Recent events cause us to be more in need of distractions than ever...
Dean's rating scale: ****Exceptionally good, ***Quite good indeed, ** I liked some things about it, but found it to be something closer to average,* Not recommended.
I need to point out that I am not actually as critical
as I may sometimes sound from my reviews. Generally, anything two
stars or better is something I have enjoyed, and even those to which I
only give one star probably have some aspects I have found redeeming, though
I'd put them further down my list. Anything with less than a star
(that is 0 or 1/2) is an absolute or nearly absolute thumbs down.
| A Beautiful Mind | ***1/2 |
| Ali | *** |
| Black Hawk Down | ***1/2 |
| Endurance | **** |
| Gosford Park | *1/2 |
| In The Bedroom | *** |
| Kandahar | *1/2 |
| No Mans Land | **1/2 |
| Royal Tennanbaums | ** |
| Shipping News | *** |
| Spy Game | *1/2 |
| Vanilla Sky | *1/2 |
| Waking Life | ***1/2 |
A Beautiful Mind-- Mathematical genius John Nash (Russell Crowe) follows a tragic course from Princeton College in the 1940s to master code breaker in the 1950s and 60s through schizophrenia and to the Nobel Prize in 1994. At first, I thought it might be just another egghead film made palatable for mere mortals in the tradition of Good Will Hunting or Finding Forrester, but the scope is broader both in subject matter and time frame. Director Ron Howard's films have been chided over the years by critics (those killjoys) for skewing "happy", and this film likewise ends on an obvious hopeful note, though only by coming to terms with imperfect reality. Audiences have generally liked his films, which include Splash, Cocoon, Apollo 13, and this time the critics have bought in as well. The screenplay is well-paced, well-structured, and well-balanced with humor and pathos. Everything that happens in the film matters, so pay attention to its nuances. It isn't exactly the way I would picture schizophrenia, but on the other hand, I'm not sure how one would otherwise portray it. Russell Crowe does a fine acting job, though considering that he's supposed to be portraying a man from West Virginia, his Australian accent doesn't quite make the leap. The touching ending is one we've seen many times before, but hey, why not do it again? It worked for me. This is one of the best bets of the season for adults, but would probably not be of much interest to many adolescents. (Kids -- okay, if they are bright, but boring for others; Teens -- perhaps likewise) ***1/2
Ali -- Critics have been only moderately kind to director Michael Mann's film about the life of Mohammad Ali, and audiances have only been slightly more receptive. I think the film deserves much more credit. Indeed, Will Smith has been well recognized for the leap he had to make to portray Ali, training hard, bulking up, capturing the mannerisms and bravado of the world champion, but many folks claim they still had trouble getting past the fact that this is Will Smith, whose resemblance to Ali is more believable in profile than head on. I didn't have a problem with that and consider him to be at least as worthy as any of the major Oscar contenders. Likewise, I was not unsatisfied, as were some of the critics, by what was left in and what was left out of the film. Clocking in at nearly 2 and 1/2 hours, the film covers the 10 year period between Ali's two greatest successes, capturing the championship from Sonny Liston in 1964 and recapturing his lost crown from George Foreman in 1974 at the so-called "Rumble in the Jungle". Still, I could have easily been content to watch the film if it were to last for another hour. Many who lack knowledge of that period and of Ali's impact, both on the sport of boxing and on the civil rights movement, are likely to be very impressed by what they learn about the man. At the same time, Ali is not shown as a hero in singular dimension. His talents both inside and outside the ring are in full view, including his capacity to amuse, entertain and inspire, along with some of his foibles, particularly with regard to womanizing. Meanwhile, some of the most fascinating aspects of the film come from side plots involving other famous names of the era. Ali's rise to prominance corresponds not so coincidentally with Malcolm X's fall from grace in the eyes of the black Muslim leader Elijah Mohammed. Later, it turns out that Ali's lawyer is coincidentally present at Martin Luther King's assassination. Sports announcer Howard Cosell, whose career rose symbiotically with Ali's, is shown with warm humor. Who would have guessed it was Jon Voight in that role? For those who might be distressed by the brutality of boxing, those scenes are indeed quite intense and violent, but they do not dominate and are less graphically profane than was sometimes depicted in the Rocky series of films. Rather, I found the film to be mostly edifying entertainment, and while one might bemoan Ali's capacity to be a jerk toward his wives, one is also bound to come away with a deeper respect for the conviction of the man, particularly as a staunch defender of faith in oneself and in one's principles. (Kids -- intense and violent for some, with mild sexual scenes; Teens -- probably okay) ***
