Dehlia_ Reviews

In Cold Blood (1967)

Flawles

[10/10 · 11 September 2006]

Perry Smith (Robert Black) and Dick Hickock (Scott Wilson) murder the Clutter family in Kansas in 1959.

In Cold Blood is just about flawless. It dances the same delicate dance of the book, creating sympathy for Perry and then pulling back and showing his monstrosity, and then drawing in and creating sympathy again. It is this that is more disturbing than the murders themselves. Dick is less fleshed-out, in part, I suspect, because the movie avoided mention of the pedophilia, although mostly it's amazingly frank for its era. It also omits the fact that Dick's personality changed after a head injury, which was something I found fascinating in the book. Nonetheless, the movie works both as an adaptation of a "true novel" and as a film in its own right. It applies just the right amount of artistry to show Perry's distorted thoughts, and just the right amount of bareness to show a true story as it unfolds.

It is, perhaps, the bareness that is most shocking. Consider: The movie is rated R for violence, despite the fact that none of the violence appears on-screen. It feels that real.

What the movie cannot do, quite reasonably, is portray Truman Capote—you'll have to see Capote, or perhaps Infamous, for that. The eyewitness journalist here is a fictional character named Jensen, of a neutral hard-boiled type that allows narration to happen without getting in the way.

Wimbledon (2004)

An odd duck of a movie

[6/10 · 11 September 2006]

Peter (Paul Bettany) is a mid-level tennis play about to retire. He meets Lizzie (Kirsten Dunst), a major tennis star, when both are at Wimbledon.

I only watched this because I somehow got the impression it was written by Richard Curtis. It was apparently written by someone who is a fan of Richard Curtis, and perhaps I read a review that mentioned a similarity.

Wimbledon is an odd duck of a movie, in that it seems not to understand romantic comedies. Which is really very odd because there are so many of them, and they're not actually that hard to understand. In a romantic comedy, boy meets girl (except in gay romantic comedies, in which either girl meets girl or boy meets boy…but I digress), something keeps boy and girl apart, and after overcoming some comedic adversity, boy and girl get together.

This isn't rocket science, so screwing it up is sort of unforgivable.

In Wimbledon, boy meets girl, and nothing much keeps them apart. Thus they go through the motions of romantic comedy without anything all that interesting going on. Some of the romance is quite charming, and Paul Bettany is just tons of disarming, and there's some sexy, but that's about that.

It may be that the movie is going for more of a sports underdog story, which obviously it has going for it, but again, not that interesting. A little bit of fun there, a little bit of Go Peter! but nothing to write home about.

The Secret Lives of Dentists (2002)

Observing the small gestures of marriage

[9/10 · 11 September 2006]

David and Dana Hurst (Campbell Scott and Hope Davis) are married dentists, working together and raising three daughters. When David begins to believe that Dana is having an affair, an angry patient (Denis Leary) seems to embody his own secret rage.

The Secret Lives of Dentists is an observant film. It notices the small gestures, the ordinariness, the holding back, the expressing, that make up a life.

I was struck in particular by a scene in which Dana wakes up with a cramp in her foot, and David massages it. In the midst of his profound distrust of her, in the midst of her pulling away from him and longing for more, this moment was more physically intimate than making love. Movies mostly miss this sort of thing, and indeed, some people found the movie dull, in large part because of its domesticity.

But domesticity is relentless. David seethes with fury, but holds back from saying anything to his wife. Their marriage is played out in glances over the heads of the children, in snatches of conversation while caring for a vomiting toddler, in drives to the country house. In the end, it is a uniquely nuanced and satisfying view of real life.

Spy Game (2001)

Espionage action with a soul

[8/10 · 6 June 2005]

CIA espionage agent Nathan Muir (Robert Redford), on his last day before retirement, learns that his protégé, Tom Bishop (Brad Pitt), has been taken prisoner by the Chinese government and is about to be executed for spying. While giving a report on Bishop to agents unwilling to help, Muir attempts behind the scenes manuevers to help.

