Return to other movies | Dean's Home Page.
WINTER 2003 MOVIE
REVIEWS
After a Slow Summer, Dean Declares It Safe
to Go Back to the Movies! Am I just getting more generous, or is Hollywood churning out a good crop of films these days?
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.
This season's reviews are dedicated to Ann
Chamberlain, a companion movie-goer and enthusiastic viewer of this site
who inspired me to keep writing. We lost Ann this month to diabetes at
age 46. Never to be forgotten, she is much missed by those who knew her,
and her spirit lives on with us.
I need to point out that I am not really as
critical as my reviews sometimes sound. Generally, anything two stars or better
is something I have enjoyed, and even those to which I only give one star have
some aspects I have found redeeming, though I'd place them further down my
list. Anything with less than a star (that is 0 or 1/2) is a nearly
absolute thumbs down. Four stars are given less
often and only to those that have most moved me, most effectively depicted
believability and/or given me the most food for thought.
About Schmidt
-- Growing old ain't for
wimps, my mother once reminded me from something she had heard someone
say. That could have been the subtitle for this film. My colleagues
and I recently discussed that many folks from our workplace had found it
difficult to retire, and some later returned to work, sometimes volunteering
their time even after careers that had lasted 40 years or more. In this
film, Jack Nicholson plays Warren Schmidt, a straight-laced Midwestern man
coping with adaptation to retirement and to other major life changes.
Nicholson's name and reputation can dwarf most any film title or subject
matter, and while this character isn't his typecast nor is this film another One
Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, his performance is sure to make him among the
favorites for Best Actor. The film itself, generally creeping along at
the pace of relaxed ponderence, may be the most
thoughtful mainstream story to come along since American Beauty, though
it seems generally much sadder. While director Alexander Payne stirs into the
mix a healthy measure of satire and characature, the
film's overriding sentiment is one of sadness, stark as its backdrop of the Great Plains landscape. The demons Warren Schmidt faces
within himself are bound to hit very close to home for some. Unlike American
Beauty or Cuckoos Nest, it may not be the kind of film you'll feel
compelled to view more than once over the course of several years. Still,
the film is a treasure! While its pacing makes it seem much longer than
its two hours, perhaps dull at times for some, its substance is sure to move
even the most jaded. Its characters remind us of people we've known, particularly for those who hail from anywhere
in middle America. Although Kathy Bates has a relatively small
part in the film, appearing only in the last half hour as the mother of
Schmidt's future son-in-law, she's receiving plenty of Oscar buzz for
supporting actress. Perhaps that's a bit overwrought, and Hope Davis's
performance as Schmidt's daughter probably deserves more recognition, but bonus
points are always given to actors and actresses willing to be portrayed in such
unflattering ways, benefits accruing to Nicholson in this film as
well. Regardless of the way recognition is given to the
performances, the film ought to be required viewing at least for anyone
anticipating retirement or even for anyone hoping to grow old. One will
be rewarded with sadness, but also perhaps with preparation and
inspiration. (Kids -- probably not for many due to adult subject matter
and foul language; Teens -- yes, if chained to their seats or on tranquilizers;
Adults -- absolutely) ****
Adaptation -- At times quite profound and thought provoking,
this initially highly-principled film soon violates its own high-mindedness and
deteriorates into more standard Hollywood fare. Nevertheless, in the race for Best
Picture, we know which film most of Hollywood's screenwriters will be pulling for, and not merely
due to their biases, but for just cause. Screenwriter
Charlie Kaufman (portrayed by Nicolas Cage), gained recognition a couple years
back for his screenwriting of Being John Malkovich.
This time, with the full recognition of self-indulgent narcissism, he and
his twin brother Donald (also Nicolas Cage) have written themselves into a
script based upon an article about orchid thieves written by Susan Orleans
(Merle Streep) for The New Yorker
magazine. We are informed that the story has been based upon actual
events, though names and other aspects had been fictionalized -- you can pick
which parts to buy and which to dismiss, though some of those lines seem pretty
clearly drawn. For awhile, like Charlie, we feel trapped in writer's
block, tormented by a torturous creative process, and begging for something
that feels like resolution, accomplishment, or at least paradigm shift.
