JimC-6 Reviews

The Front (1976)

Wonderfully understated political film

[19 July 1999]

It's a bit jarring to see Woody Allen playing a working class guy, but his projected underconfidence is key to this film and sets the perfect tone.

The tricky thing about dealing with obvious villains -- such as Nazis and McCarthyites -- is that condemning them borders on the obvious. In this film, the villains are virtually omitted, and instead we see the effects of their villainy. The result is extremely effective, features a very different performance by Woody Allen, and features one of Michael Murphy's greatest roles.

The Big Lebowski (1998)

Flashes of brilliance interrupted by something or other

[17 July 1999]

All I have to add to the Big Lebowski discussion is my disappointment with it as a seasoned watcher of Coen flicks. I appreciate the effort to do something completely "out there," but there were two points when I expected an explosion of Coen cinema, and they never happened.

When the Dude discovers he is being followed (by Jon Polito from Miller's Crossing and Barton Fink, no less)), I expected a classic Coen sequence -- a car chase of some sort, but not just a car chase, if you know the Coens.

The other glaring omission was the bowling match at the end. As they displayed in the dream sequence -- which was an MTVish disappointment, but still stylish -- the Coens can photograph anything and make it interesting. We sat through enough rambling -- we deserved that bowling match. Is it possible some studio editor decided it wasn't necessary?

Jeff Bridges is brilliant as the Dude. It is not an exaggeration to say that he deserved as Oscar nomination.

Bridges's performance is so realistic and convincing that John Goodman, who's normally great, comes across as gimmicky and schticky. And I didn't think it was possible to waste Steve Buscemi -- because he's great even when he just stands around -- but he is wasted here.

Rent Miller's Crossing instead. The Big Lebowski is for Coen fans only, so that they can appreciate the quality of the other Coen films.

The Coca-Cola Kid (1985)

An underappreciated gem

[7 July 1999]

The Coca-Cola Kid is sort of an Australian version of Local Hero, with the crucial difference that it's much darker.

In short, it is about Coca-Cola being brought to the one place on earth where the locals don't already drink it, but it turns out there's a good reason why they don't drink it.

This movie should have put Eric Roberts on the map more than it did. It certainly put Greta Scacchi on the map. She plays the daughter of the local softdrink seller, and she's very good, as is Roberts. The scene where he holds a glass of Coke aloft while describing it in near-poetic terms is great satire.

For hormonal appeal, the scene where they sleep together on a bed of white feathers is as erotic as anything I've ever seen. At the end, when she smiles at him, suggesting a reprise of that scene, the effect is devastating.

This movie is full of good scenes. My personal favorite is the "Waltzing Matilda" scene, which I'd rather not give away.

I was surprised at the negative tone of the other comments. This movie deserves a look, so check it out.

An Ideal Husband (I) (1999)

Good, but it could have been great

[6 July 1999]

If I weren't so lazy, I would have checked the original play to see if my favorite line from the movie was in it:

Goring's father: I use nothing but my common sense. Goring: So my mother tells me.

Even if was concocted for the film, that line still contains the essence of Wilde and the essence of all modern British humor, for which, I should say, I'm a major sucker. While watching An Ideal Husband, I didn't object to the lack of suspense as long as Rupert Everett was working his way around those Wilde lines, which he does as well as anyone I've ever heard.

I used to think Stephen Fry was Wilde on earth, but Fry is something wonderfully different -- Everett is Wilde on earth, or at least the actor that Wilde should have had around to deliver those lines when he wrote them. I first saw Everett in The Madness of King George, for which he put on weight. Every review of that film mentioned this; I thought the attention excessive, but when I saw him lying shirtless in a sauna, I understood. The man is, shall we say, cut. I can only imagine the effect of that scene on straight women or gay men -- probably something akin to the effect Greta Scacchi's "I think we're alone now" smile at the end of The Coca-Cola Kid has on me.

An Ideal Husband is full of good performances, with one glaring exception: the usually great Julianne Moore. Her scenes are curiously leaden, and Parker -- whose fault this may be -- has the camera linger over her as though the exposure will convince us how evil she is. The one exception is her scene with Everett, which has a real "Will he sleep with the enemy?" tension. It may be that Moore was just outclassed by the Brits, who are born to this stuff.

Cate Blanchett, whom I've seen in three movies, two of which were British period pieces, continues to amaze me with her range.

