Change Your Image
DrLovelick
Reviews
Open Range (2003)
FINALLY A WESTERN THAT ISN'T DRY!
Being a coordinator at one of the most popular San Francisco theatres around, the Embarcadero Center Cinema, I had the liberty of staying for a screening of Kevin Costner's latest directorial effort, `Open Range.' In addition, I hanged out afterwards to be at this Q&A session with Kevin Costner himself, being conducted by Edward Guthmann of the San Francisco Chronicle.
BEFORE READING THIS REVIEW, PLEASE BE AWARE THERE ARE SPOILERS!
OPEN RANGE (dir: Kevin Costner): ****
So many westerns made these days are married with style and little substance. To me, it almost feels as if you're making a period piece where actors are not really trying to embody the characters they play but rather trying to make an impression. Same goes with costumes and makeup. They make the characters so shiny and elegant looking, that everything feels artificial. In the case of Westerns, being that they take place years back into the 19th century, you often wonder... Is this the way everyone behaved and everything looked back in those times?
The Western genre has been deemed to be old and tiresome, as if it's grown duller as the years have passed. People say the Western genre is dying. Is it really dying or are people not bothering to actually write decent stories? Nothing's really dead unless it's been made the exact same way over and over again.
It is to the great credit of Kevin Costner that he does not make this mistake in directing "Open Range." Unlike many Westerns which present themselves in the obvious, classy good ol' times feel to them, this one keeps its eye on the story the whole time. In fact, this movie gets so caught up in telling the story, it's as if we're not reminded that we're watching a Western.
There is something very inspired in the way Costner sets this film up versus most pictures which are made these days, Western or not. Unlike most filmmakers who start their movies off with a great attention grabber, don't follow up that moment with more interesting images and depth, and leave the ending unsatisfying, Costner builds and builds on the narrative of `Open Range' as the movie progresses. At first one might not feel that compelled at the beginning. The movie starts off with credits rolling in front of a vast landscape but nothing instant to grab people. If this is a turnoff for people, then perhaps they need to be more patient. If one were to actually allow `Open Range' to progress, then they'd be very interested as minutes pass.
And what to come in the narrative are images and moments which you never would expect in an average Western picture.
1) Lack of subplot- In a lesser film such as `Texas Cowboys' or `American Outlaws,' you'd have the narrative quickly move from one scene to another without much time to really get to know the characters. In `Open Range,' plot isn't the main concern here. Costner is more interested in focusing on the story as a character study. No MTV-style cutting nor overly-stylistic, camera moving panoramic shots (a la Michael Bay's films) to be found here.
2) No larger-than-life heroes. Here we have Costner and Robert Duvall playing characters (Charley Waite and `Boss' respectively) who while are the lead characters and virtually in every scene (either together or separate), the texture of the two does not overwhelm any other character. While `Open Range' is far from having the style of filmmaking that Italian Neorealism uses, it still takes consideration in showing mainly how characters fit in society, instead of having them trying to show off cool tricks solely for entertainment purposes. Charley and Boss are basically two guys who have lots of morals and if they screw up, they know that they should try to improve on their mistakes. In fact, both Charley and Boss much different characters that you would expect.
Charley has a good heart but in reality, his violent actions have made his decisions irrational. When Charley tries to kill one of Baxter's (Michael Gambon) goons after he's wounded in cold blood, Boss tells him that if he does, his actions won't be any different than Baxter and his men's. Kevin Costner, in one of his better performances, shows how Charley is often an insecure man who is trying his best to be a good. In a way, Charley's violent nature is comparable to the Henry Oak character Ray Liotta plays in `Narc,' except in a more subtle way.
Boss (played by Robert Duvall in a performance that should win him a Best Actor nomination) may be smarter than Charley but he's really not acting as if he's a show off. He's really trying to be there to keep Charley in check. Boss is probably the most moralistic out of any character in `Open Range' because he's the one who believes in common sense, while being considerate towards others. Take for instance when bringing Button (Diego Luna) in to get cared for, he asks Sue (Annette Bening) how much her services will cost. Sue doesn't feel she should charge him but Boss insists on paying her. In a way, Boss believes people should work hard and always deserve a reward for their labor.
3) Charley and Sue's relationship in this film does not involve sex and does not cut to the kissing too quickly. Rarely are relationships in film ever about the slow progress of real relationships. There's this scene where Charley sees Sue start to clean the dishes, prompting him to volunteer to take over cleaning the dishes in the sink and insisting that Sue take a breather. At this moment, you would expect `Open Range' to rush to the kissing, leaving Charley and Sue's conversation forced. Not so. Charley is clearly attracted to Sue but instead of saying she's a pretty girl or hitting on her, he talks about other things such as what may happen to Button (Diego Luna) and what Boss is dealing with. The result of this scene is something very real and completely the opposite of the relationship Costner and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio had in `Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.' Here we have not a sexual or lust moment but rather a moment when Charley simply wants to be a good man and ease Sue's pain. Then at the end of `Open Range,' Charley and Sue finally kissing each other (for the first time!). However, no overly sentimental soap opera is to be found here. Instead, we see Charley and Sue as real, imperfect people, not as lovers with speaking typical, soppy, `I love you this' `I love you that' dialog.
