Much of this strikes you as cliche', using a lot of small hicktown stereotypes to move the story. But Annie's character is so original and interesting, all is forgiven. Everything around her needs to be the way we'd expect in order for her character to be the outcast. Her 'kind' is not exactly welcome in this small, Southern, church going community.

Raimi's usual flawless direction also makes a huge difference. It's not until long after you've left the theater that you realize why he's chosen to show you the images he has, in the order he shows them in. "The Gift" is a truly haunting experience.

Grade: B

State and Main (2000)

interesting and funny

[9/10 · 3 March 2001]

Small town values. What is that anyway? Mamet is careful not to step on them, whatever they happen to be. Rather than ridicule them, with his latest film (the first comedy he's directed since 1988's "Things Change"), Mamet skims its charm off the top and lets the audience have a taste.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is Joe White, a playwright-turned-screenwriter who's been recruited along with his script to work on a film for the first time. Joe is not unlike the title character of the Coen's "Barton Fink". He's a fish out of water, in a place that goes against everything he believes in. At the same time, the film world is something he needs desperately. Joe falls head over heels for the town and one of its most known and loved faces, bookstore owner Ann Black (Rebecca Pidgeon). It's like he's living in two worlds simultaneously, one pure and simple, the other corrupt and shameless.

The town's residents are taken by the Hollywood glitz and glamour, but aren't corrupted by it as the film's marketing would suggest. They understand the temporal nature of the situation and want to make the most of it while it's there. Unfortunately for Ann, they'd rather walk through a shot in the film as extras than follow through with the speaking parts they have in the play she's putting on.

The moral dilemma that Joe finds himself in fuels the rest of the story. It's interesting to see how little truth and integrity matter when money and deadlines are involved (which is in no way exclusive to the film industry). "State and Main" is about any person who finds themselves between a moral rock and a hard place.

Grade: A-

Gossip (I) (2000)

shameful

[2/10 · 28 February 2001]

Well, it begins promising enough. After that though, it makes a slow descent, then a nose dive into cliches and predictability.

It's yet another film that panders to the Gen X crowd but fails to understand what this audience is really looking for, namely, material much more interesting and sophisticated than this. "Gossip" is a made-for-tv movie with swearing in it.

The film is about a class project that (supposedly) turns deadly. Its central characters, roommates, pick out two people they don't like, a couple who both come from rich families, and decide to start a rumor about them. The idea is to see how long it takes for the gossip to spread through the campus and back to them. It works, but not without unexpected, devastating consequences. Someone needs to tell this writer that a college campus does not work the same way as a high school campus (a misconception he got from "Revenge of the Nerds" apparently). Not everyone knows everyone else in college. By the time they enter college, heck even by the time they're seniors, they've grown up anyway. These characters all behave like ninth graders.

Like I said, it begins interestingly enough and actually engaged me for the first 45 minutes. After that it becomes an episode of Scooby-Doo, complete with the climactic scene where everyone gathers in one room to uncover the real culprit. Instead of ooh-ing and aah-ing at its cleverness, you'll be covering your face in shame.

Grade: D

Thirteen Days (2000)

Elmer Fudd saves the world

[8/10 · 20 January 2001]

It's hard to imagine. The fate of the world in the hands of the Kennedy brothers and some joe named Kenny O'Donnell (Kevin Costner, sounding eerily like Elmer Fudd at times). These three were apparently the White House inner inner circle.

My own knowledge of the events is fuzzy. I hate to call this film educational, but it's now the account of the Cuban Missile Crisis that I will remember. It makes me want to read more about it, to see what's true and what isn't. Hopefully others won't be so quick to accept the film as gospel and look upon it as what it really is: entertainment.

Like any Hollywood movie with a Kennedy in it, Jack and Bobby are treated as infallible protectors of everything good. No other president has more stories surrounding him, more speculation about his personal life and beliefs. When Bruce Greenwood (in the best performance of the film) tells O'Donnell, kiddingly, that he wishes "someone else were president", we'd understand if he meant it. Hollywood has us believing the world would be a better place had JFK survived longer than three years in office. Kennedy's clashes with the military establishment is used for drama in "Thirteen Days", but doesn't take over the story. It's the cat-and-mouse game, the fact that these three men seem able only to trust each other, that makes the film so compelling.

The Crisis is so important because it's the one time in history where the world really seemed to be on the brink of nuclear annihilation. There was a chance, however small, that something could go wrong. "Cooler heads" might not prevail. "Thirteen Days" takes you inside of it, giving you things like the White House staff's reactions to Adlai Stevenson's "til hell freezes over" declaration to the Soviet U.N. delegate. Even if things didn't happen exactly this way, you see what it must have been like. Accurately depicted is the weight of the situation. You can feel the life-or-death quality of each decision these men faced.

Lest we forget that there are still enough nuclear weapons in silos around the world to destroy it twenty times over, the film is some timely food for thought.

Grade: B

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

a musical journey

[10/10 · 17 January 2001]

"O Brother, Where Art Thou?" is unmistakably a Coen brothers film. I first noticed the common denominator between all their films when I was watching "Fargo" for the first time: These guys' films feel like they're made up as they go along, even if they're not. Fortunately, the results are always good (aside from the disappointing "Big Lebowski").

