There are things you do hate, Lord. Perfume-smellin’ things, lacy things, things with curly hair.
Tom Cruise may be mad as a march hare, but he’s so good at what he does. So good.
by Matt Bailey | Source: Paramount Pictures 35mm print
29 Jun 2005 10:29 PM | Submit Comment
Having made her mark as a video performance artist, it seems appropriate that in her debut feature film, Miranda July emphasizes the performance rituals people go through while seeking love. A six-year old boy logs on to IM and innocently begins a perverse conversation with a lusty middle-aged woman; a pair of teenage girls lie about their age to entice an older man into voicing his desire for them; a heartbroken shoe salesman lights his hand on fire to express his anguish at his wife’s decision to divorce him; and a video artist (played by July herself) engages in childlike make-believe games to attract the attention of man she sees a future with. Although the dialogue occasionally verges on heavy-handed, July is a sharp enough observer of human nature to pull things back to earth, slipping in quiet, keenly observed moments that should strike a chord with even the most stubbornly cynical viewer.
by Beth Gilligan | Source: IFC Digital Projection
27 Jun 2005 10:32 AM | Submit Comment
This film has some of the most cohesive overacting I’ve seen, which is a formidable distraction in an otherwise fine-tuned film. Tom Savini’s makeup effects are masterful, and Romero’s political agenda is its most explicit—in this film, a meager battalion that inhabits a bomb shelter is as much of a hostile threat as the horde of zombies enclosed within.
Having watched the first three of Romero’s —of the Dead films in one afternoon, an evolution is more apparent to me. Any hype for the director’s current Land of the Dead is slightly diminished, however, as Romero’s greatest asset is economic filmmaking—he’s his best when his actors are unknowns and his settings are simplified. That, and Tom Savini’s exclusion as the film’s effects artist, inclines me to hold on to my nine dollars until the film is on video.
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: Anchor Bay DVD
26 Jun 2005 2:56 PM | Submit Comment
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: Anchor Bay DVD (Theatrical Cut)
26 Jun 2005 2:54 PM | Submit Comment
An exceptional, tense, and superbly-edited horror film. Although not my favorite in Romero’s zombie canon (see: next entry), this film possesses strengths the later films in the series lack, namely strategic characterizations (Romero’s survivalists endow and evenly represent ethnic minorities) and claustrophobic settings. Romero’s female leads, unfortunately, are usually submissive and expendable, but this chauvinist tendency evolves; by the time we get to Day, a female is the most commanding survivalist. In Night, although the lead female (Barbara, estranged from her brother in the opening scene) spends the entire film in shock, her death is immensely dire: her brother, now zombified, enters her shelter. She enters his arms, recognizing her sibling and not the savage enemy he has become, and is torn apart. Being as many characters in this series are capable of eschewing any emotional attachment to a loved one once he becomes undead, this is a significant action.
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: Platinum Disc Corporation DVD
26 Jun 2005 2:54 PM | Submit Comment
Before Sunrise has, in description, the appearance of an idealist’s romance: its duration is devoted solely to a relationship of utmost succinctness and pure infatuation. It is this very quality that I think mars romantic films, as they tend to abbreviate the experience, omitting the awkwardness and insecurity that are in tandem with infatuation. Before Sunrise is able to avoid these qualities because of the scenario – a boy and girl who have less than a day to spend with each other – and the result is engrossing. The pair are established with some contrivance – he is a cynic, and she an optimist – but they are less artificial than the title pair in Harold and Maude (a great film, distinguished by its exaggerated characterization). Knowledge of the sequel (which I have not seen), however, ruins the film’s perfect ending, but I read it’s a well done follow-up.
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: Cable Television
26 Jun 2005 1:55 PM | Submit Comment
Rather witty, that “French postcards” gag.
by Matt Bailey | Source: The Criterion Collection DVD
25 Jun 2005 8:08 PM | Submit Comment
It’s fun, for a while, to watch Bette Davis act circles around the rest of the penny-ante cast, but it soon becomes clear that the material is unworthy of Davis’ talent.
