Heather's Film Reviews
Our
Own Heather Bryant Reviews some of today's top new film titles
SPIDERMAN
Teenage nerd Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is picked on by bullies and
ignored by the beautiful girl-next-door, Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst)
On a field trip to am experimental laboratory, Peter is bitten by a
radioactive spider, and soon finds himself starting to take on strange
spider-like abilities. When his Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) is killed
and millionaire scientist Norman Osborne (Willem Dafoe) storms through
New York City as the bombing Green Goblin, Peter takes action and becomes
the amazing but misunderstand hero Spider-Man.
The best moments of the film take place in PeterÕs exploration of his
new abilities. During lunch period at school, web fluid accidentally
shoots from PeterÕs wrists onto a lunch tray, and Peter is so startled
that he jerks his hand back and the tray full of food smacks the school
bully, Flash, in the back. Flash pursues Peter into the school hallway,
and we see PeterÕs perspective as he moves reflexively away from FlashÕs
punches, marveling at his abilities to sense danger and punch Flash
across the hallway. Afterwards, a classic moment occurs when Peter goes
to a rooftop and tries to figure out how to shoot his web fluid, shouting
out ÒShazaam! Go web go! Up up and atÕem!Ó while trying various hand
positions.
Casting was excellent in the roles of Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson
and Norman Osborne. Tobey Maguire was perfect as Peter Parker Ðconvincing,
easy to relate to, and able to illustrate PeterÕs growing understanding
that Òwith great power comes great responsibility.Ó Willem Dafoe, incredibly
creepy as the Green Goblin, has a great sequence in which the two parts
of his insane personality are talking to each other through different
reflections in a mirror. NormanÕs son Harry (James Franco) has a minor
part in the film, but his flawed, miserable, and privileged character
was strikingly poignant. J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson steals all
of the scenes heÕs in as the loudmouth, cigar-chomping, hard-ass editor
of the Daily Bugle, convinced that Spider-Man is a menace to society.
The dialogue varies from the obvious humor (Aunt May asks Peter after
he returns home from the laboratory, ÒYou want a bite?Ó ÒNo thanks,Ó
Peter replies, ÒAlready had one.Ó) to classic Spiderman banter straight
out of the comic (When the Green Goblin comes to the Daily Bugle newspaper
office, J. Jonah Jameson is blasted in the mouth with web fluid as Spiderman
coolly tells him ÒBe quiet while Mom and Dad talk.Ó) Great inside touches
were provided for comic fans in the cameos and mentions of Spider-Man
comic characters such as Eddie Brock, Dr. Connors, Flash Thompson, Bone
Saw McGraw, Betty Brant, and Stan ÒThe ManÓ Lee, creator of Spiderman.
Action sequences were exciting, intricate and very well done. Certain
scenes were painfully obvious in their use of CGI, yet on the other
hand CGI was crucial to depict the high-flying and complex fights associated
with Spiderman. The final battle between the Green Goblin and Spiderman
was true to the comic: bloody, brutal and effectively done. The results
of that fight sets up the sequel perfectly in the final minutes of the
film, a credit to the director and the screenwriter. There is no perfect
ending, only doors left open for more great films. This is an excellent
adaptation of a classic story. (A)
DEATH TO SMOOCHY
Rainbow Randolph Smiley (Robin Williams) is the king of kiddie television:
worshipped by children, bribed by parents desperate to have their kids
on the show. When the FBI busts Randolph in the midst of a bribe, pressured
television executives Nora (Catherine Keener) and Frank (Jon Stewart)
must find a squeaky-clean replacement. They end up with Sheldon Mopes
(Edward Norton) a C-rate performer who sings at methadone clinics as
ÒSmoochyÓ the Rhino. When Sheldon is given RandolphÕs old time slot,
a Smoochy craze explodes and RandolphÕs jealousy gives way to psychotic
mania.
