Return
to other movies | Dean's Home Page.
SPRING 2003 MOVIE REVIEWS
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 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 thumb’s 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.
Gods And Generals
– The trend in war pictures over the past
few decades has been to make the action appear more authentic. That would include the literal blood and gore
along with the figurative guts and glory.
Additionally, war movies have trended away from merely giving a
one-sided view of a conflict to providing some depth of view, context and
irony. This film, by contrast, seems to
hark back to the old ways of making war pictures, designed as much as a propaganda
piece as it is to be interesting and to turn a profit. The propaganda celebrates the courage and
nobility of some long celebrated generals of the American civil war, in this
case with a disproportionate emphasis on the South’s perspective, while
cleaning up most of the ugliness and gory nature of war and deemphasizing its
tragic consequences. Having said that,
and given that more books have been published about the American civil war than
any other single topic other than the bible, this picture will likely be of
interest to many people with an ongoing fascination for the topic. For other people with a more passing
interest, the three-and-a-half hours may seem too drawn out, even with its
intermission. The film pays particular
focus to the South’s most celebrated generals, especially to Thomas
(Stonewall) Jackson and to the early period of the war from the battle at
Manassas, (Bull
Run) in 1861 to Fredericksburg, Virginia in mid-1863.
It is the first of a trilogy of a films, to be followed by one focusing
on the battles at Gettysburg and another covering the final advances by the North
into the South. I don’t know that
we learn much from the film or are permitted much opportunity to feel empathy
for the characters, though as a Northerner in both origin and sentiment, I
never thought I’d see the day that I’d shed a tear for Stonewall
Jackson, even while admitting that one can most certainly admire his courage
and military prowess. However, this was
by no means a sentimental picture – other than some homesick passion
mostly for things southern, a broadening of the theme for which the homestead Tara
served as a symbol in Gone With the Wind.
There are almost no other comparisons to be made with that much more
romantic film, though this film includes some touching moments between
Stonewall Jackson and his wife and between him and a small girl possessing a
personality that deeply enchants him.
Meanwhile, there are some goofy moments.
For example, Ted Turner, whose company produced the film, has a brief cameo
that provides some comic relief – and it’s no surprise that from
him we would see a production with such a southern leaning. Meanwhile, we see southern characters
depicted in their home lives as if for no other purpose but to pose for a
portrait of their southern well-groomed, well-mannered and well-ornamented
lifestyles. We see how their strong
faith in God and devotion to their understanding of a set of Constitutional
principles guides their convictions and behavior. We don’t learn much about their
rationalization for slavery or the irony that in defending their own rights
against tyranny, they are willing to deprive it to others. Still, I know folks for whom seeing this
picture would be a must – and if you have an ongoing passionate interest
in the civil war, perhaps that includes you; but then again, you’d
probably be better served and entertained by watching for the umpteenth time
Ken Burn’s documentary about the civil war. (Kids, teenagers and adults– too long
and not particularly educational or entertaining) **
Laurel Canyon – “Give your values a rest” says Sam, and that about sums up this film, giving them a rest,
though perhaps not quite abandoning them.
We see reckless abandon constrained by the gut, heart and intellect, but
only after testing the waters. Frances McDormand, who garnered Best Actress honors for Fargo in 1996, brilliantly portrays the
free-spirited, young-hearted middle-aged record producer and the mother of Sam
(Christian Bale), a young psychiatrist who compensates for his mother’s
eccentricities by more tightly constraining himself to a saner regime. His young fiancée (Kate Beckinsale),
however, who grew up in a yet more constrained environment, longs to let go and
try a taste of his eclectic mother’s lifestyle. Her lifestyle is undoubtedly far too free
spirited for some movie goers, particularly those unaccustomed to scenes of
bisexuality, but at the core, this film is mostly a gently amusing exploration
of relationships that at times is surprisingly delicate. “Surprisingly authentic” was the
description I saw a reviewer use, and I buy that. Unfortunately, the story ends too abruptly,
before we feel fully resolved. I guess
that’s the way life goes, although that’s not the way I usually
want my movies to go. (Kids – absolutely
not, unless their names are Dweezil and Moon Unit;
Teens – if they and you are comfortable with this sort of thing; Adults
– the tolerant only) **
A Mighty Wind – “Mockumentary”
was the term first coined for the 1992 film This
is Spinal Tap, a behind-the-scenes story of a rock-n-roll group that never
quite achieves broad success. Many
people came away from the film believing that Spinal Tap was an actual band,
and to this day, some still think so.