For Bette Davis fans, it’s worth watching once, but it’s unlikely to hold much appeal for anyone else.
by Matt Bailey | Source: Warner Bros. DVD
25 Jun 2005 5:40 PM | Submit Comment
To watch S.Z. “Cuddles” Sakall deliver the line, “Tunafish popovers?” is to know the genius of stealing scenes.
by Matt Bailey | Source: Turner Classic Movies broadcast
25 Jun 2005 12:49 AM | Submit Comment
Faithful to Nabokov’s original novel only inasmuch as there are chess tournaments in each. Preposterous Europudding.
by Matt Bailey | Source: Sony Pictures DVD
22 Jun 2005 10:36 PM | Submit Comment
An appropriate directorial debut for Bruce Campbell, set in Bulgaria, and involving a mad scientist and his ploy to combine the brains of a street hustler cab driver and Campbell, in the title role, as a moneyed American dealmaker. The film is a decent execution of the camp its title suggests, and is only enhanced by a dumbly charismatic Ted Raimi in a supporting role. The result of the combined brains is an extended treatment of Evil Dead II’s best scene—which is to say it’s moderately engaging until you recognize the connection, which only serves to affirm the superiority of the former film.
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: 35mm print
22 Jun 2005 11:11 AM | Comments (1)
Though I found this perfectly satisfying for what it was, I must say that I thought it was a fairly mediocre film. The first hour (or more) is as choppy as a car commercial — and in fact, the whole film had all of the non sequiturs and expository neatness of a feature-length movie preview. And, yes, I know I’m being a sourpuss, but how many comic-book-adaptation and summer-blockbuster clichés can one shove into a film? Big car chase, portentous dialogue delivered in monotone, gratuitous globe-trotting, and every available character-actor in Hollywood thrown together with a few nonsensical action sequences — sure, all of this makes for a distracting night at the movies, but “best Batman movie ever”?!
What’s most sad is that it’s only the second day of summer and, after this and Star Wars, I’m already sick of those damn comfy mutliplex seats and the smell of “topping”. And, joy of joys!, War of the Worlds opens on Friday.
by Leo Goldsmith | Source: Warner Bros. 35mm Print
22 Jun 2005 1:02 AM | Comments (5)
Why AMC bills this film as a drama I’ll never know. It’s Mad Max for god’s sake. It’s action. It’s sci-fi. It’s horror. It’s post-apocalyptic. But drama? I suppose some of the touching scenes between Max and his wife Jessie might momentarily fit the label, but I can guarantee that no one settles in for an evening of Mad Max to be swept up in an engaging human tale. We watch for explosions, severed limbs, fast cars, and Mel Gibson at his revenge-fueled finest.
At the beginning, Max Rockatansky is the celebrated driver of a police car called the Interceptor; a man who spends his life on the semi-lawless Australian highways attempting to track down all wrong doers. It is a post-apocalypitc world in which much of civilization has eroded, leaving folks with nothing much to do but drive around, look for gas, and cause trouble. At first, Max likes his work, but when his partner is mutilated by a band of thugs, he wants to call it quits and take care of his wife. Sadly, the thugs know about Max and set about to destroy his happiness. Once that is accomplished, Max gets Mad and seeks revenge.
While its overarching plot structure is thus easy enough to understand, the underlying aspects of the Mad Max story are quite mysterious, due in large part to the film’s use of thick Australian accents and roughly cut scenes that jump one to the next. We are offered hints as to the complex details of this future world, but nothing is entirely spelled out for us. The result is a film that never gets bogged down in details and allows viewers to become a part of its universe with little effort. We understand what’s going on, not by listening closely, but by sitting back and watching the action unfold. Add to this a wonderfully bleak landscape, and an atmosphere of perpetual restlessness and danger, and you have an engrossing movie world that feels entirely real and possible.
by Thomas Scalzo | Source: AMC Broadcast
21 Jun 2005 11:27 AM | Submit Comment
I was a bit skeptical about this one, but wound up thoroughly impressed by Christopher Nolan’s dark, realistic interpretation of the material. Katie Holmes is irritating (she tries too hard to be plucky), but the cast is otherwise excellent, and although I still slightly prefer Tim Burton’s 1989 version, I think Christian Bale makes a better bat than Michael Keaton.
