afterglo Reviews

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

People feel obligated to like this movie

[6/10 · 27 January 2006]

Okay, it's a barely better than average movie, but I'm sorry. it's not great.

First, am I the only one who has noticed that Heath Ledger's speech patterns are about 90% plagiarized from Billy Bob Thornton in Slingblade?

Secondly, I'm sorry but it's talked about as a "love story," but I didn't see the love. All I saw was two guys wanting to get into each other's pants. Two guys so obsessed with sex that they'll endanger all of the other relationships in their lives.

(SPOILERS MAY FOLLOW) We learn that on their later fishing trips they didn't fish. Presumably they were humping. When people who truly love each other go on a fishing trip, there is some fishing in addition to the lovemaking.

Elephant (2003)

A disappointing movie

[9 November 2003]

The long-awaited movie from Gus Van Sant has arrived on the scene. Gus is one of those directors, like Ridley Scott, who at his best is as good as it gets, but at his worst is very disappointing. To me, this movie was disappointing. While it was obviously inspired in some way by the shootings at Columbine, I think we actually understand the thought processes of the two Columbine shooters more than the two shooters in this movie.

Yes, we do see that they are outside the "in-crowd" in the school, but we also see that they have friends. If you theorize that they go on their shooting spree in order to even up some scores with the jocks and in-crowd girls, why then is the first victims one of the nerdy girls? No, they are not evening any scores. Rather, they are going on the shooting spree for fun. This is made clear when the dominant boy goes over their plan one last time before the massacre and winds it all up with "And most importantly, just have fun."

And they go about murdering anyone they come across without discrimination, other than telling one of their outsider friends not to go into school because bad things are about to happen. They pick off students the way they pick off the digitized victims in a video game we see them playing.

Van Sant supplies no explanation. Do you suspect bad parenting was at the heart of Columbine? In this film, you meet only two parents. The movie begins with one boy's father driving drunk, but he is not one of the shooters. You do see the mother of the dominant boy serving pancakes, but there is nothing about her that would lead you to think she could be raising a mass murderer.

There is precious little material here, so Van Sant uses the technique of showing us the same event from different angles. Not from different and revealing perspectives, mind you, but just from different angles.

This is how a director stretches a fairly spare hour of material to 81 minutes. Even so, an hour and 21 minutes is still a very short movie. Most dramas are in the neighborhood of two hours; comedies and kids' movies tend to be 90 minutes.

Perhaps strangest of all is the fact that Van Sant made the two shooters gay lovers! I'm still trying to figure out why a gay director would want to make a movie about two wanton, senseless killers and make them gay.

There are interesting or wry touches, such as the three in-crowd girls who go together to the ladies room after lunch and barf in tandem, and the lovely rendition of Beethoven's Fur Elise by the dominant shooter the afternoon before the shootings. We meet several kids who are later killed: the ubiquitous (in high school) photo club guy, the nerdy/homely girl who works in the library, the young couple in love, and so on. They all seem so ordinary that while their families might miss them, almost no one else will.

Early in the movie we listen in on a class in which the topic is "Can you tell someone is gay by how they look" and of course the teacher is teaching that you can't tell a book by its cover. And yet, if people had seen the two boys walking into school in unstudent-like khakis with sacks big enough to carry weapons and had reacted in accord to their appearance, they would not have been killed.

In short, this movie, while interesting to watch, is a bit of a mess.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

I just loved Kill Bill, Vol. 1!!!

[14 October 2003]