Had they stuck to the rules that Charlie initially set for himself, I might
have given four stars to the film, but in that case, it may never have made it
to the big screen. Twists, changes, and as Charlie put it, "people
overcoming obstacles", in this case himself, are required. Hollywood seems to be saying that without sex, drugs and
violence, all the rest of life is dull. Well, perhaps that's true for Hollywood, but I'm disappointed they succumbed to the trite
(and by that I mean sex, drugs and violence) in this case. Still, there's
more than enough thoughtful stuff to warrent the
level of attention this film is getting. Nicolas Cage is at his most
brilliant when he portrays neurotic, vulnerable and pathetic characters, rather
than his standard high testosterone gambits. This seems to me the only
film worthy of his talents since his 1996 Academy Award performance for Leaving
Las Vegas. In
that film, although he plays an alcoholic, he is possibly the closest to God
I've ever seen any actor become. Cage in this role captures a bit
of that magic, but this is probably not his year as the acting competition is
stiff. In any case, there's plenty reason to attend, both for
pseudo-intellectual snobs and for those who demand twists and whose adrenilin is mainly action-driven. (Kids -- probably
not; Teens -- generally okay, with no more, and possibly less than the
standard drugs, violence and mostly non-explicit sex that you've come to expect
from Hollywood) ***1/2
Ararat -- With emotionless passion, Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan attempts to engage and educate us about the genecide of more than a million Armenians in Eastern Turkey in the early 20th century. It's unfortunate and
unimaginable that such a horrific event -- one which the Turkish government
denies ever occurred -- could fail so utterly to capture us in this context,
but I wonder if that was by the director's intended design. Egoyan, himself of Armenian origin, leaves us as detached
as perhaps he himself feels for his own heritage and for an event of the now
distant past. Ostensively,
the director tries to make it relevant to the present through the perspective
of offspring who have gaping holes in their understanding of what happened to
their parents and grandparents in those horrible times, but the effect seems to
be the opposite, to project their confused passion upon the past.
Perhaps its Egoyan's own soft-spoken nature that
makes the film's anger seem so soft peddled by its
characters. We rarely feel more moved than lectured. The result,
unfortunately, is to leave us relatively unaffected and hardly better
informed. The context in which the story is told at length to a Canadian
immigration official is just one among the film's seeming implausibilities.
Nevertheless, I had eagerly anticipated this movie, and someone like me with a
curiosity for history, culture and the capacity of humans for atrocity ought to
find the film sufficiently redeeming. (Children -- slow and perhaps
confusing for some; teens and adults -- only if
interested in the topic) **1/2
Catch Me If
You Can -- Steven Spielberg's
reputation for story spinning is less often challenged than the fact that he
doesn't do much to challenge us. Everything is always understandable and
digestible, but like cotton candy, it's fun and you've
been entertained, but you wonder if you've just consumed much more than
air. Although the stories are interesting, there aren't any complications
that oblige us to think with any depth. It's generally transparent
entertainment without agendas or irony, and as long as that is our expectation
of him, we are rarely unpleased. He takes us from A to Z, with some jumps
back and forth within the alphabet, but we always follow what's going on, and
where we end up makes sense and the whole thing fits together neatly if not
always believably. He knows how to pick the right story to tell also, the
ones that have the broadest appeal. In this case, it's the story of a
young con-artist named Frank Abagnale Jr. (Leonardo DeCaprio), upon whose book the film is based, and who in
the 1960s and before the age of 20 passes himself off as a doctor, a lawyer, an
airplane pilot, and in various other roles while successfully defrauding banks
and evading the FBI for years. Tom Hanks plays the FBI agent who pursues
him with a grudging respect for his ability to elude capture, much in the
spirit of The Fugitive's Detective Girard in pursuit of Dr. Richard
Kimble. Perhaps we don't really care, but I always wonder about the
extent to which liberties are taken with the truth when we are told that
something is based on a true story. Is it 90%, 50% or 5% of the story
that is true? It's a question that's relevant only if we want to
distinguish between the believability of the author's account of the actual events
and the believability of how the screenwriters and director chose to portray
them. Whatever the answer, Spielberg has a way of making the unbelievable
plausible, and whether or not we care about the answer, at least we've had some
fun along the way, even without irony and substance. Two-and-a-half hours
start to test the bladder capacity, but you won't be inclined to glance at your
watch often. (Kids and teens -- virtually nothing objectionable (one F
word), although they may discover new tricks to con you;
Adults -- for relaxation, not thought) ***1/2
Chicago -- Okay, so a movie musical isn't everybody's idea of
a well-spent two hours. Telling you that it's the best one I've seen in
quite some time is not only disingenuous -- since I haven't attended any in
quite some time -- but it's also as if to say that I have this great fruit cake
you ought to try. With the exception of last year's Moulin Rouge
(which I haven't seen), I can hardly name any major musical from the past two
decades. The era between the 40s and early 70s was the heyday of
musicals. Not much followed Grease and The Wiz at the end
of the '70s. Did the music video kill the musical star? Is the gendre on a rebound? Stick around, and we'll
see. Chicago, of course, is the late great choreographer Bob Fose's blend of "cynicism and sex", as a New York
Times reviewer put it. Aside from the raz-mataz
and the gritty and humorous story line, the cast of unbelievables,
Rene Zellwieger, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Richard Gere, are the film's greatest assets. They are
unbelievable because we had always believed them to be single-facited. They surprise us with their talents, and yet
they seem accessible and not as unattainable as those of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rodgers, or perhaps Gene Kelly, Donald
O'Conner and Debbie Reynolds in Singing in the Rain. The producer
might have opted to cast some lesser known, more highly-skilled song-and-dance
types, but no matter how good they would have been, I doubt they would have
been as fun to watch in this context as these three are. The film romps,
and casting rumpled John C. Reilly gives us the confidence to get up and try it
ourselves. For those not into song and dance, at least they may be into
legs -- and this one may have a leg up on the Oscars. If even legs are
not a draw for them, and they still have a heartbeat, well perhaps the story
could be compressed into 20 minutes. For the rest of us, let's go!
