Brian's Film Review Blog: 4/6/08

Saturday, April 12, 2008

The English Patient

Saturday April 12, 2008

The English Patient (1996) ****1/2

Directed by Anthony Minghella

Watching The English Patient, I was reminded of sweeping epics like Giant or Gone With the Wind or Lawrence of Arabia. The film is achingly romantic and completely rich in its visual and narrative style. At three hours long, it’s not the easiest film to get through in one sitting. This was actually the second time I tried to watch the film. A few years ago, I just couldn’t get into it and at about the forty minute mark, I turned it off. This time, I was folding laundry while watching. I had a lot of laundry to fold, which is good since I had a lot of this movie to watch.

Ralph Finnes portrays the English patient himself—a severely burned and disfigured man who doesn’t remember his own name. He is taken in by Hana, played by my new favorite actress Juliette Binoche. Binoche surprisingly won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in this film. After seeing her in this and Chocolat, I am infatuated by this actress and her ability to win me over the second she comes on screen and then to hold that affection completely from beginning to end. There wasn’t a moment in either Chocolat or The English Patient when I wasn’t absolutely enamored by her.

Hana is a lonely nurse who is forced to grieve the deaths of people close to her. She even thinks she might have a curse. Whether she seriously believes this or not is unclear, but I’m sure she feels a sense of guilt. She tries to hide or maybe even deal with that guilt by dedicating her life to this patient during the last days of his life, since he will no doubt be dead soon. She reads to him, gives him morphine, takes care of him and listens to him. The movie wisely brings more characters into this situation since I’m not sure the numerous flashback scenes could have been interesting if they simply resulted from the relationship only between the two of them. We get a stranger with no thumbs who seems to know something about this patient and his past. We also get a young bomb expert who wins the affection of Hana so she can have her own love story while we hear the recollections of the love story between the patient and his lost love, Katharine, played by the beautiful Kristen Scott Thomas.

The recollections piece together the story of the patient, whose real name is Almasy, and his affair with Katherine. Almasy and Katherine’s husband, Geoffrey, are both part of a map making exhibition with the National Geographic Society. While Geoffrey must be away for long periods of time, Katherine and Almasy fall in love and finally make love in one of the most aggressive sex scenes I’ve ever seen! I wasn’t sure if they were having sex or a seizure. Either way, they seemed to be enjoying themselves. The following scenes are so extremely romantic that we really come to believe that their bond is strong and true. That bond is tested severely during many times and their love is lost and then found again, but it may just be too late.

It’s impossible to really get a sense of The English Patient without seeing it. It’s massive and works very well! I can definitely see how someone can say it’s boring. I was bored at times too. Yet, it’s important to watch this movie when you’re really in the mood to watch a movie and not when you’re just looking for something to pass the time. This film could actually make the time feel like it’s going slower. Spending three hours in the late Anthony Minghella’s world in The English Patient is time very well spent. It won’t make the three hours feel like two hours, but it will make the three hours richly romantic!

Bad Education

Saturday April 12, 2008

Bad Education (2004) **

Directed by Pedro Almodovar

I’m not going to say that Bad Education is a bad movie. To be honest, it’s not interesting enough to be called bad. Pointless, forgettable, mediocre and unnecessary are better words. This is the fifth film of Pedro Almodovar that I’ve watched in the last month since I was following the Filmspotting Podcast’s Almodovar marathon. I’ve really enjoyed the experience of all five films—Bad Education included. Had I not seen the other four, I may have appreciated the style of Bad Education with its breathtaking colors and stunning camera effects. After seeing, appreciating and understanding the Almodovar style with the first four films of the marathon, I really needed Bad Education to impress me with its story.

Talk to Her, which this film is a follow up to, was a massive success. I personally found it weird to the point of unpleasant, but I could definitely see the appeal and applaud Almodovar for his vision. Also, I haven’t been able to stop thinking about the movie since I’ve seen it. Five minutes after watching Bad Education, I was finished thinking about it.

The story surrounds a director who gets a visit from his childhood friend. The director, Enrique, is played well by Fele Martinez. The childhood friend, who wants now to be called Angel since he is an actor and Angel is a better stage name, is played by megastar Gael Garcia Bernal of Y Tu Mama Tambien fame. It can’t be denied that Bernal has presence dripping from his pores. Unfortunately, his performance, especially as transvestite Zahara, is mannered and almost amateur, with the exception of a musical number Zahara lip-syncs to—that was a great scene!