The unsung hero of the movie is Jeremy Northam, who takes a thankless role -- the man in the play who isn't the Oscar Wilde figure -- and makes it emotionally compelling. He is responsible for the play's only real suspense and emotion, since the rest is word games, more or less.

All of which leads me to blame the production's shortcomings on its writer/director, Oliver Parker. He seems to have squandered an outstanding cast. The play's final scene is played as a series of French scenes -- a film term for a series of different scenes in the same location -- and this kills any momentum that scene might have had.

Three out of four stars, I say, which makes it better than 90% of the movies out there.

In the Company of Men (1997)

Harsh but brilliant

[24 June 1999]

This searing depiction of the male psyche taken to an extreme was one of the most underrated films of 1997.

Like the film Pi, In the Company of Men is an example of the true spirit of independent film, a movie no major studio would touch. People who were put off by the premise -- two men date the same woman, knowing at the outset that they will break her heart -- should give it a look.

Aaron Eckhart's character gets the most attention, and his performance deserves the attention, but when you look at the overall film, it's the other characters that are revealed more fully. I don't want to give too much away, but rent this movie. You may regret it in the short run -- you have to be in the mood -- but not in the long run.

Kicking and Screaming (1995)

Brilliant ensemble piece

[23 June 1999]

Kicking and Screaming is the best recent ensemble film about a bunch of young people. It is -- and I never thought I'd say this -- better than anything by Whit Stillman, even Metropolitan. It is certainly far superior to Stillman's film about people the same age, The Last Days of Disco.

It's funny and unpredictable, like when one unlikely romance works out while another perfect romance falls apart. I notice many other reviewers related to this film, and I did too, even though I had been out of college for 10 years when I saw it.

I'm sorry to say I saw this on video, not the big screen, and feel doubly guilty that I didn't make it to Mr. Jealousy on time. I hope these guys keep making movies.

My favorite line: "I watch TV critically, and when I feel I'm being sucked in, I stop."

Naked in New York (1993)

Worth a look

[23 June 1999]

Naked in New York is one of those always risky propositions, when "artists" write about the "business" of what they're doing, in this case the theater. Naked is one of the better examples of it, and features some nice ensemble work from Eric Stoltz, Mary Louise Parker, and Timothy Dalton.

The best moment, and the reason I'm adding a comment, is when the main character attends his first New York literary party. When he spots William Styron, he makes some snide comment to the effect of, "What has he written?" The movie responds by flashing Styron's works, which are considerable.

It's a great moment and a great use of the medium, and almost worth the rental price. Naked is a good one for a slow night.

Cracker (1993– )

Robbie Coltrane is brilliant

[17 June 1999]

In my opinion, the little I've seen of the American version of Cracker was actually a noble effort, but the crucial difference between the two was the presence of Robbie Coltrane.

Coltrane is one of the world's best actors. He fills the character of Fitz so well that this unlikely character, who drinks hard, gambles, and is full of rage but is also compassionate and incredibly intelligent, is completely believable. He is one of the few unattractive leading men who can convincingly flirt with attractive women, so that when they are suddenly interested in him, you believe it.

Cracker is harsh stuff sometimes. Every killer on the show, it seems, has a psychological angle that is positively disturbing (hence, I suppose, the need for a police psychologist). The series also has humor, though. The scene in which Fitz, seeking revenge on a fellow therapist who's fooling around with his wife, turns a "gamblers anonymous" group into a card game is the sort of harsh but banned-in-America dark humor that Jimmy McGovern (author of the film Priest) excels at.

Rushmore (1998)

Brilliant

[16 June 1999]

If there were any justice in America, Rushmore would be the number one movie at the box office, and the only current film to challenge it would be Election.

In general, you should be wary of films called "quirky," because that generally means the film tried hard, but didn't quite come together. Rushmore is brilliantly quirky, and features what might be Bill Murray's best performance.

Jason Schwartzman is note-perfect, and though Olivia Williams's British accent is never explained, she's quite good. She may be the film's only subtle performer, but she's expressive and daring.

Notting Hill (1999)

Richard Curtis dips, but will rise again

[10 June 1999]

I am fresh from Notting Hill, hence my stodgy English diction, which is the source of so much of Richard Curtis's wonderful humor.

Notting Hill, as someone else has pointed out, relies heavily on the charm of its stars, and fortunately -- in my opinion -- they are both quite charming. The Hugh Grant scandal a few years back was a real tragedy, because Grant was poised to be the Cary Grant of the 1990s -- the star every romantic comedy writer or director wanted.