Black Hawk Down -- As intense and as believably depicted as any war movie I've ever seen, it is perhaps fortunate that it aspires to no more than emersing us into horrific battle. Character development, context, perspective and nuance are generally absent from this film, but in this case, it's probably okay. These downsides are also assets to the film's limited agenda. We don't learn much other than the standard "war is hell", but I can hardly think of another picture that better drives home that point. Saving Private Ryan spends 20 extraordinarily intense minutes at the beginning, followed by a couple of other major firefights. Black Hawk Down, by comparison, sets up for the first 20 minutes, and then becomes relentlessly intense, violent and brutal for the remainder of the film. Director Ripley Scott doesn't play up the combat heroism as much as he does the harrow-ism. The film has been highly praised by those who survived the disasterous 1993 battle in Mogadishu, Somalia, but I doubt that the U.S. military would want to use this as a recruiting vehicle. Anyone thinking of joining the military is bound to have second thoughts after seeing this. There's no time to think about honor, courage and pride when you're just trying to not get shot. After that, it's about the guy next to you. That aspect may seem like heroism, but seems less so to the guy who can't help but project himself into his buddy's shoes. Although the action is appropriately designed to be every bit as confusing and chaotic as the actual event, some of the dialog seemed unnecessarily so, and could have been made a little easier to follow. Other than that, the film warrents the widespread high marks it's been receiving. If you've come for a war film, you've certainly come to the right place. (Kids -- too intense and bloody for some; Teens and adults, likewise) ***1/2
Endurance: Ernest Shackleton's Legendary Antarctic Expedition -- Full length documentaries are rarely seen on the big screen in general release, but when it's the greatest adventure and survival story ever told, it was reasonable to assume that there would be enough interest to be profitable beyond the standard venues of Public Television or the Discovery Channel. This is not so much a motion picture as a series of photographs and silent film footage interspersed with interviews presented in Ken Burns style by director George Butler, based on Carolyn Alexander's best selling book. The interviews were nice, but it was Frank Hurley's photographs from the ill-fated voyage that best tell this jaw-dropping story. The word "legendary" is used in the title, but there is no need for legend here when the facts, while true enough, seem beyond belief. Those familiar with the story will still feel rewarded by this latest presentation, which roundly evokes the full extent of courage, sacrifice, commeraderie, misery and endurance bourne by the men who suffered this phenomenal ordeal. Extreme care and sacrifice is taken to save the lives of every single man. I thought it interesting that Liam Niesson narrates the story, because of his portrayal as Oscar Shindler in Shindler's List, who saves many lives, but still troubles over his failure to sacrifice more in order to save more lives. I also found it ironic that Ernest Shackleton returns years later to the island where the adventure began and ended, and then dies there of a heart attack at the relatively young age of 48. It made me wonder about the possibility of something more scandalous that has never been told, including in this film. There are countless striking things about this story that seem unfathomable, but in any case, everyone walks out awe-struck. (Kids, teens and adults with attention deficits -- no; otherwise, all will appreciate) ****
Gosford Park -- I wasn't as enamored with Robert Altman's latest film as the critics have been. It's an opportunity to see a lot of great British actors perform as an ensemble, but short of a few amusing moments, the plot is hopelessly dull. There are so many actors in the film that it takes the better part of the first hour to introduce them to us. One can easily imagine that everybody who signed on to this film probably would have done so for free just to perform with the likes of each other. Among those with more notable acting pedigrees are Maggie Smith, Emily Watson, Kriston Scott Thomas, and Clive Owen, but there are at least a dozen others, some of whom you may recognize, who have significant roles. Basically, this was yet another chance for them to perform as pompous British snoots, something for which each is well schooled and practiced. They are attending a weekend house party in the countryside while unknowingly participating in something of a traditional whodunnit plot, or as one reviewer called it, a who-gives-a-damn-whodunnit plot. That would be a good premise were we permitted to give a damn about anything at all. Briefly at the center of the storm is this weasely little American played by Bob Balaban, who is cast as a Hollywood producer of Charlie Chan type detective plots. Unfortunately, the comic relief that Balaban provides, as well as brief moments of humor from the British actors, is minimized. I have great appreciation for some of these actors, notably Maggie Smith and Emily Watson, the latter of whom I could easily stare at for prolonged periods. As far as the story goes, however, we end up not caring about anybody, and wondering why we bothered to hang out with these folks for so long. (For kids -- a chance for a long nap; For teens, this is duller than a lecture in Business English on the afternoon before the Prom; For adults -- modestly entertaining, but generally not worth the bother) *1/2