by Beth Gilligan | Source: 35mm print
21 Jun 2005 10:13 AM | Submit Comment
This one flew under the radar when it was released a few years ago, but my love for John Cusack prompted me to check it out belatedly. While it’s not without its flaws, Noah Taylor turns in an incredible performance and the script posits some fascinating ideas about the link between politics and art.
by Beth Gilligan | Source: Lions Gate DVD
21 Jun 2005 10:07 AM | Submit Comment
“I’ve always been afraid of women. But I get over it.”
by Leo Goldsmith | Source: The Criterion Collection DVD
19 Jun 2005 1:52 AM | Submit Comment
Brad and Angelina are surprisingly fun to watch together, but the rest of the movie gets bogged down by the gimmickry of its premise and its many cartoonish, overblown action sequences. Vince Vaughan and Adam Brody’s appearances are essentially reprises of their roles in Swingers and The O.C., respectively, and one comes away from the whole experience wondering what would have become of this film had it been less slickly-packaged for audience consumption. Had director Doug Liman stuck to dark comedy and let the sparks fly, we might have been looking at a minor Hollywood classic instead of an overlong video game.
by Beth Gilligan | Source: 35mm print
18 Jun 2005 11:07 AM | Submit Comment
Not one of Lubitsch’s most laugh-out-loud comedies, but so touching and sweet (without syrupy sentimentality) that it really doesn’t matter. Plus, you can’t really argue with a cast that includes Don Ameche, Charles Coburn, Marjorie Main, Eugene Pallette, and my favorite child actor of all time, Dickie Moore.
by Matt Bailey | Source: The Criterion Collection DVD
17 Jun 2005 10:48 PM | Submit Comment
By and far, the lesser half of a 3-D double feature. The concept – an alien race that elicits human judgement and ultimately distrust – is superior in The Day the Earth Stood Still. And this film has little spectacle to admire other than the image of each actor responding to an offscreen fright with laughable emphasis (in this film, you may discern the absolute depth of someone’s fear in an agape mouth and eyebrows that bounce rapidly up and down)—the monster, unfortunately, is also laughable. Henry Mancini’s theremin score, however generic in science-fiction films, is a redemptive component in this otherwise unremarkable film.
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: 35mm print (in 3-D)
17 Jun 2005 3:36 PM | Submit Comment
Every time the eponymous creature steps into the frame, the entry is marked by an identical scare chord. And watching this film with a near sold-out crowd, comprised thankfully by those who discern the inherent humor in dialogue delivered with cardboard emotion, the hackneyed tactic accumulates laughter. By the time he’s reaching through a ship’s portals towards victims within, the shock is accompanied by cheers and applause. This was an exceptional title in Coolidge’s recent 3-D film festival. Although the print is noticeably degraded in comparison to the DVD transfer (or on TCM, where I first saw it), a Universal Monster’s prestige is no better manifested than in the image of his giant arm creeping towards you in the dark.
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: 35mm print (in 3-D)
17 Jun 2005 3:26 PM | Submit Comment
Not quite a return to form for Waters, but funnier than anything he’s done since Hairspray.
by Matt Bailey | Source: New Line DVD
17 Jun 2005 12:36 PM | Submit Comment
A recent feature at The Onion A. V. Club highlights a list of great films with bad scenes, and vice-versa (and more revelatory), a list of bad films with great scenes. After having read the article, this notion of duality is now applicable to most every film I watch—it’s equivalent to obsessing over a favorite track on an album full of duds, or skipping over your least favorite song in an otherwise faultless record. The notion of perfection is so rare and subjective that this argument becomes eminently useful in short-hand descriptions of what I watch and listen to.
