Change Your Image
tj1screen
Reviews
The Black Dahlia (2006)
Cinematography Soars while Storyline Suffers
Brian DePalma's new film THE BLACK DAHLIA is cinematically gorgeous and carries us deep into film noir territory . . . from the gritty streets to its bluesy musical track to the crisp Elmore Leonard dialogue. The sets and wardrobes are straight out of the 1940s, and we instantly feel we're in the hands of a master.
However, the storyline is obtuse and leaves the viewer floundering for far too long to remain emotionally invested in these characters. The film ends with a flurry of explanations and activity which are supposed to tie up lose ends and provide reasonable explanations for what ensued; however, my viewing companions and I were past caring and became more interested in just exiting the theater.
The film starts with an involved boxing match which serves to provide explanation as to how these two cops started working together - which must be why we're shown each bone-cracking, kidney-pounding punch - mostly in slow motion. There's nothing that says "Let's be friends" like punching the incisors out of someone's head.
Every film noir needs its femme-fatale, and she's provided here by Scarlett Johanssen. I respect this actress, but was disappointed in her in SCOOP, with her faux damsel-in-distress face in close-up . . . which is used a lot in BLACK DAHLIA to equal ineffectiveness. There was so much potential in her earlier work which promised more depth from Scarlett.
Which actor shines here? By far, it's Aaron Eckhardt. His performance - and Hilary Swank's - pop out from the screen. Mia Kirschner is very palpable as the unfortunate, hapless Elizabeth Short. And Fiona Shaw is undeniably fascinating as the unbalanced entitled heiress. Josh Hartnett does a competent journeyman job as co-star.
But in the end, it's the story which torpedoes our empathies - not the casting, which some reviews want to rest the blame. The film could easily forgo the 15-minute boxing scene to concentrate upon the complex storyline for a more satisfying film - and a more satisfied audience.
One: The Movie (2005)
Earnest for Sure, But Short on Delivery
Here's a small film which is heart-felt and earnest, driven by pure motives to try to unite a divided nation and calm our fears and bedraggled nerves. So why am I about to rain on its parade?
As much as I respect the film and the attempts of the filmmakers, I must say I quickly became bored by the constant "golly-gee-whiz" factor of the filmmakers' incessant reminder that this is their first film - they're not professional filmmakers - but this is their first film - but they never made a film before - so they bought a camera and made their first film. How about that?!
Their access to high places in the world of religious thinkers is impressive. Unfortunately, the film is so heavily edited that these great thinkers only get to deliver sound bites; we don't get to hear a lot of reasoning behind the comment or the verbal pathway of thinking which brought the talker to this particular comment. Heavy philosophical questions cannot be answered in 20-second segments - even if you do string several such segments together.
The final groaner for me was the character (who comes to symbolize "any thinking person") as he takes a cliché-ridden journey to enlightenment.
I went to this film with another person who agreed with my complaints, and yet she was quite moved by this film and would recommend it to anyone. My recommendation is not as glowing. If you liked WHAT THE BLEEP, there's a 60/40 chance you'll enjoy ONE. But turn off that little film critic inside your head first.
Must Love Dogs (2005)
You MUST LOVE DOGS to enjoy this film
MUST LOVE DOGS is a run-of-the-mill cute love story that Hollywood creates to make us all sigh about how wonderful it is to fall in love. Unless you're 14 years old, you've seen this film 1,000 times before now.
What first rankles is how obvious it is that everyone is "acting" and delivering dialogue as they memorized it; i.e., each character feels quite fake, although they are spouting banter at a brisk pace. Even John Cusack's character is delivering dialogue which the actor is unable to honestly deliver. There's no reality, warmth, or sincerity to this love story. Bad writing? Must be, because the list of good actors is impressive. But even the dogs can't sell their lines.
The second misstep is how the director broadcasts everyone's next move. There are no real surprises here - anywhere! - and you just sit there and sigh as things unfold in a most predictable manner . . . except there are dogs, but alas, they too act predictably.