The story involves a story within the story written supposedly by Angel about the childhood that he and Enrique spent together and concluding with the two of them ultimately falling in love. The story deals quite a bit with their relationship at age 10 including a scene where the boys grope each other in the movie theater. If that sounds like uncomfortable subject matter, throw in a predatory priest and an unbelievably stupid scene involving Ignacio singing Moon River while the priest looks at him with love and shirtless boys are swimming in a lake. A huge fault of this scene is that the boy is so obviously lip syncing badly that we are removed from the film. The voice is too perfect. So why not cast a boy who really sings, even if not as perfectly as the voice in the film? That could have avoided me being taken out of the film when the boy’s lips don’t match the words of the singer.

The childhood story is supposed to be based in fact between Angel (Ignacio) and Enrique. The adult story is fiction. This involves Ignacio as a woman named Zahara blackmailing the priest by showing him Ignacio’s story.

Enrique, in real life, loves the story but is uncomfortable having Angel act as Zahara. He would rather see Angel as Enrique. Angel wants only the role of Zahara and Enrique uses this to coerce sex out of Angel.

At this point, the film just goes off the rails. It involves Angel as Zahara as Ignacio and issues of true identity. Then Ignacio’s story’s ending is changed by Enrique which involves the priests killing Zahara. The real priest, now a married man with a son, is on set and sees the blackmail scene. The priest sits Enrique down and gives him insight into the part of the story involving Ignacio as an adult.

Confused? Well yeah the movie does bring it all together but the film is really pretty slimy. Not one single character is redeemable. Every single one is a nightmare of a human being. Why would we be expected to want to spend time with these people?

The only appeal I can see in the film is the homosexual eroticism. I feel like this whole film was an excuse for some man on man sex scenes. One particular sex scene bothered me since it explicitly censored Zahara giving oral sex. They literally put a disfiguring bubble over the sex act. That was ridiculous. Either cut the scene, reshoot it or leave it in and take an NC-17 rating! (Note: I have realized since writing this entry that I had rented the R rated version from Blockbuster, but even to make this film available in this way at all is unacceptable. The censorship of that scene really angered me. If a film is going to be tamed for an R rating, then scenes should be cut, not blurred.)

While all of Almodovar’s previous films in the marathon (Flower of My Secret, Live Flesh, All About My Mother and Talk to Her) push the mainstream boundaries, I think Bad Education didn’t even try to deal at all with boundaries. I can’t imagine anyone outside of the gay community really embracing this film. I can also imagine many within the gay community uncomfortable to see gay characters portrayed so viscerally.

Letters from Iwo Jima

Saturday April 12, 2008

Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) ***1/2

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Letters from Iwo Jima is a companion piece to Eastwood’s film Flags of Our Fathers. I liked Flags of Our Fathers better, and I was actually distracted during the few moments when the two films explicitly come together (both of the two I can think of involve a flame thrower). I’m glad they didn’t do more of that and I’m actually sorry they did any of that at all.

Though I thought Flags was excellent, I do have to admit that Flags didn’t really add anything to the war film genre. Letters from Iwo Jima was definitely a first in war movies. The wonderful insight that Iwo Jima gives into the completely different philosophies of combat between the Americans and the Japanese makes the film extremely informative.

My problem with the film is that it seems to take the Japanese “honor to die for your country” perspective and infuses it with American military ideals of brotherhood and individual dignity alongside (or maybe just slightly below) duty to one’s country.

In theory, there is no such thing as a Japanese prisoner of war because once the Japanese lose, they either kill themselves or throw themselves into battle in the hopes of killing even a few more Americans before they perish. The Japanese prisoner of war is an invention of the Eastwood portrayal of the Japanese soldiers in World War II. We see two characters who have American values imbued in their soul. First, we see General Kumbayashi (played marvelously by Ken Wantanabe), a former American resident who befriends many while in the states and is even given a Colt .45 as a present from an American military official. We also see a young man, Saigo (played equally marvelously by Japanese pop singer Kazunari Ninomiya), who was forced to join the army and leave his bakery and his pregnant wife. His wife knows that a call to duty equals assured death. Yet, Saigo whispers to his child (we learn later that it is his daughter), still in the womb, that he will return to her.

Saigo’s bakery eventually was used for food for the soldiers and his equipment was required to make metal for the war effort. Therefore, Saigo has resentment for the military, not only because they ruined his business, but also because it took his child and wife away from him.

We see the American influence of brotherhood and looking out for your men many times explicitly (too much so even) by the actions of Kumbayashi, including the time he orders that Saigo and friend not be beaten, his order for the men not to commit mass suicide, etc. We don’t see Saigo wish to be American, but we see that he doesn’t wish to die in the way he must. He’s in a bind because if he tries to escape or surrender, then he had made an enemy in his own people. Therefore, the Americans and the Japanese would all be enemies of Saigo.