4) Remember Diego Luna from `Y Tu Mama Tambien?' In case you never knew, Luna played Tenoch, the brown haired best friend of Julio. Well in here, instead of Luna creating a character who is always trying to remind us he's Spanish, he develops his character of Button as if he was another person living his life. In fact, no person in `Open Range' ever has a sensitivity issue towards Button being Spanish nor does he get glorified into a stereotypical Spanish individual. The only time where you think anything is being discussed about Button's Spanish background is when Charley mentions to Sue that he found Button homeless in Texas (which of course is right next to part of Mexico). However, that implies, more than it explains.
5) There is hardly any makeup. Here Kevin Costner's intention supposedly is to make `Open Range' authentic enough that to not include makeup would mean to see the flawed skin and emotions of characters a lot easier than if they had pounds of powder touched densely all over their faces.
6) There's a scene when Charley is to save a terrier dog from being swept away in a flood in town. Instead of the sequence being a long, triumphant scene of excitement, it becomes more reality-based. Here Charley tries to and successfully grab the dog from being drowned in water and everything is quiet. No music present.
7) In the end shootout scene, you'd expect the villagers to crowd around left and right in town, leaving the road as the center point of the shootout. Instead of that happening, many villagers actually leave town! Realistically, potential violence doesn't necessarily provoke people to want to see it.
I could go on and on about the many clichés `Open Range' has avoided but that's enough for you to get the idea. Essentially if you are expecting an action type of Western, you're in for the wrong film. There is really only one big action sequence but it doesn't occur until near the end. By this time, we'd have gotten to know Charley, Boss, Sue, and Button so well, that when this action sequence happens, you really care for their well-being. It's as if Kevin Costner holds off on really doing much action of any sort until the end, simply because to have action occur without any character development prior would leave the viewer empty.
In this action sequence, which doesn't involve as much dialog as others scenes do, we are treated in one of the most visually stunning and exciting shootout sequences since the big battle scene in `The Wild Bunch.' Costner cuts back and forth and back and forth as a way of showing tension between Charley & Boss's side, Baxter and his men, the villagers, Sue, and Button. How this sequence starts and ends, I will not tell. All I can say is that the payoff is striking and the timing of this sequence is amazing. And how the `Open Range' cuts from one shot to another showing gunshots going off. If anyone ever complained about such shots in Tomb Raider: Cradle of Life being unexciting, you will be relieved when you see this sequence in `Open Range.' It's a masterful sequence of quick editing and timing that should earn the film another Academy Award Nomination at least for Best Film Editing.
As much as I want to emphasize `Open Range' is heading the Western genre in exactly the right direction as it should be going, I found there to be one fault in it: the villains. Whereas all of the good people in this movie are richly detailed, the bad guys (including Baxter) just seem too evil. I remember Ain't It Cool News' Harry Knowles saying he got sick and tired of the villains whom act and think in the sense of, `ewww, I'm so evil!' and have the traditional sinister grins on their faces. However, considering `Open Range' is a fiction film and is really trying to give us a statement on moral values, being so focused on developing three-dimensional villains isn't as important. It helps but it could be a lot worse. `Open Range' could have been very mediocre as whole.
By the way, it would be harsh not to mention the late Michael Jeter. As many people have raved about him ever since he died, Jeter gives one of his greatest, if not the best, performances as Percy, the man whom Charley and Boss have the best relationship in town. Every moment Jeter has on screen is memorable and timeless. His acting shows Percy as a humane and very considerate man, one that anyone would want to have as a friend. And the moments in which Jeter appears on screen with Costner and Duvall in the shootout scene just makes you want to love Jeter even more. May he rest in peace.
Anyway, onto the Q&A session. Now I was told that Kevin Costner was going to answer questions after `Open Range' ended. What I wasn't prepared was how honest Costner was in responding to whatever people in the audience had to ask him. I don't remember what the exact questions were but I'll summarize a few things Costner said throughout the session.
1) Costner made a statement saying something along the lines of, `a film's value is worth more than its box office gross, no matter if you show it to someone 5 years or 20 years from now.'
2) Costner went about how he feels Westerns made these days are dull and have more style than substance, that they have little recognition for history.
3) He also was modest enough to actually admit he made mistakes in his career. What was nice was that Costner went into detail about how certain films he's starred in have had great stories but that in the post-production stage, they got butchered up to the lowest common denominator.
4) Costner also mentioned Michael Jeter was a great actor whom he misses. He said he showed Jeter `Open Range' about two weeks (maybe even more) before he died.