The
film makes use of some interesting techniques Ð take the rapid dismantling
of Rainbow Randolph's old set, billboards taken down, Smoochy's new
set built, costumes and props created. Combined, all these scenes listed
take less than two minutes to show, and speeding up the film in these
places to show the quick rises and falls of fame was a neat idea. There
are also some moments of very funny dialogue. When telling Nora his
ideas on non-violence, Sheldon mentions that as a kid, "when the other
kids were the cowboys and Indians, I was the Chinese railroad worker."
The shady Parade of Hope charity is whispered about as "the roughest
of all the charities." Sheldon, as Smoochy, sings odd but cheerful songs,
including "My StepdadÕs Not Mean, He's Just Adjusting." Several scenes
are shockers - one of the most memorable was Randolph replacing Smoochy's
normal cookies with ones shaped like male genitalia. The stunned silence
and the look on Sheldon's face when he pulls out one of the "cock cookies"
live on TV were fantastic. The Irish mob that starts performing hits
in SheldonÕs honor was an amusing touch too.
Yet
this film with crazy potential never delivers on the expected insanity.
A romance between Sheldon and ice-queen / misunderstood executive Nora?
Was it really necessary? What about Randolph tricking Smoochy into singing
at a full-attendance Nazi rally? Are there that many secret Nazis in
New York? Why are they even brought into this film, when the real evil
is supposed to be the shady world of childrenÕs television, or even
Randolph? The ideaÕs pushed a bit far in Smoochy's kiddie ice-skating
show when midgets are chasing him around waving Nazi flags. What sponsor
or parent would ever watch that? What about the unexpected revelation
of mild-mannered Sheldon having to take anger-management courses? It
was mentioned once and hardly explored - a major missed opportunity.
There
are numerous bad guys in this film, and they jumble the plot with all
the backstabbing and stereotypical mob crap. As a result, we don't get
to see nearly enough of the filmÕs basic premise Ð the rivalry between
Randolph and Smoochy. Instead, Randolph is portrayed as more pathetic
loser than raving lunatic - more background on RandolphÕs former success
was needed, more involvement on his part to sabotage Sheldon. Sure,
there are a few attempts, but the "who can you trust" world of kidsÕ
television overshadows Randolph, and it's unfortunate because Robin
Williams was surprisingly decent in the role. Edward NortonÕs Sheldon
wasnÕt complex enough to keep interest. Crooked executive Jon Stewart
was under-used. Shady agent Danny DeVito was nothing new. The film would
have been much more entertaining if it had focused on the rivalry between
Randolph and Smoochy and the action / prank / murder attempts by those
two individuals. After all, that initial premise was the reason most
people went to see the film in the first place. (C+)
MONSTERS
INC.
In
Hidden City, monsters of every color, shape and deformity live just
as humans do: they go out to dinner, they love their flashy cars, and
they work in assembly lines and corporations. And the most important
corporation is Monsters Inc., a business that employs monsters to scare
children at night, and uses those screams to power the entire city.
Each childÕs scream is stored, put on a trolley and wheeled away for
city energy use.
Sound
cruel? It may seem that way at the beginning of Monsters Inc., which
features a blue friendly furball named Sully (voiced by John Goodman),
who is the head ÒscarerÓ of his department and employee of the month
eleven times in a row. While Sully does the scaring, his best friend
Mike Wazowski (voiced by Billy Crystal) does all the filing, the paperwork,
and sorts out which doors for Sully to go through. ItÕs very efficient
and organized, and Mike and Sully have a great life knowing that they
are the best team in the business.
Never
once do they consider the terror of the children on the other side:
itÕs nothing personal, itÕs just business. When the jealous, creepy
purple-chameleon Randall (voiced by Steve Buscemi) starts working secretly
at night to gain more screams (and recognition) than Sully, a little
pig-tailed girl ends up crossing through from the human side of the
door into the monster side. And to a city, which regards children as
toxic, poisonous and life threatening, panic ensues.