(kids -- okay for some, though the film contains some
raunchy sexuality; Teens and adults -- depending on taste) ***1/2
Evelyn -- If you can get past the predictability and the Touched
By an Angel religiosity, you'll be hard pressed
not to be touched by this film. Based on a true story in early 1960s Ireland, Desmond Doyle (Pierce Brosnan)
is the father of three children who are taken from him and placed into
orphanages when Desmond's wife runs off with another man and disappears to
somewhere in far away Australia. Antiquated Irish law at the time prohibited
single fathers from raising their children alone without the permission of the
mother, who in this case is nowhere to be found. You can guess the trendline and outcome of this film knowing just that, and
you could just wait for it to appear on commercial television, which probably
won't be a long wait. On the other hand, you could get your kids out of
the house to come to this one, because they and you are unlikely to find
anything objectionable here -- other than, from their perspective, that fact
alone. Though not an intended message, the main thing the film reinforced
for me was the value of the separation of church and state, something
antithetical in Ireland and to my mind not entirely in place in the U.S. either. It was fun to see Pierce Brosnan in an uncharacteristic role, completely removed
from his standard James Bond persona, and even capable of singing, though I
wouldn't give up his day job if I were him -- which unfortunately I am
not. Mean nuns, kind lawyers, articulate kids -- okay, perhaps you can
buy it. Please don't interpret my two star rating as being anything less
than a recommendation or that I didn't enjoy the film -- indeed I did! I
shed a tear or two also, though that's not a measure of anything, since I could
say that about episodes of the Simpsons.
Although there is a bit of disfunctionality in
Desmond Doyle, unlike the Simpsons, this film is pure
family heartwarming entertainment, appropriate for all but the youngest. **
Far From Heaven -- This film is not only set in the 1950s, it seems as
if, barring the controversial subject matter, it could have been made in the
1950s. Rarely have I seen such a meticulous effort to recapture the mood
and cinematic style of an earlier era of filmmaking. With the exception
of one out-of-place expletive, much of the dialog could have been extracted
from any typical television program of that time, though you would unlikely
have seen a grown man cry nor observed such frank treatment of topics such as
racism, sexuality and homosexuality, at least not until the late 1960s or
1970s. Julianne Moore is phenomenal as a white upper middle class Connecticut socialite who somewhat unwittingly finds herself
caught up as an early agent of social change when she becomes the subject of
gossip after paying too much attention to the family's black gardener (Dennis Haysbert). It would be a crime if she is not among
those nominated for Best Actress this year. Randy Quaid also does a fine job as her heavy drinking husband
who is struggling over questions of his own sexual preference.