So that's about all I have to say. Now my last words. If you are a great fan of the Western genre and have wanted to see a worthy Western for so long, please do not avoid seeing `Open Range.' I can guarantee you it is NOT crap, forgettable entertainment as plenty of movies these days tend to be. Also, `Open Range' is the film that has redeemed Costner for sure from `The Postman.'
A Mighty Wind (2003)
FORGET the past reviewer! THIS FILM IS HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!
First I want to start off by bringing up a couple of points...
1) Ever since 9/11, comedy has been in higher demand than in previous years. The norm of this country seems to be in the need for a relief after that horrible tragedy and comedy most certainly works in this case. After all, having a good laugh makes one feel better versus being subjected to a depressing drama.
2) This is just my personal taste but quite honestly, American comedy films of recent years have been DREADFUL. I'm talking about 85% of comedies released for the past decade. Hardly any of them ever seem to be inspired or original. It almost makes me want to turn to the British, who generally make much wittier comedies.
That being said, I think Christopher Guest has proven that he's one of the few exceptions of filmmakers working in America who actually makes comedies that are inspired, instead of raunchy sex stories or tired formulas that seem to recycle one cliché after another. Seeing "Waiting for Guffman" and "Best in Show" made me wonder why there aren't comedies like these opening up every week in our multiplexes. Moments in these films just come straight out of leftfield, versus a comedy such as "American Pie" which you can predict most of what's going on.
However, I will go on record and say that "A Mighty Wind" is not only flat out HILARIOUS, it's the best comedy released in the United States since "Best in Show." How ironic that I feel this way for a film that's written and directed by Christopher Guest, as is "Best in Show." Sorry but "Rat Race" is not THAT funny and neither is Scary Movie nor its sequel.
Now I did mention that in Christopher Guest's films, there are moments which just come out of leftfield. This is very much the case with "A Mighty Wind." There are lines and moments in this film which you can never expect to happen. What makes them work even better is having a cast of very talented and funny actors. Eugene Levy, Fred Willard, Catherine O'Hara, Harry Shearer, Michael McKean, Christopher Guest, Larry Miller, Jennifer Coolidge, John Michael Higgins, Parker Posey, and so on.
I don't want to go into spoilers because I'd rather you see the film for yourself but I shall go into the summary. A folk concert is in the process of being set up in dedication to the recent death of fictional legendary folk singer, Irving Steinbloom. In charge of the project is one of Steinbloom's sons Jonathon (Bob Balaban). The target is to get three groups of folk music singers to perform at the concert. Each of these groups has their own history. The New Main Street Singers are a modernized group of the Main Street Singers, a group whose lead singer (Paul Dooley) ends up being a part of the New Main Street Singers. The Folksmen (Christopher Guest, Michael McKean, and Harry Shearer in a trio for the first time since This is Spinal Tap!) are to perform for the first time together in years. Unlike the New Main Street Singers, the Folksmen do a lot of their own writing and a lot more improvising. They show a lot more passion for folk singing. Mitch & Mickey (Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara) on the other hand, are a duo singing much like Simon & Garfunkel who divorced long ago and have yet to easily make it to the concert because of Mitch's reluctance to perform again.
The highlights of "A Mighty Wind" are as follows...
Eugene Levy- This performance is in a complete 360 degree turn than any of his roles in "Waiting for Guffman" and "Best in Show." Playing a singer who has done quite a history of drugs and doesn't speak as quickly as Mickey is quite an achievement. It's more as if Levy is not playing Levy as he has done in previous films. You can hardly recognize him in the makeup.
Fred Willard- Just as in "Best in Show," he STEALS this film, portraying Mike LaFontaine, the manager of the New Main Street Singers. Here he brags about a failed sitcom he stared in called "Wha Happened?" and has the idea that maybe the New Main Street Singers could incorporate parts of the show into their act at the upcoming memorial concert. Willard seems to be having the most fun out of anyone in "A Mighty Wind," literally having the best lines.
Jennifer Coolidge- I won't go into details about her character Amber Cole but she comes unexpectedly hilarious, much more than she was in "Best in Show."
Ed Begley Jr. - If you recall in the trailer, he mentioned, "I made a song that you might have heard of... WHODALEGEDHEDAHOOMEN... which means, how's it hangin' Grandma." Well, if you thought that was funny, wait until you hear the history of Ed Begley Jr's character (forget his name but he's a TV producer) as he's mentioning the song.
The most surprising element of this film isn't the fact that it's funny but that the three groups performing actually can sing. Every actor did his/her own singing so when you hear the songs and the lyrics, you're laughing not because of the lyrics but that these singers can actually sing these silly lyrics so well.
After seeing "A Mighty Wind," there was just one problem I had with it. It wasn't long enough! Well, that's just a feeling I had because I wanted to see more of these outrageous characters. The 92 minute running time seems appropriate but I desired more. Here's hoping that Christopher Guest's next feature will promise this demand.