The
sympathetic Sully ends up hiding the little girl from the CDA (Children
Detection Agency) who have a hyperactive tendency to blow up a childÕs
sock if it crosses over. In the meantime, Sully uncovers RandallÕs secret
deceptions, some company secrets, and a genuine affection for the little
girl, nicknamed Boo, who calls Sully ÒkittyÓ and latches onto him adoringly.
Mike is completely against the entire thing, agonizing about the effect
Boo will have on their careers, their health, and especially MikeÕs
relationship with a ditzy pink medusa, Celia (voiced by Jennifer Tilly)
This
film has some great concepts: the growing fact that children are getting
harder and harder to scare due to television; the hinted idea that a
childÕs laughter is even more powerful than screams; and the concept
that all of the human worldÕs monsters (such as the Abominable Snowman
and Bigfoot) are actually outcasts from Hidden City.
The animation details are absolutely beautiful, from close-ups of SullyÕs
fur waving back and forth as he snores, to shadow shots in a hidden
corridor as Sully and Boo creep forward towards florescent lights. The
animated characters never seem like animated characters; the voice acting
done by Goodman, Crystal, and even the little girl Boo is so rich, natural
and seamless that emotions are easily felt with every revelation, tragedy,
and shared moment.
Best
of all, Monsters Inc. has a good, simple, engaging story: void of over-details
and excessive plot twists, but still original enough to interest both
children and adults alike. (B+)
MOTHMAN PROPHESIES
Based
on true events, the story revolves around Wall Street Journal reporter
John Klein, (Richard Gere) whose wife Mary (Debra Messing) mysteriously
dies a few days after an inexplicable car crash. Klein finds pictures
she drew during her final days: images of a howling, winged creature
with red eyes. He goes to the town where other similar sightings have
taken place and begins to investigate the legend of the ÒMothman.Ó
Director
Mark Pellington is best known for his award-winning music videos. This
is not surprising, considering the Mothman Prophecies is shot like one.
The opening sequence is eye-catching with its trippy photographic manipulation.
ItÕs innovative, and visually, very interesting.
The
problem with this film is the abundance in which Pellington uses these
techniques. Instead of relying on suspense, the film goes for bad-horror-movie
shock: sudden loud music, flashes of light, screams, weird colors. Flashbacks
are shot in yellow; Mothman appearances are in red, white and black.
Combine that with slow motion, sped-up and unfocused sequences: the
whole thing becomes damn annoying. It distracts us from the original
premise: the hunt for this strange, evasive creature.
Nothing
is subtle in this film: thereÕs even an early closet scene where a moth
flutters over the heads of Klein and his wife. How understated. Every
dream, hint or odd statement is brought together in the end in a numbingly
obvious way. As one of my companions said: ÒIÕm surprised at the end
that the Mothman didnÕt stand up, introduce himself and explain in detail
how every single instance was interconnected. Oh wait, the film already
did that.Ó
When the Mothman appears, he leaves behind some kind of gray fuzz and
violent gashes in nearby surfaces. One of my many questions about this
film: why didnÕt they analyze those affected areas in a laboratory?
Questions remain throughout the film, and the few, vague answers given
are inadequate. One might say that thatÕs how the real-life investigation
went (and thatÕs true) but this is a FILM. Movies that end without any
kind of closure feel directionless, empty and worst of all, pointless.
In
addition, Richard Gere was not the man for this film. GereÕs such a
mild-mannered, passive kind of actor that the reporterÕs genuine fear
and obsession over the Mothman and his wifeÕs death is lost in favor
of a poker expression and a quiet voice. When Gere suddenly breaks down
into tears at the end of the film, itÕs really hard not to laugh.
A
redeemable performance came (surprisingly) from Debra Messing of ÒWill
and GraceÓ fame. Her presence, although limited mostly to photographs,
hauntings and flashbacks, was a strange mixture of angelic and sinister,
altogether very effective. The music was another fine aspect: very lilting
and otherworldly.
