bzb2001 Reviews

In the Valley of Elah (2007)

One of the best films of 2007

[9/10 · 5 March 2008]

"In the Valley of Elah" refers to the location where David killed Goliath. It is told as a bedtime story by Tommy Lee Jones to a little boy. The child asks why they didn't shoot Goliath. Jones responds that they did have arrows but there are rules of warfare, they could not just shoot someone in that situation. Instead a boy named David, without armor, took down the giant warrior with a single slingshot. The child responds, "so they shot him." It is this point of view Paul Haggis' film takes on with a muted velocity. A father awakes one morning to a phone call saying his son is back from Iraq but is reported AWOL from his army base. Without hesitation the father makes a two day trip to the base in one day and begins his own investigation into his son's disappearance. Being an ex army policeman himself he decides it would be best to handle the situation through the local police. There he meets a freshman detective (Charlize Theron) who hesitantly begins to help him with his search.

The father is played by Tommy Lee Jones as an understated authoritarian perhaps a little too tired to let everyone know how he really feels. He is our anchor throughout the film even when we begin to learn more about the Theron character and the parallel investigation happening at the army base headed by Jason Patric. It is maybe Jones' best performance because we expect him to act a different way but he forces us to accept his character for who he is.

We begin to learn more about his son. We learn some of the awful things he saw and did in war; and some of the awful things he and his comrades do back home. The gift of the film is another look at our conflict in Iraq. So much of what we see and hear is filtered politically. "Elah" has a way of humanizing the war and its effects on the young soldiers who serve there. There are no cheap shots at the Bush administration nor are there tired pacifist cries to an end to all wars. Instead we are questioned about human life and its worth to family if not to its country. There is an undercurrent theme of torture throughout the film that doesn't make it easy to watch, but it is not on the nose and disproportionate as in a film like "Rendition." "In the Valley of Elah" is not an easy film to watch, and perhaps it shouldn't be. Although it works as a mystery, the movie is much more a character drama that is altogether fascinating and sorrowful. Paul Haggis has followed his Oscar winner "Crash" with another film similar in tone. Both are concerned with violence and humanity, but "Elah" I feel is even better as it does not use any of its characters as "Crash" seemed to. The emotion and heart to "Elah" is not on the sleeve but under a gruff exterior.

Not everyone will like this film because of its themes. Millions of potential ticket buyers were probably scared off by the mere mention of Iraq. The media is saturated with the events over there and the theater is not where the public wants to continue that shelling. If anything the filmmakers respect the audience - a notion that is more and more novel. It does not spoon feed the plot nor does it pound you over the head with their personal beliefs. It is likely that Haggis is not a proponent of our being in Iraq, but he knows not to force open our eyes with toothpicks and overstimulate us with tragic scenes and overwrought emotion.

I continue to think about the correlation between Goliath's demise in that valley and the events of this film. I am not convinced I know who our David is. And do we have a Goliath to bring down? Later in the movie Theron tells Jones that the story is not true. "Of course it is. It was even in the Koran" is his reply. I wonder if by the end he feels differently. That story is a metaphor but inconveniently those situations do not play out so black and white. More often than not Goliath is within, and it is David we cannot find. **** out of ****

Moonlight Mile (2002)

As touching and heartfelt as it is off the cuff and quirky

[8/10 · 28 February 2008]

People grieve in different ways. In the case of 'Moonlight Mile,' the way people don't grieve may even come into question. There is a crassness involved when people assume they would act different. How do you know unless you're in that exact situation? Brad Silberling writes and directs 'Moonlight Mile,' a film as touching and heartfelt as it is off the cuff and quirky. As in Silberling's other efforts, 'City of Angels' and 'Casper', he has created a film that perhaps overloads on the whim and fanciful but lands as an entirely engrossing experience.

Jake Gyllenhaal stars as the fiancée of a woman who is murdered in a small town eatery. We meet him as well as the woman's parents, played by Susan Sarandon and Dustin Hoffman, at the funeral and we are surprised by the lack of emotion of any kind. But what does not surprise us is the undertones of pain. Sarandon's mother hides under a blanket of sarcasm and calloused annoyance of the clichéd behavior shown by family friends and well-wishers. Hoffman's father copes by staying busy. Busy with the funeral, busy with the business, busy with the sick dog, and ultimately busy with the murder trial.

If there is a section of the film that can be pointed to as being not on par with the rest of the film it would be the preparation for the trial. Though it makes sense this would be included in this type of story, the tone does not ring true with the rest of the film. There is a strong performance by Holly Hunter as the prosecuting attorney, as she attempts to put the murderer behind bars, or worse.

It should be said the film is based in part on the murder of Silberling's own fiancée, actress Rebecca Schaeffer. I feel that real life instance helped with the tone which is somber, yet whimsical. In fact there is a scene that involves a dog puking on the shoes of a hand-wringing relative at the funeral. So how depressing can it possibly be? The very best section of the film encompasses newcomer Ellen Pompeo who plays Bertie. She works at the post office and is enlisted by Gyllenhaal to retrieve the wedding invitations which were never halted. She also tends the local bar where she patiently awaits her boyfriend, who is MIA in Vietnam. She carries her scenes with a veracity that keeps her quirky lovability intertwined with a grievous glow of sadness just aching to get out. She is, of course, Gyllenhaal's moral dilemma. How can he care for his fiancée's family if he is suddenly in love with another girl? There is a subset of people who didn't like this film simply because it allowed it's characters to be human. Not all people grieve like your supposed to on TV. Maybe there isn't a lot of wallowing and screaming. Maybe the emotions are kept within and bubble to the top only momentarily. It is almost always more interesting what emotions an actor can hide rather than an over the top burst.

It is also true there is no easy way to swallow 'Moonlight Mile.' There isn't a way in to it's core that is accessible without accepting these people for who they are. It can be hard to accept the whimsy or the humor when we are supposed to be sad that a person has died. It is hard to shift gears into a courtroom drama when we are also put in a position of watching a budding romance. But isn't that true of all of us? Can any of us be compartmentalized as sad or angry or distraught without having to also apply other labels of varying truth? In 'Moonlight Mile' we are not asked to rely on our own senses to complete the story, we need to rely on accepting someone else's. ***.5 out of ****

The Boondock Saints (1999)

Depraved and Without Merit

[1/10 · 17 December 2006]

Among the pathways of depravity there lays a mile marker for The Boondock Saints. A film so inertly void of humanity and purpose it rarely saw a theater screen. Although perhaps it should have, the growing number of fans has made this film an alarmingly enormous cult sensation.

The plot is a simple vigilante story of two brothers who murder those they see as reprehensible. The fact that they are reprehensible as well is never understood. Masked behind the idea that they are good Irish Catholics, the duo set forth in a violent fury ridding the world of those they deem evil. The detective assigned to apprehend the two is played by Wilem Dafoe in a performance so over the top we forget how good of an actor he really is. And yes, the cop is just as screwed up as the crooks - this is one of those stories. Though he is sent to arrest the wanted men, Dafoe's character is much more interested in making dramatic gestures and compiling evidence while listening to classical music, in a scene of eye-rolling silliness.

Along the way the criminal pair pick up a psychotic counterpart who yells a lot and seems so much like the loose cannon they do not need. We learn very little about why the two have set forth on this rampage or where this idiotic third wheel came from, or maybe we do. By this time I had lost any need to pay attention.