I suspect they employed their usual 'anything goes' strategy to "O Brother". This time though, whatever story there is seems to take a back seat to what the boys really hoped to accomplish with this film. In the liner notes to the film's soundtrack, the Coens describe the film as a sort of valentine to the music of the pre-Great Depression era. "There are very few scenes in the movie that don't have an in-screen musical element to them," says Joel. Thinking back on the film, indeed, a scene not driven by music or built around music is hard to find. While the boys manage to piece together a quality story by merrying up folklore with the bonafide history of the South, it's all about incorporating the music, somehow, some way. "O Brother" is about as close as there is to a musical that isn't a musical.

To quote the liner notes again, "Before a single frame of film was shot, these musicians and others created the 'canvas' upon which the colorful saga of O Brother Where ArtThou? would be painted". So first they had their theme, namely, spirituality. The condition of the soul. Sin, punishment, and forgiveness. The Coens must have felt that as long as they abided by this theme, the story would take care of itself. Any story about the old South could be about the thick mist of good and evil spirits that inhabit it. It's the American home of both God and Beelzebub, of more angels and demons than any other region. One of the film's best sequences features escaped convicts Delmar and Pete (Tim Blake Nelson and John Turturro) wading into a river to be baptised and cleansed of all sins. In the very next scene the convicts (Nelson, Turturro, George Clooney) pick up a hitchhiker (aptly named Tommy Johnson, played by Chris Thomas King) at a crossroads, who tells them he's just sold his soul to the devil so he can play the guitar and make lots of money. The four of them then proceed to the next recording studio and cut a hit record together. Fantasic!

"O Brother" is a playful, flaccid romp through the backwoods of Mississippi. I couldn't help but imagine how much fun these guys were having making this thing and the attitude is contageous. It's the year's funniest film. Ethan's too smart for his own good sometimes though, and a lot of it flies right over your head. The humor takes you by surprise but doesn't shock you.

"O Brother Where Art Thou" won't be looked back upon as a Coen brothers masterpiece. It's no "Fargo" or "Miller's Crossing".

Grade: A-

Traffic (2000)

Oscar for Soderbergh? Not so fast...

[10/10 · 13 January 2001]

"Traffic" is the year's best film. Scary thing about this is, Soderbergh's best work may be yet to come.

This crime drama is his finest work to date. In 1998, critics were heaping praise on "Out of Sight," but it was virtually ignored by the Academy. The Academy was wise enough to know that awarding him for that film would be premature. It's like they were telling him ‘you have promise, keep going, make us proud.' Off he went, making "The Limey" and "Erin Brockovich." The latter seemed to be the ticket. Big-time actress in a solid human drama gives performance of a lifetime. The director finally connects with an audience, for the first time since "sex, lies, and videotape." Is "Brockovich" the film Soderbergh went to the mountain and came back with? Heck no. It's not THAT good.

Then, nine months later, comes "Traffic." Shot almost exclusively in handheld, it feels a lot like a documentary. the central character is Robert Wakefield, the President's appointee to be the new Drug Czar. Michael Douglas is having a great year as well. First with "Wonder Boys" and now this. Seems like he's being very choosy about his roles. Apparently, though, he wasn't Soderbergh's first choice. Douglas stepped in when Harrison Ford passed on it (Ford must have a screw loose). We're so used to Douglas giving these great performances, this one hasn't raised one eyebrow, at least not with critics. Who listens to these people anyway?

Wakefield's story focuses on his transition into his new office, his confirmation jeopardized by his teenage daughter, who's become a drug addict. It sounds corny on paper, but just watch the film. There is real power in this storyline. The best performance in the film is given by Erika Christensen, who plays Caroline, Wakefield's daughter. As with Douglas, critics have ignored her while heaping praise on the film and its director. Maybe the Academy will see it differently.

Many different stories are told, intersecting each other now and again over the film's 2 hours and 20 minutes. Every character is connected with the other in some way. All of it has to do with the flow of illegal drugs across the Mexican border into the United States. If we're to believe the film, the War on drugs is unwinnable. The War is about containment, not outright victory. This is fiction, but there are facts the back up this story, scary facts. One example: The cartels spend more money on their intelligence than all of the U.S. government agencies battling drug trafficking combined. Another: from a business perspective, drug trafficking may be the most successful industry in the U.S., maybe the world.

The film visits the War on all fronts. Wakefield's battle is waged with the cartels themselves, but also within his own family. While he's spending time away from home, taking meetings with agency officials and visiting the U.S./Mexico border and Mexico City, preaching the merits of winning the War on the demand side and not the supply side, he's losing touch with his daughter. His empty sermon: If the kids stop wanting the drugs, seeking them out, then the War is over.

The reality is that the drugs will keep on coming and the government will never stop fighting. The cycle will continue forever and ever. Knowing the government cannot win, the cartels claim victory. They're laughing at us. If anything, `Traffic' is a call for the DEA, the FBI, Customs, to get serious. Mere containment is not enough.

The entire subject of the drug war has been forgotten lately. It's still raging as intensely as ever but it's become an unpopular subject, like nuclear weapons. think of `Traffic' as a public service, its intention to renew interest in a vital issue. It's an excellent composite of the War's effect on our country. Probably the best ever made.

If Soderbergh doesn't walk away with Best Picture for this, I'll be very surprised. In the end though, the Academy may find they spoke too soon, that Soderbergh had yet to go to the mountain and bring back his REAL masterpiece.

