Fairly or unfairly, anyone familiar with Oliver Stone's work will compare "W." to "Nixon" and "JFK," two other films where Stone explores the national political landscape. Unfortunately, W. does not hold up well in this comparison. First, the strengths. Josh Brolin does a good job exploring the psychology of George W. Bush. This movie is at its strongest when Stone tries to answer how W.'s relationship with friends and family, particularly his father, made him the way he is today. Also, there are some strong supporting performances, particularly Richard Dreyfus as Dick Cheney planting the seeds of foreign policy through something as innocuous as a lunchtime chat. Now, the weaknesses. There are some not so strong performances mixed in with the strong ones. (Thandie Newton as Condoleezza Rice and Scott Glenn as a cartoon version of Donald Rumsfeld are examples.) Also, this movie leaves a lot of territory unexplored, possibly because Stone focuses so tightly on the buildup to the war in Iraq. Short shrift is given to the consequences of the war, or to the environment that helped the Bush administration sell the war to the world. It feels as if Stone could have made a much sharper film if he hadn't been rushing to get this one out to theaters before the presidential election. In the headlong race to be current, he lost some of the insight that made "Nixon" such a powerful film. One hopes he revisits this area again.
Reviews
16 Reviews
The magic of plasticine
14 February 2006
It's rare these days to find an animated film that can please both a 5-year-old girl and her 20-year-old babysitter. This film, the latest installment in the adventures of the cheese-loving Wallace and his long-suffering pooch, pulls it off with style and class. The plot is basic enough and silly enough for the kids, and the filmmakers throw in enough asides and throwaway remarks to keep the adults' attention. (Read the sticker on the box Wallace finds himself wearing at one point.) The only downside to a movie like this is that it might take the creators another five years to produce the next adventure. Good things come to those who wait, I guess.
Syriana
(2005)
More moving parts than a truck
12 December 2005
It's impossible in this space to lay out the plot for "Syriana," but it is possible to say why this film works so well. Like "Traffic," this film is not so much a single story as a series of interlocking and overlaid stories, all of them revolving around oil and the places where it comes from. And like "Traffic," this film works so well because it's so complex. There are no truly good guys, and many of the bad guys demonstrate at least some redeeming qualities. (There are some exceptions.) And there are no easy answers to any of the many problems raised by this film, so the filmmakers don't offer any. They just force you to think. That process alone is worth the price of admission.
The Ice Harvest
(2005)
Better than you think
28 November 2005
Billy Bob Thornton has had terrible luck recently with his films (see "Bad Santa"), but he lucks out here with "The Ice Harvest," a great example of film noir set, naturally, on Christmas Eve in Wichita. Everybody in this film -- and yes, I do mean, everybody, including the people you're supposed to be rooting for -- shows an unsavory side. Thornton shows his side with equal parts of passion and cunning. John Cusack, playing a mob lawyer involved in a plot to swindle his employer, plays his role with enough subtlety that he passes for an attorney, enough venom to let us know life has treated him wrong (and he has returned the favor), and everyone else runs the gamut from fawning to mischievous to I-can't-believe-I've-gotta-spend-the-holiday- doing-this angry. It's no spoiler to reveal that this plot has enough twists to keep any mystery lover happy, and a few near the end come with warning beacons. But this movie carries far more laughs than the usual December comedy.
Capote
(2005)
See it.
21 November 2005
This film is disturbing without being barbaric. It shows that a story about a crime does not have to be coated with blood, semen, or DNA to be enthralling. The gruesomeness of the crimes chronicled in "In Cold Blood" are captured in two very brief scenes. Aside from those scenes, the film could be turned into a play without losing a thing. The film will not make you gag, but it will certainly make you shudder. Hoffman plays Capote so brilliantly that you want to both hug him and throttle him, sometimes simultaneously. His performance alone is worth the price of admission. Hoffman may not have the Best Actor Oscar in his pocket, but he has certainly set the bar quite high.
Well worth the wait
22 May 2005
While I don't agree with the New York Times review that this film is better than "A New Hope," I have to say I was blown away by this film in a way I haven't felt since "The Empire Strikes Back." Not only are the visuals stunning -- the light saber fights are the best in the entire franchise -- but the story is surprisingly intriguing. Even though everyone who's been near a theater in the last decade knows that Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) will become Darth Vader, it's still incredible to watch Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) play Iago to Anakin's Othello. The mental transformation of Anakin from loyal Jedi knight to vengeful Sith will be tough to forget.