Many people will consider this Quentin Tarantino's best film yet. Others will hate it. It certainly has more style and focus than any of his previous efforts, which were frequently burdened with subplots. Well, no subplots here. The plot couldn't be simpler. Uma Thurman as "the bride," is the subject of an execution-style massacre carried out by her former associates in an elite assassination team, which is headed by the mysterious and faceless (at least in this first installment) "Bill." Unfortunately for them, she survives in a coma from which she awakes after four years, to discover that not only is her groom dead, but so is the baby she was carrying at the time of her wedding. The rest of the movie is simply her revenge as she knocks off the team one-by-one. If you have heard that the movie is violent, it is. However, the violence is extremely cartoonish and stylized. For example, when she lops off someone's head, arm, or leg, blood spurts out as if from a shower head. While the blood is stylized, the fight scenes are very good. In fact, Uma Thurman, an actress with a very uneven career, who never ever gave us much hint of exceptional talent, pretty much carries this entire movie on her back. Not only is she on-screen acting about 95% of the time, but she engages in several extended and strenuous sword- and knife-fighting scenes, many of which she obviously had to do without benefit of a stunt double. She's an absolute revelation here and if her career was a bit on hold the last few years, you can bet it's back on track with this flick! It's not just her fighting, either. It's her acting. She shows in this movie that she can deliver a line as well as any actress around. There are several classic scenes in this movie, but one of the least violent ones has her delivering some of the best lines. This is where she goes to Okinawa and drops in on the sushi shop of a man who also happens to be a master samurai swordsmith, played delightfully (and with incredible comic timing and charm) by Sonny Chiba, a Japanese martial arts actor with almost no presence in Hollywood cinema. Which raises the question of how he got the name "Sonny." Anyway, there's a moment when he's still acting the role of the sushi chef and he's engaging in some banter with her, and he asks her why she needs to to find "Hattori Hanzo" (him). Her reply is that she needs some "Japanese steel," by which she means a samurai sword. (Digression: the samurai sword is regarded by most of those in the know as the deadliest and finest sword ever made. It is unique in terms of being both thick-and thus heavy enough to deliver forceful blows-and yet almost razor sharp. Made of very high-grade steel, they are very difficult to break. At the same time, a good samurai sword is also a work of art. Each one (of the fine ones), with its grip and scabbard, is made by hand and decorated uniquely. It's ironic that one of the most efficient hand-to-hand combat instruments ever made can also be one of the most beautiful objects of art in the world. This movie, despite its rampant references to other movies and to pop culture of the past, is more than anything else a celebration of the samurai sword and bushido, the code of the samurai. The last major action scene of the movie is the swordfight between Uma Thurman and Lucy Liu. Liu has become (probably to her chagrin) a character actress who normally plays either bad girls or evil women. In this case, she's an evil woman, and she plays the role to the hilt. She also puts up a hell of a fight in the final scene, but of course, there would be no Vol. 2 if she prevailed, so I hope I didn't spoil the movie for you. (Postscript: The usual humorless suspects think there's too much violence in this movie. To some extent, Tarantino has fanned the flames by saying (I paraphrase, but pretty accurately) "I want thirteen year old girls to see it. I think they'll find it empowering." This has appalled some social critics. Well, first of all Mr. Tarantino is not the most serious dude on the planet. Secondly, with its "R" rating (which should arguably be "NC-17"), a thirteen year old shouldn't be able to see it anyway. Tarantino really knows how to stir up publicity, and I'm fairly sure that's the true intent of his comment. The violence in this movie is caroonish and stylized and totally unrealistic except to the most naive and hypersensitive of people. Even so, I don't think there's as much harm in seeing Uma Thurman extract well-deserved justice at the point of a sword as there is in the brain-dead plot and action of the Charlie's Angels franchise. Uma looks like what the Angels merely play at: a woman so good at what she does that she can't be ignored. My daughter is a young woman, and I think she'll learn more about life from Kill Bill than Charlie's Angels. Some critics have said that this movie is much more violent than any of Tarantino's previous movies, and on one level that's true. However, the violence in Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction were much more realistic than the violence in Kill Bill. These hypersensitive critics need to get a life.)