After
reading about the real-life stories about the Mothman and the people
whoÕve experienced these events, itÕs depressing how much potential
this film had. Grade: (C-)
SHALLOW
HAL
The Farrelly Brothers seem to be losing their edge. Their first blockbuster
film, ThereÕs Something About Mary, was a bizarre, disgusting and incredibly
funny story that introduced the Ògross-out comedyÓ genre. In their new
film, Shallow Hal, those same crude, rude tactics are combined with
a tender love story with morals, and it just doesnÕt work.
The
story focuses around Hal (Jack Black) who despite his average appearance
is consistently drawn towards pretentious, beautiful women. Influenced
as a young boy by the superficial words spoken by his dying father,
Hal is a kind personality; his romantic potential drained by the unattainable
women he chases. Enter Tony Robbins (the real self-help guru) who hypnotizes
Hal to see the inner beauty of people as their outer beauty.
Superficial
girls look ugly, while unattractive girls with shining personalities
are stunning beauties.
After his hypnosis, Hal meets Rosemary (Gwyneth Paltrow) who looks likeÉ
well, Gywneth PaltrowÉ works in the Peace Corps, volunteers at a child
hospital, and happens to be a very obese woman. Hal, only seeing RosemaryÕs
Òinner-beauty figureÓ, asks her out, they start to date, and eventually
fall in love. The breaking point comes when HalÕs hypnosis is broken,
and his vision is restored to reality.
Immediately,
there are flaws in this filmÕs story. Regardless if Hal sees an overweight
woman as a svelte string bean, wouldnÕt he feel the difference when
he hugs her? This matter is rapid-fire explained near the end (ÒThe
brain sees what the heart wants to feel.Ó) but it seems like an afterthought.
Clearly, the Farrelly Brothers were attempting to affix a moral to this
film, Òbeauty is withinÓ, but when that moral is surrounded by fat jokes,
tilting cars and broken restaurant chairs, it just seems mean-spirited.
What kind of moral are they attempting to show? True beauty is in the
personality, but itÕs still tons of fun to make fun of overweight people?
During
the film, whenever a beautiful girl (in HalÕs vision) was revealed as
a not-so-attractive girl, the audience shrieked loudly and laughed hysterically,
calling out insults. Talk about counter-productive. From the start of
Rosemary and HalÕs relationship I felt progressively worse for Rosemary:
despite her sweet personality, Hal couldnÕt truly love her. He would
never have given her a second look without the hypnosis, and real love
forms out of natural physical attraction and personality combined.
Gywneth
Paltrow does give a soft, sweet and quiet performance as Rosemary: she
appears radiant. She looks bizarre in the prosthetic Òfat-suitÓ, however:
if she was naturally overweight, sheÕd still be very pretty, but the
prosthetics gives her a very strange, stretched and unnatural appearance.
The real shame is Jack Black: hysterical and classic in High Fidelity,
but unnatural as a straight romantic lead. Fans of BlackÕs raucous band
Tenacious D or any other manic role heÕs played in films should stay
away from this film Ð itÕs not the Jack Black we love. This film (and
its focus) could have succeeded better without the Farrelly BrothersÕ
direction. (C-)
In
the Bedroom
The term Òin the bedroomÓ refers to, believe it or not, lobster traps.
Two lobsters in a trap are fine, but enter a third Òin the bedroomÓ,
and thereÕs bound to be claws a-snappinÕ. The consequence of triangle
love is the central conflict within the film ÒIn the Bedroom: a simple
story with a killer ending.
College
man Frank Fowler (Nick Stahl) has a growing love relationship with Natalie
(Marisa Tomei) a separated mother of two young boys. FrankÕs parents,
Ruth and Matt Fowler (Sissy Spacek and Tom Wilkinson), are apprehensive
about the blossoming relationship, and speak of their concern often,
but never actually forbid their son from seeing Natalie. Through all
of this discussion and development of love, Richard (William Mapother),
the anger-challenged, estranged husband, becomes infuriated at the sight
of Natalie falling for Frank. A gunshot is fired, tragedy ensues, and
the parents are left with an indescribable rift between them, hardly
able to look at each other through their overwhelming grief.
