Change Your Image
synapse3119
Reviews
The Terminal (2004)
Not as disappointing as "Big Fish", but still kind of a let-down.
"The Terminal" is the second highly anticipated movie this year by a big name director that, halfway through, had me sighing in disappointment.
The first was Tim Burton's "Big Fish", a movie so contrived and lifeless it made me wonder what happened to the wonder kind who gave us Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice.
The Terminal wasn't AS bad, and, in fact, has some really great moments only a director like Spielberg and an actor like Tom Hanks could deliver. There's a sequence in the beginning where Navorski discovers his home country has fallen into warfare and disarray, and desperately, fearfully runs around the Terminal looking for television sets that broadcast some snippet of news he's unable to understand anyway. This is a heartbreaking scene and I noticed I was sobbing only 15 minutes into the movie. This was a glorious setup that had me expecting a truthful, emotional, and brilliant Spielbergian parable on the hardships of immigration and the response they get from the country to strive so hard to come to. Granted, Navorski wasn't an immigrant, he was just a tourist, the obvious story to be told was about East meets West.
Instead, my blood started to chill and my shoulders sagged in my seat as the film fell victim to one cliché, forced Hollywood contrivance after another. Yes, Gupta the Janitor was funny but his dialogue was dismal (do you have an appointment? -not funny. a writers device trying to be "eccentric".)
The relationship Navorski develops with the airport workers was comic and touching on some levels (Chi McBride was brilliant as always and it was nice to see Diego Luna in a non sleazy role for once.) But their characters lacked any sense of realism or depth. The romance between Diego and the Customs Official girl could have been really sweet and compelling had the devices used to move it along (like Diego's bribing Navorski and the whole "he said/she said back and forth) not felt like the screenwriter was borrowing from the stock bin of Hollywood romances. There was no real sense of a crush or distant love from Luna's character and because of that, it lacked truth. And therefore, why should I bother caring?
That's how I felt about a lot of the movie. Catherine Zeta-Jones' character was so self centered and despicable in her devotion to a man she KNOWS is going to hurt her that I rolled my eyes every time she came on screen. Yeah, I get it. She reads history books (writer's device) she rambles on about Napleon (writer's device) and she's so hectic and neurotic in her life that she asks strange foreigners she's never met if they'd like to have dinner (writer's device.) I love Catherine Zeta-Jones and I know she's an amazing actress but her character was a complete fabrication from start to finish. The one, ONE touching moment between her and Hanks comes when he explains to her what's in the Planters can and more so why he came to this country. The acting she does without saying any words was the only other moment in this film where I almost cried, and yet it falls short because neither the setup nor the payoff of the relationship between her and Navorski are fulfilling or honest in any way, shape, or form. (Although, to be fair, their "date" on the patio with Gupta juggling the hoops was sheer comic brilliance)
The world of Independent Film has changed my view of movies so profoundly that it's hard, really hard, to watch a Hollywood movie now and not find myself giggling or sighing at the abundance of recycled clichés and untruthful characters. I understand that most of these big studio pictures are produced for one reason: to entertain the majority of the populous, most of whom don't see past the stereotypes and are easily amused, and let them leave the theater feeling good about life. And you know what, that's cool. Everyone deserves to have a good time at the movies. But when that "good time" is being helmed by one of the best of the best filmmakers the medium has ever seen, as I'll rightfully say Spielberg is, I expect a little, no, a LOT better than what one of your standard second tier Hollywood directors would churn out. Even when Spielberg is falling back on cliché (Jurassic Park, Minority Report, and, to some extent, Saving Private Ryan), he does it so deft fully and well that it becomes original and stands out as a great film. The Terminal was not so lucky.
It has some great comic moments in the tradition of Buster Keaton, and it's worth watching for Hanks' and Tucci's performance as well as Janusz Kaminski's always awe-inspiring cinematography. But, in the end, you might sit there and wish the filmmakers had done better, if only because you know they can.
11'09''01 - September 11 (2002)
Seeing the Forest for the Trees
Put simply, I think this film is a masterpiece. To call it anti-American is quite arrogant and uneducated, as I feel it is, above all, extra-American, meaning it portrays an entire global community and the effect a single event in the world can have. As Americans, we are understandably still heartbroken over the tragedy and may never fully recover, but if we're smart then we need to see that an entire non-American culture exists outside our little bowl and can't be expected to react, sympathize, and contribute in the same way or in ways we'd like. If a family down the street from you loses a loved one, naturally you're going to feel bad for them, but if you never knew them you're not going to be grief stricken, and no one would expect you too. Furthermore, if you had prior resentment against that family, it would still surface and mar your ability to sympathize. Does that mean you're a bad person? Of course not. But it illustrates the relativity of the impact a tragic event can have on everyone.
For one, I thought this was best illustrated in the segments from Iran, England, Bosnia, and Burkina-Faso.
In Iran, we're introduced to children who are (summed up in the first minute of film) refugees from their home country, building brick buildings to survive potential bombings, and living in dirt. And yet they all giggle and laugh and go on as naive children. And, in all honesty, why should they be effected by September 11? Bosnia's short portrays a culture that has been under a state of perpetual grief for as long as they can remember, and they still march in defiant protest and solemn anger over the death of their loved ones. Sure, news of 9-11 effects them, but in a land this morose and unhappy it's as if they have no more grief to give. Burkina-Faso's, while funny, illustrated a good point: The children don't hunt down who they think is Bin Laden because they are angry and vengeful, they do it for the money. They are, beneath it all, capitalists, the difference being they wanted money for good cause, unlike our government who disgustingly capitalized on 9-11 for the patriotism agenda.