Casa de los babys (2003)

More Than Babies To Think About Here

[5 October 2003]

(Warning: spoilers all over the place!) This movie is the story of several women waiting in an unidentified Latin American country for adoptions to be processed. In the meantime, they stay in a hotel called locally the "Casa de Los Babys" (no translation required, I hope). It's a star-studded cast, including Marcia Gay Harden, Daryl Hannah, Mary Steenburgen, Lili Taylor, and Maggie Gyllenhaal. The one remaining mother is played by a relative unknown: the Irish actress Susan Lynch playing an Irish woman who is trying to adopt a baby despite much shorter funds than the Americans. Much of the movie consists of the women gossiping about and backbiting any woman who isn't present. Lili Taylor takes a lot of shots for adopting without a male partner, and Daryl Hannah gets the usual digs any pretty woman with a nice body can expect from other women when she's not around. She's also a bit of a loner and later on we find out some good reasons why. Marcia Gay Harden plays a bitchy woman who refuses to make any serious allowances for local customs or for ethics in general. She does some small-time pilfering from the maid's cart and is ready to bribe officials if that's what it takes to get her baby. Gyllenhaal plays a woman whose marriage is a bit rocky. Steenburgen is a recovering alcoholic, which she apparently keeps secret in order not to create another hurdle to getting her baby. During a moment when both Gyllenhaal and Hannah let down their hair and reveal some inner thoughts and secrets, we learn that Hannah has lost three babies, one to stillbirth and two to birth defects. The Irish woman's husband is "freelancing" (i.e., between jobs), which in part explains her money problems. She misses meals, orders water instead of soda or alcohol, and pinches pennies whenever possible. The movie would just be a mere account of four women waiting for babies were it not for Sayles' contrasting of them with the locals. There is an unsympathetic son of the hotel's owner. He's a Marxist who sees the women as members of an oppressive imperialist class. Then there is one of the maids who, we learn, had to give up her own baby to a "northerner," but raises her younger brother and sister in place of her dead parents. She and the Irish woman, in a touching scene, each tell their own hope- and dream-filled stories in a pair of soliloquies that neither one cam understand. Lili Taylor and Daryl Hannah meet a man who acts as their guide for the day. He is quite erudite about the history of his country and reasonably fluent in English, which he says he learned from TV. His fee: $4. I'm not sure we are supposed to see the problems of the mothers-in-waiting is minor compared with those of the locals, but it's hard not to look at it that way. In many parts of the world, mothers are burdened with too many children. And here in this nameless country, mothers who would desperately like to keep their babies must give them away or sell them so that English-speaking northerners can have them. In the end, the first of the women to get her baby is Marcia Gay Harden, who basically annoys the authorities into giving her one and the Irish woman, who may have gotten her baby because she was running out of money, and it does seem that keeping the mothers there is a way to soak them for dough. Since she's running out of cash and can't be soaked. The verdict: Because it gives us some serious things to think about, this movie rises well above what it might have been: a Made-For-The-Oxygen-Channel movie of the week.

Lost in Translation (2003)

Redeems Bill Murray's Career

[2 October 2003]

