|
Capsule reviews by [an error occurred while processing this directive]
(British, 1998) A Sundance Film Festival award winner about a docile young man swindled out of his fortune by a typical business criminal, a suit with brains but no heart. He escapes from the villain's clutches into the English countryside, where he meets an embittered and surprisingly radical old hermit who shares with him an appreciation for all living things. Together they live in harmony until the day comes that they decide to confront the suit. Having a fear, loathing and contempt for all living things, the business criminal is the diametric opposite of the hermit. The thesis of the film is that the essential nature of evil is a disregard for life; and evil people may be known by the way that they treat animals and weaker humans. I have sympathy with the film's message (it is a didactic movie, and the message is at least as important as the story, if not more so). An engaging story, but rather like a fable, simple and predictable. A few more angles could have been thrown in, and the hermit's philosophy might have been elaborated upon to stronger effect. The young fellow is quite attractive. Let's hope he shows up in other films. Available in VHS format only on Amazon.com at this time. (American, 2001) A very rare movie, in any nation. I've never seen one like this before. At the local video store, few customers rent it out, because it doesn't look like your typical fun puff-piece or thriller/chiller. Political movies usually do poorly. The actors are not incredibly sexy, don't have witty remarks, and the atmosphere isn't breathtakingly beautiful. As a matter of fact, the opposite is largely true. Even I, a political junkie to some extent, was reluctant to rent it out. One day, however, feeling more than usually virtuous, I decided to give this movie a try. The movie covers the labor struggle of illegal immigrant janitors in Los Angeles being paid $5.45 an hour with no benefits, no vacation, no lunch break, no rights and subject to sexual harassment and arbitrary abuse and firing. The struggle is marked by a romance between the union activist and a worker, and the bitter betrayal of one sister against another. Cheap labor from abroad is being used today in the United States and other developed countries to diminish and eliminate the gains made by unions in the 19th century. The answer, of course, is for unions to proliferate among the immigrants and among people in all nations, and for workers to unite world-wide regardless of nationality, race or religion. That is a monumental task to say the least; but consider the alternatives. The union organization depicted in the movie is called "Justice for Janitors," and their web site offers information about this great film at http://www.justiceforjanitors.org/j4j/about/breadroses.cfm. The movie is a map for workers showing how to fight against exploitation by business. Be wise, Unionize! (Italian, 2000) An unappreciated middle-aged mother misses the bus her family is riding, and tries to reunite with them in Venice, but fails--and decides to stay. She unexpectedly discovers a wonderful life for herself where she can be happy and do what brings her and others joy. This is the first Italian film I have ever really liked. As always, much is lost in being reduced to reading subtitles, but the performances are good. After a while one losses awareness of reading the subtitles. This film is rich with detail and informs the viewer about life in Italy. I would watch it again. (English, 2001) Clever, bawdy comedy about a 30-something single woman who fears spinsterhood, that is, until acquiring the attentions of not one, but two eligible suitors. Echoes of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. (American, 2001) A story about two angry men whose lives collide, forcing them to re-evaluate their behavior. A penetrating look at dishonest lawyers and the corrupt under-belly of law firms. One refreshing note is that the white man is not portrayed as a racist villain, nor is the black man portrayed as an innocent saint. Hopefully, this is an indication that Hollywood is getting over its annoying and repetitive habit of villainizing the white man. (American, 2002) Oscar Wilde's comedy about 2 wealthy British men of the 1890s who woo 2 wealthy women. The comedy centers around the men's ill-conceived attempts to conceal their identities. The script seems faithful to Wilde and very good; but I remember reading the play on my own and finding it even funnier. Good literature always reads better than it comes across as performed. No theatre can compare with the perfect theatre of the mind! I like the cast in general--a competent crew--though I suspect that they failed to fully exploit the humor in the script. Scenes that should have been hilarious were merely interesting. A certain dynamic tension was lacking: the actors exercised far too much restraint and should have been much more expressive and passionate, and played each quip for full effect. Despite my criticism, the movie is a strong and professional effort, better than most period pieces. The saving grace is Wilde's wit and his aesthetic philosophy, which shines through along with the barest glimmers of class consciousness. Wilde is never boring and his plays inspire reflection. If the British legal system of 1895 had not seen fit to crucify this promising playwright, who knows what great works he might have bequeathed us? Incidentally, I greatly enjoyed the 1998 film starring Stephen Fry about Oscar Wilde's life. (American, 2001) Robin Williams continues his journey from comedy to serious drama. I still find it odd to see him playing a meanie--but he's good. The premise--a veteran cop flirting with corruption, a serial killer--is a bit cliche' to say the least; and the script is unspectacular, though a quite competent job. I like the novel setting of a small town in Alaska, though. If only writers could swear off their junk habit--serial killers--and learn to write about real subjects! In the final analysis, who on Man's green Earth could resist a movie starring both Robin Williams and Al Pacino? Both are brilliant actors, among the best. From the get-go this is a must-see. Who cares what the story is about? Go rent it out. It's fun. (American, 2001) A movie about an attractive teenage boy living in Long