Forget the stories about the politicalization of the movie. (The only leader Palpatine resembles in this flick is Hitler.) This is a movie everyone will love, whether they live in a blue state, a red state, or Greenland.
Forget the stories about the politicalization of the movie. (The only leader Palpatine resembles in this flick is Hitler.) This is a movie everyone will love, whether they live in a blue state, a red state, or Greenland.
Panic! This movie's a stinker!
3 May 2005
The good news: They nailed the Marvin character, and the Vogons are convincing as putrid galactic bureaucrats.
The bad news: They missed everything else that was funny, intriguing, or otherwise interesting about the Hitchhiker franchise. The few jokes preserved from the franchise are repeated to the point that you might suspect you're listening to Vogon poetry. The majority of the film involved material written (if that's the right word) specifically for the film. And whoever wrote it did not know where his towel was.
The emphasis was obviously and depressingly placed on special effects. The effects are quite special. It's too bad they were wrapped around a film so overwhelmingly bland.
Douglas Adams, wherever you are, forgive the filmmakers. They obviously didn't know what they were doing.
The bad news: They missed everything else that was funny, intriguing, or otherwise interesting about the Hitchhiker franchise. The few jokes preserved from the franchise are repeated to the point that you might suspect you're listening to Vogon poetry. The majority of the film involved material written (if that's the right word) specifically for the film. And whoever wrote it did not know where his towel was.
The emphasis was obviously and depressingly placed on special effects. The effects are quite special. It's too bad they were wrapped around a film so overwhelmingly bland.
Douglas Adams, wherever you are, forgive the filmmakers. They obviously didn't know what they were doing.
The Aviator
(2004)
Um, Martin?
6 January 2005
First, let's talk about what's great about this film. First, there's the cinematography, which is nothing short of stunning. (The aerial scenes make "Top Gun" look like a student film.) Then, there's the no-more-Oscar-nominations-please-we-have-a-winner performance of Cate Blanchett, who absorbs the role of Katharine Hepburn. Cate manages to portray Kate as bold, self-assured, biting, and vulnerable all at once, and you may not believe this is the same woman who has played both Elizabeth and Galadriel.
Then, we need to talk about what's good about this movie, which is most of other actor/actress in this film. Leonardo DiCaprio manages to be both charming and frightening, and Alec Baldwin has mastered the art of playing the well-mannered sleaze-bag.
Finally, we need to talk about what's wrong with the movie: where and how it ends. Without giving too much away, let me just say that when the credits started rolling, they came at a very awkward point and left far too many questions unanswered. Scorsese should have either ended it sooner or gone ahead and let the other shoe drop.
This movie will get a lot of mention for Best Picture awards, but before those envelopes are opened, I'd like to see the rest of the picture first.
Then, we need to talk about what's good about this movie, which is most of other actor/actress in this film. Leonardo DiCaprio manages to be both charming and frightening, and Alec Baldwin has mastered the art of playing the well-mannered sleaze-bag.
Finally, we need to talk about what's wrong with the movie: where and how it ends. Without giving too much away, let me just say that when the credits started rolling, they came at a very awkward point and left far too many questions unanswered. Scorsese should have either ended it sooner or gone ahead and let the other shoe drop.
This movie will get a lot of mention for Best Picture awards, but before those envelopes are opened, I'd like to see the rest of the picture first.
The Terminal
(2004)
Check your logic at the gate
23 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
(As always, a warning: Yon be spoilers.) This film is a witty and likable send-up of American life in general and air travel in particular. In fact, it's the best send-up of travel since "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles," as well as a film Kafka would allow his kids to see.
Tom Hanks seems to do his best work when he plays someone we should like, and he delivers once again as a foreign traveler caught in some bureaucratic cross-fire and forced to spend nine months in a terminal at JFK. (One wonders how different the movie would be if he had landed at a less-cushy airport -- say, Miami.) Most of his scenes are winners, primarily because Hanks also brings the best out of his fellow actors, particularly Stanley Tucci, the airport official who, for reasons that are not entirely clear, decides that letting Hanks enter the U.S. would be a personal defeat.