(Warning: spoilers!) What this movie does do for me is redeem the entire career of Bill Murray, a comedian I have never liked very much. I read somewhere that Murray had to be talked into doing this movie. I kind of wonder if he wasn't afraid he wasn't up to the drama required. We can be glad he finally accepted the project because he nails the performance so perfectly that one really can't imagine the film with anyone else in the role. Oh, I suppose Mel Gibson or Harrison Ford or Robert DeNiro could have read the lines, but what this film needed was someone who could be both a sad sack and a clown. And let's not forget the extraordinary performance turned in by Scarlett Johansson (The Horse Whisperer, Ghost World). At 18 (playing 23), she has that quality Claire Danes has that makes you ask, "How can someone so plain be so gorgeous?" Well, the answer is that, like Danes, her plainness is the plainness of purity and simplicity, not the plainness of ugliness and mediocrity. And like Danes at her best (My So-Called Life, Romeo + Juliet), she can break your heart. Both of them are marooned in Tokyo, Murray to do a Suntory Whisky commercial and Johansson having invited herself to accompany her photographer husband on an assignment. We quickly catch on that Murray is unhappy with being in Tokyo and with his marriage and that Johansson is unhappy with being left alone by her husband on this trip and with her marriage in general. They meet in the hotel bar, where a mediocre lounge singer belts out the most ridiculously inappropriate tunes (example: Scarborough Fair). Murray's talent for quips amuses Johansson, who then invites him to accompany her on a visit to some of her Japanese friends. Murray begins to let his hair down, which endears him even more to Johansson. What is so fabulous about this movie is that the attraction never becomes even vaguely sexual, and that at all times they both treat each other with respect. There is none of the contempt of the young for elders, and none of the condescension of elders for the young. She is much too bright to dismiss (philosophy major at an Ivy League school) and Murray has way too many miles under his belt to BS her (he plays a fading action star with a wife of many years and children who he loves). Does he love his wife? We are never really sure. It seems they tolerate each other. One thing we are sure of, though, is that he will stay with his wife. There are several heartfelt talks between Murray and Johansson, where Murray is not preaching to Johansson, but merely answering questions she asks. There is a moment where, after listening to her talk about her life and her doubts he tells her, "You'll be okay" (meaning "You'll work it all out") which is quite touching. It was a moment when she essentially needed him to speak with the voice of a parent, and he did. There is even a scene where they are lying on his bed watching television. Her toes are touching his thigh and you see his hand move over and hold her feet. A gesture of affection, not sex. When Murray stupidly and indiscreetly spends the night (and we assume, has sex) with the lounge singer, and is then discovered by Johansson, a truth is revealed: she has on some level fallen in love with him, because her pain on making the discovery is palpable. But then, she forgives him, perhaps because it helps her see that her inclinations had started to go in a disastrous direction, This movie reminds us that romance has many forms, and that there is even some romance to be found a deep in friendship. As the movie ends, they say a perfunctory good-bye in the lobby of their hotel. Perfunctory, because so many were people looking on. A few moments later, as Murray is taking a taxi to the airport, he spots her walking down a crowded side street. He stops the taxi and chases after her. I half expected it not to be her, but it is. They now exchange a much more heart-felt and lingering embrace and he says something in her ear. We hear his voice, but it is not loud enough to understand. I've seen the movie twice now, and I listened much more closely the second time, and I now think we are not intended to understand what he says. It is a moment that belongs to them, not us. Did he ask her to return next year? Did he say a final good-bye? Did he offer to leave his wife for her? We will never know. This movie is also an homage on Japan in general and Tokyo in particular. I can't stress how visually beautiful this movie is from the opening shot of Johansson's panty-clad ass as she lay in bed to Las Vegas-like neon-lit street scenes of downtown Tokyo, to a serene Buddhist temple. There is even a golf course scene with Mt. Fuji in the background, which is so gorgeous you might wish to eat it. This is more than just a good movie, it's a great movie. Just as one can't conceive this movie without Bill Murray, one also can't imagine it directed by a male. It was written and directed by Sofia Coppola (The Virgin Suicides). As you may know or suspect, she is the daughter of the great director, Francis Ford Coppola. He has made some major movies himself, but none of them as fine as this one. As the father of a daughter, this fact pleases me no end. Girls need to know that there are few things they can't do as well as (or better than) a man if they are but given a chance.

Charlie's Angels (2000)

Hahahahaha....Yeah!

[4 November 2000]

Okay. I knew the critics would blow this movie off, and they have. Ignore them: this movie is tonsafun.

Take three of the most attractive female actresses around, give them the slenderest reed of a plot and a load of exciting special effects...add in the expertise of Hollywood's cinematographers, and you have one enjoyable way to spend two hours.

Will this movie be up for even one Oscar? I'd be surprised. Even so, everything is so close to boiling in this movie that it will probably work for you, unless you are just a 100% Masterpiece Theatre junkie whose idea of an over-the-top comedienne is, say, Emma Thompson.

Of course, Cameron Diaz shines here, although her performance here is no *There's Something About Mary*. Likewise, Drew Barrymore, who I've come to adore, despite that chin that belongs on the prow of an icebreaker, turns in one of her better performances here. But, to me, it's Lucy Liu, who I've always enjoyed on Ally McBeal, who shines here. This gal has an absolutely incredible hourglass figure, an one-of-a-kind Eurasian Goddess face, and a commanding presence on the screen. Yow! A big star in the making!

Bill Murray is underused, and judging from his failure to promote the film, he agrees with me. He's one of our best funnymen and he's simply not on the screen enough.