And finally, this film sells the concept that most men - except for John Cusack - are just oblivious users and hound-dogs for whom women must make allowances. Case in point: Diane Lane's father (played by the wonderful Christopher Plummer who is the only reason I can give this film 2 stars) who surrounds himself with all three of his current lady-friends at family functions and decides which one he will sleep with that night, while foisting off the two unwanted women onto his family to drive home. Yet even the jilted females shrug it off because "he's worth it".
Not a film for cinephiles; you MUST LOVE DOGS to enjoy this barker.
Happy Endings (2005)
The Film is Flawed - but Performances Are Not
While the unemployed critic eloquently delineates the failings of Roos, HUGE kudos must be awarded to Kudrow, Cannavale and Gyllenhaal for making the film watchable. Both character realization & acting were superb. Gyllenhaal is brave to exude a most unlikeable female; yet she is so interesting & complex, you cannot keep hating her. Kudrow's maturity - both physically and as an actress - is enthralling. These two deep yet luminous performances keep the film from sinking under the heavy weight of too many characters & lazy explanation cards and limp script and direction. With her hairstyle, Kudrow very much reminded me of Catherine Keener and is growing into her ability to give us a character of depth - not just crazy mannerisms. Also, Bobby Cannavale from THE STATION AGENT was terrific too.
The Notebook (2004)
The most manipulative melodramatic P.O.S. since THE PASSION
Zero stars . . .
Okay, I too saw THE NOTEBOOK at the Seattle Film Festival,and while I heard the sniveling, I have to say this was the most manipulative piece of sh** I've probably ever seen . . . and I've watched independent and mainstream stuff for over 20 years. In fact, I've been to chiropractors who haven't manipulated me as much as this film tried to do.
First off, the dialogue is as original as a romance novel - trite and insipid. Second, the main characters get what they want in a very easy manner . . . dream houses virtually build themselves . . . war injuries appear most conveniently while adding atmospheric melodrama . . . everybody is so Hollywood gorgeous regardless of the circumstances and can spout cute non-sequitors endlessly as the tearducts warrant. The film just screams "LOVE ME . . . LOVE ME !!! . . . and check out the cute outfits I'm wearing in each scene . . . "
And this is just the young romance part of the film. Cut now to 50 years later wherein Altzheimers ravages one of the protagonists, and now you get to the REALLY sappy heart of the story. She can't remember ANYTHING about their love life or family, and James Garner courageously reads their love story to her on a daily . . . I said DAILY basis. . . .while candle-lit, 4-star dinners miraculously appear courtesy of the ultra-nurturing nursing staff of the Altzheimer facility. What is their hope . . . that this 70 or 80-something couple will get it on one last time?? Folks, I've just helped an aged auntie get "managed care" from a nursing home who couldn't care less whether she lived or died from her heart surgery. Am I expected to believe an aged care facility cares whether or not she gets romantically connected and laid??????????????
God, this is so trite and manipulative, I cannot continue with my complaints..
Yes, those wanting a Hollywood manipulative empty, cry-baby experience will get everything they want from this film - IF they haven't seen Ali McGraw in LOVE STORY or BRIAN'S SONG, neither of which are a better film - they're just older, exploitative films. And what really irks this film lover is that THE NOTEBOOK will most probably gross a truck-load of $$, while lesser-known foreign and independent films dealing with this subject matter in a more human, less manipulative fashion fall off the face of the earth.
Moulin Rouge! (2001)
This was not a movie; it was a full assault of the senses
I have seen hundreds of films which have enthralled me, manipulated me, or just plain made me angry, but never have I endured a more tortuous film than MOULIN ROUGE 2001. I admire Baz Luhrman, Ewan MacGregor and even Nicole Kidman; however, I would never again submit myself to the abuse that MOULIN ROUGE 2001 delivers. I felt as if I had been inside a riot - not a movie house. In fact, the only factor missing would have been a full frontal blast of mace in the face to complete the full riot effect. The plot is insipid, sophomoric, banal and overdone; the acting is so completely over the top that it makes opera look like everyday life; and the hyperactive MTV-look-alike camera-work makes my hyperactive child look like Mr. Rogers.
Baz Luhrman wants your attention so badly in this film that he's ready to hurt you to get it. Too bad he had nothing to say.
zero stars - and a bad after-taste to boot.