Grade: A

Pitch Black (2000)

best sci-fi of 2000

[6/10 · 10 January 2001]

"Pitch Black" kicks right off with a pretty spectacular scene. In this scene a spaceship serving as a sort of inter-galactic subway train crash lands on a strange planet. Among the surviving passengers is a convicted mass murderer, Riddick (Vin Diesel from "Saving Private Ryan"), being transported back to prison or somewhere nasty. There's the co-captain of the ship, Fry (Rahda Mitchell from "High Art"), who finds herself in charge. There are about ten others to begin with, but that number of course is reduced to about four by the end.

The planet is very desert-like (what world of your typical sci-fi movie isn't?) Luckily (by golly, what a coincidence!) they land near a settlement now seemingly abandoned. There's also a canyon nearby filled with the bones of alien creatures. The group sets out in search of water, concerned by the presence of Riddick. But then something else starts killing people. They discover that the planet's only remaining life forms are these nasty, hammerhead shark-looking things that fly. The planet has three suns and for some reason, these creatures can't live in sunlight. Day lasts 22 years. At night, they hunt. Thing is, night lasts maybe as long as the day (a very cool concept that put a grin on my face). Oh and wouldn't you know it, after almost 22 years of daylight, these poor people crash land on the planet only a few days before the long night falls. sucks to be you I guess.

The film is actually the best sci-fi flick I've seen lately (which only demonstrates how bad the sci-fi has been this year). It's quite entertaining if you can get past how absurd it is. The trick is not to think too much when you're watching it. The script cleverly plays the personalities of the characters against each other. It plays the horror movie game of "who's the real bad guy?" for the entire length of the film as well as another old favorite, "who's going to die next?" If you just concentrate on these questions and not the story itself, which is full of holes, you'll have a good time at "Pitch Black."

Grade: C+

Where the Money Is (2000)

At least it's short

[3/10 · 6 January 2001]

Was this supposed to be a comedy? The idea of it is funny, but no one moment in it conjured up so much as a giggle.

There are several reasons for this I think. One is that no one really seemed to be enjoying themselves. Especially Dermot Mulroney, who must be the most dull actor in the business. His role, the reluctant partner in crime/ cold and uncaring husband--about as close as the film has to a villain, had its opportunities to provide some much needed comic relief. Had they cast the role with someone who had more personality, it would have made a world of difference.

Linda Fiorentino is adequate in her role as Carol, bored small town wife/physical therapist. She's right for the role, but doesn't command your attention the way a lead character should. She's always been a bit of a stiff anyway.

Not surprisingly, the best performance here is Newman, playing ex-bank robber Henry. He's been at it so long he could pull this stuff off in his sleep. For much of the movie, he literally does.

To its credit, it moves along nicely and actually contains a few surprise twists. Credit the writer and director for this. I was disappointed, though. This could have been much better.

Grade: D+

Finding Forrester (2000)

Inspiring but flawed

[7/10 · 5 January 2001]

Gus Van Sant has a knack for taking an average story and making it interesting to look at. At least with "Good Will Hunting" he had a great script to work with. The story carried that film, not the direction. "Forrester" has good ideas but often tries to cover more territory than it is able to.

The story is of a gifted student, Jamal, attending a Bronx high school. Jamal (Robert Brown) fears alienation from his friends if he reveals his love for writing and reading. As far as they're concerned, all he wants to do is play basketball. He bites his tongue in class when asked answers he knows the answer to--and he knows the answer to almost everything. His gift is exposed when he scores surprisingly high on the state standardized exam. Not even his own mother knows how brilliant he is. A nationally-renowned private school in Manhattan comes calling, offering him the opportunity to play basketball. But no one seems interested in his academic performance as long as the basketball team wins.

Jamal meets William Forrester, a Pulitzer prize-winning author for his first and only novel, who is living in seclusion in the same neighborhood as he and his mother. Forrester will help Jamal develop his writing in exchange for a vow of secrecy. Forrester lives under an assumed name, not wanting anyone to know where he is. He sits and writes all day, never leaving his apartment. No one reads his work, he reasons, because he doesn¹t need someone else to tell him what his writing means. He hides behind this so he can continue living in self-pity for things that happened in his past and things happening in the present. His tutelage of Jamal forms an unlikely bond of friendship between the two. Forrester finds the courage to finally share his pain with another person, which leads to the end of his seclusion.

Jamal and Forrester's friendship is the focus of the story. Writer Mike Rich adds other subplots that are supposed to support this main story, but end up getting in the way. A subplot involving Jamal and the only other black player on his school¹s basketball team is explored, but never followed through with. Another is an attempt at a love story. The first person Jamal meets at his new school is Claire (Anna Paquin), the daughter of the school's headmaster. The issue is supposed to be the he's black and she¹s white but it¹s just another subplot that's left hanging.

The story also relies coincidences that are difficult to accept. For instance, Jamal's writing professor, Dr. Crawford (F. Murray Abraham), just happens to assign Forrester's book to his students at the same time Jamal is discovering who his mysterious tutor really is. The two events, at this point, are completely unrelated. We are soon shown that the book is enormously popular, so there's some likelihood a professor would assign it to a first-year composition class. It's the timing that makes it so hard to believe.

Connery and Brown's performances are what make the whole film worthwhile. If newcomer Brown was intimidated at all by the legend, it doesn¹t show. If anything, there's the sense that Connery respected his co-star enough to not hold anything back, making Brown¹s performance that much stronger.