In the time being, I suggest that you all should take a look at the "A Mighty Wind" website and view several video clips. It may come as a shock to you but none of these clips actually made it into the film. One of these clips you might know from the trailer, where Mike LaFontaine (Fred Willard) spits water out of his mouth right next to Jonathon Steinbloom (Bob Balaban) and says, "Excuse me but I must be full." That clip isn't in fact in the film itself. So the website is a little added bonus.
Anyway, that's about all I have to say as far as reviewing "A Mighty Wind." Like I said spoilers will just not make you laugh as much. Even if you find the film to be a disappointment, it's better to say that after seeing a film without spoilers than to be spoiled and then be forced to laugh.
I will insist this film is VERY FUNNY. You should be very pleased.
Pips Orcille
Beast Wars: Transformers (1996)
This series has a great story? Gimme a break!
I'm sorry but I think people who love Beast Wars are so gullible, they'll be willing to watch anything that has to do with Transformers. Those new Transformers series are painfully, PAINFULLY awful, such as the Car Robots and Robots in Disguise shows you see on the Cartoon Network.
Beast Wars, to say the least isn't as demented as those shows but it's pretty lousy. The computer animation actually distracts and seems out of place. The G1 Transformers series was more glorious and alive, partly because it was more adventurous and the animation actually seemed to fit. Beast Wars is more noise and action. There's very little character development, whereas with G1 Transformers, you got to know the robots and their character and how they seemed to fit amongst other Transformers.
The Secret of NIMH (1982)
This is a film which understands the meaning of animation
"Don's first feature is lovingly animated but the differences from the book annoyed me. First of all there's the name change - Frisby to Brisby. Why? Secondly there's Jenner. Tiger & the Tractor & The Humans were threats enough in the book. Jenner was only mentioned. Thirdly there's the magic. The mice & rats managed perfectly well without it. It was an unnecessary embellishment. My other complaint is that the NIMH scenes are passed over too quickly.
So what's good about it? Jeremy, Martin & The Shrew are the best characters. I like Flying Dreams. The animation is good. Not bad for an initial film but he has made better since. 6/10"
I find it amazing that someone goes and criticizes a glorious film such as "Secret of NIMH" for inaccuracies such as "Frisby being changed to Brisby" and that "Jenner was only hinted" which would have been better not changed for a supposedly better adaptation of a book. I don't suppose these people realize it is DIFFICULT to adapt a film from a book. Books aren't written to be cinematically and you must realize that even if you're a huge fan of the book. If you ere making a film off of it, you'd still have to make changes. It's just the way it goes. Peter Jackson was an incredible lover of the Lord of the Rings trilogy but even he realized that making a by-the-numbers adaptation would just make the films dull. So he had to leave out or change a few things.
So what if filmmakers change a few things? This isn't a true story nor is it based on anything immediately important in today's world such as terrorism. Fiction is fiction is fiction. People have GOOD reasons for changing things.
Anyway, I'd like to add that there's a lot of garbage cartoon features in today's society. Disney films have just gotten WORSE and WORSE and WORSE and very few people seem to realize that animated features these days try too hard to win children's emotions or even gear themselves to being appealing. All these horrible, annoying songs we have to witness in Disney films are absolutely forgettable and in addition, people seem to look at animation as a different genre. It isn't! It's another technique of making film. It just requires the hand more than actually filming live-action. Few filmmakers and studios seem to realize this besides those in the independent world.
"Secret of NIMH" has INCREDIBLE colors. The detail you see in the foreground and background puts a lot of variety. This isn't some computer generated Pixar film. These are REAL, hand-drawn, full-blood images with more labor and energy than even an entire computer can lay out. Plus the animation is FLAWLESS. Here you see emotions being drawn out as if they're real emotions on a human being or creature. Every cartoon feature or TV episode has its drawbacks as far as keeping the drawings consistent with the plot, action, and even being quite simply realistic. I didn't notice those problems in this film.
I must also add that while "Secret of NIMH" might not be 100% faithful to the book, as a cinematic experience it's wonderful. As I've said before, here we have a film which takes the story seriously and doesn't turn it into an overly sentimental, manipulative Disney film. A lot of characters in this film are actually well-realized. Most of them are not flat. We realize their reason for existed in this film and even Jenner, the villain of this story, is three-dimensional as a character. His sole purpose for having greed and wanting to take over as the leader of the rats is because of Nicodemus trying to say that the rat race has become very intelligent and would cause a problem if more and more grew and went beyond the rose bush. In fact, the "Nimh" story is the most fascinating element. There's actually a reason behind why the rats talk, which is much different than any film ever made in history. All these other animated films put non-human characters in the narrative and have them talk but there's never a backstory as to why they speak. "Secret of NIMH" puts a backstory and by doing that, the result is fresh and unique.