Jerry Maguire – which classifies as a bad film in order to support this case – presents a subtle example, one uncommonly cynical for a film so set on bestowing fortunate underdogs with happy endings. The primary underdog, Maguire, has just walked his new assistant (and sole employee) Dorothy, a widowed mother, to her doorstep after their first date. He is invited inside. After a quick glimpse of the two eschewing their clothing, we see her sister, Laurel (presumably a divorcee, and with whom Dorothy lives), sitting on the kitchen countertop with the lights off, a cigarette in one hand, her sister’s leftovers in the other.
This is a film in which all of the main characters experience a happy ending: Jerry and Dorothy get married, her son gets a new dad, Jerry’s sole client, Rod, scores a multi-million dollar contract with the Phoenix Cardinals, and his wife has another baby; everyone except Laurel. Throughout the film she is suspicious of her sister’s instant romance and hasty wedding, and perhaps rightly so, as her concern seems to have been sharpened by a series of unsatisfactory relationships. This brief shot is the closest she comes to happiness in the film; although her sister – her closest companion in life – is being taken from her, she allows herself with complacent despair a taste of her sister’s success.
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: Cable Television
16 Jun 2005 1:09 PM | Submit Comment
A series of ruminations on the creative process, illustrated with comedy and ample ingenuity by Saul Bass. At thirty minutes, it’s nonetheless robust with valid ideas, and abstract illustrations of those ideas. More to come on this personality in the coming month…
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: bootleg VHS
16 Jun 2005 1:04 PM | Submit Comment
A masterpiece.
Filmic responses to war are typically polemic, and although Three Kings contains these aspects of older war films, it’s a film marked by its indecision regarding the purpose, intents, and effects of the first Gulf War. And – dynamically – with its political indifference/investment excepted, Three Kings remains a pointedly comedic, ingeniously photographed film.
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: Warner Bros. DVD
16 Jun 2005 1:03 PM | Submit Comment
Another astonishing, beautiful, and deeply felt Ghibli film. Though it lacks a convincing ending (no apocalypse?), it is as visually sophisticated as anything Miyazaki’s crew has put their hands to. And in Sophie, we have yet another classic Miyazaki heroine — a resilient young woman who doesn’t need to learn or be told that perseverance is the way to go. Not only that, she’s elderly!
Disney has neither the chops nor the stones to create something like this on their own — all they can do is import it. But unfortunately, the English-language version suffers from typically bad casting and some Disneyfied tweeness: Christian Bale is no Billy Crudup, and whoever hired Billy Crystal should be shot.
by Leo Goldsmith | Source: Walt Disney Pictures 35mm Print
14 Jun 2005 12:34 AM | Comments (2)
Peter Sellers, Vittorio De Sica, Neil Simon, Victor Mature, Britt Ekland, and Akim Tamiroff. Together at last!
by Leo Goldsmith | Source: Cable Television Broadcast
12 Jun 2005 9:41 PM | Submit Comment
Jane Wyman is a vast improvement as Torchy over potato-faced Glenda Farrell.
by Matt Bailey | Source: Turner Classic Movies broadcast
11 Jun 2005 11:32 PM | Submit Comment
The four characters that manipulate, disappoint, lie to and cheat on each other in this film garnered little of my sympathy. And under the helm of Mike Nichols – whom I consider to be among the most able and innovative directors in film – the result is nonetheless a generally superbly acted production, save for a very subdued Julia Roberts. Not something I’d race to see again, but this is worth a rental if only to see Clive Owen leer with great and sudden hostility into Roberts, as his infidel wife; this moment summates the extent of the drastic, unrequited love experienced by each character in the film, in which a truth proves to be as damaging as a lie.
Beth’s thoughts | Matt’s thoughts
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: Sony Pictures DVD
11 Jun 2005 8:42 PM | Submit Comment
Working alongside his best romantic interest and spar, Diane Keaton, and calling upon the talents of Alan Alda and Anjelica Huston, Woody Allen pulls together a film that is a consistantly hilarious comedy and a genuinely engrossing mystery.
The story begins with a chance elevator meeting with the couple down the hall. One thing leads to another, and before you know it, the neighbor’s wife is dead and Keaton is convinced the husband is somehow involved. A series of madcap adventures follows, embroiling Allen, Keaton, and their friends and coworkers, in a dizzying tale of lies and manipulation.