Grade: B-

All the Pretty Horses (2000)

Pretty disappointing

[4/10 · 5 January 2001]

This film is eye candy, but not much more. I didn¹t read the book, but I can¹t imagine that it¹s that much different from this movie. The story is good. The problem is that it isn't very cinematic. The filmmakers don't take the steps necessary to tell this story within the framework of film narrative. Whoever obtained the book's film rights must have visualized many of the book's scenes and thought they just had to see it on the big screen.

In a way, I wish they¹d left well enough alone if this was going to be the best they could do. If you break it up into its various parts; the writing of individual scenes, the photography, the performances of the actors; everything is great--as good as it gets. The problem is that the script never finds a way to make sense of the thing as a whole. At any given time, we¹re never quite sure why we have to continue watching the movie. There isn't that one clear objective of the protagonist that we¹re looking for. Once we think he's achieved it, the story keeps going, finding another objective.

This is fine within the framework of a novel, but doesn¹t make good cinema, no matter how nice it is to look at.

Grade: C-

The Family Man (2000)

"my own worst enemy"

[8/10 · 3 January 2001]

"The Family Man" goes to show that you can still make good cinema out of used up ideas. This film is the latest in a long line of ‘alternate reality' films. This kind of film features one character who is his/her own worst enemy. One character is both the antagonist and antagonist. "Mr. destiny," "It's a Wonderful Life," "Sliding Doors" are a few that come to mind, all good films.

"The Family Man" doesn't disappoint either. It's yet another take on an idea that's been done before, but it's a great story for telling cinematically. Its creators manage to make it seem fresh, even though it tips its hat to its predecessors, especially Capra's Christmas classic. There's the obligatory angel who comes to earth to teach mortals a lesson. Nicholas Cage plays Jack Campbell, president of a Wall Street investment firm. He even raises the pitch of his voice an octave and sticks his nose up in the air most of the time just to seem like more of a snob. Always versatile, Cage fits himself into the role perfectly.

Cage's Jack is a stiff on the outside; putting on the armor of heartless businessman to get the job done, to endure the lonely life he's created for himself. But the man's got a big heart, as evidenced by an act of heroic kindness in a convenience store on Christmas Eve. He then goes even further and tries to help the homeless bum who just held the store up at gunpoint. He's just exposed himself, let his good side come out. He's now been chosen. Whether he likes it or not, he's going to get a glimpse of what his life would have been like had he not left his heart at the airport thirteen years before.

It was then that he left Kate (Tea Leoni), the love of his life, behind. He wakes up the next morning in a suburban house with Kate as his wife and two kids. He steps into the skin of his other self, with no memory of the life he's led with Kate. Most of the film's comedy is supplied by Jack having to ask people how his life became so terrible. "Are you okay?" is asked a lot. Most people just laugh. It's just Jack being Jack. This was a nice touch on the writer's part. We're shown a videotape of Jack singing at Kate's birthday party and acting like he can't remember he's married to her. When he acts that way for real in the present, she just throws up her hand saying, "Jack, please, it's not funny any more." The key to this film is its script, which is solid. Only Jack's oldest daughter suspects anything is really amiss, except she believes that aliens must have kidnapped her real dad and replaced him with an exact replica. She becomes in invaluable resource then, showing him how to do things like change dirty diapers. This was genuinely cute and genuinely funny.

The film trips up at a critical time though: the ending. It's a bit cliché by ending at the airport (with the token shot of the hero running through the terminal chasing his true love). Their intention is to bookend the film with airport scenes. Okay fine, but the ending leaves too many questions unanswered. It's good to leave the audience to draw its own conclusions, but I could have used a little more help, especially with Kate's motivation.

This is good stuff all around, though. It does proud the films that came before.

Grade: B

Cast Away (2000)

The return of the silent film (sort of)

[10/10 · 3 January 2001]

Warning: this may contain spoilers.

If you watch the current trailer for "Cast Away," you might go in expecting this Indiana Jones-style exotic action/adventure film. Dreamworks is selling something they're not delivering on, which is a mistake. No matter how good the film is, many viewers are going to feel duped. I didn't. Yes, it moved slower than I thought it would. That's only because I've come to expect differently from a major studio. Films that seem to have a lot at stake tend to worry too much about the audience feeling things like bored and impatient. The result is a rushed story that ends up disappointing anyway.

"Cast Away" actually trusts its audience. That's why at the end I really felt like applauding. I'd just been shown something great and meaningful. Except, to my surprise, no one else clapped (I am by nature shy, so I let the opportunity pass). I can't say I blame anyone either. There is so much bad filmmaking out there and people see so many films, so when a film of true quality surfaces, people don't recognize it. Quality work is so rare, it becomes unfamiliar. What this means is that "Cast Away" probably won't be a huge success, unfortunately. Why? Well, because it's (gulp) too good.

I've read that the concept was Tom Hanks' idea, who produces and plays Chuck Noland, the film's subject. But the greatness of this movie really begins with its script, by William Broyles. I certainly hope enough people in the Academy will recognize this. Probably not, because it's not flashy. It doesn't contain a lot of great dialogue. It isn't really even that clever. But Broyles does the most difficult thing a writer has to do, which is, tell a story that doesn't need words. I'm waiting for the day a director makes a silent movie that a major distributor takes a chance on. The motion picture medium was created without spoken words in mind. "Cast Away" could be a Christmas present to the hearing impaired. I believe they would see the exact same story as anyone else, with no subtitles. The words Broyles does write are great. They do what they're supposed to do: stay out of the way.