Todd
FieldÕs first time directorial effect is, in one word, impressive. This
is a simple, uncomplicated film Ð no swooping shots, no special effects.
There is little to no music, save for a school choir. This minimalism
lets the setting and the acting come into the foreground, and thatÕs
why the film shines.
Rarely
do films feel like they occur in a real home or a real place. The perfection
that consists in so many set designs (and brings that air of movie magic
to the filmÕs world) just doesnÕt exist here. The Fowler home consists
of messy, cluttered shelves and the sort of little decorations that
tend to exist in baby boomer house. The location shooting in Maine is
simple, open and natural Ð the eerie feeling that the traumatic events
of FrankÕs death could happen to anyone exists because of these down-to-earth
surroundings.
Little unexpected touches bring the film its most poignant moments:
the sudden reading of a William Blake poem in the one place it fits,
the meaning of taking down a childÕs swing set. The screenplay makes
silence a main character Ð itÕs an incredible use of non-verbal activity
that really makes this film stand out as unique. Watching these people
turn away from each other tells more than drawn-out speeches ever could.
The sheer heaviness of these emotions weighs over each scene almost
to the point when it overbears and almost suffocates.
That is sorrow, and the unflinching display of it is remarkable.
Performances are diverse and very well done. Things start to heat up
and get strange when it appears that there isnÕt enough evidence to
charge Richard with murder. The ending, in ways expected (and in other
ways, not) could be considered a disappointment in terms of predictability
- the slow nature of the first two-thirds is a noticeable contrast with
the suspenseful third. This is the only area in this remarkable film
that stood out as anything but impeccable. (B+)
ICE
AGE
After twenty-five overtime minutes of sitting through Van Morgan advertisements,
listening to the shrieking voices of a gaggle of children (who takes
ten kids to a Wednesday night movie??) and silently seething as ushers
ran around trying to find the missing projectionist, Ice Age finally
started to run. Luckily, my escalating temper was calmed: Ice Age ended
up being an amusing little film with razor-quick dialogue and beautiful
animation from Blue Sky Studios and Fox Animation.
The
story is very simple. The Ice Age is approaching and everyone is migrating
towards the south. Manny the mammoth (voiced by Ray Romano) has decided
to stay in the approaching cold despite warnings from the other mammals.
Through coincidence (or dumb luck), Manny gets companions in Sid the
sloth (John Leguizamo) a lost caveman baby, and Diego the saber-toothed
tiger (Denis Leary). In their attempts to return the baby (nicknamed
ÒPinkyÓ) to its father, Manny and Sid have no idea that Diego is slowly
luring them to a tiger ambush. Throughout Ice Age, I was constantly
reminded of other movies. Just like Shrek, the large, intimidating,
anti-social creature unexpectedly gets a smaller, annoying sidekick.