The one scene that is almost unbearably sad to watch is the one where many men do commit suicide by holding grenades to their chest. The different way each soldier pulled the grenade clip showed that these men have differing feelings about giving their lives to their country. In some ways, the ones that were killed immediately were luckier than the ones that actually had to choose and execute when and how they were to die.

Two scenes in the film didn’t work for me at all. The first scene involves a soldier who was discharged from his last assignment because he refused to kill a family’s dog with two children watching. Any scene involving animals in danger is usually cheap. I’ve never seen it any more cheaply done than in this scene simply because the scene had no reason at all to be in the film. It’s such an uncomfortable scene. What the hell does a dead dog really have to do with Iwo Jima? I get that it was trying to get a point across, but did it need to be shoved down our throats in a way that involved a dead dog? The second scene involves a soldier named Baron Nishi (Tsuyoshi Ihara) ordering morphine to a wounded and captured American soldier and then chatting with the soldier finding out all about him. That scene is so contrived—come on, this is war people! The human elements of these characters could have been presented less melodramatically. The flashback scene involving Saigo is much more low-key and yet, I cared about him more than any other character in Iwo Jima.

I found the Japanese philosophy amazing, and yet, I can see how this philosophy can be dangerous. When the human face is taken out of war, then war becomes less of a moral reality. I’ll admit something that I’m not comfortable admitting, but here goes—watching Flags, when I saw the Japanese soldiers, I couldn’t tell them apart. They all looked the same to me. By the end of Iwo Jima, I could definitely see that they are not all the same. They are different men with different personalities. It’s too bad the Japanese government didn’t realize that these men were individuals and as such should have been treated as individuals. Even in death, the soldiers are not recognized for their individual heroism. They are grouped together in life anonymously and they are grouped together in death anonymously as well.

Friday, April 11, 2008

Sense and Sensibility

Friday April 11, 2008

Sense and Sensibility (1995) ****1/2

Directed by Ang Lee

Without a doubt, Sense and Sensibility has one of the best casts in film history. Just listen to this group of names: Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet, Hugh Grant, Imelda Staunton, Tom Wilkinson, Hugh Laurie and Alan Rickman. Ang Lee’s direction is superb. This, along with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Brokeback Mountain, places Lee among the very greatest living directors. Sense and Sensibility transports us completely into nineteenth century England with gorgeous landscapes, excellent art design and costumes to die for.

For me, the best part about Sense and Sensibility was being introduced to Jane Austin’s perfectly crafted love story! Similar to many Austin works, here we have sisters (played by Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet) who, among other things, deal with the men in their lives. Some men they love from afar and some men love them from afar. Both sisters are lacking in ways that fully contrast the other sister. Elinor (Thompson) tries to be the stoic and not let her feelings show or get out of her control. Marianne (Winslet) on the other hand never holds anything back and often puts herself way out there only to be devastated when she is betrayed. The story centers around these two sisters, their family and many acquaintances. The supporting characters are plentiful and extremely colorful. My two favorite characters were the Palmers played hilariously by Imelda Staunton and Dr. House himself, Hugh Laurie.

Despite the list of top notch British actors, I felt the weakness of the film lies in many of the performances themselves. Austin’s novel and Thompson’s screenplay require the characters to sometimes break into romantic period dialogue. With the exception of Rickman, I don’t feel like any other performer pulled it off when they needed to. Whenever these melodramatically sweeping statements were uttered, I was taken out of the film because the delivery was not authentic at all.

Also, I didn’t feel like Thompson nor Winslet reached their potentials in these performances. Winslet comes across as mean, prickly and spoiled. I was not rooting for her at all. Thompson underplays her character most of the time to the point where she tends to be the blandest element in many scenes.

Finally, I like the guy, but Hugh Grant is absolutely awful and he and Thompson have no chemistry at all together. Grant’s idea of playing an upper class, insecure stiff is to stand like he’s upper class, insecure and stiff. I felt like he would get a neck cramp if he continued to stand that way. Further, the way he walked looked like he bought underwear a few sizes too small.

So, yes, Sense and Sensibility could have been acted better. Still, the direction is perfect! The screenplay is perfect! The mood is perfect! Many in the supporting cast (especially the great Alan Rickman) are perfect! That’s enough perfects to make the film a winner!