The scandal happened, though, and so Grant returned to Richard Curtis (or vice versa), and the result, while charming and pretty funny, has been rather accurately referred to as Four Weddings and Julia Roberts.

Not that that's a bad thing by any means ... and the sight of Julia Roberts reducing foppish Brits to fits and stammers is inherantly funny.

Once again, an odd assemblage of friends watches and ultimately helps Hugh Grant win the wayward, forever-leaving American beauty. If this is the formula, I hope they stop at a trilogy. Then again, if there can be six Star Wars movies, there can certainly be at least six Curtis/Grant collaborations. (Come to think of it, aren't there six Leprechaun movies?)

Curtis's script is strongest during the ensemble scenes, with the exception of one dinner scene where Anna (Roberts) has to prove she's more unhappy than anyone else at the table. She convinces the characters, but I doubt many of the real people in the audience were convinced.

Notting Hill has some brilliant exchanges. After William (Grant) helps Anna rehearse her latest script, an action movie (these are paraphrases), they have this one:

Anna: Henry James films never have lines talking about meeting at 1900 hours.

William: Yes, and in my view that is to their detriment.

In one scene William's friends invite him to spend the night, and he accepts by saying:

William: Yes, I suppose. There's nothing waiting for me at home but a masturbating Welshman.

It's funnier when Grant says it ... which again proves that charm is a big part of Notting Hill, and it has plenty of charm. Over all, it's inferior to Four Weddings, but it has two major improvements over the prior film:

1) Julia Roberts, at least in a Richard Curtis script, can act circles around Andie MacDowell.

2) Not every character has a happy ending.

Notting Hill is raking in big bucks as it emerges as the non-Phantom Menace movie of the summer. This should encourage more people to hire Richard Curtis, which is good. It should also encourage more people to hire Hugh Grant, which is also good.

And of course nobody needs encouragement to hire Julia Roberts, but if Notting Hill and My Best Friend's Wedding indicate she's seeking a great romantic comedy, I for one applaud her efforts so far and hope she keeps trying.

Pi (1998)

Truly independent

[1 June 1999]

At the end of the 1990s, the decade in which "independent film" came to mean "commercial film with small budget," Pi is a breath of fresh, avant-garde air. From its original premise to the original dialogue to the original storyline, Pi is a risky movie that could have gone horribly wrong at several points and never did.

Sean Gullette's near-perfect performance is made all the better by his expressive face, which should always be photographed in black and white. Another reviewer, in Salon Magazine I believe, said the movie's portrayal of migraine headaches is the most realistic depiction of them ever put on screen. I've never had a migraine, so I can't confirm that, but Pi may be the only movie to depict migraines, and the depiction makes damn good cinema.

Pi is the only movie to do a lot of things ... such as have rabbis rescuing someone from government agents without that being campy or comic. (It may have been intended to be funny, but we soon learn the rabbis are up to something serious.)

The only flaw is the subplot involving Max's mysterious corporate benefactors, which seems to be more of a satire on modern telemarketers. I'm tempted to say a movie about pi requires unresolved elements -- because pi itself is unresolved -- but that's a little too pretentious for me.

And I could go on about certain plot elements that are introduced, suggested, and wisely avoided, but I don't want to give too much away. Rent Pi! It may be the 20th century's last great independent film.

Other People's Money (1991)

They meant well, but ...

[24 May 1999]

"Other People's Money" is a great stage play. When it was adapted for film, someone apparently decided its shocking ending had to be a) happy and b) predictable.

The result is a mess. Garfinkle's philosophical argument in the play (in short, that capitalism is a necessary part of progress, and the old must be destroyed to create something new) is sacrificed to romantic comedy. That would be acceptable if the story worked as romantic comedy, but it doesn't.

Lawrence Garfinkle could have been the part of Danny DeVito's life, but instead he's playing a stereotypical mean guy (who's really nice deep down). The movie's feeble attempts to create sympathy for him by showing his lonely side only slow down the story and confuse the issue. The story's not about whether Garfinkle is a good guy.

Penelope Ann Miller does her best, but she's hopelessly miscast. Mercedes Ruehl did "OPM" on stage (and was probably perfect, but I never saw it). Assuming both actors were available, somebody snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Gregory Peck is perfectly cast and is great in the movie. Unfortunately, everything around him is off-balance, so his performance is wasted.

Read or go see the play, or maybe somebody out there will make a better film version someday. If Danny DeVito is still willing, he'd be great in it.