In The Bedroom -- "In Your Face" might have been a better title for director Todd Field's highly adept first outing. I say this based both on the intensity of the subject matter and of the performances, but also because of the stare-up-the-nostril close-ups that the director uses to great effect throughout the film. Under a microscope of this sort, there was no way for bad acting to hide, and thankfully non could be found. Sissy Spacek never misses a beat (and I've never known her to do so), but the entire cast ply their trade well. We are confronted first with domestic violence, but the principle topic is about coping with grief. Since the film has been released in the aftermath of the September 11th tragedies, the topic of grief must feel all too real for many folks. Much of grief is too often about being alone, too stunned, unable to speak, unable to reach out, unable to receive. It's also about feeling guilty, finding blame, failing to forgive and failing to find absolution. Unfortunately, the story moves on to the familiar next step of retribution, and again, viewers may connect the dots between the movie and the reality of broader world conflicts. The film may move a bit slowly at times, but in striving for authenticity, that's what one ought to expect. It often feels like a made-for-television movie, though a very well made one nontheless. It's receiving well-deserved accolades from the critics, but the dismal subject matter and a too finely layered presentation may prevent it from receiving highest recognition. This is not a feel-good movie. (kids -- probably not; teens -- okay, but most would prefer something else) ***
Kandahar -- (In Persian and English with subtitles) -- Benefiting from name recognition it wouldn't have had four months earlier, this film about life in Afghanistan under the Taliban was well attended when I showed up one bright sunny weekday afternoon. It's amazing how many people are willing to forego a bright, beautiful afternoon for a dark theater and an even darker story that could only leave one feeling deeply depressed. A distraught Afghani woman living in Kandahar sends a letter to her sister living in Canada explaining that she is thinking of commiting suicide on the date of the next lunar eclipse. The story follows the journey of the Canadian woman as she returns to her native Afghanistan in an effort to prevent her sister from committing suicide. The woman's letter made clear that she felt life under the Taliban was too intolerable to bear, and the film proceeds to demonstrate some of what she meant. We see the fearful lives of women forced into anonymity under the burques they wear, the pathetic existence of people who've lost limbs from landmines, the deceptiveness and pettyness of people struggling to survive at the most base level imaginable, and the ever present fear of being caught stepping out of line from the Taliban's hopelessly oppressive rules. People attend films of this type just to bring image to their worst contemplations about how bad things can possibly get. Filmed in Iran near the Afghani border, the desert landscape is as stark as the world has to offer. Seeing people struggling under these conditions make the film's shortcomings (erratic editing, bad acting, an abrupt unsatisfying ending) seem totally irrelevent. A strange side note is that one of the principle actors, a fellow who portrays the kind-spirited American doctor, has been identified as being wanted in the U.S. for allegedly commiting the 1981 murder of a prominent critic of the Iranian government. The brother of the murdered man is trying to draw attention to this and is encouraging people to boycott the film. As cinema, there are other reasons why one might not be inspired to attend, but be that as it may, this deeply haunting film is valuable for further acquainting us with the plight of the Afghanis, particularly of Afghan women. Perhaps it will inspire some of us to contribute what we can toward their empowerment and toward relief of their suffering. (Children -- yes for the bright patient ones, if you don't mind them being depressed; Teens -- likewise) *1/2