Island who, though smart and at turns poetic, breaks into people's homes with his young thieving friends. His relationship with his older, tougher, and more aggressive best friend has a powerful element of sexual attraction and curiosity, repressed and unfulfilled, yet always just on the verge of exploding onto the screen. When the boy's father, also criminal, is arrested and taken away, the boy seeks assistance from a much older man with obvious motives. L.I.E. (Long Island Expressway) deals with subject matter that film-makers have historically been too timid to portray in a natural and realistic way. This really is a breath of fresh air, long overdue. Though I dislike the violent ending (so typical of movies with any homo content) and seedy, criminal behavior (typical of many movies, because crime sells?), the movie has great scenes--some sexy, some exciting, some true, some ugly. The background music works, too. When you hear it, you will know what I mean. The movie receives a high rating because it is fun to watch and quite shocking. The interviews with the director and older actor, available on the DVD version, are informative and contain editorials on human sexuality. (American, 2000) Comedy act performed live at The Warfield in San Francisco. Margaret Cho relives being the first Korean-American to star in her own sitcom which eventually failed; her subsequent depression; and her recovery. Funny, inspiring, and moving! Visit her official website at www.margaretcho.net. Cho's sequel, "Notorious C.H.O.," is a miserable, copycat flop, but her best writing is presented in "I'm the One That I Want" and compares quite favorably against any comedian in show biz. I award this my highest rating. (German, 2000) This unpredictable, romantic movie has the power to inspire and will endure in memory long after it has been watched. Despite minor flaws, it has no peer among 2000's films. (One such minor flaw is the scriptwriter's conviction that dropping a hair dryer in a bath tub can electrocute someone; it cannot.) A resilient nurse in a psychiatric ward woos a hostile bank robber who saved her life. Their bizarre, frightening romance confounds Hollywood formula and shocks the viewer out of complacency. This movie is about outlaws: not mere boring criminals, who are stupid and not worth watching, but those who do not obey and who think for themselves. Rarely is this type featured in film. I am disgusted with the endless barrage of pointless films delivering violence to violence addicts, like heroin, quickly and crudely via syringe--gangster, bank robber, vendetta and psycho killer--movies that tell me nothing new about human nature, that move me not at all.. This movie is like no other movie you have ever watched, and it will make you high. The woman is perfect, the man is perfect, and neither could be improved upon in any way. Racial memories are evoked both by the film's title and the story. Also recommended: Run Lola Run! (1999), a simpler action film by the same director with the same actress. (American, 2001) I have read many reviews about this movie. Other critics complain about the special effects. There is a technical issue: the movement of the vampires is not satisfactory, to the jaded eyes of some. Critics miss their special effects fix. Ignore the other critics, because they are all wrong. The second movie in Anne Rice's "Vampire" series, this movie is better than the first, "Interview with the Vampire". Why? Because Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise are pretty faces that can act--that can merely act. They fail to become their characters, to know their characters, to think like their characters. When an actor merely acts, it works, sometimes, but often leaves the audience feeling like there is something missing, something important. We humans have evolved a kind of psychic ability to see through disguises and ruses, and this makes good acting difficult. One has to really believe, in order to be a great actor. So what I am saying is that this Lestat, played by talented actor Stuart Townsend, believes, and he carries the film. Without him, there would be no film, especially because the supporting cast is so-so and does not have many lines to work with. The script is mediocre at best, though it is faithful to Anne Rice, which is the saving grace. Getting back to the first Anne Rice vampire movie...IWTV was fair; I watched it all the way through. It was typical Hollywood product. QOD, on the other hand, has a real vampire in it, one that will fit all that you know of Anne Rice's character, Lestat. Ironically, the producer, who does not give any other indication of being mentally compromised, tried to get the dull and wooden Tom Cruise to play Lestat again, but Cruise, mercifully, turned him down, saving the film from ruin. The Queen, played by Aaliyah, is good and quite true to the book as a primitive predator and bloody despot over the vampires, but her role is limited as you might imagine. (Aaliyah died for some reason during the filming of the movie. I still have not learned why she died.) The writing, too, is more authentic, and the music matches what the author had in mind. Again and again, special effects, faces, and big budgets do not a movie make. What makes a movie? The writing, the writer. And by distilling the spirit of Anne Rice's original intentions and designs, this movie has succeeded where IWTV failed. Unless one is a fan of Anne Rice--at least, a fan of her earlier, better books, before her quality deteriorated during or soon after QOD--then this movie should definitely be avoided, because it may not be your cup of tea. Do you love Anne Rice's style of vampires? If so then give this movie a shot. It will bring back memories. (British, 1998) A series of episodes concerning the lives of three young gay men living in Manchester, England. Many contemporary political and social issues of the gay community are addressed, though this is even more true of the American version. I prefer the British version, and give it a higher mark, because it was the original and carries all the novelty and excitement that only an original can. Furthermore, the music track is superior to that of the American version, and the characters seem more realistic, more human and natural, and less idealized. I refused to watch the American version for a few years due