Reviews

I can't not give this film less than 10.

There are films you love, films that excite you, films that move you, films that make you laugh, films that make you laugh so hard stuff comes out your nose... and docudramas and guilty pleasures... you get the idea. Films. Movies.

Then, there are films (and books) that rearrange your mental furniture. You are a different person after you have seen (or read) them.

This is one of those.

Tom Shadyac turns a traumatic event into the occasion to examine what truly matters... for him and, amazingly, for all of us and our planet.

There are tons of little things in the film that show Tom is a smart guy (UVa transcripts, etc.). What's so great and what's so heart-lifting and encouraging for all of us, is we also see this smart guy becoming a wise man.

I make it a practice of luring people into my house and making them watch this film. My little bit.

Two things:

1) My eight year old son wanted to watch this, based on the pay-per-view previews. I enjoyed the old show, and had kinda wanted to see it too, so I forked out. We both truly enjoyed it. Actually, we both had a blast.

2) Why do so few of these reviews comment on the action sequences? They're right up there with the Bond flicks! The plane? The train? C'mon! Believable? No. Kick ass? You betcha! The production values of this film totally blast past expectations.

One thing:

1) At least twice, Smart gets to say his trademark "Missed it by *thaat* much!" line. But, the film doesn't give noobies the hints/help they need for this. There should have been -- very early early in the film -- a scene that was totally plagiarized from the series... A classic "Missed it by *thaat* much!" scene... so the new crowd could get into that alongside us old-crowd folks.

One other thing:

1) Carell is perfect for the part. But he should have put a little effort into the voice.... The nasal quality of Don Adams' Smart's voice was -- I think -- one of the defining aspects of the character. Seemed like Carell totally ignored this.

Still... a well done fun film. I'm glad I spent the money to activate it on pay-per-view.

I think you should watch this show.

It's delightfully weird.

Totally unrealistic, it has just enough I-don't-know-what to enable the all important willing suspension, and once you got that, you're golden.

Here's the little stuff, the stuff that you'll enjoy but don't need to go out of your way for:

1) It has Candice Bergen! Bergen fulfills her role (uber-classy uber-MILF) perfectly. (Plus, she's Candice Bergen. To this date, no one does Bergen as well as Bergen.)

2) Clemenson/Espenson is likable and offbeat. One of the best "spice" characters since, oh, I dunno, Hill Street Blues.

3) Sometimes John Larroquette shows up, and he's so tall! He doesn't have to actually say anything funny. He's John Larroquette. It's a grin just for him to show up. (That sounds dismissive and snarky, but it's not meant to be. I honestly believe this is Larroquette's great comic gift: he shows up. That's all he needs to do. That's what he does. It doesn't matter what he says, because all the humor is in the wry, sardonic (and tall) presence. On Night Court, he had some funny lines, but that was actually a distraction. Remember The West Wing and The Practice... he had no funny lines there, but the effect was the same: Larroquette's wry, sardonic (and tall) presence = a grin. (Although, to be fair, in The Practice he did actually play a character in addition to showing up.))

4) It has William Shatner!

And here's the big stuff, the stuff you'll never experience if you don't go out of your way to watch a few episodes:

1) It has William Shatner! Star Trek gave us William Shatner giving us Captain James T. Kirk. Boston Legal gives us William Shatner giving us William Shatner (as Denny Crane)... the intelligent goof we always suspected was playing Captain Kirk. Even if you weren't a Trekkie, it's such a cool feeling to feel like you're getting to hang out with the *real* Captain Kirk, the (intelligent, goofy) man behind the myth.

2) Despite -- or rather, alongside -- the show's unabashed unrealistic stance, it takes an honest stab at depicting honest emotions, especially (but not only) in the traditional closing scene, where Spader/Shore and Shatner/Crane share a Scotch, a cigar, a presumably rather nippy Boston evening, and a friendship.

3) It has James Spader! Who? James Spader! Who's Jame's Spader? I don't know, I never heard of him before I saw this show, but he's incredible. His character (Alan Shore) brings something unlike anything I've ever seen on television... a character that is, I think, truly Shakesperean in its immediacy and otherness.

In fact, I believe this is the secret ingredient of Boston Legal's success. Spader's Shore has a Shakesperean otherness, and once we accept this otherness (as we are compelled to do), it doesn't matter how unrealistic (or compressed or reductive) the rest of the show is. Once we (the audience) have signed up for this otherness, once the writers have that signature on the dotted line, they're free play around and cut corners as they like. Thankfully, they often (though not always) do so to good effect.

I believe the highest praise that one can give to a work of imagination (book, movie, series, painting, etc.) is that "it rearranges your mental furniture." That is, you view things differently after experiencing the work.