This appears to be a casually slick and superficial genre movie with enjoyable twists and turns. In fact, though, it's a well-filmed (and slick) character piece. The relationship between Redford and Pitt is the core of the movie. Pitt is sometimes a marvelous actor, and sometimes a dreadful one, but the roll of the dice favored him in Spy Game and he is incredibly solid and watchable. Meanwhile it's also a spy movie about spying, and about spy movies, more than it is a particular espionage piece. This sounds thoughtful and introspective but it isn't. Spy Game is another "stupid action movie," but with a soul.

Auto Focus (2002)

Obsession and Emptiness

[10/10 · 20 April 2005]

Actor Bob Crane (Greg Kinnear), star of Hogan's Heroes, forms a friendship with a video enthusiast (Willem Dafoe) and together they become obsessed with sex, swinging, and photographing or filming the action.

This is a brilliantly disturbing movie. Kinnear carefully plays Crane as a blank-faced cypher who cannot see himself, and is comfortable with the surface of things. Thus photography is the perfect obsession for him; he can look without participating, even when he's looking at his own participation. Auto Focus is a clever title, referring to both the photography and the only person upon whom Crane can focus. He is lost in a world of obsessively meaningless behavior.

A look at IMDb's message board for the film shows that one of Crane's two sons is fighting the misinformation presented by director Paul Schrader and Crane's other son. It does seem that the movie distorts some biographical facts, but what biopic doesn't? This story of obsession and doom is worth much more than its attention to one man's biography.

The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love (1995)

Awkward and flawed, yet sweet and intimate

[6/10 · 23 February 2005]

Randy (Laurel Holloman) is a lesbian teen living in a low-income lesbian household and working at a gas station. Evie is an overachiever living with her wealthy Ph.D. mom and driving an expensive car. They fall in love.

There's not much to this one. The low budget shows in some very awkward places. The director tries to make it look artistic, framing the young lovers together, as if isolated from the world, to make up for the lack of extras—the crowded high school is always empty, for example. Unfortunately, this very naturalistic film is harmed by the lack of reality; they seem to be floating above the idea of a real town with real people in it. Filming is often awkward, with the camera hanging around just where you wish it wasn't, because the dialogue is directing your eye elsewhere.

The acting is uniformly mediocre. Holloman is actually better here than she was in her long run on Angel; whenever fan boards asked for worst villain or worst character I always voted for her. But most of the characters are stiff, the only ones I really liked were Randy's dyke household.

What symbolism we have is very heavy-handed. Randy is horny and Eve is a new beginning. Duh. But the romance is tender and the girls connect at a real level and there's a very pleasant intimacy.

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)

Chuck Barris's twisted life as processed through Charlie Kauffman's twisted mind

[9/10 · 23 February 2005]

Summary: Chuck Barris (Sam Rockwell) invents game shows while becoming a hit-man for the CIA.

Some people don't like Charlie Kauffman's screen writing, but I take infinite delight in the way his mind twists in and around an idea to arrive at a story with all twists intact. Not "plot twists," but the actual twisting of reality as depicted on-screen to replicate the inner workings of the people and situations being shown.

In real life, Chuck Barris created The Dating Game and The Newlywed Game, created and hosted The Gong Show, and then went off by himself to write a book claiming to be a CIA hit-man. How can such a story be true? And why should such a story matter? Barris has a pretty interesting tale to tell without the insane window-dressing, and the window-dressing carries the danger of turning the whole thing into a freak show.

As in ADAPTATION, Kauffman gives us a story about writing a story. In that movie, the story is in progress, and the parallel twists—seeing the story being written as it unfolds, and as thoughts about it are depicted as real—are a work in progress as well. ADAPTATION is disjointed because the story isn't done yet. In CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND, we are seeing a story that has already been written, the narrative has been chosen, and the narrative is insane. Thus, the narrative unfolds in a fairly conventional way, taking its own twists in stride. The construction is such that we can see the movie as a standard, if strange, biopic, OR we can see it as parallel stories—Barris's life and his internal fantasies about being a hit-man, told side-by-side. The brilliance is that there's nothing in the hit-man side of the story that has to be believed; it is built exactly like a fantasy, but there is also nothing in it that has to be DISbelieved; it is simultaneously built like a depiction of reality.