Following in the ancestry of Tarantino films, The Boondock Saints has the appearance of imitating (badly) a genre on the edge of what is permissible. Because Tarantino's characters utter "nigger" does not give clearance for the word to be used in any random situation. This film as a result comes off as racist, xenophobic, homophobic and certainly doesn't put religion in the best light. If there is anything positive about the film, it does excite the thirteen-year-old thrill to see novel executions involving commodes and kitty cats. But like that feeling the film is at best immaturely titillating and at worst dangerous. .5* out of ****

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Achingly Beautiful

[10/10 · 4 February 2006]

The phrase "gay cowboy film" is, in a large part, a misnomer. Though it is true two men wear cowboy hats and cowboy boots while riding horseback, there is scarcely a cow in the film at all. However, the phrase does get right down to the emphasis of the film. It is hard for many to comprehend the idea of two men sharing a kiss, making love, or even staring longingly into each other. It is even more strange to imagine the two as rough ranch hands.

I wonder how the film will play in fifty years, will our prejudices and fears be quelled by then? Even to a 21st Century audience it is hard for many to watch the love between these two men, so it is not hard to imagine the hatred and fear within many of the characters.

The archetypal "cowboy" is one of a mysterious nature. He wears the rim of his hat low to keep people from seeing his eyes; he scrapes mud and muck from his boots before entering a saloon where he drinks a bottle of whiskey before retiring to the cold trappings of a prostitute. He rarely says a word, and when he does it is preceded by the spit of tobacco and a hissing glare.

In Ang Lee's achingly beautiful Brokeback Mountain, we see some of these actions. It is true these two must remove defilement from their boots; one of them indeed rarely says a word; another (we assume) attends the benefits of a person paid for sexual favors. But it is altogether different, Ennis and Jack seem more human in their interactions with these settings. Of course there is no saloon, since the meat of the film takes place in the 1960's and 1970's, but there are bars. And it is understood that in those bars there lurks a fear of what Jack and Ennis are, and that could get them killed.

Jack and Ennis meet innocently enough, they are hired to watch after a herd of sheep on the distant hills of Brokeback Mountain. Ennis, quiet and reserved in speech and so we assume in emotion, is in charge of keeping camp. The film weaves a tapestry of domestic ritual to Ennis' daily work. Even when two men are left to their own devices in the wilderness, someone must do the cooking, preparing, cleaning and shopping. Jack's job is to watch after the herd, he is more extroverted than Ennis, so it is no surprise when he makes the first move.

They do come down off the mountain. This is not a slice of life tale that exists in a few hours. The film follows them and forces them to make the choices we understand must me made. It is hard to watch some of the decisions and the hard truths they bring, but there is an understated tone throughout Brokeback Mountain that recognizes much of this could have been avoided, and that is the real tragedy that is told.

So what are Jack and Ennis? Are they gay? Bisexual? Adventurously straight? What really matters is that their relationship is a dangerous taboo that can either be smothered with a come what may attitude, or more often recede to a psychological haze. Indeed the film has little to do with the sexuality of it's characters. Put any sort of "Romeo & Juliet" type of love and you could produce the same story. I thought, for instance, of the love between a white woman and a black man or the union of a Catholic and a Jew. These bonds are as sinful or radical as is forced by the society within which they exist.

The main thread through Brokeback Mountain does not wholly explain this force of society, but it exists quietly in the background. The story moves so delicately that the thoughts of retribution for the characters' actions seem so harsh they may break the film in two. So, too, does Ennis' actions - a man of few words but, when pushed, he can unleash a horrific scene of contrary behavior.

Like a bed sheet floating perfectly down into place, Brokeback Mountain is the type of film that nestles quietly waiting for someone to notice it. Heath Ledger, who is tremendous as Ennis, steals the film with a look and sound completely original yet recognizable in life. Ang Lee continues marching through Hollywood, making films his own way, each more different in treatment and look than the last. What he creates here is his best work to date, a masterpiece of tone, presentation, and spirit. **** out of ****

Fahrenhype 9/11 (2004 Video)

Fails on several levels

[3/10 · 27 January 2006]

Viewing Fahrenhype 9/11 is kind of like watching the new kid in class try to show dominance against those who have come before him. You want him to succeed; you want the underdog to show his teeth. But, inevitably, he comes off as a little pathetic and ultimately jealous.

Michael Moore, after the enormous success of his Oscar winner Bowling for Columbine, decided it was time to film the documentary he was born to make. Fahrenheit 9/11 took a stranglehold on the political ideology and pro-war attitude of an era still shaking from the terrorist attacks in 2001. His film seemed to fit, his audience were those souls who would normally protest the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act but slept under the guise of patriotism. Moore mobilized them for the attack on George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election.

However, there is the other side. Those who disagreed with Moore's conclusions, or even more pointedly said he was a propagandist, mobilized their counter offensive immediately in chat rooms and blog sites across the internet. Fahrenhype 9/11 is the attempt to beat Moore at his own game.

The film is a failure. It fails on several levels, yet where it succeeds is an important footnote for America. Right-wingers and those who do not understand Moore's style of film-making continue to attack the "facts" in his films. There is no one way to make a documentary and Moore's flair is just that, he rearranges footage not to make it say something other than it does, rather he tailors video and sound bytes to fit his narrative.

The end result lives on the ethical edge of non-fiction film-making and thus incorporates a necessary excitement. When watching a Michael Moore film it is important to understand the broad strokes. His films are not about incidents or individuals, they concern themselves with ideologies and mass movements. When you pick on the absence of color in one part of the canvas, you miss the entire painting.

For example, early in Fahrenhype there is a segment that dissects one second of Fahrenheit. Apparently, if the subjects are correct in their research, Moore had expanded a small headline in the editorial section of a newspaper to make it seem like this was a major news event on the front page. The editorial's headline proclaimed that Gore was the actual winner if all votes were recounted in Florida. This type of trickery does make me cringe, but Fahrenhype makes no other assertion. They have blown the whistle on a tiny portion of Moore's illustration, they say nothing about the other news articles and reports on this issue.

Fahrenhype goes on to label Michael Moore's film as propaganda, which was widely circulated on the internet as well. This type of comment should not be taken lightly and is completely off base. His film has no base to propagandize, not the democratic party, not pacifists, nobody. It also concludes that Moore is a war profiteer, making millions off of people's family losses in the Iraq war. If that is true, then many of our most celebrated directors from Stanley Kubrick to Oliver Stone to Steven Spielberg are all the same.

Fahrenhype 9/11 fails to usurp Fahrenheit 9/11 politically as much as it does in style. Moore's film won at Cannes and was beloved not simply for it's politics, it was an engaging film that got you thinking and laughing at the same time you were horrified and, yes, confused. Fahrenhype has none of that. In many ways it seems like a rebuttal made by a high school's Young Republicans club.

Additionally, the film has nothing of its own to say. The entire running time consists of a blow-by-blow of items from Moore's film that are debunked by their own panel. In that vain, a circuitous procession of films could continue firing at each other like cannons on opposing battle ships. Let me say as well that this type of film-making is counter-intuitive since it furthers the desire to see the other film.

It is also interesting what the film decides to bring up and what it ignores. It will argue Moore is lying by blowing up a headline, but stays mum on all of the vote fraud that happened in Florida and elsewhere. They viciously attack Moore's opposition to the war and say he is crazy to insist that the United States went to war for oil or money. However, they have no other response to us firing missiles at Saddam right after the Taliban attacked us.

