Reviews

This is a fun movie for about 2 hours, but unfortunately it goes on for another half hour. The ending is entirely unsatisfying. But let's talk about the acting--Nicholson is mesmerizing as always. I don't know that his character makes a whole lot of sense, but you can't take your eyes off him when he's on screen. Alec Baldwin shines in a small part as a captain. Matt Damon is serviceable enough, but then he doesn't really have much range as an actor anyway, does he? The mystery here is the praise being heaped on Mark Wahlberg who is not only out of control, screaming every line, but often indecipherable. Bad role, big ham.

But the movie belongs to Leonardo Dicaprio. He's just great, well-deserving of any awards he receives. The whole point of watching the entire film is to find out what happens to his character, thanks to his emotionally-wrenching performance.

A big bounceback for him from the nightmare that was "Gangs of New York." For Scorcese, at least this isn't a debacle like that one. Thankfully no sign of Daniel Day-Lewis's ridiculous mustache (I do believe it's now starring on "My Name Is Earl," pasted on Jason Lee's face.)

I've read all the rave reviews here and am impressed with the imagination of those who loved this film. I can't say that I found much to recommend it. The Leonard Cohen sound track is not only excessively heavy-handed but dreary beyond measure. The film looks authentic enough, but something's got to happen for it to work, and nothing much does: a cursory plot (not a real problem for me), not much character development, nothing thematically. It just slogs along. Flawed as it is, Cimino's "Heaven's Gate" has some moments of genuine wonder and is a film I'd sooner watch again. For a brilliant reconception of the West, HBO's "Deadwood" is much superior to "McCabe."

Nope, it's not justifiable as a 3-hour movie. It's at least 45 minutes too long. It takes almost 50 minutes to get to Skull Island! Here's a tip, Peter–lose about 20 minutes of the opening NY sequences and the eternal boat trip on the Venture. Cut another 20 minutes from the island sequences.

That said, I enjoyed the movie which has 2-3 classic scenes (a couple on the island and the entire New York sequence to conclude the movie). But, and this really surprised me, some of the special effects look cheap and fake, like actors clearly standing in front of CGI. Most of the time that Kong has Naomi Watts in his fist, it looks very phony, like a doll (not doll-size, but like a doll). Even many of the establishing shots of 1930s New York are obvious CGI shots.

Love Jack Black--but not in this movie. Very serious miscasting (along with Adrien Brody). Naomi Watts is great as usual.

On the whole? Kong probably is one classic film that should have been left alone. No real need for a remake at all.

I'm exhausted. This is one long, long, loooooong movie. The major siege--once more against an unpronounceable, impregnable fortress--is absolutely spectacular visually. The problem is that the movie drags on for another 45 minutes or more after that with at least 4 scenes that appear to be the conclusion only to be followed by yet another final scene.

Here's the problem: Clearly LOTR, unreadable as it was, has made an indelible impact on all epics that have followed. But because this definitive film version hasn't been released until now, the movie appears to be derivative of other films that are actually borrowing from this source. I understand that "Star Wars," for example, certainly echoes LOTR, but because it got there first, the stuff we're seeing here is familiar (a knighted British actor of some repute plays the Gandalf/Obi Wan role; the Gollum is as obnoxious as Yoda and speaks similarly; the oversized attack elephants are simply flesh and blood versions of the AT-ATs; the furry dwarf sidekick serves as comic relief akin to Chewbacca; the two secondary Hobbits parallel R2 and Threepio, etc. ).

So Peter Jackson has an insoluble problem: if he sticks to the books, which apparently he has from what I gather, much of what he shows us will echo things that have been influenced by this original source. However, they still seem overly familiar (e.g. how many times do we have to see characters "die" only to reappear later on?). And if he abandons the books, the fans of the books will object.

But then these movies are basically designed to appeal to the 14-year-old boy in all of us, and they do accomplish that. The critics seem enthralled by the films, but then most film critics were once 14-year-old boys, weren't they?

This is a marvelous film, certainly superior to the other Oscar nominees for best picture. Great books rarely make great movies, but Michael Cunningham's brilliant novel and Stephen Daldry's brilliant movie prove the exceptions to that rule. The literate script, the seamless weaving of three interlocking stories, the beautiful cinematography make this a special movie.

However, its lasting greatness finally rests upon a miraculous ensemble of performers. Yes, Nicole Kidman is wonderful as Virginia Woolf, and yes, Julianne Moore is her equal (and better than she was in "Far From Heaven") as a tragically unhappy American housewife. But there are other gem-like performances to praise here as well:

*Miranda Richardson shines in her brief moments on screen as Virginia's sister and Jeff Daniels is surprisingly tender in his small part.

*British actor Stephen Dillane deserves at least 50% of Kidman's Oscar for his role as Leonard Woolf. He captures the character's love, devotion, and pain in his remarkably expressive eyes and face. He shines in a wonderful train depot scene with Kidman.