The movie is very entertaining; Sam Rockwell carries the thing well. George Clooney is quite amusing as a deadpan CIA operative, and Julia Roberts is delightful as a really strange latter-day Mata Hari. It's plain IL' fun to watch. At the same time, there's all this behind-the-screen madness unfolding, and it completely tickles my fancy.

A Star Is Born (1954)

Magnificent entertainment, subtle filming

[10/10 · 24 January 2005]

Alcoholic movie star Norman Maine (James Mason) meets singer Esther Blodgett (Judy Garland) and gets her the screen test she needs to become a big star (and change her name to Vicki Lester—has any name ever so desperately needed changing?).

This was not my first viewing of A Star Is Born, but it was illuminating. I certainly already believed it was a great movie, but it is far more subtle and complex than I had previously known. The movie is working on several levels at once. In one way, it's a straight-ahead musical, with some wonderful songs and production numbers. At another level, it's an 'inside Hollywood' story, and that level works remarkably well. Some of the 'events' (the opening, the Academy Awards) look almost raw in their filming style, almost like news footage, creating a powerful impression of being behind the scenes. The production numbers support that impression, with numerous bits and visuals lifted from other musicals, so that we are clued into the idea that we are seeing what "really" happened, or might have happened, on any number of film sets (at one point, An American in Paris is referenced directly).

Finally, it is a remarkably honest and true portrayal of alcoholism and marriage to an alcoholic. Esther's co-dependence is seen for what it is, her pain is real, her self-flagellation is real. If anything, the movie is overly sympathetic with Norman Maine, portraying the publicist (Jack Carson) who is disgusted with him as a villain. When I saw A Star Is Born for the first time, I was in *my* one and only relationship with an alcoholic. I wept with Judy Garland and I knew firsthand how accurately her agony was depicted. All these years later, quite recovered from any desire to go THERE again, I sympathize almost as much with the publicist. Kick the bum out! A few weeks ago I saw the train wreck that is New York, New York. It seemed like Scorcese's intention was to deconstruct, while at the same time celebrating, the 40s Hollywood musical. He wanted to show the ugliness behind those magical romances, the meanness behind those amusingly bossy men, and he still wanted to enjoy the glamour. Upon re-viewing A Star Is Born, I wondered why he bothered. It's already been done, as well as could possibly be done.

Monsoon Wedding (2001)

Exactly and approximately superb!

[10/10 · 24 January 2005]

In Delhi, the wealthy father of the bride (Lalit, played by N. Shah) prepares an elaborate wedding. We meet his extended family, arriving from as far as America for the wedding, beginning with a formal engagement party 4 days before. Several subplots are followed: Additi, the bride, has chosen an arranged marriage instead of waiting for her married lover to leave his wife. Ria, her cousin, has never married and is being pestered by all concerned. We learn that Ria's father, Lalit's big brother, has passed away and so Lalit is her father-figure as well. Dubey, the wedding organizer, becomes smitten with Alice, Lalit's maid. As the days pass, family joys and family secrets are revealed.

I cannot praise this movie enough. First of all, kudos to N. Shah for a sensitive, complex portrayal that never, for a moment, feels like acting. Without hand-held camera pretensions, Monsoon Wedding nonetheless feels more like meeting a family at a big affair than watching a movie. It is real and intimate, yet magical. All the performances are good; Rajat Kapoor as an uncle with a secret is particularly powerful, and bears a striking resemblance to a younger Donald Sutherland.

We see Indian society as India sees it. My coworker, Sreeman, tells me that everyone attends neighborhood weddings; that an average wedding has 800–900 guests, and his had 1200. Traditionalism matters, but modernity matters as well. At one point, Lalit and Dubey argue over the wedding tent; should it be white, the modern (Western) way, or should it be colorful? Lalit demands color and Dubey orders "the old kind." The struggle between modern and traditional ways is one of the primary undercurrents of the film, embodied by Additi's choice, in fact, we meet her married lover as the host of a TV talk show discussing traditional versus modern ways.

Another undercurrent is finding love, impediments to love, and choices about love. Additi, Dubey, Ria, and another cousin, Rahul, all have barriers to overcome before they have a chance at happiness.