Where the film does succeed is affirming the notion that the other side has a voice. Sometimes I wondered if I watched the same Fahrenheit 9/11 as participator Ann Coulter did, but at least she has a forum with which to speak. If it is true we are fighting in Iraq for the cause of freedom and democracy, diversity of opinion as well as livelihood is the plainest evidence needed for it's virtue. ** out of ****

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

A visual masterpiece and better than the first

[8/10 · 12 February 2005]

So the journey continues with 'The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.' This review will assume you have seen the first film, 'The Fellowship of the Ring.' Which is fine because Peter Jackson, at the helm of this massive production, assumes you have seen it as well. Intelligently, Jackson does not begin with a redundant and unnecessary prologue. He dives right into what the filmmakers considered the hardest of the trilogy to make.

When we left the fellowship, they were in shambles. Gandalf had fallen; Merry and Pippen were kidnapped by the evil forces; Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli seek their smaller comrades without the help of Boromir, who has also died; this leaves Frodo and Sam on their way to Mount Doom, the one ring still in their grasp.

'The Two Towers' is more successful than 'Fellowship' because the storytelling becomes more complex without drowning us in information. The first film introduced us to the many characters of Middle Earth (too many, I believe). 'The Two Towers' isn't quite as concerned with exposition, though new characters do come on board. Merry and Pippin meet Treebeard, a large, talking "tree herder" who is concerned about the plight of his forest's future since the destructive orcs and their masters, Sauron and Saruman, burn everything in their path.

Legolas, Aragorn, and Gimli enter the kingdom of Rohan and cross paths with King Theoden and his people. Theoden has been under Saruman's spell as part of he and Sauron's master plan to take over the separate kingdoms of Middle Earth. Eowyn, the king's niece, develops a special liking for Aragorn. However, as we understand from the first film, there is still a deep love between Aragorn and the elf Arwen. Along with the rest of the elfs of Middle Earth, Arwen is persuaded to leave for another world entirely. She does have reservations leaving her true love Aragorn, though mortal and she is not, for distant lands and never see him again.

Frodo and Sam are introduced to the mysterious Gollum, who attempts to attack the hobbits in their sleep to regain the ring. Instead, Gollum and Frodo kindle a special relationship since they both harbor a certain addiction to the ring's power. Frodo's Elijah Wood is the most effective actor in 'Two Towers' as he is gradually taken more and more over by the ring and it's awesome strength. Gollum becomes Frodo and Sam's guide to Mordor, as he has been there before. Gollum's intentions, though, are never clear to the hobbits - neither are they to Gollum.

These three strands of story form a massive, thoroughly effective, epic tale of nature vs. machine, creature vs. creature and, through Frodo, man vs. himself. The encompassing story leads to a heroic battle sequence fought on two fronts, while all the time we wonder how long Frodo can hold on to his sanity as the ring slowly takes power over him.

The pacing, which was an issue with 'Fellowship,' is not problematic at all the second time around. The three stories are told in a manner that flows right through the three hour+ tale. One problem that persists is that 'Two Towers' is largely unaffected by the humanity other than Frodo's saga. There is love between Aragorn and Arwen, Eowyn also shows up as a romantic character. Her father, Theoden, is a courageous man but flawed psychologically. There exists connections between these many characters and more but they all feel half baked and cast aside to make more room for fighting.

Still, 'The Two Towers' is enormously successful as a narrative and even more ambitious than 'Fellowship' visually. The score, by Howard Shore, is among the very best ever composed. The evil orcs and uruk-hai never look fake and evoke terror in the characters and in the audience. I still yearn for a more personal story, but in other realms of film-making, Peter Jackson and those under his command have outdone themselves. ***.5 out of ****

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

Masterpiece of visuals, but only visuals

[7/10 · 10 February 2005]

'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' is an epic, ambitious film in scope and magnitude, if not in heart. It tells the fantastic story of Frodo, a hobbit (small person) from the Shire in Middle Earth. The Shire is a peaceful place, as close to utopia as one might find. His peace is interrupted when the sorcerer Gandalf rides into town and discovers the secret to Bilbo's ring. Bilbo, also a hobbit, acquired the ring from Gollum - a distorted creature whose life has been elongated, but also deformed, by the mystical ring.

When Bilbo leaves for adventure, it is Frodo's job to return the ring to the desolate Mount Doom and cast it into the fire from which it was made. This, you see, is the only way to destroy the ring. As a mere hobbit, Frodo cannot shoulder this burden alone. Along for the journey is his gardener and confidant Samwise, Sam for short. Two other hobbits, Merry and Pippin, too immature for their own good, meet up with Frodo and Sam on their way to the magical land of elves.

Once there, a "fellowship" is formed to destroy the ring. One of them is Aragorn, a ranger with a secretive past. He is the primary focus of 'Lord' other than Frodo and the ring. He is a descendant of the man who held the ring over Mount Doom and could not destroy it. He is in love with the elf Arwen but the backdrop of the times leaves that love affair in jeopardy.

Sauron, the dark lord who originally created the ring, has found out its location and seeks out the hobbits, and later the fellowship, to take the ring back. Saruman, the secondary villain in the film, is Sauron's "puppet," but also wants the ring for his own power. He is a sorcerer like Gandalf, but has turned to evil.

Also in the fellowship, protecting the ring from Sauron and Saruman, is another man, Boromir. He is from the land of Gondor. Legolas is the lone elf representative in the fellowship. Elves are the fairest of the many creatures of Middle Earth and gifted archers. There is also a dwarf (slightly taller than a hobbit and certainly more robust) named Gimli. Dwarfs reside in mines, great connections of caves in the mountains through which the fellowship must journey in order to complete their task.

It is difficult to summarize the plot of 'Lord of the Rings' because of the amount of information that is thrown at you. There are characters and their ancestors; different creatures in the elves, dwarfs, hobbits, and men. In addition to them there are the mysterious orcs, goblins, ringwraiths, uruks, sorcerers, and the creature all onto itself, Gollum. This complexity in setup and the numerous strands of plot to keep under control is the primary problem with 'The Lord of the Rings.' It took me up to three viewings to saturate all of this material and half way understand it.

The triumph of Peter Jackson's labor of love is that you want to watch it indefinitely to soak in all of this splendor. The effects and settings are indescribable other than to say nothing this stunning has ever been featured on film before. Visually, the picture has no equal and will forever be understood as altering the way movies are seen. Unfortunately, to tell the story's backdrop, much of the humanity involved in Middle Earth is left on the back burner. In addition to that, there is a serious problem with pacing.

The filmmakers seemed more interested in remaining faithful to J.R.R. Tolkien's original creation than they are in attempting to make a workable adaptation into a film. In that regard, there is a large battle sequence that feels very much like the climax of the film, but is then followed with upwards of an hour of more footage! This was the straw that led 'Fellowship' from being a great film into a good film. With that in mind, I am forced to think of 'Fellowship' as split. It is a masterpiece of visual technology and presentation, but married to a story that needs more heart and less intrusion of detail. *** out of ****

Anything Else (2003)

Is this all the master has left?

[2/10 · 10 February 2005]

Woody Allen has finally done what has been feared for a decade now. In the twenty-six years since he made 'Annie Hall,' which rang the bell for his very best work to come, this is his worst film. Almost devoid of any real sentiment or originality, 'Anything Else' brings to a conclusion his list of disappointing but admirable recent films. With the exceptions of 'Mighty Aphrodite' and 'Sweet and Lowdown,' Allen has had a list of hits and misses in the last ten years, but none were horrible and none were great.