And -- as a downwardly mobile lower highbrow from the upper middle class -- I find that this happens, for me, with roughly approximate frequency between cannonical works (classic novels, great symphonies, etc.) and pieces from popular culture (good movies, fun series, the occasional computer game or web site).

Slings & Arrows is definitely in this class. It is a best-of-breed collection of work. The writing, the acting, the production... All are essentially faultless. (I don't find the castng faultless.. I have some quibbles there.) Some works rearrange on's mental furniture by subversion, by making you rethink things (like, David Lynch movies would be a good example). Slings and Arrows isn't like that... there's nothing subversive about it. Instead, it rearranges by enlarging... I gives an enlarged sense of the actor's craft, of the enduring value of Shakespeare, and ways people can be people.

It's not epic, it's not mind-blowing, it's just really really good. Really.

Annn-nnnd... Why Paul Gross is not an A-list, top-billing, Oscar-winning actor.... I dunno. Some smart scriptwriter really should write a movie that features him and Tom Hanks as brothers in a complex relationship.

For your consideration: Titanic > Gangs > Aviator > Departed

I'm glad that Scorsesi has finally gotten his Oscar, but it should have been for Best Mentor, not Best Director. The direction of this film was marginally competent, at best, but I truly believe we are witnessing something special in the maturation of Leo DiCaprio.

Direction: So many loose ends, and the pacing alternates between lethargic and frenetic. Composition and memorable visuals? None. (Well, the shots of the characters going into the warehouse door are well done.) Theme? Ummmm... its-a-dark-world-and-people-do-bad-stuff. Ooookay, thanks for that insight, Martin.

Acting: I always look forward to seeing Nicholson and Damon on the screen, and I enjoyed watching them here, but DiCaprio stands out. His performance is pitch perfect: the story is intense, but of all the actors, only his performance has a matching intensity. His portrayal of a tough young man who is scared s***less by what he's gotten caught up in is convincing, human, and non-derivative. While working with Scorsesi, DiCaprio has begun to emerge as an actor who could pick up the mantle of people like Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda, and Gregory Peck. Like them, he brings a recognizable and consistent persona to the part, but does so in a way lets the persona enhance rather than limit the character.

Nicholson and Damon are excellent charismatic actors. Johnny Depp is a fascinating explorer. Anthony Hopkins is a master of the craft. Other names could be mentioned. But DiCaprio is growing into something different from each of these... a "movie star" in the classic Hollywood tradition.

OK, the plot has some slightly silly aspects.

But, this is a fine film. I'm really glad I watched it (twice so far).

Blethyn is delightfully sexy and endearing as Grace.

The supporting cast are fine craftsmen to a man and woman.

Really nice music, too. Just right. I would watch it again just for the score.

One could say it's Merchant-Ivory does Cheech and Chong. And in a sense this would be accurate. But, it would miss everything that's endearing and fresh about this well-done film. It would miss the kindness and wit. "Love thy neighbor" is the highest commandment: this film makes the commandment smart and fun.

If you're my age (44), you remember what a mind-blowing experience _Star Wars_ was when it came out. If you're older or younger than I, but are interested in film, you probably nonetheless have a good since of what a genre defining/breaking film Star Wars was.

_Sin City_ is not better or worse than _Star Wars_, and it's not more or less important. It's another film in the same class-less class: a sui generis MiND BLaST!. Rodriguez and Miller have made something that enlarges our sense of possibility for both film and comics. (I could say "graphic novels" instead of "comics", but after _Sin City_, we don't have to flop around to find elevated terms for this other wonderfully creative and vital American visual art form.)

I haven't memorized Citizen Kane or anything... I'm not the font of all film knowledge... but, I can't think of another performance to match Rourke's in terms of sheer stage presence. He's a beast... it seems like he's there in the theater with you. Amazing. Oscar-worthy.

Willis also does a great job, but -- perhaps because he's turned in so many solid performances in recent years (esp. Pulp Fiction) -- he doesn't take off the top of your head like Mickey does.

And (here I really am damning with faint praise), I can't fault Clive. I can't imagine how anyone could play his part better, but, he's overshadowed by his villain and his ladies. I don't mind that at all.... I LOVE that. I love the way the camera is learning to caress the un-heros with this film. But the anthology format invites one to compare the three male leads, and on that scale, Owen comes up short (part of it is the part).

I love this film. I will watch it for the rest of my life. I suspect I'll find more to notice and cherish each time. I more-than-suspect that what I notice and cherish will be visual and conceptual: it's in these realms that it breaks truly new ground.

Oh... and yeah... it's really violent and sexist. Enjoy.