But the main theme is family, and this huge, chaotic family is a wonder to behold. You can't always tell who's related to whom, but you get the sense that they can't either, and coming from a large, extended family myself, I know that's how it is. Family is everything to Lalit, yet he communicates harshly with a son he doesn't understand, and calls nephew Rahul "idiot." Yet his love and devotion are clear, and he is the real hero of this film, coming through for everyone and stretching himself to the limit.

Series 7: The Contenders (2001)

Challenges your idea of "viewing"

[8/10 · 6 December 2004]

A reality TV series (The Contenders) randomly selects people to attempt to kill each other; only one will survive. Each series shows 5 new contenders plus the survivor from the previous series. We follow Series 7, in which the current champion is 8 months pregnant.

The conceit of the movie is that we are actually watching the series; it never steps outside itself, and by and large, this works remarkably well. It forces the viewer to observe himself and his own act of viewing; as I watched, I became caught up in the television series, and had to stop myself and say 'waitaminnit, this is a movie.' The parody of reality TV is vicious, and actually much more complicated than at first it appears. The initial reaction is that it's a one-note parody, no different from The Running Man in its dark vision of where reality TV will lead. But it is more than that, showing us how we are manipulated by the images we see, how we become desirous of seeing more, how easy it is to overcome revulsion...no, for revulsion to become part of the pleasure. In the course of it, it also shows the effects of distorting random violence into heroism while still pretending that the rest of our values about violence and justice remain untouched. None of this is heavy-handed or preachy because we are participants; we are "tv viewers" watching the series, and things are unfolding. No one is talking at the viewer, and when they are, watch out; it's part of the manipulation.

The movie didn't try to explain how such a thing became legal, how a television show got the right to randomly select any American citizen and force them to participate. This was a problematic omission, the movie bespeaks a dark future but doesn't have the wit to tell us how we got there. This could easily have been done without breaking the bounds of "it's all the show" that the movie sets for itself by having it be part of the opening credits.

A Chorus Line (1985)

A train wreck; but with some merit

[4/10 · 9 August 2004]

What is necessary to understand about me is, I like bad musicals (almost always, anyway). Even when I don't like them, they hold a morbid fascination for me. So, despite its reputation, I've wanted to see A Chorus Line for years.

Certainly, the movie is flawed in some grotesque ways. Michael Douglas, to all appearances, is in a different movie than the rest of the cast. In fact, in offering what little plot this movie has, Douglas also tells us its basic flaw. He explains that he is casting excellent dancers for some small but important speaking roles. Since they must primarily be terrific dancers, he recognizes they can't also be terrific actors. Hence he will have them speak about their lives and feelings rather than formally audition. This sets up a scenario in which a bunch of dancers can talk and sing about their lives. It also explains to us, right up front, that the people we are watching are terrible actors. This is manageable for most of the cast, except for the bizarre contrast with Douglas, but with the female lead, it is unforgivable. She grins and grimaces throughout what should be a nuanced role.

Mostly, the song delivery is also pretty bad. Once again, Cassie fails us by giving a strange and strangled version of What I Did For Love.

The entertaining part of the film is the dance, much of which is a lot of fun to watch, and several of the bit parts. Anyone who doesn't enjoy Audrey Landers performing Dance 10 Looks 3 is asleep.

Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle (1994)

Like Mrs. Parker herself, talented but unfulfilled

[7/10 · 7 June 2004]

A couple of years ago, I visited Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum in Manhattan, where several representatives from the Algonquin Circle were "meeting." It is absolutely remarkable how much the real Mrs. Parker resembled Jennifer Jason Lee, and Lee does a fine job in the role. The real stand out in this huge ensemble cast (which includes Matthew Broderick, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Jennifer Beals) is Campbell Scott, simply remarkable as Robert Benchley.

The movie itself is uneven. Early on, we see Parker and Benchley in Hollywood in the 1940s, where they are cordial at best, and then a flashback to Algonquin Circle days (the 1920s) begins. We naturally expect to find the root of the estrangement, as the entire construction screams that "something happened." But the movie doesn't deliver on its promise; we see a complex and tender relationship, but we never see what "happened" that would prevent them to continue in their fond dance of never-quite-romance. Despite its failure to provide a denouement, this relationship is the soul of the movie and very much worth seeing.