Allen’s flippant storytelling style allows him to pull back now and again and let one of his characters rehash what’s gone on so far, just in case the audience hasn’t quite kept up to speed. The dialogue and performances follow this relaxed attitude, generally coming off as improvisations and ad lib, even though we can assume the bulk of the one liners were prepared beforehand and the narrative was carefully constructed. Add in Allen’s restless camera technique, which takes in faces, objects, and settings with equal attention, and you have a film that at first feels like it has no true sense of direction or story, but slowly and inextricably pulls us in and convinces us that all this is really happening, that we are in the midst of a bizarre muder mystery in the strange universe that is New York.
by Thomas Scalzo | Source: Comcast Moviepass Feature
10 Jun 2005 11:37 PM | Submit Comment
With Brad Pitt as the white, trailer-trash serial killer Early King, Kailfornia would play well as a B-movie to one of Pitt’s later films, say Se7en or Fight Club. Whilst excessively violent in places, Kalifornia introduces several characteristics of the (then young) actor’s trade that were explored further in the later roles. Take, for example, the seventh deadly sin: wrath. Pitt looks good wielding a gun, finding innovative angles at which to point and prod victims in Kalifornia. Now move to Se7en’s finale, with Pitt’s steady lift of a gun to John Doe’s head under intense emotional pressure. The different methods of gun-posturing reveal how far the actor had come before his career became subservient to his Hollywood celebrity status, and shows an actor clearly in possession of some talent.
Ostensibly a vehicle for Pitt, Kalifornia remains a reference point for fans of the actor’s work up to and including Fight Club, and a shock-in-waiting for fans who prefer his most recent, pretty-boy work, from The Mexican onwards.
by Rich Watts | Source: MGM Home Entertainment DVD
10 Jun 2005 11:28 AM | Comments (1)
When a director is as critically revered and steeped in acclaim as Ingmar Bergman it can be difficult to know where to begin: viewers are faintly aware that they should like his work but often find the film presented to them leaving tinges of disappointment. When expectations are high, the reality can often be something of a let down. Fortunately, Wild Strawberries does not invest such feelings. The story of an old doctor’s journey with his daughter-in-law to collect an honorary degree for 50 years service to his profession, it is a journey full of introspection, of enquiries into youth and age, and of dreams of the past and present. At its base level, it is a film of life and death.
Its meditation on the need for relationships between human beings – explored through the different relationships presented on screen between father and son, husband and wife, brother and sister etc. – are familiar (and thus accessible) to all. Not here are there the artistic pretensions that can make a film ambiguous and hence not enjoyable. The performances, especially from silent-film star Victor Sjöström as the old doctor, lend an air of grace to a sumptuous film that is rich in allegory and symbolism.
A friend of a friend used to finish every film they watched with what became a nonchalant catchphrase – “It was all right, but it’s no Wild Strawberries”. I don’t think the film is quite that good, but I do believe it to be an elegant, accessible starting point for viewers interested in art-house cinema.
by Rich Watts | Source: Tartan Video DVD
10 Jun 2005 11:10 AM | Submit Comment
Full review forthcoming.
by Leo Goldsmith | Source: Project X 35mm Print
08 Jun 2005 11:54 PM | Submit Comment
Oh, how I laughed at this in the early ’80s when it played incessantly on Showtime. Not as funny now.
by Matt Bailey | Source: Image Entertainment DVD
08 Jun 2005 10:39 PM | Submit Comment
This is essentially the best documentary film ever made. Notice how completely it exhibits the lives of two young star athletes, Arthur Agee and William Gates, including most every basketball game and practice they have between their ninth and twelfth grades. In the film, you see them age, and from the first second each is introduced both exhibit a blinding desire to become a professional NBA player, with a paycheck that will support their families (each has members whose NBA dreams have failed). Watching Arthur and William play, you become invested in their shared dream; you want to see them succeed, and you are affected by every single trial that threatens them and their families. Hoop Dreams evolves in a manner few films can and have, and it is as affecting as any film I have seen.
