jimj409 Reviews

Light of Day (1987)

See it in your life at least once.

[9/10 · 4 December 2006]

Back when I was 21, I went with a few friends to see another film (I forget which, now) that had sold out, leaving us with this film as an option that we took.

I was so pleasantly surprised that a film I would otherwise never have bothered with turned out to be so resonant with me.

I expected a teenybopper rock'n'roll picture. This film is nothing close to that. This is a gritty, hard-edged slice of life. It is full of realistic human emotion and genuine observation of actual "rock'n'roll" lifestyle, which for the vast majority of rockers means nightly sharing of a van and a motel room and splitting up a few hundred bucks five or six ways before expenses. The scene in "Motel Hell" where Fox doles out the money (after enumerating the expenses including "forty-five dollars for that tire, and eighteen for the Chinese feast") just struck such a ringingly true chord with me.

The secondary drama, which plays out as you understand that the primary drama (will the band make it?) is already moot (Fox knows that the Barbusters have no chance; Jett continues to chase the dream regardless) commences with the discovery of their mother's illness.

The interplay between Jett and her mother in the hospital as the mother lays dying and they reconcile their long-hardened differences is surprisingly well-played, especially on Joan Jett's part. I expected great acting from the superb Gena Rowlands; I expected zero from Jett and was blown away instead. I'm surprised she never got any other real roles; I found her to be extremely easy on the eyes and quite a lovely and talented actress. Whatever.

The film has a terrific ending. No, they don't make it to the big-time, but you never expect that to happen anyway. It is simply a satisfying ending that matches the size and scope of this terrific film, which was never intended to be anything more than a look at a Cleveland family who has two members who happen to play in a road band.

Catch it once in your lifetime.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Depp Fails to Match Wilder

[5 September 2006]

Let me begin by stating that I am a Johnny Depp fan. I generally find his performances to be excellent, and count his portrayal in "Blow" among my very favorite in cinema history.

That said, he fails here.

I don't know if it was due to improper or misguided action of the director, or if he chose his own tone and manner for the Wonka character, but Depp fails miserably in this film. Using the Roald Dahl novel as a guideline, Depp is nothing like the understated, dry-witted implacable and imperturbable Mr. Wonka. Using the original film from 1971 as a guideline, Depp can't hold a candle to Gene Wilder's performance, which, while overstated, at least resembled the character intended by Dahl when he wrote the book in the first place.

Johnny seems to be going for some sort of post-abused, mentally tweaked boy-man. Some have said that the portrayal reflects Michael Jackson. If so, WHY? Wonka isn't sinister, nor does he come off as a character hiding a brutal truth, which is how Depp plays him here. Unfortunately, he becomes the focal point of the movie and the "main" character is kicked to the curb shortly after his introductory sequence. Following Charlie's find of the Golden Ticket, he becomes an ancillary character with few lines, and Michael Jackson takes over, and ruins the film. Really, he ruins it. I found it unenjoyable and actually began to resent Depp's every appearance with a weariness.

This is no Wonka. This is Burton and Depp's idea of what Neverland would have been like if Michael Jackson chose to make chocolate there rather than exhibit exotic animals between kiddie rides.

The usual Burton mosaic of backdrop works well, and the musical scenes with the Oompa Loompas are highlights, although I found myself harboring nostalgic thoughts for the original Oompas as I enjoyed these new rocked-up songs. Well done, just much, much different.

A sidenote: I love that Mike Teavee challenges Wonka's notion that a candybar being teleported is a far cry from an image being transmitted. That drove me nuts when I was a little kid! Good for you for calling him out, Mike! I also love that Veruca Salt meets her match by the paws of many squirrels (as in the book) rather than being dumped down the egg hatch (as in the 1971 version of the film).

Overall, I disliked Depp's portrayal so much that despite the excellent imagery and the many highlights, I won't watch this again, and recommend it only to those who are interested in comparing it to the far superior 1971 effort.

Conspiracy (2001 TV Movie)

Excellent Dialogue-Based Film; Notes from Backdrop

[10/10 · 24 August 2006]

Rather than rehash the plot, I want to discuss something I think I noticed about the atmospheric setting of this film.