Unfortunately, the near total lack of humor and the weightiness of the drama,
reminiscent of last year's Oscar nominated film In the Bedroom, makes
the portrayals in this film somewhat less compelling than they might have
been. In this case, however, the gentleness of the Moore's and Haysbert's characters, the simplistic characterizations of
a gossiping community (straight out of Peyton Place), and the picturesque backdrop of a New England autumn soften the heaviness without deemphasizing the tragic
consequences for the victims of circumstances. The pacing is slow and
covers what for some might be repackaged dramatic material. Still I was
particularly captivated by Moore's
character and the director's attention to capturing an atmosphere long since
gone from film making, if not from our social consciousness. (Kids
-- probably not; Teens -- yes, particularly for
those whose attention spans and horizons need expanding; adults --
likewise) ***
Frida -- Why does it seem that so much suffering is
required for an artist to get due recognition? Is it because their own
personal stories have to be deeply interesting before we can get an
appreciation of what inspired them to their work? The life of early 20th
century Mexican artist Frida Kahlo
was indeed deeply interesting, and to my surprise, this epic biographical film
ranks probably as my favorite movie of the season, a contestation I have with
other reviewers, whose praise, though present, has been subdued at best. Frida (Selma Hayak) is an irrepressible
spirit, eccentric, headstrong, and driven with her hopelessly unfaithful and
equally irrepressible artist husband, Diego Rivera (Alfred Molina), by the
political winds of their times. Marxists at the height of that
philosophy's vogue, they use their artistry to advance struggles for social
justice, and even take Russian Communist Leon Trotsky and his family under
their wing for awhile, providing them protection. The better part of a
lifetime and a series of tragedies pass before Frida is cast under her own spotlight rather than merely basking
in the glow of her husband's notoriety. The dialog between the two
is quite charming, humorous and believable, and though they endure numerous
instances of marital despicability, director Julie Taymor
casts both characters with great empathy. Interspersed surrealistic
animation has become a common device in film -- i.e. American Beauty, Magnolia,
etc. -- but it seems most appropriate in a film about quirky artists of
surrealism. Both Hayak's and Molina's
performances are worthy of some attention at the awards ceremonies. Kahlo's character, indomitable in the face of great
suffering, will no doubt be an inspiration to many women, though many may
question why she put up with the intractable womanizing of her husband. I
needn't come away inspired by her, edified, or left with wonder about what I've
seen in order to award the film with four stars. I'm just a sucker for
well-told lifelong stories. (Kids -- no; Teens
-- okay for some, but contains intimate sexuality, including bisexuality)
****
The Hours -- Three women from three eras
of the past century struggle to come to grips with their anxieties, with their
constraints, and perhaps with their instincts.
Ultimately, this is a film about liberation; though we are never quite
clear what drives their anxieties. Three
vignettes bound together by what seem at first only the finest of threads
become only slightly more coupled by film’s end, but perhaps more so when
pondered after the film. My companions and
I enjoyed the film, but one friend desiring a faster pace and for whom watching
three women dealing with generalized angst was not his sort of pleasure
nevertheless found himself more pleased as he pondered it afterwards …
even days later. The film does lend
itself to conversation and rehashed assessments. Aside from the thoughtful plot, the
principle reasons to see this film are the performances by Nicole Kidman, Merle
Streep and Julianne Moore – particularly
Kidman, whose portrayal of novelist Virginia Woolf
some have claimed to be a mischaracterization even as they recognize her
performance as phenomenal. It’s
not everybody’s film, however, and the underlying agenda that touches
upon questions of sexual preference in each of the women may turn off some
movie goers. The film isn’t big
about arriving to some meaningful point for its existence either, and people
who need to have a point might feel a little dissatisfied. Meanwhile, those of us content with
contemplative process, with nuanced characterization and with examining the
fragility and resilience of the human spirit are quite nourished by what
we’ve seen. (Kids – no, due
mainly to their likely disinterest for adult topics (also hints of bisexuality,
though nothing explicit;
Teens -- perhaps) ***1/2
The Pianist
-- Of the millions of holocaust stories still crying to be told, Roman Polanski
has picked a most noble one, and imbued a single epic survival tale with all
the horror you'd expect to see from the setting as well as some of the irony we
might expect from him. A city of over a half million people at the start
of the war, Warsaw, Poland was completely leveled by war's end. During my visit to a fully
restored Warsaw in 1986, I remember learning from a visitor's guide
that only two people were found alive in the city at the end of the war when
the Soviets finally arrived to "liberate" it from the Germans.