Well, the folks that wrote and appeared in that landmark satire are
back, this time gently lampooning 1960’s era folk musicians. The story follows three folk groups who are
enjoying a brief resurgence of interest in their music and who gather to
perform a retrospective of their hits (all one or two of them) at New York’s Town Hall. Any similarity to actual folk groups of that
era, or at least to the sentiments they evoked, is likely not entirely
coincidental, in spite of the movie’s disclaimer. The story mostly pokes fun at the gee-whiz
good-natured innocence of the era, rather than giving any focus, even in a
satirical way, to the political nature and social commentary commonly found in
lyrics of those times. As a performer
and lover of folk music myself, I doubt anyone would take offence from the
gentle jabs at my favorite genre, though the material for comedy didn’t
seem nearly as amusing to me as was This
is Spinal Tap. Rather, what makes
this film most enjoyable is the music, all original material written and
performed by the cast of characters, particularly through the efforts of the
writer and director, Christopher Guest, and collaborators, Eugene Levy and
Harry Shearer and others. Though some
songs were written mainly for satirical purposes, other songs are decidedly
sweet, charming, catchy and toe-tapping.
I’m a sucker for good harmonies any day, and Catherine
O’Hara and Eugene Levy’s voices blend surprisingly well. Who’d have thunk
it of Eugene Levy. Clocking in at
around 90 minutes, the film is a somewhat brief, though relaxing distraction. (Kids and teens – okay, but they
probably wouldn’t understand or appreciate the humor, and are allergic to
anything that resembles, even mockingly, of a documentary; adults – heck,
why not?) **
The Quiet American -- This is both a
war film and a love story that serves as a stark contrast from the one
described above, Gods and Generals,
in that the horrors of war are not so deemphasized, and the irony and cynicism,
both of love and war, are right there front and center. Most every character is something less than
noble, though their motivations and passions seem well explained and perhaps
understandable in the context of war.
The film focuses on Vietnam in the early 1950s, when the effort toward national
independence against the still colonial French was primarily France’s headache, and the U.S. effort to stem the Communist tide was entirely
covert. With that backdrop, the film
focuses upon the celebrated British journalist Thomas Fowler, who covered the
war for over two decades, but upon whom the novel on which the story is based
only loosely resembles actual events.
Michael Caine portrays Fowler as a weathered
and somewhat cynical but soft-stated gentleman, who nevertheless has passion,
both for his profession and for his young Vietnamese mistress, as well as for
his newly adopted home land. Meanwhile,
he suddenly finds himself caught up in a love triangle, competing with a young,
somewhat brash and confident, though equally soft-spoken and gentlemanly
American, portrayed by Branden Frasier, who openly
courts the same woman. The roles are
well suited to both actors, particularly Caine, whose
acting hallmark has always been based upon his willingness to leave his
portrayals understated. Meanwhile, at a
time when the world is again contemplating war, we see in this film an America characterized both for its well-intentioned though
often naïve idealism, its sometimes less-than-noble tactics and the
underestimated tragic outcomes from its actions. Still, this film is less about war and more
about love, and more about our humanity at its more base, practical, selfish
and less ennobling level. (For children
– not recommended, though other than a couple of violent scenes there is
nothing particularly objectionable; For
teens, it depends upon their maturity and interest in what is more a thoughtful
love story and less an action picture) **1/2
Raising Victor
Vargas –
Gently
humorous and youthfully romantic, but at moments tragically sad or touching,
this independent film’s strongest assets are its painstaking efforts
toward believability and toward compelling us to sympathize with and to care
about the characters – ALL of them.