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: The Criterion Collection DVD
08 Jun 2005 2:05 PM | Submit Comment
Though inferior to Shyamalan’s previous Signs, The Village is not as maligned as its many scathing reviews would otherwise suggest. M. is, however, defeating himself with his trademark twist endings, but he does satisfy his utility as a lesser-grade Hitchcock—and in this regard, I wish he would make his cameos silent and brief.
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: Buena Vista DVD
08 Jun 2005 2:01 PM | Submit Comment
God this film is stupid. And pretentious, and replete with horror clichés, and nothing like it’s predecessor. That said, I still watched the entire thing (probably out of admiration for its predecessor, which I admire greatly), which is more than I can say for most of the films I coincidentally come upon the beginning of on cable television.
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: Cable Television
08 Jun 2005 2:00 PM | Submit Comment
Todd Solondz’s Sundance darling follows Dawn Wiener, a 7th-grader burdened by formidable social indifference. She is constantly blamed at school for pranks she does not employ, and is the least nurtured of three siblings at home. Dawn’s scrutiny is constant, and bestowed by most every possible source. This is as accurately dark and dramatic as Junior High can be.
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: Cable Television
08 Jun 2005 1:58 PM | Submit Comment
Waking Life is ostensibly identical to Linklater’s Slacker with it’s nouveau-beatnik aesthetic and pseudo philosophy, but visually it is nothing less than a landmark.
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: Fox DVD
08 Jun 2005 1:57 PM | Submit Comment
“I Scream-A, You Scream-A, We all Scream-A for Ice-Cream-A!”
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: The Criterion Collection DVD
08 Jun 2005 1:55 PM | Submit Comment
This interesting and eventually well publicised documentary first of all reminded me of Akira Kurosawa’s Rashomon, because of the totally incompatible stories divulged to the viewer by different participants. Once that thought had passed, all I could hear in my head was Jack Nicholson shouting “You can’t handle the truth!”, which was slightly off-putting.
These thoughts together – and what passed before my eyes on screen – helped me conclude how appropriate it was that director Jarecki’s film started off as a documentary about clowns.
by Rich Watts | Source: Tartan Video DVD
07 Jun 2005 8:49 AM | Comments (1)
It is ironic that the two Asian filmmakers best known to cinephiles in the West – India’s Satyajit Ray and Japan’s Akira Kurosawa – are arguably among the least representative filmmakers in their own countries, largely because their films have been seen as more ‘[W]estern’ than most of their contemporaries.
– James Chapman, “Cinemas of the World”
Any viewer coming to Kurosawa’s work will be aware of this pronounced Western influence, but I think it’s much more useful to think of the director’s work as an exchange between Western and Japanese cultures. Traveling from East to West – the better-known route so far as Kurosawa is concerned – we find The Seven Samurai, Yojimbo and Rashomon remade as The Magnificent Seven, A Fistful Of Dollars and The Outrage respectively. Arguably, we can add Star Wars as a remake of Hidden Fortress too. But in the opposite direction – from West to East – not only do we have Kurosawa’s professed love of John Ford, but Dostoevsky’s “The Idiot” and Shakespeare’s “King Lear” remade as The Idiot and (loosely) Ran respectively.
As part of this exchange, Throne of Blood takes Shakespeare’s Scottish play and uses it to exhibit traditional Japanese battle art and elements of Noh theatre. It is faithful to the original and, though not Kurosawa’s best work, indicative of many elements of his films – including a remarkable, iconic finale. Although I won’t say his work isn’t more Western than most of his contemporaries, Kurosawa must surely be considered representative of Japanese filmmaking, if only because films such as Throne of Blood and The Idiot work so successfully in a Japanese context.
by Rich Watts | Source: bfi Video Publishing DVD
07 Jun 2005 8:36 AM | Submit Comment
Realising he has taken his friend’s schoolbook home with him and aware that his mistake might lead to his friend’s expulsion, a young boy spends his evening trying to return the book, despite not knowing where his friend lives.