Mrs. Brisby as a character is very intelligent and well developed. In a lesser film, she'd have less to do or say. Here we see Mrs. Brisby as a character who is in fact a great woman role model, even as a mouse. I'm especially touched in the conversations Brisby has with crow, Jeremy (wonderfully voiced by Dom DeLuise) in how Jeremy could find the right girl. Even this isn't played out as a cheesy joke. This even explains why Jeremy, although clumsy, isn't a stupid sidekick. He has feelings and wants to help a lot but ends up getting into trouble.
Plus the end fight scene with Justin and Jenner is exciting, even for an animated film. It's illustrated in a triumphant musical score by Jerry Goldsmith.
By the way, in my book this film deserves a 10/10.
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
Wait, is this supposed to be the Grinch??
I'm sorry but this film is not a good adaptation of a Dr. Seuss book. I don't think director Ron Howard understands the bizarre worlds which Dr. Seuss created. Of course, the production designers made the set look close enough to the world Seuss created in his books but the film turns into yet another would-be fantasy which doesn't take the weirdness into consideration besides the set. Jim Carrey turns in a performance that's just inappropriate for the Grinch or even the books. In fact, the Grinch in this film looks nothing like the Grinch in the books. He looks more like a mouse than a Grinch.
I'm telling you, hire Tim Burton to make every live-action adaptation of Dr. Seuss's books and everything will be just fine.
Narc (2002)
Actually, I would compare this film to William Friedkin and Sidney Lumet's work
I'm not saying "Narc" is as great as "French Connection" or any other great cop films done by William Friedkin but it's moving into a step in the right direction. So many cop films and series I see these days are about action and not about the psyche involved in these characters. I admit "Narc" has cliched elements to it but it really takes its time to get you involved in Nick Tellis (Jason Patric) and Henry Oak (Ray Liotta). This film is essentially about character, not action. I swear, Joe Carnahan really knows how to direct actors because he seems to get very realistic and three-dimensional performances out of Liotta and Patric. There's also the backstory of Henry Oak trying to protect Michael Calvess's family from him because Calvess is so drugged up from going undercover.
Ultimately "Narc" is a very messed up film but what's interesting is the Henry Oak character, who quite simply believes in right and wrong. He to me was the most interesting character because while vicious and uncontrollable, the core of what he really wants to know is how Michael Calvess got so drugged up. What's fascinating about Liotta's performance is that he shows how Oak doesn't want to reveal the "exact" truth to Tellis just yet because he's p***ed off as it is by Calvess actually killing himself. He senses that Calvess killed himself because he was so drugged up and Oak wants to find out from the druggies just how Calvess might have thought of killing himself.
Comparing one film to another doesn't necessary mean you say both films are great or equal in greatness. It usually means they're related somehow to one and another. I'd say "French Connection" and "Narc" can be compared in that they are about character, not action as most films tend to be these days. They either have chase scenes and/or gun fights but the films don't speak action 24 frames per second.
Mikey (1992)
Why would anyone enjoy this film is beyond me.
Geez, I suppose one were to appreciate this film if they figured Mikey had horrible parents growing up or perhaps he's that Calvin from "Calvin & Hobbes." Still, that wouldn't account for anything in this film because it's bad in several ways. I could start by saying "Mikey" isn't scary AT ALL. Maybe that should be enough.
No wait, it's more than just not scary. It's terrible on every level imaginable. I swear, the filmmakers must have hired monkeys to write this screenplay because there's nothing you can remember from it! I suppose it would be nice to examine the supporting characters because usually they're more underexamined compared to lead characters. Certainly that shows in "Mikey" because everyone besides Mikey seems to be a pawn in the game, rather than a character you want to care about. Yes, all plot and no development in the supporting characters. Typical uninspired filmmaking, yep.
However, since little time is given to the supporting characters, it's pretty obvious that "Mikey" examines what the title is all about. Wait, did I say "examine?" How good does it examine Mikey? Hardly that much. See, remember with suspense films like these, it's about PLOT, not characters, just PLOT. Regardless, a suspense film can still be pulled off if you blend plot and character together in a nice fashion. That's what the Hitchcock films did. No wait, I don't think the filmmakers of "Mikey" ever studied Hitchcock so it's pointless to talk about him. Still, they should know that character development can really help. No wait, in the filmmaker's point of view, perhaps it doesn't. See, Mikey as a little child is a nasty bugger but the biggest issue isn't because he isn't nasty. It because we know EXACTLY what he's going to do. See, as characters in a film, the villains can steal the show. But in "Mikey," Mikey doesn't steal the show nor does he actually show any motivations. See remember, this film believes in plot, not character development, but plot.
The even bigger issue I have with "Mikey" is why it was made. Ironically the year the film was made (1992), just a year after it came "The Good Son," which starred a young Elijah Wood and Macaulay Culkin. Like "The Good Son," "Mikey" believes that children who act as killers can make a scary, non-moralistic kind of film. Yea, sure. People who do these kinds of films are really sick puppies. Seriously. If you can't show any CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT to make us care, then you might as well just be an idiot.