Il Postino

Friday April 11, 2008

Il Postino (1995) *****

Directed by Michael Radford

After seeing Braveheart and feeling baffled by the fact that it won the Best Picture Oscar in 1995, I mentioned that I hadn’t seen Il Postino nor Sense and Sensibility. I have Sense and Sensibility waiting next to my DVD player. I just finished Il Postino and I thought it was just lovely! Yet, I can’t really argue with any conviction that this should have won that year. To be honest, I’m surprised that it appealed to a larger American audience. The film doesn’t contain an ultra-focused narrative, and yet, it’s not trying to be different and unconventional. If anything, Il Postino seems to reside in the outskirts of a literal reality—in that place where we can appreciate and be inspired without completely abandoning ourselves or our awareness. This isn’t a film about emptying and enlightenment. On the other hand, the film isn’t trying to tell a simple satisfying story to a passive disengaged audience.

Il Postino challenged me to ponder beauty. The film was a spiritual and philosophical journey for me. I’m sensitive enough, though, to be willing to be pushed farther into this exploration. Il Postino seems to present this challenge in a non-threatening way, and therefore, it can be accused of being a light film. I think the film could have been more aggressively challenging. But it did challenge me to get in touch with that intimate, emotional, creative side of myself.

Il Postino uses heterosexual Italian men to tell the story. If this film were in the hands of Pedro Almodovar, it would no doubt be focused on female or homosexual male characters. I think the fact that we take this journey with men is brave and adds to the non-threatening way in which we can allow ourselves to be brought into this world of poetry and friendship.

The story of Marco and Pablo is really touching. Marco, played brilliantly by the late Massimo Troisi, develops in profound ways throughout the film and Troisi’s performance is spot on all the way through. He is very simple at the very beginning. We even get the sense that maybe he is mentally handicapped. As Pablo opens Marco up to this new world which Marco embraces, we realize that he is simply a person that has never been able to find purpose in his life. Pablo helped him find that purpose, leading him to make friends and eventually marry a young woman named Beatrice. Unfortunately, Marco, though he has everything necessary to be an independent and happy adult, grieves a bit too much when Pablo must return to Chile. Pablo is of course a very busy man who was able to befriend Marco only because he was in exile in Italy. Once Pablo returns to Chile, his entire life changes and his non-exilic schedule simply forgets about Marco.

The purpose of the end of the film can be seen in different ways. Pablo I’m sure feels guilty, yet at the same time, he should also feel proud. Yet, Pablo could have dramatically helped Marco avoid disaster had he simply kept in touch. I am also sure there’s some political metaphor in the film since Pablo is a communist icon, Marco becomes a communist and Marco’s boss is a communist. The one antagonist in the film is a democrat. I didn’t see the ultimate political message, and that’s fine with me since first of all, the politics are not distracting, and second, the personal story is what worked for me.

This is the first film I’ve seen in a long time that I really want to see again very soon. I am writing this ten minutes after seeing the film. I am sure that by tomorrow, I will be able to absorb the film more fully and therefore may have more insights. Seeing the film again I think would further allow for not only insight into the film, but insight into myself. In general, I am not looking to be forced to self-reflect after watching a movie. Il Postino did allow me to self-reflect but rather than feeling forced, I felt secure.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Braveheart

Thursday April 10, 2008

Braveheart (1995) **

Directed by Mel Gibson

Why oh why did Braveheart win the Oscar for best picture? At this point, I haven’t seen Il Postino or Sense and Sensibility. Granted, Babe and Apollo 13 are far from great cinematic achievements, but I find it so hard to believe that so many see Braveheart as better than mediocre. Mediocrity is one of the kinder words I’d use to describe the film.

Yes, the film looks great and its cinematography is excellent. So John Toll deserved the cinematography Oscar and I guess I’m not too upset with Mel Gibson winning the Oscar for Best Director, though I found some of the staging of the fight scenes wooden. When the camera focuses on William Wallace in battle, it looks like he is in some kind of Medieval Times stage show. Many of the battle scenes work well, but not one single kill of Wallace’s rang true for me. Yet, the film is epic and there are stylistic touches of Gibson’s that I really like. I enjoy when he goes into slow motion. The use of slow motion followed by a quick speed up back to slow motion was one of the touches that made The Passion of the Christ such a triumph. We see moments of the same touches here as well.

What’s sad is that the screenplay by Randall Wallace was nominated for an Oscar. Thank goodness it lost, but even awarding the truly awful writing with a nomination makes me very angry. The dialogue is so over the top, it could qualify for campy. Unfortunately for something to be campy, it has to be so bad it’s enjoyable. Braveheart isn’t campy because people in general don’t think anything about this film is bad.

Braveheart was a successful epic, so I’m guessing that moviegoers with questionable taste saw the film, enjoyed it, saw that it won best picture, and then became proud to announce their love of the film. After all, they loved a Best Picture winner!