'Anything Else' is the film he has been working toward these many years. Allen has been accused of copying the same story and characters over and over, year by year. I have always felt this a harsh criticism. It is true his characters are similar in their neuroses, their fears toward death, their inability to commit to relationships; but each story, however mundane or fantastic, puts these characters in brand new situations. The humor is always flowing strong and there is a familiar sense of family. We know these characters, or someone similar to them, from past Allen projects. We can closely examine their lives and compare them to their neurotic kin in Allen's previous films.

That ends with a whimper with 'Anything Else.' The story is very Woody, a writer lives with his quirky but lovable girlfriend but cannot concentrate on his writing. He is a comedic writer but wishes to write a novel about loneliness and death (or some other Allen-ism). As if his girlfriend were not bad enough, along comes her mom to stay for a while.

The writer is played by Jason Biggs as the typical Woody Allen character. Biggs is a capable actor who gets down the anxiety and cadence needed, but is unable to present any heart to the role. Even more frustrating is Christina Ricci as the girlfriend. I feel she is further talented than Biggs but hits practically every scene on a sour note. The audience is given that awkward feeling that we know what she is trying to do but almost never delivers the goods.

What keeps the film from falling into hellish oblivion are the characters in the periphery. Stockard Channning tags the girlfriend's mother right on; Woody Allen appears as an anti-Allen character, a Jewish car-driving, atheist who wants to move to California with Biggs as a writing partner, he is incredibly focused and resolute if not crass. The best performance, however, comes from Danny DeVito as Biggs' inept manager taking 25% of his meager income and can find no other metaphor in his rhetoric other than comparing his client and the world in general to clothing sales.

Woody Allen is my favorite director. I have found no other filmmaker who can tell the stories he can knitting together a humorous fable with deep-seated moral and ethical dilemmas. 'Anything Else' is a jumbled collage of his past films in which you can even pick up exact dialogue transfered from other, more special, projects. Allen has said in interviews that directing is not his passion. If he had to shoot another take or show up for a Knicks game, he would always choose the basketball game. I doubt it has always been this way. His films used to evoke passion, they told bright and colorful stories. If 'Anything Else' is all the master has left, perhaps it is time to fold up the easel. *.5 out of ****

Million Dollar Baby (2004)

I enjoyed Clint Eastwood's fable, but had some reservations

[7/10 · 4 February 2005]

Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" is a film not so much about boxing but one about a boxer. Hilary Swank plays Maggie, an inept fighter with a lot of heart and ambition, but her gender leaves her at a training disadvantage. This fact is most true with Frankie, played with a crusty soulful mourn by director Clint Eastwood. He will not train a girl, never has and never will. The movie never makes it completely clear why Maggie has chosen Frankie, but that seems beside the point.

There is a lot of boxing in "Million Dollar Baby." More so than in "Girlfight," "Raging Bull," or possibly even the "Rocky" films. I have never been a boxing fan and did not start while viewing this film. Though the sport disinterests me, the rise of Maggie's abilities struck as impressive. She comes from a small town but travels to Frankie's gym to strike it big.

Frankie, an ex-fighter much closer to the end of his training career than the beginning, cannot bring himself to take a stab at a high-profile duel even with his most talented fighter. When he leaves Frankie for greener pastures, Frankie decides then to take on the girl who cannot hit the punching bag correctly and doesn't have enough money to spend on a speed bag.

The film's narration is threaded by the great, vital voice of Morgan Freeman, who helps out and lives in Frankie's gym. It is he, an ex-boxer as well, who first sees Maggie's raw talent and heart. That is the stem to this flower, how it blooms is up to the viewer to experience on their own unmolested by the words on this page.

. The almost unanimous love "Million Dollar Baby" has appreciated from critics leaves me wondering a few things. Paul Haggis' script follows many of the same routes accessed by films of the past. Frankie and Maggie's relationship follows a well documented formula; Freeman's narration is well sounding but its service as a crutch to move the story along is apparent early on; the film's final third, which houses its most brilliant scenes, ignores the stories it nourished before. Freeman all but disappears and an odd sub-plot involving a scrawny boxer in Frankie's gym is underdeveloped and is never as satisfying as the filmmakers wish.

The acting is superb, especially noting Hilary Swank who has reprised her role as an actress who shines after appearing from nowhere. She gained this accolade after winning an Oscar for her heart-breaking role in "Boys Don't Cry." Clint Eastwood has improved with age and abandons much of his stoic image that has aided him in the past. Morgan Freeman is fine, but his role isn't as fleshed out as I would like and we have seen him much better in the past, including his previous pairing with Eastwood in "Unforgiven."

I seem apologetic to inform the reader that I liked Eastwood's film but did not love it. After all of the awards and critical acclaim, I cannot honestly jump up and down for "M$B," as some have lovingly nicknamed it. My happiest moment was falling back in love with Hilary Swank, taking on another role not for the standard pretty Hollywood actress. Let us pray she never becomes one. *** out of ****

The Muse (1999)

A great "typical comedy"

[8/10 · 2 February 2005]

I often think of Albert Brooks as a genius of the "common movie." His films are comedies and they have the feel of your regular, standard comedy but they are so much more. 'The Muse,' a film of his several years ago, was not met with critical or commercial success. As a result, I avoided the film and did not watch until now. I am sad I waited so long.

Brooks stars as an aging Hollywood screenwriter without an Oscar to his credit, just a nomination years ago. His current problem (because you have the feeling with any Brooks movie that his character ALWAYS has a problem) is that he cannot get his recent script made. The studio feels he has "lost his edge," a phrase that follows him from person to person as he attempts to make since of this tragedy.

Brooks visits a friend played by Jeff Bridges who is far more successful than he. Bridges tells him about a woman he sees who inspires his greatest work. The muse, as she is called, is played with great vibrant energy by Sharon Stone. One problem with the muse: she has an expensive appetite - and not just for food. The phrase "high maintenance" brings on all new meaning and each scene is funnier than the next. She needs certain foods in her refrigerator, an expensive bedroom, different paint on the walls, then all new paint over that because it's too bright.

Some of this may seem tired and overused. Albert Brooks, though, is a genius when it comes to movies like this. Take, for instance, a scene when Brooks is caught in a conversation with someone who does not speak the best English. This is a ploy we've seen so many times. In an Albert Brooks movie the timing is perfect and the dialog is pierced with humor. I believe it ends up being the single most funny scene in the film.

Critics talk about the "payoff" to a film. The payoff to 'The Muse' is not entirely genuine and does not live up to the rest of the film. This brings it down a little but not near enough to make the film a retread of other films. It is never boring or overdone or even underdone. Ignore what you may have heard, give 'The Muse' a chance. It may re-enlighten your interest in the common film. ***1/2 out of ****

Always a Bridesmaid (2000)

Ultra-personal work of heart and soul

[10/10 · 20 January 2005]

Society has placed conditions on people that stress a certain way of living. It often feels like one is lost or unable to associate to society unless they adhere to these guidelines. For women, the idea of being a "spinster" can cause a great deal of anxiety.

For everyone who has felt the "clock" ticking and the notion of marriage seems impossible, this is your story. 'Always a Bridesmaid' is a documentary about one young woman's struggle to force (yes, force) her younger boyfriend to not only marry, but want to get married. Though it is impossible to force someone to want what they do not, it is impossible not to feel her immediacy.