Many people who see this will wonder what happened to the score. There is one somewhere, but it doesn't show up very often. For good reason, director Robert Zemeckis (who's managed to make both one of the year's worst films, "What Lies Beneath," and one of the year's best), uses music sparingly. The lack of music, especially during the island portion of the film, is just as effective as the best John Williams composition would have been. For this entire island portion of the film, interrupted only briefly when Chuck sets sail on his raft of tree branches, all we hear are the natural sounds of the island and one man's voice.

Hanks has already won two Oscars. Now he's grown even further as an actor. This is such a huge role. I mean, the guy IS the movie. The odds of him not winning a third Oscar are slim (no pun intended). True, the most demanding portion of the role is spent talking to a volleyball named Wilson. This is one part of the film that really sticks with you, the image of a face painted in blood on a piece of sports equipment. For four-odd years, Chuck is able to keep his body alive through sheer human ingenuity. But it won't mean a thing if his mind doesn't survive as well. That's why he creates Wilson. Many viewers will think Chuck is going insane. On the contrary, it's merely survival. It may be the most powerful performance by an inanimate object ever.

"Cast Away" makes you think about a lot of things. Chuck's life before he was stranded on the island was controlled by time and technology. He has so little time, he uses things like pagers and cell phones just to keep his relationships alive. He's also a trainer for Fed Ex so, as with most of today's professions, he relies heavily on the advances in technology that human beings have made. When we watch him find ways to survive upon being stranded and completely isolated, it's only then we see what a human being is truly capable of. THIS is how far we've come as a species. It's a not-so-subtle point the film makes very well.

The most important thing that the film has to teach is so great. That thing is this: sometimes the only way to know what you're really living for is to have everything taken away. Only then will you know what you want returned to you. All Chuck wants back is his girlfriend, Kelly (Helen Hunt). When Chuck returns to find that the world has moved on without him, that the love of his life has moved on without him, the true test of survival begins. Chuck is now a phantom. He wonders if he even has a place in the world anymore. But how many of us feel that way without the benefit of being stranded on a tropical island alone for four years?

And there it is. Extraordinary. (applause)

Grade: A

Proof of Life (2000)

Bizarre love triangle

[8/10 · 19 December 2000]

Kidnapping has been one of the great subjects of film history. It's always good for gripping drama. Taylor Hackford's latest, `Proof of Life,' is no exception.

The kidnapee is Peter Bowman (David Morse), an engineer building a dam in Colombia. His kidnappers are anti-government terrorists who drag him deep into the forest and hold him for ransom. His wife Alice (Meg Ryan), enlists the services of a British Kidnap and Ransom agent, Terry Thorne (Russell Crowe). When Thorne's agency discovers that the company financing Peter's dam project isn't insured for kidnapping, they pull Thorne out. Thorne's walked away from jobs before for this same reason, but this time it's different. Without insurance, no one with his expertise is going to help Alice. Peter would most likely die in captivity, as terrorists are not known for their hospitality. Besides, Thorne's got a crush on his wife. He returns to Colombia and takes the case with no guarantee of a paycheck. All parties involved are pretty great in this movie. Crowe doesn't get to stretch his acting muscles the way he did in `Insider' and `Gladiator,' but his screen presence is vital here.

But the real star here is David Morse. Who? You know, David Morse, the big prison guard in `Green Mile,' the guy who's been in every other film made. He's been known by face only for most of his career. Things should change after people see `Proof of Life.' He gets just as much, if not more, screen time than the film's `stars.' His struggle for survival is at the center of the story. Everything else just orbits it. It's a great story and a well-crafted film. Peter's ordeal makes him realize how much he really loves his wife. The thought of her is all he has to cling to. Thorne is also in love with Alice. His actions are truly heroic because he wants, first and foremost, to see her happy. The two spend months and months of traumatic time together, negotiating the ransom, keeping Peter alive with the hope of its payment. These are two bright, attractive people. Some kind of bond is inevitable. This bizarre love triangle keeps the story engaging all the way to the end.

Morse steals the show. I'm glad someone finally gave this guy a large role instead of just a character role. He could even be one of those five faces under `nominees for Best Actor in a Supporting Role' come spring.

Grade: B

Vertical Limit (2000)

Up there you're not dying, you're dead...unless you're pretty

[6/10 · 19 December 2000]

"Vertical Limit" is a decent story in an NBC Sunday Night Movie sort of way. Annie Garrett (Robin Tunney) is considered the best female climber in the world. She's dating a billionaire, Elliott Vaugh (Bill Paxton), who wants to climb K2, a difficult climb located in the disputed region of Kashmir on the Pakistan-India border. He wants to wave to the inaugural flight of his new airline as it flies by the summit. I did like the timely use of location, however, as the ongoing India-Pakistan territorial guerrilla war still rages.

Despite the possibility of poor weather, they make their ascent and everyone's fears come to pass. Annie, Vaughn and the expedition leader fall into a crevasse at 23,000 feet and no one knows their exact location. Annie's brother Peter (yes Midnight Oil fans, his name is Peter Garrett), in the area to photograph mountain wildlife, organizes an ill-advised rescue mission. Only the craziest and most desperate enlist. Leading them is Montgomery Wick (the Leathery One, Scott Glenn), who lost his wife to the billionaire's last attempt to reach K2's summit. At first he's not interested, even with only hours to spare before the lost get sick and start dying. But when he hears that Vaughn is among those alive and in need of rescue, he's all ears.