Gibson’s acting isn’t terrible, but he has glimpses of that, “aww shucks,” disarming persona that I really like in general. He steps up at times to be courageous and tough, but I think the performance could have been bigger. It would have matched the overall tone of the film more successfully.

The film is filled with supporting characters ranging from Wallace’s men, to kings of both Scotland and England, to the families of the kings of both Scotland and England. There are too many characters to care about, and some of the characters are so completely ridiculous and in one case extremely offensive (we see the film’s homophobia in the character of the King of England’s son and the murder of his lover). The whole third hour of the film (before the final execution scene) involves the stories of many of these characters in detail. I didn’t care at all about anyone other than Wallace so why tell these stories? I did care about Wallace and what happened to him but there are whole sections of the movie that do not deal directly with him.

The best scene in the film is the final execution scene. It is very well done and very well photographed. It doesn’t hold back in its disturbing nature. If the film had been rewritten and edited, the whole film really could have been amazing! We see a glimpse of the film’s potential in this last scene.

The battle scenes themselves are grand. As a matter of fact, I’m guessing that these scenes ultimately account for the film’s accolades. Yet, we’ve seen battle scenes evolve in the past few years especially with the Lord of the Rings movies that these scenes seem manufactured, choppy and unimpressive in comparison. The film is violent, that’s for sure. Yet, I felt the battle scenes lack a bit of authenticity in the sense that there wasn’t much bloodshed. If someone were to be bashed in the head with a heavy ball on a chain, there would be blood splattering. The film is surprisingly not consistently gory.

This is at best a satisfactory example of a big budget historical epic. I don’t think Braveheart will stand the test of time. Its universal praise confuses and saddens me. By the way, I will only quickly mention how historically inaccurate the film must be. That being said, Gibson is extremely talented. I think The Passion of the Christ was a triumph. If Braveheart in any way allowed for The Passion to ultimately be made, then something good came out of Braveheart for me! I’m happy for the people that liked it. I’m happy and yet I don’t understand the appeal.

The Fugitive

Thursday April 10, 2008

The Fugitive (1993) ***1/2

Directed by Andrew Davis

When I conclude that a film is “overrated” I can usually understand why people enjoyed the film so much, even if I didn’t share their high praise. Of course, there are exceptions—Tootsie comes to mind right away. After watching The Fugitive for the first time, I do think the film is very overrated. That being said, I can definitely see why some people really embraced this film. For me, the film hit an artistic peak somewhere around the hour and fifteen minute mark, and then continued with typical, clichéd and marginally unimpressive scenes leading up to the climax.

Harrison Ford is one of the great everyman actors. No one can command the screen while talking so little. He’s got this amazing mix of masculinity and vulnerability. In The Fugitive, he also has to play a character that is extremely smart and quick thinking. He pulls this off very well! This is a typically wonderful Harrison Ford performance. It goes right on the list next to Blade Runner and Indiana Jones.

The revelation in the film is Tommy Lee Jones. I’m not exactly sure how old Jones was when playing the role, but he looked like he was a very healthy 40. His character was so confident and tough and yet extremely likeable. That’s not an easy task considering that for most of the film, he is the primary bad guy. If I didn’t know that he won an Oscar for the role, I might not have appreciated his performance as much as I did. This is not the typical movie and this is not the typical role which wins actors Oscars. Yet, Jones was absolutely deserving of the accolades. Without a doubt, this is the best performance I’ve seen in a modern action thriller. No other performance in this genre I can think of is even in the same league.

The scenes where Richard Kimble first has to escape to gain any sort of control are brilliant. The stand out scene of course is the one in the sewers that ends at the aqueduct. This scene has become iconic and understandably so. If people love The Fugitive because of this scene alone, I can understand that love. There are many other great scenes throughout. My favorite involves a boy that Kimble saves but risks and ultimately loses his cover doing so. These scenes are written so brilliantly and they really do feel plausible, which is saying something!

The film starts to become familiar when we move past the one armed man and get a surprise bad guy. Well, I guess it’s supposed to be a surprise, but I could tell from the acting early on that this person isn’t on the up and up. This bad guy is revealed after a complicated plot is explained involving characters we have only seen briefly in one opening sequence. The plot involves heart medicine, tissue samples, drug companies and ultimately results in the murder of Kimble’s wife. I had a real problem when the fight between Kimble and this bad guy results in the bad guy usually getting the punches and attacks in first. The character is so dopey and weak and Kimble is so resourceful, smart and strong that I didn’t believe for a second that Kimble shouldn’t be able to wipe the floor with this guy.