It is in this setting that we follow the story of a young pianist, Wladyslav Szpilman, on whose book
the film is based. While Polanski shows us the plight of Jews in the Warsaw ghetto and a substantial measure of the brutality and
the cruelty of war, he uses the majority of the two-and-a-half hours to
highlight the pianist's enduring story of survival. Although Szpilman (portrayed stoically by Adrian Brody) gets a
number of very lucky breaks, there are few survival tales that I have found so
compelling -- the 1973 film Papillon, and last year's Endurance: Earnest Shakleton's
Legendary Antarctic Expedition come to mind. I have friends, both
Jewish and non-Jewish, who avoid going to movies focusing on the holocaust
because of the discomfort they feel with the subject and with seeing the
images. The thing that amazes me most about films attempting to come to
grips with the holocaust is how little emotion is exhibited in the characters
who endure often unimaginable humiliation and degradation. Often, people
don't act in the way I would expect them to act under the circumstances,
particularly in anticipation and apprehension of immediate cruelty and/or
death. I'm not sure if the low level of emotion depicted is a flaw in the
character portrayals or if this is how things actually occurred, and whether it
is the intention of directors to show nobility, numbness, or perhaps survival
skills on the part of those being brutalized. With a couple of notable
exceptions, Polanski does not yank as hard on the heartstrings as Steven Speilberg does in Shindler's
List, and he generally sticks to the pragmatic and stoical though at times
vulnerable and emaciated view of the lead character. Although the images
of inhumanity are deeply disturbing and the scenes of a devastated Warsaw are cinematically amazing, we are left at the end
strangely not quite as impacted as we were at the end of Shindler's
List. In any case, this is not an easy film to watch. We are
given opportunities to relax, but we are always waiting for the next shoe to
drop. Thankfully, war does come to an end. (Kids -- difficult
scenes for some to watch; for the
rest of us -- likewise) ****
Real Women
Have Curves -- A young woman's
slightly oversized body becomes the central topic in the context of a theme
we've often seen -- breaking away from overly-controlling parents. Ana
(America Ferera) is the bright young student at Beverly Hills High
School
whose teacher believes she has a lot of potential and suggests that she apply
for a scholarship to an Ivy League university. Her immigrant parents,
especially her ultra-manipulative mother (Lupe Ontiveros),
have other ideas for her that are more akin to the lives they themselves have
lead in menial sweatshop labor. There are immediate comparisons that can
be made to this year's phenomenal hit independent film "My Big Fat
Greek Wedding" (Spring
2002 movies), but while that film emphasizes humor, this film's strengths
lie more in its honesty, its nearly flawless believability and in the strong
performances from its lead characters. It is a film that permits us
to look beyond beauty, beyond the superficial, and examine the basis of our
self-concepts. I was also pleased that a film designed partly for women's
empowerment was devoid of negative male characters, as are often present with
such agendas. For a change, all of the men were empowerers
of women. Although the film is unlikely to rise to the popular level of Greek
Wedding, it is a nevertheless quite delightful and deserves more audience
than its seemingly small aspirations might suggest. (For children --
probably not advisable unless quite mature, due to some mild sex
scenes; for teens and adults --
yes) ***
The 25th Hour -- Of all of Hollywood's cynical directors, Spike Lee seems the most
unapologetically and legitimately angry. He doesn't hide the racism of
which he is both victim and propagator. In this film, the vehicle for
delivering his angry message is a young drug dealer, portrayed by Edward
Norton, who we follow through his last 25 hours of freedom before heading off
to the penitentiary. Though it is Norton's character expressing the
anger, who saves his heaviest criticism for himself, it seems to be Lee's
thoughts unleashed in a diatribe designed to alienate virtually every ethnic
group in New York City, and by extension, everywhere. We recognize it as Lee's
diatribe because we've heard similar in every film since Do the Right Thing.
Some of it seems gratuitous, overbearing and unfitting to his lead character or
to the story. With this exception and a few others where Lee stretches
believability, he's constrained himself for the most past, and we find him to
be much better when he's subtle. Lee gives the drug dealer and each of
his friends an interesting mixture of despicability and sympathy, and the
entire film is centered upon their coming to grips with his being locked up for
many years. Norton has been among my favorite actors of his generation
ever since his portrayal of a young neo-Nazi in American History X, a role for
which he was nominated but, to my mind, unjustly deprived of Best Actor honors.
Perhaps to cover his bases, Lee provides us with two endings, one to please a
mainstream audience who root for some relief from cynicism, and another to
please the critics and those who value realism. Pick the ending you
prefer. Though I know that it's become a trend for DVDs to offer multiple
possible endings, and it's been a celebrated device in filmmaking and probably
in books through time eternal, it seems a little like cheating, but maybe only
like cheating on chocolate -- a forgivable offense. Minus the stereotypes
and the occasional unexpected deviations from the characterizations he
carefully forms, Lee has given us one of his better works while challenging us
for our roles as silent co-conspirators, victims and beneficiaries in the drug
wars. (Kids -- nope, no dope; Teens --
mature ones, perhaps; Adults -- those with minds more open) ***
Return to other movies | Dean's Home Page.