The characters don't get any deeper than Hero, Heroine, Love Interest, Burly Mountain Man, Rich Jerk, Comic Relief and so on. But then, we don't expect much more from films such as this. Emotional events happen early, which add weight to events that happen later and that's why we care whether, say, that pickaxe holds the weight of the climber about to fall to his death. The characters are icons, not people, so the backstory is all they are. As it happens, though, it's enough.

Again, it's an action flick so no one expects deep characterization. I only mention this because some action films fail to provide interesting characters even at the most basic, symbolic level. Those that populate "Vertical Limit" are, at the very least, cute. It's easy to guess who's going to live and who's going to die. Not that "Vertical Limit" is the first big Hollywood film to be guilty of this, but the basic selection of who lives and who dies goes this way: If you're pretty, you live. If you're ugly, sorry. Down the cliffside you go.

Director Martin Campbell ("Goldeneye," "The Mask of Zorro") compensates with some splendid (literally) white knuckle action. He truly takes you to a place where you can die slowly without even knowing it or die in a millisecond, doing something no more significant that setting your pack down for a drink of water. Nearly every deadly scenario you could think of happening on a climb happens here. Campbell's pulled off quite a technical achievement. Heck, most of the time, you can't even tell it's a set.

All of this would have been enough, but the film's creators see fit to add explosives into the mix. The thing that's supposed to add excitement and energy to the story is ultimately what ruins it. I never believed for a second that they actually needed to bring nitroglycerine up there on the mission. Sending all three teams packing such a powerful, unstable explosive liquid seems to be way too self-defeating. To root for people this foolish proves difficult. What's most annoying is the inconsistencies in how they treat the stuff. Okay, it reacts to sunlight. But it also reacts to sudden movement. Yeah, I want that strapped to my back as I climb straight up a rock wall. That's what we're supposed to think, though. "How can she do that?" My point is, it's unnecessary. The mere fact that someone is climbing a rock wall in the first place is scary enough. I can see the production meeting now: "No, no no! We've all seen mountain climbing movies! It's such a delicate balance to begin with, so...what if we added explosives?" At this point the money men start to drool. Someday they'll learn when they've overestimated the audience's built-in suspension of disbelief.

Campbell is an able action director. He's rattled off three straight quality boom boom movies. But he's still not in the league of, say, Renny Harlin, whose "Cliffhanger" is still King of the climbing movie mountain.

Grade: C+

Love & Basketball (2000)

less love, more basketball please

[4/10 · 7 December 2000]

This film gives you what you'd expect. From the title, you can deduct that it's a love story that uses basketball as a platform and that's exactly what it is. Quincy McCall (Omar Epps), son of fictional Los Angeles Clippers star Zeke McCall, and Monica Wright (Sanaa Lathan) live next door to each other in a Baldwin Hills neighborhood. Both are deeply devoted to the game: Quincy has the talent to follow in his father's footsteps, Monica dreams of being the first woman to play in the NBA.

Their friendship turns into love and takes them into their freshmen year at USC, the school that recruited them both. When Zeke becomes the target of a paternity suit, it tears his family apart. This leads Quincy to enter the NBA draft after only a year at USC. The action seems to be directed at his father, who wants his son to get a good education more than anything. Monica finishes college and goes on to play professionally in Spain. A large part of Monica's story is her relationship with her mother. Monica is very critical of her for letting her life pass her by, for letting herself be walked over, for never really standing up for herself. It parallels Quincy's story in that both are seeking to avoid the mistakes of their parents.

I didn't expect a sports movie, but was still disappointed to find that it wasn't. The idea here, as with any film that revolves around sports, was to use the game for overt drama, while teaching life lessons along the way. Can you imagine if, say, "Remember the Titans" were actually about football? Likewise, "L and B" is not about basketball or even love but rather, how we are the choices we make in life.

The film is already over two hours long so they had to be selective about what they showed, but I would have liked to see more basketball than there was. Not that they really needed to include more. They only show what's necessary to advance the story, as they should. It's just strange how little basketball there is in it, given the game's importance to the story. I'd like to see a film that shows women really competing and achieving the same way men have. "Love and Basketball" isn't that film, but it did manage to plant this thought in my mind.

Karyn Kasuma's "Girlfight" comes close, but it falls short in a similar way. Like "Girlfight," when the bell rings, "L and B" backs off, like it's afraid women would rather watch talking heads than see their gender engaged in intense athletic competition.

Grade: C-

Unbreakable (2000)

shyamalan got me again

[9/10 · 1 December 2000]

That this is the second straight collaboration between writer/director Shyamalan and Bruce Willis isn't as interesting to me as this: `Unbreakable' is the third film starring Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson. The three films and six roles played couldn't be more different.

The first is of course, `Pulp Fiction,' a film that launched Jackson to superstardom and re-ignited Willis' career. They play two of the film's main characters, a boxer in a rigged fight and a hit-man who finds spirituality. They have one scene together but even then they never say a word to each other. The two characters have a strange connection though. It's one of those between-the-lines kinds of things that you only notice if you've seen a film as many times as I've seen `PF.' Both performances are arguably their best.

Next is `Die Hard With a Vengeance,' which cast Willis as New York cop John McClain again, with Jackson as his reluctant sidekick, Zues. I like the movie but I can never figure out quite why Jackson's character is there other than to give McClain someone to talk to. Nevertheless, the two are in most of their scenes together. For some reason the franchise turns its back on the whole one-man-against-an-army concept of the first two films and turns the third into a buddy movie.