The final scene between Jones and Ford is great mostly because all of the unnecessary elements of the film have been stripped away. When the film rests on Jones and Ford’s shoulders, the result is exhilarating. When other shoulders enter the picture, we drift too closely into very familiar territory.

The Color Purple

Thursday April 10, 2008

The Color Purple (1985) *****

Directed by Steven Spielberg

I have to keep in mind the fact that the average moviegoer presently spends around ten dollars to see a film. Interestingly enough, people usually won’t spend their money on a movie that’s too long. I’d imagine a lengthy movie is one that many would avoid as a rule. Of course movies can be too long and this can sometimes be a frustrating and even oppressive experience.

Steven Spielberg, though, is a director that wants to give the movie audiences their money’s worth. Most of his films are long but no other director invests so much effort into making every scene exhilarating entertainment! The Color Purple is a joyous movie which didn’t need to be almost three hours long. It just seemed to me that Spielberg was happy to make this film as long as he could because the world that we inhabit by the end of the film is one that we don’t want to leave before we absolutely have to!

Surprisingly, this welcoming world at the end is completely opposite the world we enter into at the beginning of The Color Purple. On one hand, an R rating would have kept some audiences away who would have loved the movie. On the other hand, the subject matter the film deals with can be intense, disturbing and inappropriate for children to even have to think about. The film doesn’t just touch on, but delves into taboo topics such as rape, incest, torture, lesbianism and excruciating forms of both racism and sexism. I was turned off at first by the bleakness of the film. It seemed to wallow in its own sadism. Looking back on the film, I realize how important it is to paint the nightmare as explicitly as possible to really show the situation that enslaves Celie Johnson.

The film is not easy to watch. There are whole scenes that frustrated me and filled me with hatred and despair. It was absolutely worth it though to experience the emancipation of Celie and other characters as well. Also pleasantly surprising was the fact that a film which I earlier thought of as sadistic actually ends on a note of forgiveness and peace rather than revenge and cynicism. The film would have worked if it had ended angrier and I don’t think anyone would have disagreed that Albert would have had what was coming to him. But this film was trying to positively affect people’s ways of thinking. It definitely succeeded on me!

It’s hard to look at Whoopi Goldberg’s performance objectively. She is one of the most recognizable actresses in movie history and this was her breakout performance. I can only guess that I would have fallen in love with Whoopi had I seen the film in 1985. When she smiles into that mirror, her reflection is one of the most striking human faces I’ve ever seen. I don’t believe Hollywood knew what to do with her unique talent in the late eighties with such movies as Jumping Jack Flash, but she found her niche in the nineties with Ghost and Sister Act. Unfortunately, she had a pretty ordinary career and I think she’s extraordinary. She shined as Celie, and I don’t think any other actress could have pulled it off nearly as well. Even today, no one could do it justice.

And then there’s Oprah! Since I’m not an avid viewer of her TV show, I’m sad that she hasn’t made more films. She has so much presence on screen. Of course, the fact that she IS Oprah does add a massive dose of presence. But she hits the ball out of the park with her performance as Sofia. The character is odd and not exactly necessary. Had anyone else played Sofia, I’m not sure I would have liked her storyline. But because it was Oprah playing the role with such gusto, I think the movie wouldn’t be complete without Sofia. I absolutely adored Oprah in Beloved in 1996. The film is strange and pretty much forgotten about, but it’s worth it to see Oprah Winfrey act the hell out of her character!

The Color Purple is a powerful film—a wonderfully ambitious project. On the concept level, it’s very good. On an execution level, it’s divine. Could we expect anything less from Oprah Winfrey, Steven Spielberg and Whoopi Goldberg? I think not.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

There Will Be Blood

Wednesday April 9, 2008

There Will Be Blood (2007) ****1/2

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

Easily the most memorable use of a bowling alley I’ve ever seen in films. This is the second Daniel Day Lewis film I’ve seen this week after Gangs of New York. His performance in There Will Be Blood is similarly gigantic to Gangs. I think Daniel Day Lewis can act with over the top abandon better than any actor in history. Though, if he continues to define his career with these standout unrestrained scenes, he will no doubt cease to impress and begin to become a caricature. Therefore, I’d like to see Day Lewis play simpler roles—not only to avoid cartoonish typecasting, but also because he’s especially amazing in scenes where he doesn’t need to act larger than life.