Directed by the acclaimed Abbas Kiarostami, Where Is My Friend’s House? is a simple film in every sense: simple plot, simple script, simple photography and simple direction. Yet its simplicity and sense of the low-key imbues it with resolute meaning and a literally beautiful context in which the young boy sets about his task determinately.
Shown recently as part of an excellent Iranian film week on Channel 4 in the UK – an unusual but welcome piece of terrestrial television scheduling – I cannot remember making a more delightful and enjoyable discovery than this.
by Rich Watts | Source: UK terrestrial TV
07 Jun 2005 7:52 AM | Comments (1)
That it should have come to this: George Clooney aloof (kapow!), Chris O’Donnell arrogant (bam!), Arnie in shocking pun mode (zlop!) and – lest we forget – Alicia Silverstone in leather (splatt!).
It’s more camp than a boy scout weekend (or the original television series, for that matter) and less good than virtually any other film you care to think of. I can only hope that the forthcoming Batman Begins (with the excellent Christian Bale) will put right the wrongs of every Batman sequel so far.
by Rich Watts | Source: UK terrestrial TV
07 Jun 2005 7:15 AM | Comments (4)
Comments here.
by Leo Goldsmith | Source: Mystic Fire DVD
06 Jun 2005 11:31 PM | Submit Comment
It’s amazing how much of this film I can quote from memory. What’s even more amazing is that Carl Reiner directed it.
by Leo Goldsmith | Source: Cable Television Broadcast
06 Jun 2005 7:29 PM | Submit Comment
I only just caught up with this film and enjoyed it. And no, I’m not on any kind of Tom Cruise kick right now. As a salt-and-peppery hitman, Cruise is not particularly credible, but then nor is Jamie Foxx as a cabbie. But none of this harms one’s enjoyment of the film too much, as naturalism isn’t exactly the primary object.
Generally, I find Michael Mann’s films to be long-winded, and while this is no exception, the shiny suits, shiny buildings, and excellent supporting cast kept things fairly agile. (It’s particularly nice to see Bruce McGill — MacGuyver’s old sidekick — turning up as a stately, silver-haired Fed.) Mainly, the film just made me nostalgic for a time when I watched a lot of action films. And when every movie was set in L.A. So basically, the eighties.
by Leo Goldsmith | Source: Dream Works DVD
06 Jun 2005 7:26 PM | Submit Comment
Now that Tom Cruise is again in the gossip columns—expounding the many virtues of his much younger girlfriend and of his beloved super-cult, doling out advice about vitamins to Brooke Shields and voluble disquisitions about the evils of psychoanalysis—it’s a pleasure to return to Kubrick’s last film to see him taken down a peg or two. Or four. The perpetual “Sexiest Man Alive” begins the film as a cocksure doctor-to-the-rich and ends it as a blubbering (and short!) mass of jelly. The many scourges of WASPy heteronormativity—cuckoldry, homosexuality, AIDS, social ostracism—beseige Cruise’s character in darkly comic succession, while Kidman’s character stalks imperiously in the background. Deploying some well-timed breakdowns and revelations, Kidman heightens her real and fictive husband’s insecurities.
Still, a full six years after its release, the film utterly confounds me. A slow pace, repetitions of dialogue, and very peculiar acting (marked here by Cruise’s loud, persistent nose-breathing) are nothing new in Kubrick’s films, but here they all seem to rest on the most evanescent of bases. Nothing in the film—not even the nightvisions of Kidman having sex with a Naval officer—can be firmly identified as entirely real or fantastic, and the result is a full experience (both funny and frightening) of Freud’s idea of the uncanny.
by Leo Goldsmith | Source: Warner Bros. DVD
02 Jun 2005 12:37 PM | Comments (5)
After watching the movie, I thought to myself, “How could this possibly have failed to win the Oscar for best cinematography?” Then I realized that the film that had won was Master and Commander. Oh well, hard to argue with that.
by Matt Bailey | Source: Lion’s Gate DVD
01 Jun 2005 10:48 PM | Submit Comment