Unfortunately, this film also has its flaws. First, Spielberg hasn't asked us to suspend this much disbelief since "A.I." (It takes less time for Hanks to gain a fluency in English than it does for Tucci to find an interpreter?) Second, even though Hanks and the equally talented Catherine Zeta-Jones sparkle in their scenes together, the resolution of their budding affair leaves you unfulfilled. (Would it kill ya to let someone other than Indiana Jones get the girl for once, Steve?) Third, when you learn the true nature of Hanks' mission, you're left shaking your head. (Trust me on this one.)
But again, Hanks' performance justifies these flaws, even if it doesn't overshadow them. If you can believe that a man can live for weeks at a time on crackers and Whopper Jr.s, go enjoy Hanks and the rest of the cast. Just don't buy the screenplay to read on your next flight.
Tom Hanks seems to do his best work when he plays someone we should like, and he delivers once again as a foreign traveler caught in some bureaucratic cross-fire and forced to spend nine months in a terminal at JFK. (One wonders how different the movie would be if he had landed at a less-cushy airport -- say, Miami.) Most of his scenes are winners, primarily because Hanks also brings the best out of his fellow actors, particularly Stanley Tucci, the airport official who, for reasons that are not entirely clear, decides that letting Hanks enter the U.S. would be a personal defeat.
Unfortunately, this film also has its flaws. First, Spielberg hasn't asked us to suspend this much disbelief since "A.I." (It takes less time for Hanks to gain a fluency in English than it does for Tucci to find an interpreter?) Second, even though Hanks and the equally talented Catherine Zeta-Jones sparkle in their scenes together, the resolution of their budding affair leaves you unfulfilled. (Would it kill ya to let someone other than Indiana Jones get the girl for once, Steve?) Third, when you learn the true nature of Hanks' mission, you're left shaking your head. (Trust me on this one.)
But again, Hanks' performance justifies these flaws, even if it doesn't overshadow them. If you can believe that a man can live for weeks at a time on crackers and Whopper Jr.s, go enjoy Hanks and the rest of the cast. Just don't buy the screenplay to read on your next flight.
Saved!
(2004)
It's OK to wait.
21 June 2004
Warning: Spoilers
(Warning: Yon be spoilers) First, let's defuse the sectarian conflict over this film. Calling "Saved" an indictment of the Christian faith is like calling "Airplane!" an indictment of the transportation industry. To claim that the movie is representative of the entire Christian youth movement, you would have to accept the notion that Hillary Faye (played brilliantly by Mandy Moore) is a typical evangelical Christian youth. (Spray-paint blasphemies all over my school to save it? Sure, that's what Jesus would do.) The sectarian issue is doubly ridiculous because this film resembles "Pretty in Pink" or "Angus" far more than it does "Dogma" or "Monty Python's Life of Brian." It follows all of the teen-movie stereotypes that have been around since John Hughes learned to walk: The adults are clueless, the "beautiful people" in the school are heartless, the hero/heroine is flawless, the love interest is omniscient and ever-present, and any problem can be solved in time for graduation (or, for extra credit, the prom). The mere fact that this movie is set in an evangelical Christian high school is almost irrelevant. This film, with very few changes to the script, could have been set at a Hassidic high school (perhaps with Cassandra, the rebellious Jew portrayed by Eva Amurri, recast as a rebellious Jew for Jesus). Overshadowing all these issues is the mediocre quality of the film itself. Most of the jokes are half-baked and delivered half-heartedly, there are a half-million possible subplots left unexplored (like why Pastor Skip and his wife are on the outs), and absolutely everyone, including Hillary Faye, has a convenient change of heart before the credits. These days, when considering whether to see a movie, you have to consider whether it's worth the $10-a-head price to see it in theaters ("Lord of the Rings"? Absolutely!) or wait for the discount of seeing it on DVD/VHS/pay per view. "Saved" is a cute concept, but it's not worth the price of a movie ticket, with or without popcorn. Wait a few months for the local video store to stock it. That's what Jesus would do.