Set in the barrio of the Lower East Side of Manhattan, this is not so
much a coming of age film for adolescents navigating the hazards of youth, self
image, or their place in the pack as it is a study of negotiations to get what
you want and need from your family and friends.
Victor Vargas fancies himself as a confident stud and is out to sweep
the unimpressed neighborhood girl off her feet.
“Bug spray”, she calls him, using him to fend off other
would-be suitors. Victor’s younger
brother looks up to him, his gossipy sister sees through him, and his guardian
grandmother from the Dominican Republic thinks he is a bad influence and
doesn’t know how to handle him.
Some discomforting moments, particularly with regard to the
grandmother’s behavior, while hard to imagine occurring in real life, do
not seem implausible. The director had
the self assuredness to know that long uncomfortable periods of silence can say
much more than dialog. There are solid
performances from the entire cast of unknowns – each of whom lend either
their actual first or last names to the characters. This is a small film with simple dialog, but
is quite brilliant in its portrayal of human relationships and in knowing what
it takes to get us to care. Small film
or not, it earns big kudos from me.
(Kids: allusions to sexual activity may make it inappropriate for some) ***
Russian Ark – (In Russian with
English subtitles) -- This is extraordinary filmmaking in that its entirety
appears to have been shot in just one take, without any apparent cuts or
editing. Extraordinary filmmaking,
however, does not necessarily make for interesting film viewing. The entire story (if it can be called that)
takes place inside one of the world’s foremost art museums, the Hermitage
in St. Petersburg, Russia. Other films have attempted long takes, but
few have attempted full-length films in a single take,
and in doing so none have attempted, as this one does, to coordinate a massive
cast of hundreds. The first time I
noticed long takes was in the 1997 Michael Lynch film Secrets and Lies, where family arguments carry on for perhaps 10 or
15 minutes from a single panning camera without any apparent breaks or
edits. The 2000 movie Time Code featured a screen split into
four smaller screens, each containing 90 minutes of footage without a single
edit, but that film contained a much smaller cast and had a plot with some
notable goof-ups. In Russian Ark we begin at what appears to
be large aristocratic party set in the early 19th century, and like
the narrator, through whose eyes we view the scene, we try for awhile to make
sense of what we are seeing. Eventually,
the narrator, who’s also the lead character, comes into view, dressed
likewise in early 19th century garb, but over time we learn that he
is apparently our contemporary, and is simply walking through the Hermitage Museum enjoying the art and sometimes
participating in the party. What the
camera does is probably the most interesting aspect of what we are seeing. Students of film and anyone with an interest
in art and/or Russian history will find something to like about this film. Others are likely to find that much of it is
rather dull. (Kids and teens – a
good way to show them some culture and put them to sleep at the same time) *1/2
The Shape of Things – One of the most cynical love stories to
come along in quite some time, this story is sure to undermine your faith in
relationships, particularly if you are a guy.
It’s useful to provide some balance and show a reversal of fortune
for guys, since movies disproportionately show women as victims. At the same time, this is a movie whose
subtext not-so-subtly challenges notions from both conservative and liberal
perspectives of society, most notably the role of morality, and if there should
be any at all, in art. Then, what
happens when life imitates art, or vice versa, or for those who wish to define
art in broad terms, where are the boundaries, if any at all, between life and
art. Rachel Weiz
brilliantly plays a young aspiring art student with absolutist convictions,
fully willing to act upon them, at the expense of whatever and whomever, to
make her point. Another reviewer
compared her to the notorious “Marquis de Sade”
(see review of Quills), and this film, while
using far less drama, may leave you walking out with similar impact. This contemporary story, by comparison to the
historical tale, scores much higher on believability, until the level of
dispassion is taken to extremes. Still,
given some of my own experiences with failed romance, even the extreme dispassion
is believable. (Children –
probably not recommended, due more to language and ideas than visuals; teens –
the more mature ones) **1/2
Return to other movies | Dean's Home Page.