Much like Dinosaur, the sidekick is an ugly, flirtatious outsider of
a mammal trying to score with the female species. In Monsters Inc.,
a small, unintelligible child is thrust into the care of unprepared
creatures, and the basic goal of the film is to return the child to
its proper place. The humans in Ice Age have the same Grecian facial
design as the characters in Hercules and The Prince of Egypt. I was
even reminded of Three Men and a Baby in the way that clueless males
Manny, Sid and Diego try to deal with the babyÕs dirty diapers, crying
and hunger. ItÕs unfortunate that these familiar plot / character aspects
were so distracting, because the dialogue and characters in Ice Age
are very smart, quick-witted and extremely funny at times. The humans
look far less impressive than the animals do (something common in recent
animated films) but the expressive detail and fluid movement of the
animals makes up for it. The film is peppered with brief, but memorable
scenes. Two ambiguously gay rhinos exchange a dandelion in the barren
land; a ditzy, military-influenced pack of dodo birds make a huge spectacle
of trying to protect three melons; during a venture through ice caverns,
Sid inspects columns of ice containing frozen piranhas, evolving species
and even a UFO. And thereÕs nothing quite like seeing a tiger trying
to play peek-a-boo with a stricken baby. As in most films made for children,
some of the character development is a bit hard to believe; itÕs a very
sudden move from ÒevilÓ to Ònot quite so evilÓ in terms of the two-faced
Diego, who grabs Sid out of nowhere and rubs his knuckles into SidÕs
head in that guy-affectionate-bullying manner. But thatÕs probably just
the cynic in me - these days, most films made for kids are better than
the ones made for adults. (B)
HARRY
POTTER AND THE SORCERERÕS STONE
During the opening night of this first film installment of the Harry
Potter childrenÕs book series, I wasnÕt expecting much more than a two-hour
screaming kids fest and an average movie. Amazingly, Harry Potter and
the SorcererÕs Stone turned out to be a charming and expressively detailed
film filled with likable characters, a good plot, beautiful cinematography
and a lilting, wondrous musical score. The story begins as a baby boy
named Harry Potter is deposited at the home of his aunt Petunia and
Uncle Vernon after his parents were mysteriously killed. Eleven years
pass, and Harry (David Radcliffe) is treated as a despised servant by
his aunt and uncle, forced to sleep in the cupboard under the stairs
and ignored in favor of his treasured, obnoxious cousin. One day, letters
carried by delivering owls start arriving for Harry: these letters eventually
fill the house with mountains of envelopes and trigger the arrival of
the enormous, hairy groundskeeper Hagrid (Robbie Coltrane). For the
first time, Harry learns that his parents were both great wizards killed
by the evil wizard Voldemort and he was the only survivor. He is taken
away from his abusive household and brought to the mystical and secret
HogwartÕs School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. There, he meets mischievous
Ron (Rupert Grint) and teacherÕs pet Hermione (Emma Watson), discovers
his immensely powerful magical abilities, conflicts with trouble-causing
snobs, and starts to uncover the mystery surrounding his parentsÕ death,
namely zeroing in on the sinister and secretive Professor Severus Snape
(Alan Rickman), who seems to harbor feelings of resentment towards Harry.
Director Chris Columbus has done a wonderful job of creating an incredibly
detailed world for Harry to explore. The people depicted in paintings
move and speak to the students; candles and jack-o-lanterns hover over
the dining area for lighting; staircases shift and move spontaneously.
There are intense, alarming moments that even adults can get wound up
in: a troll invades the school and decimates the girlÕs bathroom trying
to get at Hermione; an enormous three headed dog savagely guards a trap
door in the forbidden third corridor; the surrounding dark forest of
the school harbors evil spirits that kill unicorns and suck on their
blood for life. ThereÕs also a nifty game the school children play called
Quidditch: a hybrid of football and basketball played while zooming
around on broomsticks. Sour-faced goblins run the wizard bank, and ghosts
routinely walk through corridors and attend classes. The detail, creativity
and complexity that went into making this film are absolutely fabulous.