Five years later, both men's careers are still sizzling. `Unbreakable' will do nothing to hurt either. I never once thought of Jules Winfield or Butch Coolidge, John McClain or Zeus Carver. Again, the two play completely different characters from any they've played before. Willis plays David Dunn, a guy who can't remember the last time he was sick, broke a bone, or even got a paper cut. He's just survived a train wreck that no one else survived. Not only that, he walked away without a scratch. Jackson plays Elijah Price, a man who would seem to be David's exact opposite. Elijah has a degenerative bone disease that makes them very brittle and easy to break. Elijah has a few hobbies. One is collecting rare comic book art and studying it. Another is finding his exact opposite. He believes that if someone like him can exist, someone who breaks very easily, then why shouldn't someone exist who can't be broken?

Let's get one thing out of the way before I go on: Shyamalan is a genius. To have conceived, written and pulled a project the caliber of `Unbreakable' together in the short time between completing `Sixth Sense' and now is incredible. No sophomore slump here. `Unbreakable' will stick to your bones like turkey and mashed potatoes.

Unlike `Sixth Sense,' the director takes a few minor missteps here. These are technical faults that can be attributed to having to work on more of a deadline than the last time. Just because his last film was perfect doesn't mean he's infallible. It isn't perfect, but `Unbreakable' is definitely a success.

Anyone who saw `Sixth Sense' will recognize Shyamalan's filmmaking style here. The pacing is the same. He again unfolds the story slowly. `Unbreakable' doesn't build to quite the crescendo that `SS' does, but you can see an unmistakably similar formula at work. Each auteur has his/her own.

Shyamalan's gift seems to be laying out the clues for those perceptive enough to see them. If you just sit back and enjoy, you'll be surprised at the end. Your jaw will hit the floor with almost as much velocity as it did in `SS.' The more perceptive though, will pick up on the clues and won't be fooled. I was fooled. Again. But that's what makes it so much fun.

Grade: A-

Bounce (2000)

simple, entertaining story

[8/10 · 29 November 2000]

"Bounce" opens with a plane crash, but does it a way I haven't seen it before. They don't show the plane crash. It's effective because it puts you in the shoes of Abby (Gwyneth Paltrow), who's waiting to hear word from Greg, her husband, after a plane from the same airline he's flying on crashes. Abby can only imagine what Greg and the other passengers went through and somehow that's more disturbing.

I liked the film's relaxed, patient pace. The story is very simple. It introduces us to two people who you wouldn't imagine being on a course for love. Abby and Buddy (Ben Affleck) meet not by coincidence but because Buddy is connected with the doomed flight. He's a recovering alcoholic in no small part because of this connection.

It's really no more than a boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl kind of story but it's immensely entertaining. This is because Roos earns your confidence he unfolds the story. We like everyone who comes into the path of the camera. Roos isn't the most innovative director ever, but the man is one of the best writers working today. He earns your confidence by not writing stupid lines and by writing characters that are so real you never doubt their existence. Scenes don't seem designed to serve a certain function, to propel a story. They glide. They're just people talking. A movie can't be good without people an audience can care about. Well, `Bounce' is a very good movie.

Grade: B

Men of Honor (2000)

entertaining, inspiring

[8/10 · 28 November 2000]

If it hadn't been for this film about Carl Brashear, the first african-american to become a master diver in the U.S. Navy, I may never have known who this man was. The only reason he isn't a household name like, say, Jackie Robinson, is that not everyone even knows that there is such a thing as a master diver in the U.S. Navy. I freely admit I did not. A good part of the film's text is dedicated to educating the audience on what it is a navy diver does and why it's important.

That aside, we're also shown the life of an extraordinary person. In one great scene after another, we watch Carl (Cuba Gooding Jr.) defy the rules and find the courage to accomplish his goals no matter what stands in his way. His determination is truly inspiring. One exchange between Carl and Master Chief Billy Sunday (Robert DiNiro) sums up the movie. Sunday asks Carl why he wants to become a master diver so badly. Carl's answer is, 'because they said I couldn't have it.' And that is the foundation. There is literally no reason that this man cannot achieve master diver status. He has the drive, the desire and the ability. The only thing that stands in his way is a military that still will not accept change. 'Someday' it says. But 'not now.' 'The country isn't ready yet.' Carl's resounding answer is, 'it's happening right now, whether you like it or not.'

Even though this is a true story, don't go in expecting realism. "Men of Honor" is very much a Hollywood movie. The reason this story is now a film is that it is so unbelievable. You'll keep asking yourself, does anyone have this kind of courage? There are scenes of which you will say, 'it couldn't possibly have happened this way,' and you'll probably be right. It's not that director George Tillman Jr. ("Soul Food") wasn't looking for historical accuracy. It's just that in the end, he's got a movie to make. Without changing some of the events, compressing time, misportraying certain characters, it wouldn't have worked. I'd rather they take some liberties in order to tell the story in film narrative form than not tell it at all. The discerning viewer will understand that this is not a documentary. It's 'based on' Brashear's life. Ultimately, it's just entertainment.

On February 22 of this year, Brashear addressed the crew of the U.S.S Nimitz. After a second standing ovation for the retired master chief, Captain Stephen Firks told his sailors, "If you're not inspired after that, I don't know what we're going to do with you."