Back to Cameron for a minute. As someone said, as soon as you see Cameron smile, it's summer again. And, she's not just a talented actress: as she proves here, she can dance, too! What a gal!

Drew is a natural comedienne, and her timing is always perfect, even when she's providing gratuitous screen time for her current beau, the overrated (if that were possible), comedian Tom Green, who seems to be able to entertain those with fewer than normla brain cells with bits like (in this movie) "I am the Chad."

Now, back to Lucy Liu. Of the three, she is the one (surprise, surprise) who seems to really know some martial arts. Her use of chains had my draw jopping. With chains, as with numchucks (sp?), it is very easy to screw up and injure yourself if you have no idea what you're doing. Well, she knows.

Much will be made, as it should, of this movie's John Woo/*The Matrix* legacy. Many of the special effects in this film are homages to that director and that movie. However, director McQ is no John Woo (yet, though he is promising), and this movie is no *The Matrix*. Even so, it's incredibly entertaining.

Obviously, I liked this film. Like many a movie, this one manages to be very entertaining while being far from perfect. I think you'll enjoy yourself.

Bossa Nova (2000)

Wonderful Sentimental Date Movie

[8 June 2000]

Although I saw it alone, it made me wish I were on a date. First of all, I've always been a lover of Brazilian music, and this movie is chock full of it, with a heavy emphasis on Antonio Carlos ("Tom") Jobim.

It's not another *Gone with the Wind* or *Casablanca*, but who can resist the blue sky and water of Rio de Janeiro, with Sugarloaf Mountain looming over the city and the azure sea? This all might have been wasted if the cinematography Hollywood competent, which it is. It made me want to move to Brazil at the first possible opportunity.

The story is comic and tragic at the same time. Amy Irving is delightful. The rest of the cast is generally more than competent.

All in all, it was 2 hours very well spent.

Strictly Ballroom (1992)

Even Better on Second Viewing

[27 May 2000]

I saw this movie first in a film festival, where it was one of the highlights. Recently, I rented it to show for a friend, and I liked it even better!

I'm a fan of Cinderella stories. I love scenes like the one in *She's All That* where the heroine walks down the stairs after a makeover and you have that moment I call "At that moment, she's the most beautiful girl(woman) in the world." They are rare. Another one is the scene in *Batman Forever* where Batman bursts through the skylight and Nicole Kidman as Dr. Chase Meridian looks up. For just a moment, the camera trains on her and for that moment, there is no more beautiful woman in the world. Watch for these moments: I'm not kidding.

The heroic dance scene at the end of this movie portrays the heroine, Tara Morice, in such a way. Watching her start off as an almost repugnant character and scene by scene become more attractive until, at the end, she's absolutely adorable testifies to the directorial skills of Baz Luhrman.

(By the way, Luhrman also directed *Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet* in which Claire Danes has one of those "Most Beautiful Woman in the World" moments when she is on the balcony watching the celebrations in angel wings. No wonder Romeo fell in love!)

Add to the mix a rich variety of colorful and absurd supporting characters, a mildly evil subplot, great music, and a pair of pre-teen kids who play the role of a Greek Chorus, and this movie is an almost unbeatable entertainment, rich in surface detail, full of good humor, and yet anything but shallow.

Rent it...now!

Mission: Impossible II (2000)

FACE OFF MEETS SATURDAY A.M. CARTOONS

[25 May 2000]

Haven't seen this movie yet? STOP READING HERE!

1) Do you REALLY (now be honest) believe that someone can wear a rubber mask and not be detected by someone who knows the person they're impersonating looking right at the impersonator's face?

2) Do you really believe that two guys speeding toward each other on motorcycles going at 60 mph (combined speed 120 mph) who collide and then drop 30 feet off a cliff can get up, dust themselves off, and do 15 minutes of kung fu?

3) Do you really believe a rock climber can slide 20 feet down a cliff, gaining momentum all the way, and then catch himself at the last 1/2 inch of rock by his fingernails?