Harry is an agreeable, engaging and sympathetic character; Hermione
is an entertaining mix of annoying, yet clever wit. Ron stands out as
the redheaded, knocked around troublemaker of the school, often spouting
the best lines of the film. The only criticism? At two and a half hours,
itÕs a bit long. The last ten minutes could have easily been cut out;
the need for the perfect, completely happy ending wasnÕt needed for
a film this multifaceted and beautifully crafted. (B+)
Royal Tenanbaums
Directed
by Wes Anderson, this atypical film centers on an eccentric absentee
father Royal Tenanbaum (Gene Hackman), who fakes a terminal illness
to try and get his family to love him again. Barring him from entering
is his estranged wife Etheline (Angelica Huston) and his children, who
happen to be the famous Tenanbaum child-geniuses: now three jaded adults
struggling with their former status. Chas the business expert (Ben Stiller)
is now a neurotic widow overprotecting his two sons. Margot (Gwyneth
Paltrow) won a Pulitzer Prize as a child playwright, and now spends
six hours a day in the bath, appearing in public buried under black
kohl eyeliner and fur coats. Ritchie the tennis pro (Luke Wilson) retired
after a disastrous televised match: now traveling around the world on
a ship, pining over his secret love for his adopted sister Margot. As
all the Tenanbaums find themselves gathered under the same Manhattan
roof for the first time in seventeen years, humor, sarcasm, hatred and
pure dysfunction incur. The soundtrack consists of mostly unknown artists
and symphony moments. The choices, although sometimes odd, are unexpectedly
moving. During moments with Margot, the theme from Peanuts ÒChristmas
Time is HereÓ plays softly in the background. Instead of seeming silly,
it washes a poignant feel over the whole scene. The attention to detail
is excellent as well. Each character has a specific style, which transcends
from the clothes they wear to the posters and trinkets in their rooms.
These fine points create a little world around each character, helping
us as an audience to uncover their secret personalities visually, instead
of relying solely on dialogue and action. Much has been spoken of Gene
HackmanÕs performance: itÕs well deserving. HackmanÕs Royal Tenanbaum
is animated, unruly, full of quirks and wry observations about life,
intelligence, and forgiveness. Despite the unkind things he did in the
past, itÕs impossible to want anything but redemption in the eyes of
his family. HeÕs just too entertaining to hate. One of the more surprising
performances comes from Ben Stiller. Instead of relying on physical
comedy (such as 2001Õs Zoolander) heÕs compelling as the hyper-paranoid
father still grieving the death of his wife. His delivery of a simple
line, ÒItÕs been a rough yearÓ, is a shot to the gut, so full of meaning
it explains his entire role in the film. Luke Wilson blew away all expectations
with his portrayal of Ritchie Tenanbaum. Seemingly the most together
of all the Tenanbaum children, his truth is understated, but deeply
wrenching. Intriguing performances form in the subplots of the film:
Owen Wilson plays the childhood friend next door, now a drug-addicted
author who Òalways wanted to be a Tenanbaum.Ó Danny Glover and Bill
Murray make the most of their limited screen time: their quiet devotion
to Etheline and Margot is a welcome release from the stifled family
relationships. With the obvious Òstar powerÓ of this film, one might
expect to see glimmers of stereotypical behavior emerging from these
well-known actors. Instead, everyone immerses themselves in their quirky,
sometimes unflattering roles. In turn, this movie becomes a complex
statement of how strange family, love and fate can be. An odd little
film with truly original characters and a poignant, moving story. (A+)
40 Days and 40 Nights
Matt (Josh Harnett) is a miserable slave to his sexual desires. Dumped
by his girlfriend Nicole (Vinessa Shaw) six months ago, he's now sleeping
with a different girl every night and still pining after Nicole. When
he finds out that NicoleÕs engaged, Matt runs to his priest-in-the-making
brother for advice. He comes out of the confessional with the filmÕs
concept: during the period of Lent, Matt will abstain from sex, any
form of sexual contact, and even masturbation in order to try and get
over Nicole for good. His roommate and co-workers find out and start
a pool, betting when and how Matt will break his vow. But MattÕs biggest
temptations come when he meets Erica (Shannyn Sossamon) and Nicole suddenly
reappears on the thirty-eighth day. The beginning and end of the film
have a weird, trippy quality to them. When Matt makes the Lent decision,
heÕs so pleased with himself that the outside world is all florescent
colors and winking Mary and Joseph statues. Matt describes the emptiness