Her name is Nina Davenport. She and her boyfriend Nick are both filmmakers. They are both very much in love with one another. She yearns to marry and he is fearful of the idea. There is some ambiguity as to whether she wants to marry him or just get married altogether to anyone. This desperateness is probably felt on at least some level by Nick and is likely another cause for his worry.

In life, it is uncomfortable to be caught in the middle of a situation such as this. In film, this can often fall into whiny melodrama. Nina's desperation can sometimes border on the annoying, but it is so easy to identify with her plight. There is a voyeuristic quality in being placed where the audience has, but most important is the idea that we can see both points of view.

Even more interesting, Nina goes on a sort of film-making therapy. She visits her parents and we learn about her mother's wild days as a much sought after bachelorette. As the scary idea of spinsterhood creeps into Nina's mind, she visits older women who never married. Receiving life's views from these wise women is the greatest gift of this doc.

What they have to say is enlightening, humorous, and at its best it is true. The truth behind their words is refreshing and honest. How their stories help and don't help Nina is fascinating. How she can relate what they say about Nick is unclear. For all of their help, every person is different as well as every relationship.

The ultimate irony is that Nina is, of all things, a wedding videographer. The pressures of spinsterhood meet her at work as well. The audience knows she is young and beautiful and need not worry. But that fact is not what the film is about. The feeling of loneliness and desperation that is unchanged by others' reassurance is an unyielding foe.

I saw 64 films in 2001 (the year 'Always a Bridesmaid' made its extremely limited theatrical run). I listed Nina Davenport's ultra-personal work of heart and soul as number 1. Nothing released that year is as personal or well made as this masterwork. The final scene in the film was not lost on me. The metaphor of the moment is one of the more powerful I have seen if not tranquil and unmoving in its own deceptive way. **** out of ****

Northfork (2003)

Pretentious, surreal, David Lynch wannabe

[1/10 · 20 January 2005]

'Northfork' is what is wrong with indie films. For all of their hard-edged commentary and attacking big subjects studios won't, this is the sacrifice we make. For nearly two hours I was subjected to the torture and pain of a film that starts by wandering like a blind man in a new place and ends without covering any new ground and thankfully dies.

There are parallel stories that detail a dying town and a dying boy. Two men dressed in black (one of them James Woods) must coerce the remaining inhabitants of Northfork to leave before a dam opens up and floods the town. The other story has a boy returned to the priest (Nick Nolte) that gave him to the parents. He is dying and is visited, I guess, by angels. Among them Anthony Edwards with bizarre spectacles and Daryl Hannah in a bizarre costume reminding me of the pirate shirt from Seinfeld.

Though this is the "plot," it is not what the film is about. The film is about nothing. It does nothing, says nothing, goes nowhere, and has nothing interesting to show. Perhaps by design, more likely an after-effect of the pretentious, surreal, David Lynch wannabe - we're an important artsy film can't you see - style of direction. The entire movie is filtered through a gray, bleak backdrop that, I suppose, fits a film about death. Instead, it simply makes the film that much harder to watch.

If you want to see a film about men in black, see either 'Men in Black' films, neither too impressive but compared to 'Northfork' they are lifted to 'Citizen Kane' status. If you want to see a film about a boy dying watch 'Lorenzo's Oil.' If you want to see a film that has the destruction of a town through water watch 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' If you want to watch a film better than 'Northfork,' there are hundreds. If you want to watch a film that is worse, there are only a handful. 0* out of ****

Chattahoochee (1989)

Harrowing yet, what's the word ... yeah, conventional

[5/10 · 10 January 2005]

I first watched 'Chattahoochee' in the early years of the 1990s when it was first released on cable. It was an eye-opening experience. At the time I was just beginning high school. Some ten years later, when attempting to compile a list of films I have seen, I realized that I remembered nothing from the film other than loving it.

Upon my rewatching, I now see how my tastes in cinema have changed, as well as my maturity and understanding of United States history. Mick Jackson, the director of 'Chattahoochee,' just a year later would release one of my favorite comedies, 'L.A. Story.' Jackson, not well known even to film buffs, has gone on to direct a wide variety of films, including the enormously successful Whitney Houston and Kevin Costner vehicle 'The Bodyguard.' With 'Chattahoochee' Jackson has a juicy story with which to work. Based on true events, Gary Oldman plays a Korean War veteran who loses his mind after returning home to the United States. One day, for reasons the film never truly explains, he begins firing a pistol at his neighbors' dwellings, clotheslines, and even someone's wife.

He is sent to an insane asylum not meant to cure, as we understand institutions to do today, rather to house an assortment of criminals with a variety of mental illnesses, and others likely with none at all. The brutality inflicted upon these patients is inhumane and by all accounts undeserving.

Oldman's character does what he can to bring the violence out in the open, to start he writes letters to the relatives of the abused. What began with those letters ends, I suppose, with this film. And though this understanding lends it a tact truthfulness, the direction and writing are fearfully melodramatic.

Oldman's performance is beyond measure as is Frances McDormand, who plays his wife. The film, as a whole, seems very "made for TV-ish" and is the type of heavy-handed, clichéd work you might find on Lifetime if the violence wasn't so hard to censor. Mature, history minded adults will find a harrowing story in the background, but will be unable to identify with the puppets shown in the film. A more astutely directed film would allow the audience to enter the institution with the main character, instead of leaving them at arm's length emotionally. **.5 out of ****

The Aviator (2004)

Scorsese no longer great, now just good

[6/10 · 10 January 2005]

To a certain degree, all biographical films are as successful as the audience's knowledge of the character. That has never been more true than with 'The Aviator.' I walked into Martin Scorsese's epic knowing little about the bizarre tycoon Howard Hughes, therefore I walked out reasonably satisfied. To those who have studied Hughes, I wonder if their reaction to the film will involve shrugged shoulders.

There is a depressing quality to 'The Aviator' that enters as baggage that has nothing to do with the film at all. I watched 'Gangs of New York' recently for the first time and disliked it entirely. Scorsese's newest work is considerably better but leaves a bitter taste still.

While watching Leonardo DiCaprio finely portray Hughes, I remembered Scorsese's earlier work. He is the master of presenting the anti-hero. I was reminded of the chief characters in 'Raging Bull' or 'Taxi Driver.' The success of his films, to a large degree, fall around the stories encircling his troubled stars. Look, for instance, at the backdrop of 'Goodfellas.' Everywhere the Ray Liotta character goes, he is in a perpetual state of danger. He is surrounded by friends he cannot trust and the law who wants him locked up. Most importantly, we felt it the whole time.

Those films were masterworks and even for what 'The Aviator' has its sights set on, as a perfect film it would not reach that grandeur. The film begins as Howard Hughes is painstakingly attempting to complete his war epic 'Hell's Angels.' At the final cost of approaching $4 million it is an irony that the amount is a mere fraction of what the actor playing Hughes normally gets per film! The meat of the picture involves Howard Hughes' relationship with actress Katharine Hepburn, played by Cate Blanchett. At first I feared Blanchett would create a caricature of Hepburn, but the actress is far too gifted for that. The brightest element in this film is, in fact, the quiet moments between the two. As it ends up, Blanchett's performance is the best in the film, eclipsing even DiCaprio's portrayal.

That the film is totally about Hughes is made obvious early on. DiCaprio not only has the energy to show the early Hughes filming 'Hell's Angels,' but he also is capable of descending his character into inevitable madness. It is a complex role for DiCaprio and he is clearly up to the task.