Otherwise, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle barely rises above the typical tortured artist story. Mrs. Parker was brilliant but unfulfilled. Mrs. Parker drank and attempted suicide. Mrs. Parker recites her own poetry into the camera. Yadda yadda. By the end, Mrs. Parker totters and slurs to such an extent that one wonders if this can possibly be true, it seems a parody. My sense is of a script that veered away from its own fulfillment, and wanders around the outside. 7/10

Eyewitness (1981)

Very good, but not as good as it might have been

[7/10 · 3 May 2004]

William Hurt plays a janitor who knows more than he's telling about a murder. Sigourney Weaver is the TV reporter he's long had a crush on, when she shows up at the murder scene for the story, he sees his knowledge as an opportunity to meet her.

William Hurt in the '80s was like John Cusack in the '90s (and to a lesser extent, today) -- not every movie he's in is good, but his very presence seems to add crackle and interest to the dialogue. He is particularly impressive in his scenes declaring his feelings for the reporter. Really impressive, actually, and the movie is totally worth watching for those scenes.

The sad thing about Eyewitness is that it sets up some very interesting musings on honesty, people using each other, and principals vs. feelings, and gives us some fairly interesting characters to play with those musings, and then trades in the whole package for a conventional, if well done, romance/mystery. Ah, well. 7/10

Ram Dass, Fierce Grace (2001)

Poorly constructed, but totally worth the price of admission

[8/10 · 20 April 2004]

Ram Dass has been an important spiritual teacher for almost 40 years, bringing Eastern wisdom to the West, most significantly with his seminal book BE HERE NOW. In 2000 (or maybe 1999?) he had a stroke, and this documentary focuses on his recovery from the stroke and his dealing with the consequences of that, and how he has incorporated that into his spirituality.

As a documentary, Fierce Grace is poorly constructed. It leaves huge gaps. We learn how Richard Alpert, Harvard professor, meets Timothy Leary (who had the Harvard office next door) and becomes part of the mind experiments of the 60s, and how that led him to India and the Maharaji. When Ram Dass returns to the States, we see a brief flash of a poster of "Baba Ram Dass" and then interviews with his family talking about the hundreds of people who came to see him and learn from him. There is a fairly large and jarring gap here, as we have no idea how these people knew about him; the movie doesn't describe his teaching, his publishing, his recording, or give any hint except that suddenly he was somehow famous. It assumes viewers know, I guess, except that doesn't make for good storytelling.

This is one example of numerous odd gaps in the narrative. Nothing of Ram Dass's personal life post-India is told until his stroke 40 years later. It's as if he lived in a bubble. There are good ways of skipping a bunch of decades and details but I don't think the filmmaker found them.

I am also bothered by the way that the movie spent more time telling us that Ram Dass had wisdom and teachings than actually showing us. The two best scenes are when we hear his actual teaching. In the movie's best moment (which is TOTALLY worth the price of admission), a couple who have survived a terrible tragedy read the letter that Ram Dass wrote them. In that letter was more wisdom and profundity than many people will hear in a lifetime. Towards the end of the film, we see Ram Dass personally counseling someone who has endured a great tragedy, and again, we are profoundly moved. But in between, there is little of Ram Dass's wisdom. Over and over he says he has learned a great teaching from his stroke, but just as he opens his mouth to describe it, the camera cuts away. If I hadn't seen Ram Dass personally, twice, I would not know that he was a great teacher. The movie describes the intense loss Ram Dass went through, going from a witty, clever, verbally deft teacher to a verbally faltering person struggling with neurological limitations, but there isn't a single clip showing his verbal deftness, and I'm sure such clips must be available. I found it very frustrating to be in the presence of this great man and have his greatness kept off-camera about 80 percent of the time.

Again, the remaining 20 percent makes the film totally worth watching, and it's not like I can direct you to some other documentary about him instead. 7/10

One Hour Photo (2002)

Unsatisfying, but worth seeing

[8/10 · 20 April 2004]

Robin Williams plays Sy, a photo developer at a Target/K-Mart type of store who becomes obsessed with a family whose film he has been developing for over a decade. The movie was fascinating to watch, often in its small details. It spends a lot of time looking like a photograph, and seeing itself from inside itself, if you know what I mean.