As for the people who enjoy these kinds of films with child killers, get help, please. It must stink to be you.
By the way, I could really tell this was a direct to television movie. Wanna know how? It was done in a hurry. At least it seems that way.
Patch Adams (1998)
TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE TERRIBLE
I feel VERY sorry for people who have given "Patch Adams" positive criticism. Why? This story is based on a true life story and it completely makes it false. Why tell a true story in film when you can't tell it right?
Here's some reasons why Patch Adams is terrible.
1) Now supposedly Patch Adams makes his way to University of Virginia Medical School straight from the institution. No, can't happen, especially at Mr. Adams' age. How is the university with the top medical teaching in the country supposed to accept Adams just out of the blue? Wait, doesn't Adams have to go through community college first? Yes, then a four year college, THEN University of Virginia medical school. But NO, the film never explains the progress. It automatically assumes Adams was so successful that it didn't need to be explained how he got accepted into University of Virginia.
2) How are we supposed to believe laughter is the true key to medicine when it seems every patients can be cured by laughter. WHAT?! What kinds of patients are these? Probably just ones with physical injuries. I know that for a fact that autistic children wouldn't respond to Robin Williams' "Patch Adams." It's just not possible. The patients just get instantly cured by Williams' pranks. How is this possible? Nothing is ever explained, it just happens. God, Steve Oedekerk is a terrible writer.
3) Why is Patch Adams in such an opposition in this film to doctors? What from his mental institution experience with doctors? Bah. The fact is, you need a doctor who can treat you with the right prescription medicine and treatments. You DON'T need the fictionalized loony Patch Adams in the film. Stay AWAY from him as far away as you can.
Now there is a Patch Adams in real life. I'd rather be interested in hearing about how he was able to do his laughter for medicine in his patients versus this film. As a film based on real life, it's the worst ever made.
Again, read these words and remember them... "if you can't tell the true story right, why tell it at all?"
STAY AWAY FROM THIS FILM AT ALL COSTS! Avoid it like the plague!
Zero stars
By the way, Siskel & Ebert couldn't have said it better in their reviews of "Patch Adams."
Sleepers (1996)
Not a remarkable film at all
I have honestly no idea why people keep praising this film. There's hardly anything unique or original about it, except to say that Kevin Bacon is one of the more underrated actors working in the business today. Besides that, I was just BORED. It's funny because I admire Barry Levison a lot in his directing but a film that could have taken chances just becomes a routine film and doesn't surprise you much at all. You know how the film is going to end, you know how the characters are going to react, that why should you care? Of course, the story really matters but "Sleepers" makes me think as if the story is just not original or interesting. The actors are just wasted here, especially Dustin Hoffman, a long time friend and actor of Levinson films. He does a mildly amusing performance as the would-be lawyer but really, if he had a much larger role, he'd have made "Sleepers" more strong, even if he was the primary reason to see the film. He's that great of an actor. However, there's just not enough payoff in "Sleepers." It's directed in just pure Hollywood form: no surprises, no interesting characters, nothing new to watch, lots of cliches. This is exactly how Levinson screwed up when he made his adaptation of Michael Crichton's novel "Sphere," which again has no surprises and nothing unique about it. Where's M. Night Shyamalan when you need him?
Tadpole (2002)
My... What a very honest and sincere film!
I came in this film expecting that it would deal a lot with Oscar's obsession with older women. It turns out this film is NOT just about that, but ultimately leading to how he has such high expectations. He doesn't really come across as a snob but rather as an adult trapped in a kid's body. What "Tadpole" really is about is Oscar trying to adjust to life at his age and girls who are as old as he is.
Oscar (Aaron Stanford): I don't know. I just don't think they've lived long enough.
Eve: Why don't you give them a chance?
I knew that from hearing these two lines of dialog, "Tadpole" would not be a raunchy or sick kind of film. The ending concludes that Oscar Grubman just needs to relax and open himself up and learn to accept Eve as his stepmother, instead of falling in love with her.
In terms of the love parts of this film, I really like how there's more talk and conversation. It makes you think that these characters are really getting to know one and another. The scene where Oscar meets Eve at her laboratory in Columbia University is just showing how much Oscar wants a mature and articulate woman. He's not a perverted or stupid guy who thinks of getting in a girl's pants.
All in all, this is one of those rare mature and honest films that deals with a issue like this in an intelligent, not mundane way. I wish more films made today were like this.
Only problem with this film is that the digital look makes this film look funny. Director Garry Winick needs to realize that making a motion picture on "film" guarantees a much better resolution and texture than digital video does. Lower cost filmmaking isn't necessarily the better solution (unless you're a first time filmmaker).