There are ambitious shots, especially those of Hughes flying his many airplanes. But like 'Gangs of New York,' much of the scenes seem "stagey" and enclosed. I wonder if Scorsese should abandon larger scale epics and return to personal stories.

Much of the scenery is beautiful and the production team did well to show the different time periods and locations. The cast is a who's who of the neo-Hollywood elite which helps us feel we are among the giants like Hughes must have felt around Hepburn, Errol Flynn and Ava Gardner. Sadly, this is not the same Scorsese. The ambition is glitzy but lacking real substance. To say it is good is fine, but to say Scorsese is now good makes me sad. *** out of ****

Identity (2003)

A clichéd but fun classic whodunit

[6/10 · 5 January 2005]

James Mangold's 'Identity' is a film so wrapped up in tricking you it bypasses its story in the process. The picture tells two stories breaking between throughout. The primary tale is one of murderous chance. During a torrential rainstorm several people find themselves caught at a motel unable to go in either direction on the highway because of floods. All of a sudden people begin dying gruesome deaths.

The secondary plot has a convicted killer's lawyer meeting with a judge and prosecutors to determine a new fate for his clearly mentally ill client. This story is smaller and less engaging as the one set at the motel. However, with both stories you feel you are on a ride that will end with a twist. So sure are you that when the twists come, they are surprising but not as thrilling since you spent over an hour knowing it was coming.

In the end I decided the good outweighed the bad ... slightly. Most of 'Identity' has an old fashioned whodunit aspect that you can't help but love. The ending is iffy and although the story hooks you, there are so many clichéd plot points that your head shaking and eye-rolling stands in the way of enjoying an all together decent film.

I have found myself watching the meat of it several times, addicted by the intrigue even though I know what is to happen. There is fine acting by John Cusack, Amanda Peet, John C. McGinley, and others. The direction is also quite skillful and leaves you right on the edge of your seat when need be. There are many who will love this film for its cleverness. Others will find that it is too cunning for its own good. **.5 out of ****

Cold Mountain (2003)

Direction and acting a savior

[6/10 · 5 January 2005]

Anthony Minghella is a master of the old fashioned love story. His films do not house cynicism nor bad intentions. His two previous efforts, 'The Talented Mr. Ripley' and 'The English Patient,' were so good I had them at the top of my top ten lists for their respective years. In the case of 'The English Patient,' I believe it even outdid 'Fargo.' The classic beat the absurd.

'Cold Moutain' is different, it is a long film. Not particularly its running length, which I don't surmise is much longer or shorter than 'Ripley' or 'Patient.' It is long because many of the actions in the film are not entirely that entertaining.

We start toward the end of the Civil War. At a bombed out confederate strong-hold we meet Inman, not so different from the other soldiers. It is as if by happenstance that we should immerse ourselves into his life rather than anyone else out there. Inman, we learn, has been separated from his love, Ada. Although as we soon find out, Ada and Inman hardly know each other. It was fate, or love at first sight, that brought the two together. It was bloodshed and war that tore them apart.

In ways this seems hokey, and it is. Minghella had done so well in his other films to stay away from sappy, in this one he dives right into it. As the story moves along we understand their feelings deeper, and thus some sappiness goes away, but to many it will be too heavy to bare.

Inman deserts his comrades knowing the end is coming. He is far more interested in meeting up with his Ada, though the journey will be perilous. As he leaves, the Confederate Army everywhere begins to hunt down deserters and those who let them stay on their land. Inman's journey becomes an 1860s Oddysey through the American south. Along the way he meets an amorous preacher, runaway slaves, a widow and her baby, as well as your standard country cabin full of horny women.

These stories are okay but lack any cohesiveness, it is the same problem that faced 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?'. 'O Brother,' however, was an all-around better film, the pace quicker and the characters better situated. All this having been said, the guilty truth is that I liked it. I tried reading the book at least four times and could not get past the first few chapters. I figured the movie had no chance.

There is plenty wrong with it, but the gorgeous cinematography and exquisite acting made the film sweet enough to swallow. Listen to the names: Jude Law (as Inman), Nicole Kidman (as Ada), Philip Seymour Hoffman, Donald Sutherland, Natalie Portman. But above all, the year's best scene stealer was Renee Zellweger, a character straight out of the back-woods to help a bewildered and dainty Ada survive on the farm. The humor and life she brings to the film is enough to lift it from the despair of the rest.

There is enough wrong with 'Cold Mountain' to make it a bad film. It is a credit to the fine director and gifted cast that they were able to lift a diamond out of this rough. *** out of ****

Final Cut: The Making and Unmaking of Heaven's Gate (2004)

Widespread audience for this tremendous doc

[9/10 · 4 January 2005]

I have never seen Ishtar. I have not seen Gigli or Hudson Hawk either. I haven't even seen Battlefield Earth. I have stayed away from many of the great flops successfully. But above all those, and the many other classic failures that have come before and since, I have never seen Heaven's Gate. I should state that at the beginning.

Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate should stand alongside The Birth of a Nation, Bonnie & Clyde, Pulp Fiction and a short list of other films that have changed the way cinema operates. Final Cut: The Making and Unmaking of Heaven's Gate is a bombastic, cutting, and thorough look at the long evolution and quick death of a film that murdered a motion picture studio.

It is understandable, yet disappointing, that Cimino would not discuss the film that ruined him. Instead, the filmmakers employ the help of assorted actors and crew members to discuss the plight. But most interesting is the inclusion of two United Artists executives, both of whom were inexperienced at film-making at the time of shooting Heaven's Gate. They discuss their faults as well as the director's honestly and often humorously.

The audience for documentaries are often small, but this one is different. Even for those of you who do not care much for film or film history; even for those of you who have never seen Heaven's Gate and never want to; the film is about failure, personal and financial, on a grand scale. Though seeing someone flounder miserably is not often fun, shaking your head in hindsight can be. ***.5 out of ****

Waco: The Rules of Engagement (1997)

Intense and shocking, a must

[9/10 · 4 January 2005]

I watched a made for television film about the destruction at Waco, Texas. It was obviously heavily slanted toward the claim that David Koresh was a murderous, child raping cult leader hell-bent on killing as many cops as he wanted and taking his people to the heavens on a blood stained stairway.

The film was little more than propaganda further detailing what we had already read in the newspapers. I am more and more sure of that since I watched the great documentary Waco: The Rules of Engagment. Not that every assertion made in this film should be taken as God's truth, but it tells the whole story rather than regurgitating only what law enforcement decided to tell.

For those who have forgot, Koresh was the spiritual leader of the religious movement named The Branch Davidians. Charges of drug use, kidnapping, illegal weapon ownership, and statutory rape (among others I'm sure) raised the suspicions of the local police, then later federal law enforcement. While attempting to serve a search warrant, the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) and the clan participated in a shoot out that left deceased and wounded on both sides.

It was then that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) got involved. Communications between the two were spirited but eventually broke down. The FBI prepared for an invasion by assaulting the building with flash-bang grenades and gas. When the building burnt to the ground killing many within, including Koresh, the FBI refused to admit responsibility saying the "cult" inside must have set it on fire themselves. This hearkened images of Jim Jones and other violent religious organizations.

The picture puts on many masks to tell its story. It begins with a sampling of the congressional hearings, perhaps the "truth," as far as the record is concerned anyway. What is eye-opening is how partisan the politicians remained even in a difficult and serious situation as this. The Democrats were concerned in nothing more than defending every single action taken by law enforcement. It was the Republicans that seemed open to the other side.