One of the most fascinating scenes was a complete throwaway. The basic premise is that Sy is this totally invisible guy. He's no one, a nebbish, and no one ever notices him. From the vantage point of his non-existence, he builds a dangerous and terrifying obsession; he uses his invisibility to stalk a family that is happily "normal," living on the other side of the invisibility divide. Gradually you can realize that we meet "Sy" all the time, and in this one, telling scene, Sy stops for dinner at a restaurant. The waitress knows him, asks after his family (whom she thinks is depicted in the photos he obsesses over), and so on. And it is there for the viewer to know that this waitress, too, is Sy. She is invisible to him, he doesn't see or notice her, but she knows him.

Unfortunately, the story goes on to depend on more and more coincidences, both of unlikely circumstance and of converged timing, rather than staying in the viewpoint of ordinariness it has created. As one thing leads to another, it looks more like a movie and less like Sy working at Sav Mart, and that weakens the movie.

Still, worth seeing. 8/10

A Guy Named Joe (1943)

The so-so original of a so-so remake.

[6/10 · 5 January 2004]

This is a so-so film that was remade into the so-so Always. Just to make matters worse, there is no one named Joe. Spencer Tracy plays Pete, a WWII fighter pilot with a best friend and a girlfriend (the always irritating Irene Dunne). When Pete dies, he becomes a specialized guardian angel, training pilots from the beyond. Eventually, his trainee falls in love with his former girlfriend.

The movie features an absolutely outstanding performance by Tracy -- even for Tracy, and some nice stuff about letting go. It also features some mixed patriotic/metaphysical preaching about war or honor or something that was so gobbledygooky I failed to understand it -- and I LIKE that sort of thing. 6/10

Nashville (1975)

Superb and sweeping

[10/10 · 17 March 2003]

Robert Altman directs a sweeping view of a large group of people, mostly musicians, wannabes, and hangers-on, in Nashville during a third-party presidential campaign. Many people complain that this movie has no narrative, but in fact, each of its many characters has a clear narrative arc, often an engrossing one. Most are driven forward by a single, compelling goal that blinds them to reality and the people around them. Many are overlaying a strong personal interpretation on reality, so that the Californian has no idea who these country music freaks are, and the country star has no idea who Julie Christie (in a cameo) is - she cannot be a star, because she doesn't dress like one. The single-mindedness, selfishness, and sometime insanity is highlighted by Ronee Blakley, who plays Barbara Jean, the biggest star in country music. While every other character is racing towards what Barbara Jean has, Barbara Jean is spiraling away from it; collapsing under its weight.

Outstanding performances by an enormous cast, with especially good turns by Keith Carradine, Ronee Blakley, and Gwen Welles as a tragically deluded woman who cannot be dissuaded from her belief that she can sing. 10/10

Do or Die (2003 TV Movie)

Dystopic Wanna-be

[6/10 · 27 February 2003]

Do or Die was a made-for-TV SciFi original whatchamacallit. It looked like it was originally planned as a miniseries and then chopped. We are shown a post-"blight" world in which those with an incurable (but not contagious) disease form an oppressed underclass. Upon even cursory examination, the premise makes no real sense, and its veneer of meaning is merely that -- all surface and no substance. It acts like it has the intelligence and foreboding of A Handmaid's Tale, but by painting broad villains, a fictionalized disease with no social impact, and extreme circumstances, the movie avoids all the meat and pours on too much gravy. Still, I admire that SciFi is making real science fiction, of the sort that might have appeared in Analog fifty years ago. 6/10

GoldenEye (1995)

One of the Finest of 007's Career!

[10/10 · 10 September 2002]

I am still trying to figure out why some Bond fans dislike this movie. I think it's nearly perfect. It has everything terrific about the franchise -- some real espionage (the plot isn't handed to Bond all at once, as in some of the inferior entries), it hangs together (no real dangling set pieces), it's great to look at, it has some dynamite explosions, some really sinister villains, an amusing ally, and very sexy women. Underneath it all, in this first post-Cold War Bond, is an examination of what the post-Soviet world of espionage and crime might really constitute, as all of the characters struggle to find their place in it. One telling scene takes place in what amounts to a Soviet graveyard -- a junkyard of old statues of Lenin and other Soviet icons.