*Ed Harris re-defines pain in his unforgettable performance as a dying poet. It is impossible to get Harris out of your mind after seeing this film despite his limited time onscreen. A truly great role for a truly gifted actor. The despair and agony of his character almost make it impossible to watch him, so convincing is he.

*And there's Meryl Streep. This is her movie. Her character is the most important one in the film, and she carries the film with her. She is so wonderful a performer that we have come to take her for granted. I remain convinced that the greatest film performance ever given is Streep's as Sophie in "Sophie's Choice," but she rivals that in "The Hours." She is just beyond praise thoroughout this movie, but her kitchen scene with Jeff Daniels, her final scene with Julianne Moore, and most especially her two extended scenes with Ed Harris, are indelible. The emotional wallop of Streep and Harris's work together left me literally shaking in my seat.

This is a film I know that I will watch again and again and will treasure forever. This year's winners will fade from memory long before I forget "The Hours."

What's the fuss? If this were an American movie with American teens and an American lead actress, we'd place it in the "Porky's" category as an exploitation flick. About all that's interesting here is to see what other cultures see as attractive; the casting is quite different than we'd see in an American movie. The silly male wish-fulfillment motivations of the lead character serve as an excuse for a series of titillating scenes. And the Academy Awards have nominated the script? This movie's on a par with the late night stuff they show on Cinemax: mediocre soft porn.

This is a quirky little movie that ultimately leaves a bad taste in the viewer's mouth. Perhaps that's inevitable in a film about dysfunctional relationships, but that doesn't make it any easier to watch. It's a coming of age movie about young Igby, his brother, and his overbearing mother. The movie, while surprising at times, follows the predictable arc by the end. There are some excellent performances here by Kieran Culkin in the lead role, Claire Danes, and Susan Sarandon. Perhaps the most affecting performance, small as it is, is given by Bill Pullman, whose work is sensitive and moving. It's always great to see Jeff Goldblum on screen, but once again it's a shame that Goldblum (and Michael Keaton, for that matter) appears so rarely as the lead in a comedy; they are simply the most talented comic actors--not comedians--of their generation, talents sadly misused and underused.

OK, so to get back to business: I'm sure glad I didn't fire up the family chariot, drive to the multiplex, and fork out $20 for two tix to this film. It was worth a rental fee and the comfort of my living room. I won't watch it again, however.

I still have fond memories of Sam Raimi's surprising "Dark Man" so I had some hope for "Spiderman." As Otto would say, "Disappointed!"

Talk about slow-moving, but the worst aspect of this lugubrious effort is the villain. Besides looking incredibly cheap, Willem Dafoe's "Green Goblin" is simply uninterestingly unpleasant. Dafoe's a good actor, but let's face it, would you trust a guy that looks like him? He has to act to make himself likeable. Why any character would trust him in this movie is a mystery. So we have bad casting, bad costume, cheesy effects when G.G. is onscreen. The Spiderman CGI weren't special. The only saving grace is watching Tobey Maguire, who can act, and Kirsten Dunst, who can act and is lovely to look at.

No need for sequels, please!

One of the most underrated films of the past 25 years, "True Confessions" is worth repeated viewings. On the surface it's a period piece about a corrupt Los Angeles where sex, money, the police, and the Catholic church all mingle. While at first glance, the film is as lurid as "L.A. Confidential," beneath the surface it is a memorable love story, a story of two brothers, one a detective and one a ranking member of the Church hierarchy.

The brothers are played by Robert Duvall and Robert DeNiro, in performances that will linger in your mind forever. The silent moments between these two brothers resound louder than the dialogue. There's one heartbreaking scene in a bar where their inability to communicate despite their love for one another captures all of the complexities of sibling relationships. I have no idea who won the Oscar for Best Actor in 1984, but whoever it was could not have been better than the two Roberts are here.

In supporting roles Kenneth McMillan and Charles Durning also shine, one as a corrupt cop and the other as a corrupt businessman. In fact, I would have loved to see a remake of this film with the two pairs of actors trading roles: DeNiro for Duvall and McMillan for Durning. That film would have been different but arguably as great.

The final scene of the film is punctuated by the perfect sound track. So a great big tip of the hat to all responsible: John Gregory Dunne for the script, Ulu Grosbard for the wonderful direction that allows for those memorable silences, and, of course, a miraculous cast of fine performers working at the height of their art. Don't miss this film.

The movie's clever but ulitmately not satisfying. The ending left me waiting for something more. This is Mamet in his "let's be clever"mode (see "The Heist"), but it just isn't that clever. It depends upon the main character's being unbelievably stupid at one point.