It is impossible to relate all of the new information and analysis provided by this documentary. Additionally, a list would take away from the film opening up as it goes along. One example would be the heart-breaking fact that children died within the compound. The filmmakers probably side more with the Davidians in general but stay relatively open to either side. In this instance the feds seem at fault for mishandling a situation that involves innocent children. But on the other hand the parents also need to shoulder some of the blame for leaving their kids in this harmful situation when they could have released them to any number of local authorities.

Probably the most damning new information comes late in the film and involves the FBI's claim they did not fire upon the building. This is left up to interpretation, and I will not reveal any more than to say it is disturbing and shocking what can and cannot be told.

The federal officers are not held in a critical or corrupt light any more than Koresh. The largest condemnation seems to be leveled on the media, unwilling to tell both sides of a story. This element seems prevalent in recent documentaries, duly so I believe. It is time for the media to return to telling news stories and leave this relentless pursuit of what will draw the biggest audience and ratings.

It is hard to mess up a documentary. In most cases switching on a camera and editing together interesting pieces of life is common and tells a terrific story. What few can do is shed such new light on a subject that the way you think about it is forever altered. Waco is that kind of film. ***.5 out of ****

Gangs of New York (2002)

Scorsese's Mess

[3/10 · 4 January 2005]

Watching a bad film is always a chore. Watching a bad film that runs nearly three hours can test the patience. Yet watching a bad film created by one of our cinematic geniuses is just plain tragedy.

There are elements of Gangs of New York that remind us of Martin Scorsese the master. We remember the blood-drenched rope during Raging Bull, or the violent stabbing of a gangster in Goodfellas. Gangs of New York has plenty of blood, that is for sure, but none of the violence is tethered to anything worthy like in Scorsese's other works.

A violent film for the sake of being violent should be judged on its own merits, not based on the merits of the person creating it. I understand much of what Scorsese was trying to tell in the picture, but it just does not work. The film is set in the backdrop of the Civil War. As the nation is warring with itself to set an identity, so are the people of the five points in New York City.

After his father (Liam Neeson) is murdered sixteen years previous, Amsterdam (Leonardo DiCaprio) returns to the five points and seeks vengeance. The murderer is one Bill the Butcher (Daniel Day Lewis) whose power was considerable then, but has grown to total dominance now. Amsterdam slips into Bill's lair as a young student of violence and mischief.

Along the way we meet Tammany Hall's classic corrupt politician William "Boss" Tweed (Jim Broadbent) as well as the police corruption of "Happy" Jack Mulraney (John C. Reilly). We visit a pickpocket (Cameron Diaz) who is the love interest of Amsterdam and his friend Johnny (Henry Thomas). All of these characters add a certain voyeuristic quality, but we don't care about any of them or their motives throughout the plot. We peek into the wealthy of New York along with the poor. And finally the city explodes when the government enlists a draft primarily on the poor New Yorkers and immigrants, since those with $300 (a fortune then) are able to buy themselves out of war.

Daniel Day Lewis received many awards and critical acclaim for his performance. I felt it was overdone and overwrought. DiCaprio was fine along with some others, but the truest revelation is Cameron Diaz. I have never been as impressed with her as I was here, standing up high against formidable acting opponents. In general the critical consensus was favorable, likely due to Socrsese's previous excellence. That the film more or less tanked at the box office does not surprise me for the reasons listed above.

Given what is wrong with the film (and there is a lot), it is not a total failure. Scorsese has appeared on talk shows praising the "hands that built America" that came from New York during this time. Though I disagree that is what the movie is "about," I did enjoy a critical look at the treatment of immigrants. Those are the "hands" I would refer to as the builders, not these violent gang members fighting over the very worst the nation could offer. For a more detailed and much more entertaining look at this time and these issues watch Ric Burns' "New York: A Documentary Film." A scholar notes that the immigrants (mostly Irish at the time) gave much more to our country than we gave to them. Sad but very true. *.5 out of ****

Lost in Translation (2003)

Exquisite

[8/10 · 29 December 2004]

There are feelings which are universal. Almost all human beings have the need to be loved and the need to love others. Sadly, the reverse is true as well. Loneliness is an aspect to human existence that is hard to live with yet easy to share. It is an irony that each of us have experienced. "Misery loves company," and never has that been more true than with the characters in Sofia Coppola's exquisitely crafted Lost in Translation.

Sofia, daughter of auteur Francis, made a minor splash with the surreal The Virgin Suicides in 1999. Here she has evolved into a mature storyteller of two lost souls from America who find each other in Japan. He (Bill Murray) is a falling star in Hollywood who is still worth money in the land of the rising sun. He has agreed to fly there in order to film advertisements for a local liquor company. She (Scarlett Johansson) resides temporarily with her photographer husband (Giovanni Ribisi).

Somewhat by chance, mainly by cultural bonding, the two find they are kindred spirits in a strange land. Murray's character is trapped in a loveless marriage and feels he has sold out to accept money from Japanese businessmen. Johansson wonders about her place in the world, both existentially and professionally. A philosophy graduate, she is confused about the state of her life and is further annoyed by the man she has married; his absences and shallow friends and acquaintances do not make her life any easier.

Johansson, still a relative newcomer, continues her string of successful performances but the true revelation here is Bill Murray. From my description it might be hard to understand that Translation is actually a comedy, a dark comedy, but a comedy all the same. Murray breathes a morose lovable quality to his character unlike anything he has ever portrayed before.

If there is anything wrong with the film, it is the filler. Coppola's idea is fresh and colorful but is only mostly baked. What she has is tremendous, but there are a series of scenes that involve the two characters wandering around video game parlors and strip clubs and sushi bars. Some of it is interesting: watching lost souls meander a different world from their own. But much of these scenes simply bridge the delicate start with the emotional ending. Though it all works in one sense, it is easy to see through the obvious void.

Despite the flaw, Lost in Translation will delight those who are patient and willing to watch films which are sometimes difficult. It is these ambitious films that are the silent backbone for the movie industry's golden paychecks like Mean Girls and Pirates of the Caribbean. ***.5 out of ****

Heir to an Execution: A Granddaughter's Story (2004)

Much more than a political documentary

[9/10 · 28 December 2004]

The names Julius and Ethel Rosenberg bring on a sweeping sensation of treason. They have become the poster-children for anti-American hatred and fear of foreign ideology. But to some, the names mean mother and father; grandmother and grandfather.

I must admit, before I saw this film I didn't even know the Rosenbergs had children. This is left out of history lessons since, after all, what did that have to do with anything? Heir to an Execution, a sensitive and thoughtful documentary from Rosenberg granddaughter Ivy Meeropol, sheds light into a shadowy area of communist spies and family tightness.

Meeropol's film begins questioning the famed Rosenberg's death sentences by interviewing old friends and socialist peers. A door is opened into their world in a way I had never seen. Hated so fiercely by the rest of America, these revolutionaries have found their way from prisons to retirement homes.

What is far more interesting, however, is what comes next. As Meeropol tracks her grandparents' lives to the electric chair the question of her father and uncle arise. What exactly did happen to them during the chaos? And more importantly, what was to be done with them after the inevitable? Political documentaries are sometimes dry and are often as subtle as a man with a stick pointing at an easel. Heir to an Execution is different. Meeropol raises doubts to at least part of the Rosenberg trial, if not all of it, while at the same time documenting the life of a wonderful man, her father. In the end we don't know which is more important, the Rosenberg injustice or the chronicle of a distinguished life whose path you would not expect winding up here. **** out of ****

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Stick with the broad strokes and you will find brilliance

[9/10 · 28 December 2004]

I remember exactly where I was when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and George Bush (Sr., that is) took on Saddam. I was a Freshman in high school studying for a U.S. History exam. Unfortunately, I can't remember what part of history the test covered. I would like to believe it was manifest destiny or something ironic.