And, perhaps Loach's London segment was the most effective in that it was a tearful way of saying "I feel your pain...maybe you could feel ours..?" How many people (especially in my generation) really know about the horrific history of Chile, and moreso, that our government was behind it? Nowhere do I see Ken Loach saying "shame on you America!!!" (as many have interpreted), but rather I see a wounded survivor in a heartfelt request for the same empathy he has for us on September 11. I'm sure the murder of Allende means a lot more to Chileans than the WTC bombings ever will, just as WTC will always mean more to us than the murder of Allende..
I admired the Mexican segment as an auditory experience but (CURSES!) the projector broke down and the sound got out of sync, thus completely marring the effect. Egypt's segment was kind of lame in it's technique but brought up an EXTREMELY good point: We always label civilians innocent, and in many respects we are, but to a terrorist, since the U.S. and Israel are democracies, we (supposedly) elect the leaders who commit atrocities against their people. Therefore, we are not innocent. A warped perspective, yes, but a valuable insight into the mind of the enemy.
Emotionally I thought the French segment was the most brilliant, as it characterized the attitude of this whole film. Focusing on the woman's deafness we are put in her head and experience, for a brief moment, what it's like to be deaf, the same as we might experience what it's like to be foreign or non English speaking. And as an audio-visual experience it was unforgettable. Only when her boyfriend comes home does the effect of the tragedy really strike her, and it reminded me that we take our senses for granted. I would love to see an entire movie from a deaf perspective.
The two low points in this film were the American and Japanese. I admired Sean Penn's story but hated his technique. Split screens and repeat-frames are tastelessly self indulgent (key word here is indulgent) and the Japanese short, while clever and striking, felt rather out of place here. I get the "Holy War" statement but it's better suited for another film and another argument. The Indian segment, while also a touching story, was sadly unimaginative and more matter-of-fact. Israel's short, as a one-shot, was creative, but the characters were annoying and laughably exaggerated.
What this film allows is for us all to levitate above the planet and gaze down on an entire global culture and how a single event effects it. I'm sorry if Americans are offended and see this as "anti-American propaganda" but that speaks of just plain not getting it. Every nation and every culture is as guilty as we are innocent. But to believe our tragedies are superior and carry more weight sentimentally is wrong and the gross effect of isolation and nationalism. We confine ourselves inside nations and borders and collective mentalities and forget that beneath (or perhaps above) all the ideology, we're all human beings and deserve to be treated as such.
A marvelous, unforgettable film.
Thirteen (2003)
why KIDS was so much better than this...
(possible spoilers)
I must admit I'm quite surprised to read reviews that claim this movie was "horrific" "an eye opener" and "uneasy to watch." Obviously, people who think this haven't experienced films like Kids, Bully, City of God or The Virgin Suicides. Being a big fan of all of those, I must admit this movie seemed extremely tame in comparison. I wonder if this is to the fault of Nikki Reed for not having the courage to write these things in graphic detail, or the fault of Cathrine Hardwicke for not having the courage to film it.
While all of these movies explore the shocking and unrepentant attitude of amoral teenagers, the reason Kids is far superior is because it does NOT want us to sympathize with its characters. It makes no apologies for them and shows everything in graphic detail. The effect is a lingering bad taste that reminds us of the problems with these youths every time we think about it, and that's exactly the effect Larry Clark wants. And for those reasons, I'll call Kids a stunning, compelling, unforgettable and extremely courageous film.
It's also why I'll call Thirteen a tepid, whiny, overblown melodrama that breaks no new ground and sheds no new insight into the nature of adolescence. While I will give credit to its performers (especially Holly Hunter, who never fails to impress me), the story, or rather lack of story, is so drifting, hesitant and two sided that any real appreciation of this film is lost...long after you've given up on being happy with the ridiculously bad camerawork. Through this entire movie I could almost hear Reed and Hardwicke whispering in my ear "she's really a good kid inside." Tracy's constant whining, shouting, and self-pitying attitude made her an extremely unsympathetic character. She demonstrates close to zero intelligence (her poem in the beginning is laughably immature, but then again so is she) and her instant conversion from good little girl to immoral hellcat shows little effort on her part to retain some of her innocence. It took Michael Corleone at least two movies to become the Godfather, remember.
These were superficial, shallow, materialist weak minded people. Holly Hunter brought the best she could to her character and did a fine job portraying a mother enduring a hellish time but, when it comes down to it, her character was just a bad mother. And the script's attempts to inject some much needed humanity into these people come too little too late. The moments of emotional breakdown and crying seem to be begging, pleading for our sympathy and the lack of anything real graphic or shocking shows a timidness that hurts this movie, which, I'll admit had much potential. It's not shocking, it's not funny, it's not memorable. It's just annoying and, ultimately, forgettable. I do look forward to seeing what else Nikki Reed can write, and I'll admit it's no minor feet to write a screenplay at 14 years old. Though I think it needed at least a year's more worth of development. No, my anger is more with Cathrine Hardwicke, who could have done much better. First; fire that incessant director of photography and KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE DAMN ZOOM BUTTON! It's not stylistic it's cheap and amateurish. If you want us to sympathize with your characters than give us a reason to really like them. If you want us to hate your characters make them unrepentantly evil. But don't try to find a happy middle ground because it doesn't work. Someone in the theater actually yelled "I hope these people all die," to which a lot of people laughed. That's bad.
My Life Is a Movie (2002)
Hilarious send-up of Hollywood pipe dreams
I was lucky enough to catch this short on Video i and it had me in stitches. Interspersing over-the-top acting, male chauvinist bravado and quirky, sometimes vulgar musical numbers, this is quite possibly one of the most funny satires of Hollywood and the desire to be a celebrity. It breaks so many rules and as a short, thankfully, it never bogs down or takes itself seriously. The re-edit of a sequence involving multiple decapitations and four-letter obscenities after a bad test screening was hilarious. Track this one down if you can.