to my disgust that this series was being re-made over again instead of extended with new episodes. This series was the first of its kind in the entire world and was shown on the BBC throughout the kingdom. I am conservative in rating QAF because I fear being biased and over-enthusiastic, and recognize that much of its appeal arises from its novelty. Few television series have been completely gay, and QAF was by far the best and was quite daring and original for its time. Many ideas, opinions and people that appeared seldom, or maybe never, in any other television show in the entire history of television are being explored in QAF. That which has for so long been censored has finally arrived in a mature fashion. (American, 2001 to present) A series of episodes concerning the lives of four attractive white gay men in their 20s and 30s living in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvannia. Well-worth watching, with plenty of new material to complement the original material. The actors are very good. The script lacks something of the edge and daring of the original, but is still very fun and exciting. Several scenes will be familiar to audiences that have seen the British version, but there are twists and variations aplenty. What is nice about the American version is that it is still running, with new episodes to come. I just can't get enough of this, to be quite honest, and I will probably be a faithful fan as long as they keep producing it. (American, 2002) Who has more energy than this man? I get tired just watching him perform. I'm not entirely sure that he is human. He runs about 200 kilometers per hour for almost two hours without a break. I am reminded of the manic phase in Manic-Depression. There is something almost monstrous about his energy. One can scarcely get bored, because he continually pulls rabbits out of his hat, providing fresh food for thought every second. If you walk away to fetch a beer, you miss a punchline. His style has drawbacks, because pacing and timing is essential in order to receive maximum value from a joke. Knowing how to say your lines is very well, but knowing when to be silent, and for how long, is I believe a higher order of mastery, and is what earned Margaret Cho's performance the perfect five stars. Robin flies off into his own very special world of adrenaline-fueled wit. There is really no one alive who does this sort of thing better than he does, but he is simply too fast for my complete comfort. If you watch this, drink a pot of coffee to accelerate your mind, and avoid alcohol. Despite my criticisms, this performance is well-worth watching. Robin Williams is one of the funniest human beings alive, is indisputably brilliant, and is a master of improvisation. Even his mis-steps and memory faults, rare as they are, are transformed into jokes. His material (mostly penis jokes, I believe) simply was not as good as Margaret Cho's. Hers had a unity of theme and actually told a story, the story of her life, while Robin's was a series of unrelated gags. Furthermore Cho provoked other emotional reactions than mirth, such as, occasionally, tenderness and sympathy; she had greater depth. In any event he is very good and I will definitely rent out any more concerts he chooses to release on videotape. Be sure to watch the interview in the "bonus features" on the DVD. (American, 1999 - present) A series of 40-minute episodes concerning the dating, relationships and sex lives of four attractive, single, middle-class white women in their 30s living in New York City. The script is well-written, the actresses are superb, and the stories are always exciting and thought-provoking. This is, quite simply, the best show on TV since the demise of Seinfeld. It is available only on HBO or (my preferred source) the video store. My favorite character is "Miranda." (American, 1999 - present) Far and away the best gangster movie ever. (Though technically this is a series of 1 hour episodes, I think of it as one long movie.) Better than The Godfather. Less violence, more psychology and realism. The soundtrack is excellent, the script superb, the story true to form. Follows the life of fictional mob boss Tony Soprano and his dysfunctional family. Crime and murder aplenty, raw capitalism in its primal form, complicated three-dimensional relationships, uncertain loyalties, outright betrayals, maneuvering, duplicity, and trickery. As is the norm in the genre, all of the characters are brutes, tacky and ignorant criminals who love mostly sex and money. That is what you must accept when you choose to watch a gangster movie. Some people like watching gangster movies, some people don't. My giving 3 stars instead of 4 or 5 is due to the stupidity of the entire genre, which The Sopranos ultimately fails to transcend. That's still a very high rating. I would rather have a good script, great acting, and a compelling story, like this series consistently delivers, albeit about thugs, than a sentimental, unoriginal, sanitized script about lovable and happy people. The problem with many television shows is that they insult the viewer's intelligence. This series does not. With Sex and the City, Sopranos, and Queer as Folk, it is clear now that good television is possible. (American, 2002) This movie faithfully tells the story of the comic-book hero "Spiderman," whose pages I read when I was a boy. Fans should not be disappointed. Part of the appeal of Spiderman is that he is a champion of the common man. Indeed, in his humble and unselfish manner, he is Christ-like. His nemesis--and every comic-book hero has a nemesis--is a wealthy CEO who moonlights as the sadistic Green Goblin. Tobey Maguire, a cutie and quite perfect for the role he was given, plays the hero, Parker, an unemployed photographer. Parker loves an attractive red-haired girl. His repressed feelings are obvious to everyone else which begs the question, why doesn't he ask her out? One seldom sees shyness carried to such ridiculous lengths as by the young fool Parker, who deserves to be spanked. A great romp the first time out, but I must note that the movie does not wear well on a second viewing. Parker bores the audience with his inhibitions. The script is so simple--good guy versus bad guy--it is after all, a comic book--that a single viewing exhausts all interest. But I do recommend a single viewing. |