I came downstairs for a break and my dad told me a war was on. Despite larger TVs, he and my mom were huddled around the small one in the kitchen. It didn't feel real. It was on television. CNN had live feeds. Wasn't this all a show? It was to this mindset that Michael Moore has made his newest film, Fahrenheit 911. Moore takes on President George W. Bush in a way that cannot be cataloged as criticism, rather an out and out attack. Moore links Bush to the Saudi's, Saddam Hussein, and the Fox News channel of all places. Some of these links admittedly seem shaky and it went by so fast an average viewer would need notes and a family tree in some cases to truly figure it all out. However, as with Bowling for Columbine, Roger and Me, The Big One, and his television shows, it is the broad strokes with which we should adhere.

Much of Moore's "evidence" is at best circumstantial and is reported only to back his own opinions. I read an article written by Brittany Craigo, reportedly a seventeen year old Bush supporter, posted on moorelies.com. She makes good points but believes F911 is "a new form of Leni Riefenstahl-like propaganda." This is clearly over the top. Comparing Moore to the Nazi advertising machine is unfair since Moore makes it clear in this and all of his other films that these are his opinions. The tone for his films is a satirical, tongue-in-cheek playfulness that entertains first and informs second.

The attacks on his film remind me of the surge of criticism Oliver Stone endured while releasing JFK. Why is it so "dangerous" and "harmful" for films like these to be released? Do I sit in the theater and blindly stare at the screen and drool in my popcorn believing everything Michael Moore is telling me? Of course not. Just as I did not hang on every word of Craigo's article.

The problem is that leftists will show up to the film in droves and love it, right-wingers will debunk everything, even when there is nothing to debunk. Moore wants the rest of us to watch. The majority of America is moderate. In the current climate of media-fueled stories and shallow political attacks, it is difficult to take anything seriously.

The public is flanked from all sides with reasons to vote for this person or that person; this cause or that one. Moore boils it all down into two helpful servings: 1) This is your president as I see him; 2) Despite the partisan, childish attacks and eye-rolling political ads, this is all important. Take it seriously. ***.5 out of ****

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Stunning beauty but thin in substance

[5/10 · 23 December 2004]

"Beautiful" is a word to describe Moulin Rouge. It is terrific sounding, decadent, full of splendor, and ... well ... obnoxious.

It is a polarizing film, either fresh and exciting or clichéd and overblown. So I find myself at odds because I am rating this film a 5 on the IMDb scale. That's right, directly in the middle. It is a simple matter of mathematics. The story is probably a 3 or 4 but the music and staging is so breathtaking, it lifts the film up to at least mediocrity.

The plot is simply told. Above all else it is a love story told from the point of view of a Bohemian writer who is in love with a Moulin Rouge dancer/singer/whatever. There you have the flaw. With a love story such as this you have to feel the connection between the characters, above all you have to feel love.

Moulin Rouge's characters seem like actors playing their parts, with the possible exception of Ewan McGregor who seemed more and more genuine as the film progressed. Nicole Kidman received praise for her portrayal of the tormented prostitute who must choose between love or sensibility. I found her performance elegant looking and sounding but without much depth or feeling.

The production is as much a character as the actors. The musical numbers run from stunning beauty (as when McGregor and Kidman perform "Come What May") to the inane (Jim Broadbent prancing around singing Madonna's "Like a Virgin"). The entire movie was filmed on a soundstage in Australia and it has a sort of claustrophobic feel. But it also reminds me of images from a time well before my own when musicals were shot entirely on giant soundstages bursting with color and exploding with sound.

Director Baz Luhrmann succeeds in making a film unlike any other. Perhaps that is a nod to the Bohemian brotherhood in the film's story. But if that were true, why not spend more time baking the story rather than marching on to the next schizophrenic eye-candy piece? The obsessive jump-cuts, maniacal characters, color washed sets, and extravagant costumes all yell out "we're overblown and we know it!" But isn't self-congratulatory vanity still just vanity? I wonder what the style of the film is attempting to say about the Bohemians, are they lashing out against average society's morals and taboos or are they just being different? **.5 out of ****

Under the Tuscan Sun (2003)

Recycled yet superior story

[10/10 · 23 December 2004]

Audrey Wells' "Under the Tuscan Sun" is generally not the type of film I look forward to. Even your average, forgettable romantic-comedy is filled with sappy, melodramatic overtones and over the top acting from Hollywood's best (paid) and brightest (jewelry). But from the previews you could tell that this film wanted to be more.

The story, alone, is different from most simple dating flicks. A middle-aged author (Diane Lane) ventures to Italy after a messy divorce and a creative drought. There she hopes to rekindle her life and hopefully her passions.

As one would assume, she is met with culture shock. She doesn't know the language or the customs. Though there is distinguished beauty to the land, there are also torrential thunderstorms and a visiting owl perched on her nightstand. Not what she is used to from her native San Francisco. The people seem friendly enough, but they are all driven by a perceived universal understanding that she does not share.

The villa she purchases is indeed beautiful, but it is also old and in need of repair - much like herself. She begins renovating the house and the plaster and rock become a metaphor for her own growth in the new region.

Much of what I have described seems like items we have experienced before in movies. And many are. But never do they seem over-used or washed up. Lane brings a melancholy charm to the role that could easily have fallen into emotional wrought or intense bitchiness. Instead, we follow her through Tuscany dreading and cheering her choices; loving and sympathizing with her.

Throughout the film there is a warm, self-deprecating humor that is both funny and human. The supporting characters have fully enriched lives of their own and are not just crutches for the primary plot. Much of the story is about love, wallowing in it, shining in it, wishing for it. But the story descends much deeper into the purpose for one's life and the need for companionship. I was especially impressed with a subverted plot that contrasts uptight American values with those of the laid-back Europeans.

Though some of the story lines are recycled, it is rare that they are presented this well done and with such a genuine feel. There isn't a second of this film I could do without. In many ways, I honestly can say I enjoyed it more than I would like to. A cynic like myself can't be enjoying movies like these too often. **** out of ****

Love Actually (2003)

A deeply loving film rich in character

[10/10 · 28 November 2004]

It has been a long time since I have seen a movie so rich in character that I did not want it to end. Love Actually is not a love story, it is a story about love. Love that reinvents itself, multiplies itself, opens itself up, and even devastates.

I am sure the film has its critics who say it drips in buttery corn. But when you are able to retreat inward and let it take you over, it is impossible not to feel. It is a rare treat - a film that makes you feel. During the process I was sad and happy and relieved. I was turned on, turned off, dizzy and grounded.

I was in love one time and it reminded me of that. The power of cinema can be that amazing, it can be that intense. The title of the movie is, perhaps, meant to confuse. Yet I believe it is designed to ask. Love Actually is ... what?

Is it lust? Or a deep appreciation of the past? Can it be conquered by language or political barriers? Race? Infidelity? Age? Can it be all of the above plus more? Maybe a mingling of several?

It is rare for a film of great acting to be married to a terrific script. Yet it is something else for it to speak right to the audience; not talk at them, not try to sell them a film. Let them experience the film. Let it wash over them little by little until there is nothing more of them left.

**** (A)