Grade: B

The Legend of Bagger Vance (2000)

Redford at the top of his game

[10/10 · 14 November 2000]

Because Robert Redford has become the symbol of filmmaking in America--having won an Oscar in his directorial debut for "Ordinary People," then founding the Sundance Institute and Sundance Film Festival--his work tends to be scrutinized more than most. We watch each frame of his films just to see if he'll slip up. As evidenced by his latest, "The Legend of Bagger Vance," Mr. Redford is a filmmaker of scientific precision. He was in a zone when he made this one.

Going in I wasn't all that intrigued by the story: a once-great golf pro tries to regain his game against two of the world's best golfers. As you'd expect, golf here is a metaphor for life. I hung on every word of Bagger Vance's philosophical speeches to Rannulph Junuh (dig the genuine 1920's names) about how to find, say, the perfect shot or the perfect swing. I have no idea why because the game itself bores me. I was simply there because when a Redford-directed film unspools, I've learned by now that I should be in the audience. The man just knows how to pull you in.

The story is set in Savannah, Georgia, where golf is bigger than football in Texas. The Great Depression has just hit. Adele Invegordon (Charlize Theron) has just inherited her father's fortune--which includes the golf course he'd just finished--after the man's suicide. The golf club and resort is worth little now and she's approached by some local men about selling. She believes she can bolster its value and has the idea to hold a tournament on the course between the country's two best golfers, Bobby Jones and Walter Hagen. Savannah is thought of as the golf capitol of the world so its people insist on one of their own playing in the tourney. A local boy, Hardy Greaves (J. Michael Moncrief), a dedicated fan of Savannah legend Rannulph Junuh (Matt Damon) who hasn't been seen since leaving to serve in the Great War, promises a town hall filled with the city's elite that he can produce the missing golf pro--and does. It just so happens that Adele was Junuh's lover before the war.

The idea isn't that interesting but Redford's gift is making his chosen material engaging. Junuh is persuaded, going against his better judgment, to compete against Jones and Hagen. Problem is, he's 'lost his swing.' Enter Bagger Vance. Vance (Will Smith) is like a figment of Junuh's or Hardy's imagination. Like Shoeless Joe Jackson in "Field of Dreams" ("Vance" has the same sort of mystical, magical feel of that film), he's a ghost--only everyone can see him. He offers his services as Junuh's caddy but isn't satisfied with just carrying and selecting clubs. In fact, he rarely even does what a caddy is supposed to do (which creates many of the film's humorous moments). Vance has a different fight to help Junuh win--the battle of the soul.

The tournament itself takes up most of the film and it is, needless to say, executed to perfection. It has all the intensity of a great sports film plus all the deliberateness and beauty of a Redford film.

"The Legend of Bagger Vance" is certainly one of the best, if not the best, films of the year. It's been a weak year for the industry so that isn't saying much. This just makes work of true quality easier to spot.

Grade: A

Pay It Forward (2000)

nice try

[5/10 · 10 November 2000]

Human suffering always did make good entertainment. This one serves it up in spades. The film's nice little twist is its script, by Leslie Dixon from Catherine Ryan Hyde's novel, which pulls us forward in time, then back again, then forward again. It's dizzying, and makes the story seem a whole lot more interesting than it actually is. For the less sophisticated viewer, it will just be confusing--and this subject matter is not exactly the kind that draws crowds of intellectuals.

Its characters, well portrayed by its dream cast (Kevin Spacey, Helen Hunt, Haley Joel Osment, Jay Mohr, Angie Dickinson, etc.), are so genuinely Real because (I guess) their lives suck so bad. For example, Arlene McKinney (Hunt) has two jobs and an alcoholic mother who ditched her as a kid, is an alcoholic in rehab herself and a former battered wife to top it off. It's good to put characters through a lot of challenges but this was ridiculous. No one's life is this terrible.

New teacher Eugene Simonet (Spacey) gives his students an impossible assignment: make the world a better place. Arlene's son, Trevor (Osment), sees no reason he can't do it. From his initial action, feeding and clothing a homeless drug-addict (Jim Caviezel), is formed an idea: Perform conditional random acts of kindness. The condition is that if someone does something for you, you must do something nice for three other people. Trevor calls it "pay it forward."

Reporter Chris Chandler (Mohr) stumbles upon PIF in the film's staple-you-to-your-seat opening scene (it's great, it really is). From here he traces the phenomenon back from one person to another until he finds himself in the armpit of Las Vegas where it all began. Chandler's investigation, again, is the only reason this film worked for me. It's told concurrently with Trevor's story as it unfolds. We see the far-reaching results of Trevor's idea even as Trevor believes he's had no impact at all.

This and the ending give the film a clear message: just help one person and you already made the world a better place. Sometimes it's hard to do but that's why you have to do it. Like your grandpa used to tell you, anything that's worth having is worth fighting for...or something like that. Which brings me to the ending. Let's just day it didn't affect me the way it was supposed to. It's one of those surprises you should have seen coming, one that's supposed to be fitting. That's just the problem, though--it doesn't fit at all. I can't get into it without giving it away so I won't.

"Pay It Forward" wants to leave you with the warm fuzzies but doesn't. No one could have done to change this. The acting, direction, writing, everything--everyone does their job well. There was no better way to do anything, not even the ending. This is just one of those cases of a project that must have looked great on paper but, upon completion, doesn't quite work.

Grade: C