No Mans Land -- (In Serbian, French and English with subtitles) -- "Savage comedy", one review claims. Hardly. Even its satirical aspects are rarely very humorous. This is war afterall, generally depicted in realistic form, albeit with absurdist moments, and set in a trench between the frontlines of the Serbian and Bosnian armies in 1993. The unbelievable moments are not always those that remind you that this is satire. The principle characatures to emerge include that of a bumbling and self-serving United Nations peace keeping authority, a vulture-like and dispassionate press correspondent, and a couple of petty and schoolboyish Bosnian and Serbian soldiars improbably trapped in the same trench together. Meanwhile, the argument as to who started the war and who perpetuates it depends on who is holding the gun at a particular moment. This is a far more interesting look at the war up close than was the 1997 film Welcome to Sarejevo. The film's more sobering aspects, particularly its chilling ending, transcend the film's occasional goofiness. (Kids -- no; teens -- okay) **1/2
Royal Tennanbaums -- I guess quirkiness has always been a celebrated movie attribute, particularly when it is done for its own sake. Director Wes Anderson follows the pattern from his first film Rushmore with a similarly styled farce of slightly broader reach, substance and humanity. Gene Hackman, who more typically plays hard-nosed guys, is actually a gentler, more empathetic character in his role as Royal Tennanbaum, the patron of the latest variation on the American dysfunctional family. Seeking repentence from his family for his many past sins, he nevertheless backslides frequently into his more accustomed status as a self-serving jerk. Still, we root for him, because somewhere buried in his deceptiveness is someone who truly cares. Gwenneth Paltrow is brilliant in her performance as she steals the sad sack role normally reserved for Bill Murray. Other familiar faces, including Ben Stiller, Danny Glover, and Angelica Huston round out the ensemble, but as with Anderson's earlier work, Rushmore, the story is relatively insubstantial, just enough to make you forget that your time might have been equally well occupied doing some other foolish thing. (Kids -- probably not, due to limited scenes of sex and drug use; teens -- generally okay) **
Shipping News -- I liked this movie much better than critics made me think I would. They claimed the film was a bit dull and clunky, but from the get-go, it seemed to have a lot going for it -- Pulitzer prize winning novel, powerhouse actors that included some of my favorites, Kevin Spacey and Judi Dench, plus Cate Blanchett and Julianne Moore, a setting in Newfoundland that intrigued me because I am thinking of visiting the region, plus director Lasse Hallestrom, whom I've come to trust based on his previous films, Cider House Rules and Chocolat. Well, it was a bit slow and clunky, but I didn't feel let down. The story is of an affable but somewhat dim-witted loser (portrayed by Spacey) upended by his scummy multi-timing wife (Blanchett) at the time of his terminally ill parent's dual suicides. He is then shuttled off with his disillusioned daughter by a previously unknown aunt (Dench) to exorcise the ghosts of their family's past (figuratively speaking) in the family's native Newfoundland. Several briefly disconcerting and shocking moments rouse attention in a portrait that is otherwise gentle and at times amusing and affecting. One particularly frightening moment, at least for someone like myself who shares the main character's fear of drowning, had me squirming in my seat so much that the lady sitting next to me seemed momentarily worried about me. Gentler aspects of the film were based in loving relationships, quirky local characters and lore, and the starkly beautiful Newfoundland landscape. In ways that those from milder climates may not appreciate, anyone from northern climes are bound to feel warm and cozy in this setting, as I certainly did. Meanwhile, the film is yet another opportunity to revel in Spacey's virtuosity, as if we needed any more convincing. I liked his portrayal of this character better than Russell Crowe's undoubtedly more challenging task in A Beautiful Mind (reviewed above), but I sense that if either are to be awarded this year, it's more likely to be Crowe -- or perhaps Will Smith. As for director Lasse Hallestrom, I sat wondering about what personal experiences draw him to stories that include tragically abused women who are forced into choices that he wants us to feel are fully justifiable. Even when it's not the main point, the director is not so subtle about reiterating his pro-choice credentials in the plot of each of his films. I'm certainly not troubled by this, but if he keeps it up, he's going to become the next poster boy for the religious right to target, which may be his hope. In any case, I was fully entertained, and now I plan to schedule a longer vacation to the Maritime Provinces. (Kids -- unfortunately no; teens -- okay for most, but includes brief scenes of mostly non-explicit sex) ***