There are no memorable performances here but there are two that are painfully inept: Ricky Jay, who is a great magician and quite good in "The Heist," isn't very good here but then he is stuck with some awful dialogue; and Rebecca Pidgeon is phony and hard to watch. It's difficult to know whether it's her part that is implausible or her performance. Although she never appears in any films other than hubby Mamet's, she is a creditable performer. In this movie, however, her casting smacks of nepotism.

Knowing the movie to be a thriller going in, reasonably smart viewers will be able to guess most of what's coming except for the main character's stupid gaffe (as mentioned above) and a final encounter that isn't believable. The rest of the trickery at least is plausible until the end.

Worth a rental and low expectations...

Better than the ordinary Hollywood movie, this family comedy does a very nice job of presenting a variety of characters in the throes of pursuing their own version of the American Dream. That the family is Mexican-American adds a welcome difference. The camera loves the food being prepared, the Latin-flavored music score enlivens the proceedings, and the acting is quite serviceable. Jacqueline Obrador and Elizabeth Pena shine as the older daughters in the family, the always-reliable Hector Elizondo is fine in a rare leading role. Of greatest interest, however, may be Raquel Welch, playing her age and her ethnicity for the first time in my memory. It is her role, not her performance, that mars the movie. She is a caricature of an older-middle-aged unattached woman, the butt of unkind jokes. And it is the unwitting bias toward the older woman character that undermines the otherwise upbeat, happy ending intended. Still, this one's worth the cost of a rental. Not great art but at least it doesn't insult the viewers' intelligence.

A brilliantly conceived and executed meditation on life, the pursuit of happiness, and fate. What is the "one thing" of the title? It's actually not one thing but several, and the genius of the film is that it makes you--and those watching with you--want to talk about what it means, thus generating a 14th conversation.

Alan Arkin is remarkable in this movie, but it's hard to single out any one aspect of the film as better than any other. The script is literate and intelligent; the performances crisp; the structure is unusual and finally persuades viewers of its inevitability.

A rare film that manages to evoke emotions and provoke thinking. Buy it! Watch it! Talk about it!

This is a marvel of a movie for 2/3 of its running length. The story of a screenwriter's efforts to translate an apparently unfilmable book into a screenplay sets up a fascinating, and funny, premise that the film exploits to the hilt. The movie makes us think and laugh at the same time. Nicolas Cage is wonderful in playing identical twins.

But Charlie Kaufman, the film's screenwriter, has written himself into a corner. There is no way out of his character's film dilemma. The choice he makes can be seen as a satire and a sad commentary on his character's own failed ideals--but it isn't very satisfying to watch. On the other hand, if the film spools out as it probably could and should have, there isn't any sort of imaginable conclusion to it because essentially there is no "movie" there, or at least nothing like a cinematic story. What there is, perhaps, is "real life" rather than "reel life," the life where the climactic encounters we anticipate at work, at home, in love, often prove to be anti-climactic if they ever take place at all. Can a movie that concludes anti-climactically be made? The final irony is that this movie's ending, which has nothing but denouements aplenty, feels anti-climactic.

A final thought: I stayed and watched most of the credits but left before the very final copyright frame rolled past. As I drove home, I feared that I'd left too soon, that immediately after that final frame, the film would pick up at the point where it went "Hollywood" and finish the film Charlie-Nic was trying to write. I'll rent the video to make sure, but I suspect that much audacity was just a bit beyond Charlie-Charlie and the film's director, Spike Jonze. Still, a tip of the hat for even planting that doubt in my head. I'll remember this film for a long time...

I was eager to see this film, having missed its theatrical release. I wanted to see Denzel Washington's Oscar-winning performance. Unfortunately, it was a waste of 2 hours.

Ugly scenes pile up one after the other in this film, one more repulsive than the other. The film makes a weak gesture at introducing an interesting moral dilemma: is it possible to fight the evil of drug-dealing while holding onto one's own sense of morality? But ultimately, it has nothing complex or thoughtful to say about that dilemma. The best performance in the film is actually Ethan Hawke's, a character torn by conflicting impulses. Hawke does a fine job of conveying that inner turmoil. Washington's performance is mostly just showing off, but then his character is largely a cartoon character. The Oscar is a make-up for other better performances that have gone unrewarded.

And isn't it enlightening that all of the film's people of color are despicable drug dealer or corrupt cops while the film's conscience is the white cop?

I was generous; I rated the movie a 3.

There's a good movie lurking somewhere in this script as the story of the Draft Riots is historically compelling. But I've seen this plot too often to want to see it again. I'm usually a big Daniel Day-Lewis fan; however, the strange American accent he uses in the film is so distracting, it's difficult to focus on much else when he's on screen (other than his equally distracting hair). Hard to believe that the director's cut was an hour longer as the film seems interminable during the final 30-45 minutes. I hear good things about Kevin Baker's Paradise Alley, a new novel about the Draft Riots, so I'll give that a try. Gangs of New York is one major disappointment...