he feels during sex as a black hole opening over his head - during one
sex scene, he sees the ceiling cracking above him and has to fake an
orgasm to cover up his distraction. The whole film has a quick, fun,
breezy feel to it. The growing relationship between Erica and Matt was
believable and funny Ð Erica wavers between acceptance and frustration
as the sexual tension grows. Trying everything to get her to stay until
the forty days are up, Matt uses orchids in one scene to stroke Erica
Ð a clever touch. All the supporting characters are likable and amusing,
especially the priest and the roommate. As the money in the pool grows,
MattÕs desperate friends go to extreme measures to try and get Matt
to break his vow. They put Viagra in his orange juice, one girl Xeroxes
her butt and writes her number on it, two other women try the old Òfake-lesbian
kissingÓ routine. A few criticisms? The reasons why Nicole and Matt
broke up are hinted at, but never explained. Matt tells Nicole: ÒYou
always took everything from me.Ó Well, whatÕd he take? Considering that
Nicole is the reason why Matt took on the vow in the first place, not
knowing the details of the relationship made it hard to see why the
bitchy Nicole had such an impact on him. Another questionable feature
was the amount of beautiful young women in knee-high boots and little
skirts working at MattÕs dot-com office. Yes, itÕs the movies and set
in San Francesco, but cÕmon: dot-com beauties all over the office? This
is the kind of film where the sweating, smoking and screwed up Matt
dreams that heÕs flying over (no joke) hills of breasts. If you find
that funny, and if you have a liberal sense of humor about the ideas
of sex, this is a good movie to kick back and laugh at without much
thought afterwards. (B-)
AMELIE Full of quirky personalities and shot with a brilliant array
of techniques and colors, Amelie is dazzling to watch. Original characters
and successful, experimental filmmaking is rarely seen in American cinema;
itÕs surprising to see a foreign film excel so simply and amazingly
where homegrown others have floundered. The film begins with a series
of lists, identifying the strange personality traits of all the main
characters. The father of the title character, Amelie, likes popping
bubble wrap, cleaning out his toolbox, and hates wet swim trunks. AmelieÕs
mother likes figure skaters, organizing the contents of her purse, and
hates pillow creases on her face. These preferences are visually accompanied
with quick handheld camera shots, and stop motion photography showing
a naked pregnant woman grow to full term in five seconds. The result
of the sequence (and the parents copulation): an unusual looking, charismatic
and mystifying girl named Amelie. One day, a suicidal woman jumps from
the top of a church and lands on AmelieÕs mother as she exits the local
church. SheÕs instantly killed, and Amelie becomes enthralled with her
own imaginary world, becoming a solitary child. Flash forward to 1997
Paris: Amelie (Audrey Tautou) is a twenty-two year old waitress living
on her own: a pixie-like, reclusive girl who enjoys the simple pleasures
in life. Amelie regularly picks up stones for future water skipping
uses, and wonders how many people are having an orgasm at the very second
she thinks of it. During the evening news one night, she hears that
Princess Diana of England has died. In her shock, she drops a perfume
bottle, which results in her finding a hidden metal box full of an unknown
boyÕs treasures. At that point, she decides to track down the boxÕs
owner and secretly give it back to him: if heÕs happy to see it, she
will continue to do anonymous good deeds. The film is primarily shot
with yellow tints, and in a variety of stunning views, angles and tempos;
this is some beautiful and striking cinematography. Speckles of sudden
and bright animation are used as well as playful editing, which creates
the sense of an adult fairie tale. Despite its sunny premise, however,
Amelie is surprisingly sharp in its humor due to its eccentric supporting
cast. In her restaurant alone, Amelie works alongside a tobacco-selling
hypochondriac, a chiropractor / waitress being stalked by her tape-recording
ex-boyfriend, and a crippled restaurant owner who was literally dropped
by the trapeze artist she once loved. The true story lies with the revelation
of the wonderful AmelieÕs secret cowardice. Despite her noble and brave
intentions, she can barely say hello to the only man thatÕs ever interested
her: Nino Quincampoix (Mathieu Kassovitz) a porn store employee who
collects discarded passport photos from train station booths and reassembles
them in scrapbooks. Through this awkward attraction, she learns that
true happiness comes from making contact with the real world. With its
inventive characters and amusing story, itÕs no wonder that his film
was an international hit. (A+)