By the way, Roger Ebert gives this film thumbs down. I swear, Ebert is loosing his reputation as a Pulitzer Prize winning film critic. He gives great indie films such as "Tadpole" and "Dangerous Lives of Alter Boys" bad vibe, yet gives positive criticism for "Like Mike" and "Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course." Man, I'm beginning to think Ebert should have reviewed by himself, instead of getting that idiot Richard Roeper on board
Birju (2002)
A rare, beautiful piece of work
Not too often do you get to see short feature films which are so beautiful and well told. "Birju" has no spoken dialog, no plot, no overwhelming visual effects. It's got some of the most beautiful cinematography you can find in a 35mm film, short or full-length.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
FINALLY A MOVIE MADE THESE DAYS THAT ISN'T CRAP!
To be honest, I'd probably be more moved by Fellowship of the Ring as a kid but then again, at that age I'd probably see movies in a different way. Now forget the knowledge of the books. I know virtually nothing of the Lord of the Rings books, besides from what my roommate has told me. Look at Fellowship of the Rings as a movie experience. It's got a tremendous epic scale going for it, with a sense of direction and vision that is rarely seen in any director these days. The acting I would say represents a lot of love, because all these actors (Elijah Wood, Ian McKellen, Christoper Lee, Sean Astan, Viggo Mortensen, etc.) spend such a long period of time filming, that they virtually became the characters they played. I wasn't seeing acting. I was seeing these characters become alive and real. This movie also takes lots of chances and has what Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone doesn't have, which is SURPRISES. Not that HP is a bad film, but FOTR makes it look like the Neverending Story III. There's just a lot of crap made these days in the film industry, that when you see FOTR, you get p****d that you had to wait this long for a true magical piece of work. This is what true filmmaking is about, not filmmaking done purely by contracts or formulas, but by great stories and tremendous respect for detail.
Crazy/Beautiful (2001)
Probably one of the most important movies since Schindler's List
This movie may not be perfect. It never should have ended, but my god, I never knew John Stockwell, an ok actor to begin with, could pull this kind of movie off! This film is not fake, not corny, not cheesy, just very daring, even for a PG-13 film! Kirsten Dunst makes a performance that makes you just want to love her to death. It may very well be the best work she's ever done and to see her do this just makes me wanna marry her.
One of the reasons why I love movies and I'll say this because of seeing "Crazy/Beautiful," is that they want to challenge the audience and be daring. It's very shocking to find out that John Stockwell really understands cultures and knows how music helps a film as a part of its narrative, not just music playing on the overhead and being cheesy. I mean, there is Spanish-speaking hip-hop in the Latino guy's neighborhood. Not Spanish hip-hop, someone speaking Spanish doing hip-hop. Of course, Amores Perros has had this before, but Crazy/Beautiful is mainstream and PG-13. My god, this film looks gritty, yet there's so much respect for characters. I call this film third world filmmaking in the first world, because you feel respect for every character, well, not the jocks (by the way, the portrayal of the white jock was among the best I've ever seen in my life... just brutal and straight on HARD). And even the father of Dunst's character is likeable and not an ass. He's very human, respects the hispanic and latino community. Cares for his daughter, even though she's hard to deal with. There's sex in this movie, but it's not the kind that you like. It's the kind that Dunst's character wants, but the latino guy tells her it's not ok and stuff, even though he's cool. In addition, I've never seen a more honest portrayal of hispanics or latinos since the movie Selena. And John Stockwell is a white guy and he must be the coolest guy on earth to talk to. I hope this movie gets a theatrical re-release in independent theatres and gets people not liking or disliking, but THINKING. If not, please release the director's cut on DVD!!!!!
The Weight of Water (2000)
Great movie!
I was lucky to catch a screening of the new movie, "The Weight of Water" at the San Francisco Film Festival with a friend and three of her friends. Considering Sean Penn is in this film, my friend is completely in love with him, which is mainly why she bought the tickets for us. We caught a show a few nights ago, 4/25, at 9:30 at the AMC Kabuki 8. Lovely theatre, by the way. Everyone seemed to be jazzed for the festival and the films playing as well. The whole crowd looked to be very diverse.
At 9:30, an introduction was given for "The Weight of Water." I believe this was the head of operations for the SF Film Festival (not too sure now, because my brain isn't as photographic as it used to be) who gave the intro. Then after that, for a few mins, one of the film's producers, Janet Yang started talking. If you aren't familiar with her past work, she was the producer of "The Joy Luck Club," "South Central," "The People vs. Larry Flynt," "Zero Effect," and others which I haven't mentioned. My friend, well, she was expecting Sean Penn to be at this premiere, so she dressed up. Unfortunately, no one apart of "The Weight of Water" was present besides Janet Yang, so my friend was let down a little. Yang mentioned that this film was in desperate needs of seeking a distributer, because originally the president of Lion's Gate loved "The Weight of Water" so much, that he decided that the studio would distribute the film for release last fall (or was it this coming fall?). Unfortunately, that president has recently left the studio, so the deal went off and now it may not be that this film will be released in theatres at all this fall. Yang had no idea that "The Weight of Water" was a part of the SF Film Festival. She heard about its premiere at the last minute, so no actors appeared at the screening.