The Daniel Plainview character starts off very real and charming. Day Lewis is extremely likeable. Going into the film, though, I knew that his character was ultimately going to be a monster, so I knew the kindness was just a façade. In that sense, I could pay attention to the layers of character Plainview inhabited. Daniel Day Lewis gives one of maybe the twenty best performances I’ve ever seen in this movie, and for me, the standout scenes were the ones in which he was playing a good guy.

Putting Day Lewis’ performance to the side for a second, Paul Thomas Anderson’s film is risky and extremely ambitious. There are scenes of filmmaking at its very best. From beginning to end, the film is engrossing and emotionally intense. The cinematography is gorgeous and the score succeeds as much as an intellectual exercise as it does a narrative support. The performances are first rate all around, especially by Paul Dano as the young minister Eli who considers himself a gifted charismatic prophet. The battle between Eli and Plainview over power within the community absolutely simmers with tension and brutal sincerity. Here are two men that pretty much have a stronghold on what they are offering. Ultimately, there is no reason why in theory these two men couldn’t coexist. Yet, Plainview is a man with issues to say the least. Eli also has issues, many of which aren’t revealed until the last scene. I won’t give away anything about the last scene, except to say that the scene could easily fit well within A Clockwork Orange.

What didn’t work for me, and what kept the film from true greatness, are two intermingled subplots involving Plainview’s son H.W. and his brother Henry. We get issues regarding both character’s identities. One surprise involving Henry is obvious from the first time Henry appears on screen. It simply doesn’t make sense that Plainview would be duped in the way he was. I guess it could be argued that Plainview was in control the whole time, but that seems stretching it for me. Further, the relationship with the son was meant to humanize Plainview for a while and then later to demonize him. I completely feel that he would have seemed human and then evil just fine without the little boy. The boy is quiet and creepy and mostly in the way. Daniel Day Lewis seems to be acting with a stuffed animal in their scenes together. The film flew by, but it is over two and a half hours long. The subplots could have been removed and the film still could have been over two hours.

There Will Be Blood is unforgettable. It’s imperfect but when it succeeds, which is most of the film, we are treated to filmmaking at its very best!

Grave of the Fireflies

Wednesday April 9, 2008

Grave of the Fireflies (1988) *****

Directed by Isao Takahata

In just 88 minutes, I was treated to one of the most profoundly heartbreaking and yet inspiring movie experiences I’ve ever seen. This is a must see!

The story is simple. A brother (Seita) and a sister (Setsuko) must survive after their mother dies following an air raid on Japan during a war (I’m guessing WW2). Their father, in the Navy, is not reachable. Seita, probably around age 15, and Setsuko, probably around age 3, begin by living with their aunt. The aunt is not exactly mean, but she’s not exactly nice either and feels that Seita is being selfish in not helping the war effort. Of course, Seita is doing all he can to not only survive with his sister, but also to keep her happy. When they decide to leave the aunt and try and survive on their own, things get worse. The food runs out and Seita needs to steal. Setsuko meanwhile is getting sicker and sicker from malnourishment. The ending is tragic and magical at the same time. That’s all I’ll say.

This may sound like a depressing film, and it is on one level. You pretty much watch these two children slowly waste away. But what’s amazing is the patience of the movie. This story could have been told in 30 minutes. But instead, it takes its time and really allows us to see the brother and sister share their lives with each other. Setsuko, especially, is a fascinatingly fully realized little girl. She’s far from perfect. She cries and complains—she’s a young child after all who’s in a horrible situation! Yet, she never allows the situation to break her spirit. She’s still able to laugh and play. This joy keeps Seita going, which is important since he is the one keeping them alive by finding food and shelter. Setsuko keeps them alive by still embracing life! She is thrilled by the mystical fireflies gathered one evening, and that happiness touches Seita! Even when she must dig a grave for the dead fireflies, she soberly ponders why they must die so quickly while recalling her mother’s death. Setsuko comes to understand the world as a place of magic and possibility which is just as important as food and shelter in surviving a world which to an adult (or even to an emerging adult like Seita) can be seen as bleak and hopeless.

The last months of their young lives were difficult—but they were far from awful! They were filled with moments of magical discovery and optimistic existence. The film does not go overboard—it’s far from a feel good movie. It presents a perfect and brilliant balance. This kind of balance is not easy considering we are talking about Japanese anime, dying children and war! This is one of the truly great films ever made!

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Reds

April 8, 2008

Reds (1981) ****1/2

Directed by Warren Beatty

Reds is too ambitious and too long. It’s unfocused and Diane Keaton is miscast in her role as Louise Bryant. That all being said, Reds is still an excellent film! Warren Beatty directs magnificently, and I’ve never seen him give even close to as good a performance as he does portraying Jack Reed in Reds.