Many reviews here have noted that the Nazi officials consumed fine wines and food while creating consensus to continue the perpetration of the Holocaust.

However, I think some may have missed the backdrop; "There is wine, but no beer" notes one corpulent attendee. See the manner in which the servants preparing the food seem to lust for it; note the reaction of Eichmann when a tray of meats is dropped on the floor accidentally.

The supporting columns of Nazi society had just begun to teeter when this conference was held, and here you see the ever-so-subtle hints toward this downturn, and how it is just beginning to creep into the conversations of the highest officials who, until this point, had experienced nothing but victory and the concomitant spoils of war.

The point being made in this film is that DESPITE this new encroachment upon the highest of the Nazi elite, they were so filled with irrational hatred toward the Jews that they were determined to carry out their extermination in the face of it, regardless of cost, regardless of the fact that the Jewish laborers they annihilated might have provided slave production that may have tipped Germany's balance scales back toward favor.

It's a very subtle undertone that to me, at least, turned this effort from a fairly standard dialogue piece into an exquisite examination of the very worst human coldness.

I consider this to be the very best dialogue picture ever made, barely edging-out the Jack Lemmon/George C. Scott version of Twelve Angry Men.

After Hours (I) (1985)

Put this on your list of "Older" films to see one day.

[24 August 2006]

I intend here merely to urge anyone who loves noir comedy and/or "shaggy dog" stories to put this film on their "Must see some day" list.

I saw this film for the first time in a tiny art theatre in Worcester, Massachusetts with about 18 other people. As it was a midnight showing, our little group was a bit inebriated (we were nearly all college students) and this film created a superb bonding experience. I carry the memory of that truly fun night to this day... probably the best movie-theatre experience of my life.

That said, I had no idea what to expect when the film started. Rather than rehash the plot, let me point out a few things to look for, as Scorcese seems to have salted little Easter Eggs all over the place when directing this:

1) Scorcese's cameo... can you find it? 2) The "Heaven/Hell" metaphor between Uptown NYC and Downtown NYC... is that what Scorcese was going for? We debated for over an hour as we passed a doob after the flick ended. 3) Why are all of the women that Paul gets involved with blondes, and why do they become progressively less attractive physically, but more attractive in a humanistic sense? What was Scorcese saying? 4) What did Scorcese mean to point at with all of Marcy's burn references? We eventually see her unscarred body... what the hell was the metaphor? I've seen the movie a million times... the burning candle, the trip to the pharmacy, Kiki's reference to "Hardly any scars"... the book of burn victims... Ay! Someone tell me! 5) Nobody wants to let Paul in anywhere. Not at the punk club, not the subway, not the bathroom in the diner. What's Scorcese saying?

Or, you could forget about all these ponderables and just enjoy the very dark, very, very funny surface of one of my all-time favorite movies.

Sideways (2004)

Superb, with a hint of tannins

[10/10 · 21 August 2006]

I waited for this film to hit HBO, and I regret not seeing it earlier.

I tend to watch movies while at the same time occupying myself with another pastime; I'm extremely easily bored, and usually I play a computer game simultaneously (a major reason, along with inability to smoke my cigarettes, that I rarely go to theaters anymore).

However, with this film, I dropped my keyboard and let myself become swept up in the superb, note-perfect acting that played out before me within the context of a grippingly bittersweet and realistic story that unfurled against a spectacular backdrop.

Giamatti as Miles was priceless; I will seek out his future films as they emerge. Not only does he have an exquisite talent for delivery of dialogue, but he has keyed into the facial expressioning that validate and elevate an actor's performance. When he sadly removes the roll of bills from his mother's Ajax can, when he calls himself a loser in the bathroom mirror, when he describes his excremental self-image underneath the bridge, he matches mood to dialogue to physical countenance in a manner that effortlessly convinces the viewer.