The Passion of the Christ
(2004)
Good, not great
12 April 2004
Warning: Spoilers
(Warning, yon be spoilers) This is a film that delivers a tremendous build-up but very little of a climax. The film begins with the agony of the garden ("Let this chalice pass me by...") and takes us through what Catholics call the Stations of the Cross -- the details of Jesus' arrest, condemnation, torture, crucifixion, and death. Beyond the line-for-line biblical passages, there are some intriguing touches. For example, Satan's temptation of Jesus in the garden works quite well, as does Jesus' ability to move flawlessly between Aramaic (when addressing his disciples) and Latin (when talking privately with Pilate, who rightly shows his surprise that a Jewish carpenter is fluent in the imperial tongue). And the detailed treatment of Jesus' agony is riveting, because it shows in unapologetic terms exactly how much he suffered even before he reached Calvary. It also bears mentioning that the anti-Semitic charges are a little off. After all, during the Sanhedrin trial, several members of the Jewish high council are shown objecting to the entire proceedings. Also, if the "his blood be on us and on our children" line is still in the film, it is left untranslated. (Besides, Pilate's symbolic washing of hands doesn't absolve him from his role, but that's another story...) Anyway, the film's main flaw is that, after getting such an in-depth portrayal of the suffering, death, and even burial of Jesus, we are treated to an entire ... 20 seconds or so on Jesus emerging from the tomb. The resurrection is the payoff for the two-hours-plus of suffering we have just witnessed, as well as the reason there are over a billion Christians today, and it is treated like a P.S., a coda. Mel did a good job with the story of Good Friday, but he could have given a much better portrayal of Christianity.
Bad Santa
(2003)
My God, did this suck!
15 December 2003
Run, don't walk, away from your local theater if it threatens to show this film. There are two funny lines, and if you've seen any of the trailers, you've already heard them both. The rest of this movie is misogynist, crude, depressing, and about as unfunny as unfunny gets. It's the Seinfeld of unfunny. Billy Bob Thornton plays a disgusting drunk who should not be allowed near your food, much less your children. The idea that any mall executive would be stupid enough to hire this misanthrope to talk to children simply because his friend is a midget is ludicrous. (Is this the only midget in Phoenix?) Christmas is a great time to do good deeds for your fellow human beings. If I convince just one of you to avoid this stinker and spend your money on egg nog instead, I've done my good deed for the Christmas season. And if you still feel an uncontrollable urge to see this movie, there's probably a 12-step program in your future.
The Tuxedo
(2002)
My God...
22 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
...could Jennifer Love Hewitt's character be any more of a castrating shrew? (minor spoiler) Perhaps at the end, when she was wondering about why nobody hit on her, she could have ripped out Jackie Chan's spleen, ate it with a side of pilaf, and invited him to go see "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood." Would have been perfectly in character. I'm normally a big fan of Jackie Chan, but this one was just too gimicky and one-dimensional for my taste. Here's hoping "The Medallion" is better.
My God, did this suck
7 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
The story was dark enough from beginning to end to make Eugene O'Neill cringe. The acting was nonexistent, and the script seemed geared mainly to get the viewers from one overblown set of special effects to the next. (SPOILER NEXT) And the idea that the very place that has been squirreled away in the middle of nowhere and prepared specifically for a nuclear disaster would A) be deserted at the moment of truth and B) have nothing but a ham radio and a podium for the President to speak at is ludicrous even by modern-movie standards. I am normally a fan of Schwarzenegger's work, but this one had me wondering how badly he needed the paycheck.
Two Weeks Notice
(2002)
Good God...
24 June 2003
Did anybody give a flying leap whether either of these creatures got together with anybody (let alone each other)? Yes, Hugh Grant pulls Sandra Bullock out of a wedding to select a suit, and deserves a thousand more nights with that Sunset Boulevard prostitute he met a few years back. But remember something: SANDRA HAD THE DAMN CELL PHONE ON DURING A WEDDING AT WHICH SHE WAS THE MAID OF HONOR! Whether this makes her incredibly stupid or incredibly insensitive is immaterial. The only thing worth caring about was the center, which we all knew was going to be saved anyway. My advice: If this is the only movie available at your rental place, get a Big Mac instead.
Unfaithful
(2002)
Hmmm...
17 March 2003
What can I say about a movie where I don't care if either of the main characters survive to the credits? One (played by the incredibly talented and still-gorgeous Diane Lane) is willing to have an affair with the first man who reads her a poem and offers her a Band-Aid. (One wonders what she would have done if he had been an EMT.) The other (played by the equally talented Richard Gere) is a paranoid who fires his assistant just because other companies have contacted him. I do appreciate the generous helpings of shots of Westchester County, NY, this film can be classified as nothing but a disappointment.
Tell Your Friends