Maureen Stapleton, who won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for her role as Emma Goldman, is a revelation. I’ve only seen Stapleton in a handful of films and usually only in comedic roles. Seeing her understated and pitch-perfect performance was a delight.

Jack Nicholson, on the other hand, gives one of his worst performances. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but he actually underacts. Unfortunately, Jack Nicholson just can’t pull off understatement. Both he and Diane Keaton share the same problem. Neither one is sexy, and we are supposed to believe that the appeal of these characters draws them together.

Keaton has never been one of my favorite actresses. She is perfect in Annie Hall and in movies like Something’s Gotta Give because she has to be insecure and yet awkwardly loveable. This film requires Keaton to be strong, and she mistakes overacting for strength.

Putting these qualms aside, Reds uses a narrative structure that I don’t think I’ve ever seen before. It intermingles interviews with 80-somethings who really knew Jack Reed and Louise Bryant within the film’s epic narrative. This works extremely well for two reasons. First of all, it grounds the melodrama in reality. If these real people weren’t recollecting the events, then a scene where Louise is watching a bunch of wolves running in Finland would be absolutely ridiculous. The coincidences which push the story forward would have lost their credibility completely. Second, these people didn’t overshadow the movie. They aren’t saying anything that is too important. The danger could have been that the old people were more involving than the younger actors. That wasn’t the case at all. The stars of the film were the actors. The old people were simply supporting players enriching the film.

The history of the socialist and communist movements in America was presented in a very brave way. At first, I thought the film was going to be some kind of left-wing heroic historical presentation of socialist ideals. That wasn’t the case at all. It’s true that communists were not portrayed villainously. As a matter of fact, I could see the appeal at first. Yet, by the end of the film, I hated socialism and communism. Jack Reed still loved it and unfortunately, that is what ultimately destroyed him. It was brilliant to be able to go along on the journey with this ideology—through its ups and ultimate downs. I felt compassion and enlightenment both at the same time.

Reds is a huge film—too huge—but it’s a special film. There are so many ways in which this film could have failed. It did fall into some deep holes, but ultimately, thanks to Beatty’s spectacular acting and direction, it succeeded!

Four Weddings and a Funeral

Tuesday April 8, 2008

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) **1/2

Directed by Mike Newell

Four Weddings was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar in 1994, and for that reason I decided watched the film. Four Weddings lost to Forrest Gump which is unarguably a much better film. 1994 was also the year of Pulp Fiction, so yeah, I’m pretty glad this movie lost. In the last few months, I’ve been trying to watch all of the important movies that are out there. I’ve gone between AFI’s 100 Greatest, Roger Ebert’s Great Movies, Academy Award Nominees for Best Picture and Filmspotting’s Marathons. As such, I haven’t seen many bad movies at all lately. Four Weddings isn’t a bad movie--it’s just not a good one. As a matter of fact, it is the first disappointing movie I’ve seen since Rebel without a Cause which I watched a couple of weeks ago.

It needs to be said that Four Weddings has some wonderful elements. Hugh Grant, in his breakout role which turned him into a megastar, is fantastic. He’s not just awkward and blubbering—he’s terrifically awkward and blubbering! The supporting cast of characters is quirky, interesting and memorable. There are some jokes and sequences that are extremely funny, including a hilarious sequence featuring Rowan Atkinson as a priest.

So what doesn’t work? Well, Andie MacDowell for one. She is stiff, not attractive and completely miscast. She’s not all to blame since her character is a mean spirited tease. Yet, MacDowell has no charisma in this role, and she simply doesn’t look very pretty. This is odd since I remember her looking amazing in Groundhog Day. She was radiant in that film. In this one, she is yawn inducing. Also, Hugh Grant’s character is not all that nice of a guy. He’s selfish at times, which makes me not want to root for him to get the girl. By the end, I didn’t want the two of them to get together. The story is a Romantic Comedy with a capital R and a capital C. Therefore, they have to get together at the end. So do we get the two of them together at a wedding? Well, that would be too cliché I suppose. So, the film comes up with another option which feels a bit forced and not at all clever.

I also didn’t like the fact that every supporting character that has a speech about loneliness is given a wedding photo at the end. The ways in which these people meet their mates are quick and silly. Therefore, at the end, you see a bunch of people you come to like stand next to people that we don’t care anything about. Honestly, I felt more creeped out than happy while looking at their wedding photos.

The ultimate problem with Four Weddings and a Funeral is that I didn’t care for the lead couple. I cared a lot more for the supporting players. Some do have moments to shine (especially in the funeral scene) but I wish the film had been more about anyone other than the main couple.