Spy Game -- My companions and I had a choice between seeing either Monsters, Harry Potter or a film that would be more aimed at adults. We settled on Spy Game, and although it is a story that attempts to be reflective the life of a spy working for the CIA, I suspect a more plausible story line could have been found in either of the two kid's flicks. That's not to say that Spy Game is not captivating. At the very least, as with any spy flick, one can be assured of a world tour, bouncing around from one exotic location to another, and by that measure, this movie does not disappoint. Although the script mostly takes itself seriously, visiting a moral dilemma or two, there are times when the audience is simply obliged to suspend belief -- not to the extent of a James Bond flick, though it might have been better if it had. Meanwhile, it is not even remotely as factually grounded as say, for example, a typical Tom Clancy thriller. On the positive side, however, I have to say that the film does a good job capturing some of the paranoia and silly backstabbing nature of highly secure, highly classified environments, based on some of my own experience. It's better to picture them as bumbling and petty rather than sinister. Basically, this movie is a vehicle for one 1970's hunk, the well-weathered Robert Redford, to pass the batton on to contemporary chick bait, Brad Pitt, though neither are captured in their best light. (Kids -- over their heads and violent; teens -- okay; adults -- yes, but see caveats) *1/2
Vanilla Sky -- This is yet another movie that has trouble separating dreams from reality. The title is a name that seems to mean nothing, but the plot line is principally a study of shallowness. Minus the adolescent toilet humor, it is shallow in a vein (or perhaps I should say vain) similar to Shallow Hal (a film I have no intention of seeing). We go to this movie principally to gawk at pretty faces, Cameron Diaz, Penelope Cruz and her real life husband Tom Cruise, but even on that score the film makes us feel bad for doing so, since Tom Cruise's face soon gets mangled, and we are obliged to contemplate how we treat people based on their appearance, which is probably the main redeeming aspect of this film. There is a lot of Oscar buzz lately about Tom Cruise's performance, but the only thing I can see that is the least bit challenging about his performance is pretending not to be floored by Cameron Diaz's passionate kisses. The whole time, though, the audience must have felt as if their gonads were being jerked around for no great purpose. Director Cameron Crowe's methods are becoming predictable. Baby boomer pop culture was the subject of his previous film, Almost Famous, but its occasional appearance in this film seems mostly pointless and out of place. Were it just left as pretty faces, double-crossing friends and scorned lovers, it may have been more satisfying entertainment, but it gets complicated by a far-fetched plot that detracts from the film's greatest strength -- mainly the electricity generated by the romantic lead characters. Meanwhile, to the degree that the director asks us to care about any of the characters, the film mostly loses it since virtually everybody is dispicable at one time or another. I wasn't all that impressed with the film, but what do I know? My niece loved it. (Kids -- no; teens -- many would undoubtedly like it, but it contains explicit sex and behavior you may not wish them to emulate; adults -- you probably have something better to do). *1/2
Waking Life -- Art, animation and philosophy mix in this highly unusual film that examines dream states and varying levels of consciousness. Animation has come a very long way since Steamboat Willie, and the state-of-the-art methods employed in this film should alone warrent one's attention. It's not the three-dimensionality of something like a Shrek, Monsters or Toy Story, nor the claymation wonders of Wallace and Grommit, but a two-dimensional dreamy dynamism with oldly moving shades of coloration that make these methods curiously interesting. It's actually more along the lines of the kind of animating seen in Beevis and Butthead or in King of the Hill but with significantly more attention to detail. Likewise, the script, one of highly contemplative philosphy, is far more substantive and thought-provoking than any of the other's mentioned, while having amusing moments as well. This is by no means a kid's film, and for that matter, I saw at least four adults walk out of the theater at various points during the film and not return. For me, however, the film was mostly fascinating, both for its animation and for its philosophy. Some critics say that the philosophical discussions are not particularly rigorous and are of the sort you might imagine fraternity guys to engage in at 3:00 a.m. after too many beers. I'm not sure what more they would expect from a medium designed mainly for entertainment. The audience is obliged to work and to focus on what is being said with much more effort than usual, which probably explains why some decided to walk out. It leaves you feeling quite odd when you exit the theater, as if you too cannot escape a dream world. (Kids -- nope; very mature teens -- yes; less mature teens and many adults -- no; philosophically minded individuals -- absolutely!) ***1/2
Return to other movies | Dean's Home Page.