So anyway, after Yang had her talk, the film began...
I've never really written a review before for a film, so I don't know how to begin. I myself am a cinema student at San Francisco State University, but I have yet to learn how to write a good film critique. Anyway...
Oh, you recall director Kathryn Bigelow? You know, the one behind "Point Blank," "Strange Days," "Blue Steel," that vampire flick, "Near Dark" and the upcoming Harrison Ford starrer, "K-19: The Widowmaker" (awfully strange, btw, seeing Ford playing a Soviet, but he did do a German impression in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, so I guess that's close... maybe). Well, this is a very different film for her in part because it's made completely differently than any of her other previous films. The beginning starts in a very routine way. Cuts are rather quick, dialog is pretty standard, and the characters don't seem to be all that unique. The story at the beginning takes place in the late 1800's, where a man is convicted of a brutal axe murdering of two women. He believes he's innocent, but others reject his desperate plea for being saved, as he is to be hanged after the jury in the court reaches a verdict of "guilty." "The Weight of Water" then cuts to present day, where a beautiful photographer, Jean Janes (Catherine McCormack) is going on an expedition with her husband (Sean Penn) and her brother and his girlfriend (Elizabeth Hurley) to figure whether or not this man who was hanged in 1873 was really innocent or not. Eventually we are treated by numerous flashbacks which illustrate what Jean Janes is thinking when she's trying to figure this whole mystery out. Looking back into time, however, distracts Janes a little from her present life, especially when in this one scene where she's at a watch tower, she attempts to have sex with her husband. This attempt fails, because Jean is caught up with trying to figure out if the murderer was really innocent.
I've been told that this movie has gotten negative reviews from many. I can see why, because the backstory in this film isn't that interesting. However, I don't think "The Weight of Water" is all that bad. In fact, it's quite good. Not a great movie, but better than most people thought it was.
The thing that really struck out for me at first, was the GORGEOUS cinematography. Again, mentioning director Kathryn Bigelow, this film almost looks completely different from her other body of work. It seems to be a complete departure. The photography is just beautiful. There is this one scene where Jean Janes walks on the rocks and sees Maren Hontvedt (Sarah Polley) jumping from one rock to another in a bleak flashback. The blueish and whiteish colors that illustrate this scene are just stunning. There is also this scary and exciting axe scene, where the one of the murdered girls is slayed. This scene is illustrated in dark colors, really haunting. As a matter of fact, I believe this scene is a lot more scary than watching any of the axe murder scenes in "Sleepy Hollow." I don't wanna give away anything else as far as cinematography goes.
With the acting, I'd say it's a lot better in the present day than for the backstory that's given. Actors such as Sarah Polley do well with their performances, but the accents could be a little less stagey and more the less sounding as if they come from the native tongue. In the present day, the acting is a lot more realistic. Sean Penn delivers one of his better performances as Jean Janes' husband, in a low-key, laid back sense (my friend was pleased by this). Catherine McCormack as Jean Janes, she's very strong and believable as a photographer. Elizabeth Hurley plays a woman who at first might have been just a bimbo looking for a hunk to give her a good dosage of sensational sex. However, she's more three-dimensional in that she does seem to want to be apart of the stimulating conversations Jean James brings up. Well, actually, the Elizabeth Hurley character does seem to be seductive, looking at Sean Penn's character in such a way, turning a dinner scene where he looks at her legs and she stares back at him looking very interested in him. By the way, Hurley is half-naked in one scene, so if you're excited in seeing her getting to be close to nude, it does happen in this film. Anyway, the actor who played Jean Janes' brother and Hurley's boyfriend, I forgot his name, but he was very well drawn out. I would say I was more interested in the characters of the present day, than the ones in the backstory.
As far as the flashbacks go, I think "The Weight of Water" is one of those better films that actually knows how to use this device well. Normally flashbacks in films are very distracting, but in this one, they actually help a lot and blend in well, helping us understand what Jean Janes is thinking when she comes to terms in solving this mystery of whether or not this convicted man was innocent or not and if what she believes is true, that a woman did commit the murdering of two women. In a sense, this film is not about the murders but rather Jean Janes herself and how she tries to figure out this mystery and how this expedition of her's is affecting her life, dramatically. For those who don't appreciate flashbacks, PERIOD, well, this isn't the film for you then.
There are those of you that will feel negatively about this film and those of you who won't, but I happen to think this is Kathryn Bigelow's best movie so far, until she proves worthy of the new K-19 movie with Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson. I think it's a very well made film and beautiful at times. It's not the greatest one out there, but at least it's not a pile of crap such as a movie like Inspector Gadget (yes, it is and you all know it is).
PLEASE GET THIS MOVIE A RELEASE!