The female lead, Izabella Scorupco, is especially notable. As computer analyst Natalya, she witnesses the mass murder of all her co-workers in a blaze of mayhem. Unlike the spy smoothies we're used to, Natalya weeps, screams, and mourns, before showing the steel she needs to rescue herself and eventually team up with our hero. I very much like how, in those early scenes, she's dressed as a computer analyst and not as a glamour girl. Her beauty shines through and later she gets a bikini.

The great cast includes Judi Dench, Robbie Coltraine, Sean Bean, Alan Cummings, Famke Jansen, and Joe Don Baker. 10/10

How Stella Got Her Groove Back (1998)

Watch the commercial for Jamaica Tourism and skip the movie

[2/10 · 12 August 2002]

Have you ever noticed how the excuses for seeing a really bad movie have an eerie similarity to the excuses for adultery? I didn't really intend to see it, it just sort of happened, I never really wanted to, but I was parked in front of the TV and there it was. I thought it might be okay. I was wrong.

It is unclear to me why anyone thinks that Stella (Angela Basset) lost her groove in the first place. Stella is rich, successful, unbelievably beautiful, smart, independent, and a fashion plate. We open with her dancing and grooving to the radio, yet we are expected to believe she needs her groove back.

It only gets worse from there. I don't want to talk about it. 2/10

Ocean's Eleven (2001)

The Heist of All Heists

[8/10 · 31 July 2002]

This is a very fun movie that could have been excellent without Julia Roberts dragging it down. Now, normally I am a fan of Ms. Roberts, but here she is miscast and her part is poorly written. Unfortunately, said poorly written part is meant to be the linchpin that holds the entire motivation and structure together. Her character is treated as a stunning beauty, but we all know that Roberts's appeal is not beauty but prettiness -- she is a nice girl, not a knockout, and that's why her beauty -- when it does shine forth -- is so startling. Roberts looks like a pretty girl who, when she smiles at you, shocks you with her sudden radiance. But her character is the kind of woman who Makes an Entrance, and it just doesn't work. Without either the looks or the dialogue, she creates a mushy center to a movie that needs to be sharp straight through.

Still, the rest of the movie is diamond-edge sharp, the heist is entertaining, and the cast mainly sparkles. 8/10

Crazy in Alabama (1999)

A delightful surprise

[10/10 · 10 December 2001]

A real treat, much better than it had any right to be. It's the 1960s in Alabama and Lucille (Melanie Griffith) murders and decapitates her abusive husband Chester, and heads to Hollywood with his head. Meanwhile back home, segregation is being fought in her small town. Our narrator is Lucille's nephew, he is living with his uncle (David Morse), witnessing the evil of the town sheriff (Meat Loaf) and trying to make sense of the civil rights movement.

This is an odd, yet ultimately successful, merging of two very different stories. The Alabama civil rights story is a gentle, human drama, while the Lucille story is broadly colored, with flashy costumes, comical characters, and tart dialogue. Lucille dazzles everyone who meets her, and everything goes her way, despite the fact that Chester's head continues to speak to her, calling her a slut who'll never amount to anything. I can't explain why the surreal comedy works so well in parallel to the small town drama, but it does. Griffith is compelling -- her husband, Antonio Banderas, directs her as he sees her, the camera keeps finding the perfect woman; thrilling, sensual and sweet.

In the "featurette" on the DVD, both Griffith and Banderas say the movie is about freedom, and the stories parallel well because Lucille's freedom from her husband's oppression parallels the blacks' freedom from civil oppression. But I saw it more as an R.D. Laing movie. The truth of Crazy in Alabama is in its title -- sanity IS a sane answer to an insane world. The nation WAS watching Bewitched and shopping for hats while blacks were beaten to death for the right to use whites-only facilities. "Crazy," in this movie, defies definition -- what is individual craziness when the world goes crazy? Lucille's craziness is sweet and understandable; the world's, less so. 9/10