Thomas Haden Church as Jack delivered a rich and satisfying performance as well; I found myself questioning whether he grew up as a San Diego surfer and thereby acquired his quintessential Californiaism, or if he really is as good an actor as he played out in this film. Just a fantastic turn, it was like eating cheesecake to listen to his dialogue (after every sip of wine: "I thought it was pretty good!") and watch his character live up to its rationalizations ("I told her I'm not available, and she knows I have to leave in a couple of days!" (Yes, for his rehearsal dinner!)). Jack is the true aging and insatiable playboy, and the character he plays (as well as Giamatti's, of course) exists in real life. You may have a friend who shares many traits with Jack, and certainly you know someone like Giamatti's Miles... or you may see some of Miles in yourself. I know I did, although I never reach his depressed depths or feel as lost as he sometimes does.

This movie probably doesn't appeal to folks who tend not to see the underside of aging, or refuse to, or simply choose not to due to their own ingrained optimistic viewpoints. It has its entertaining-for-entertainment-purposes scenes (Miles retrieving Jack's wallet from the fat waitress's husband after he was caught in flagrante delicto, for example) and the plot flows, but you must be enthralled with the patient, yet knowingly guided, character development for the film to fully appeal to you.

Like a good wine, the movie requires some prior subject knowledge in order to fully enjoy it. The subject in this case is youth and age, the story is richly developed, and there are enough un-Hollywood pitfalls and deviations to make it a unique new piece of artwork worth your time.

Along the way, you'll learn a lot about wine as well. Grab a good Pinot and sip this movie.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Despite holes, a fantastic flick

[9/10 · 15 August 2006]

I have finally seen this movie now that it has come onto the HBO heavy rotation, as was my plan.

In reading these reviews, I must say that I find the bulk of them to be fantastically petty and purposefully critical without good reason.

It's apparent to me that many of the reviewers are too young, or ignorant of the original War of the Worlds, to know that the endings of both versions are identical. This quibbling about the way the aliens so suddenly go down ignores this salient fact.

Second, many complain that Robbie re-appears at the end despite "being blown up in a fireball". Until I read these reviews, this never occurred to me; nothing in the film suggests that everyone in that short blaze of fire perished; who is to say that the son did? In addition, the fireball occurs minutes after the parting of father and son; the boy could be a hundred yards away at the point of the explosion.

The holes that do bother me include the sudden appearance of working camcorders and digital cameras where moments before no electronics, not even watches, were functional; this makes little sense. I also groaned when Cruise's stolen minivan is untouched by the nearby crashed airliner, and I groaned at the news crew who were desperately searching the crashed airliner for food despite being surrounded by thousands of abandoned houses... and why would they be so hungry after only a day or so of alien fleeing? The final groan was for the public bulletin boards plastered a'la 9/11 with "Missing" posters only a day or so after the invasion begins, as if the invasion had been going on for months.

All that aside, I thought that the evolution of Cruise's character was excellent, I thought that Dakota Fanning did a superb, REALISTIC job as an extremely whiny and needy 10-year-old girl in the crisis of her life. Many here call her performance "too screechy" and I believe that this is because in so many Hollywood pictures, kids under horrific pressure suddenly morph into heroic, thoughtful adults. No, they don't... they scream and cry and are needy, just as Spielberg directs Fanning to portray here. Excellent job by both.

I'm not a big special effects fan... they're great if they help the plot. The effects here are absolutely spectacular; the tripods are incredibly realistic, there's no "blue-screen" fuzzy outlines or perspective problems, and there's no reliance on effects to carry the action, thank you. Well, well done.

I'm very pleased that Spielberg stuck to the original ending, and didn't give in to the modern audience's desire to see Americans blow away every obstacle in their path. No, the aliens go down in a clever and realistic fashion that stays true to the original... no pandering to those who simply must see the US Army have its way by blowing up the latest threat (just to make us all feel good about how we can't get the job done in Iraq). Kudos, Mr. Spielberg, for staying true to the roots of the picture you so superbly honored.

Overall, character development made the movie; the eye of the film stays with the main characters and is realistic in that, unlike Hollywood standardization, they are determined to escape the invaders, NOT to cleverly figure out a way to sneak a computer virus and a nuke on board (as in the ridiculous "Independence Day" "We're American so we nuke everything while waving our flag" crap).

From the enthralling first appearance of the tripods to the superbly crafted characters to the sense of dread throughout and for the cinematic eye and faithful ending of this film, I give it a nine, holding back a point for the couple of plot-groans in the beginning of the picture.