4) Do you believe a guy can throw an explosive charge powerful enough to blow a hole through an 8-inch thick steel-reinforced concrete wall, stand there 20 feet away without being sheltered in any way, and withstand the explosion without major physical injury (not to mention loss of hearing!)?

If your willing suspension of disbelief extends this far, this movie is for you. But, chances are you also watch the Saturday morning cartoons and think that they're really real, too.

This movie is way too confusing. Because characters routinely pull rubber masks off to reveal they're not who you thought they were, you never really know who you're looking at: Is this Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) or the bad guy? Is this the bad guy or his chief henchman? Is this the love interest girl or Anthony Hopkins?

Then, Ethan Hunt seemingly knows how to operate anything he comes into contact with, including highly-specialized and probably custom-built lab equipment designed for researching the world's deadliest viruses. Quite a guy, this Ethan Hunt.

The whole team seems to have access to more information, at all times, than one could believe they could possibly have access to. It's like there's some agency in Washington who computer geek Ving Rhames can consult to find out which living room wall my couch is against.

Speaking of Ving, I've known many computer geeks, and not one of them resembled Ving Rhames in any way at all. Is this not the world's worst casting choice? This is not a racial bias. There are plenty of black actors who who could be believable in this role, but Ving Rhames (a wonderful actor for lots of other types of parts) is the wrong guy for this role.

The dialog is so bad the audience laughed at it from time to time. There is a moment when Ethan Hunt look into the eyes of his lady luv and says something like, "I am NOT going to let you die!" Can you imagine James Bond saying something as weepy and whiny as that? No!

John Woo is one of my five favorite directors. He is probably the best action director on Earth. However, this is decidedly NOT one of his best films. DON'T go see this movie. Instead, rent Face Off, Broken Arrow, or even Hard Target. All of these are better films.

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

A Very Good First Effort, BUT...

[23 May 2000]

Directing a movie is far from an easy task, I'm sure, so it's almost ungrateful to have complaints, especially about a first film, but *what is the point of this movie?*

I've heard people say its theme is "suicide is pointless."

First of all, suicide is NOT pointless. THESE suicides were pointless.

When monks burned themselves alive to protest the American presence in Vietnam, those suicides actually contributed to the end of the war. Americans thought, "Why are we fighting to defend a country where some people don't want us there so much they'll barbecue themselves alive in order to protest our presence?"

(stop reading here if you haven't seen the movie)

The first of the suicides is the youngest daughter, Cecilia. Maybe I slept through it, but if there was a reason why this particular daughter committed suicide, I missed it.

The rest of the suicides were apparently to protest strict parents and boys. (You can't see it, but I'm rolling my eyes.) Girls: Boys want to get in your pants. They will say anything to get into your pants, and they won't mean a word of what they say until they are well into their 40's, if then. Teens: It's your parents' job to be oppressive just as it's your job to rebel. Once you understand these fundamental truths, you'll see it's all a cosmic game. Suicide won't change a thing.

So, of course this sort of suicide is pointless, because once you do it, it's the job of the survivors to put your death behind them and get on with their lives.

Of course, as in all of these teen angst movies, the parents are depicted as mentally defective. Unlike most of these movies, the father is not the bad guy. In this case, an overly protective mother dominates the family. An unexpectedly chubby Kathleen Turner plays the heavy here. The consummate bad guy, James Woods, here plays a week-kneed father. Both parents' attentions are good, however.

There was one scene where Woods gave one of the daughters a strange smile, and I thought perhaps we had a subtext of father/daughter incest going, but that proved a red herring.

By late in the film, after his attempt to give his daughters some freedom blows up in his face, mainly due to the selfish recklessness of his daughter Lux (played to the hilt by the incredibly beautiful and gifted Kirsten Dunst), he is reduced to talking to potted plants.

The parents are only being parents. Far from the worst parents a girl could have. A bit eccentric, but who worth knowing isn't?

So, this slow-moving movie, in the end, is hard to recommend, because it really tells a lie. As I said earlier, suicide is far from pointless, but these suicides certainly are. That is nothing upon which to build a film.

The music deserves special mention. Not just the songs from the 70's, but the mood music by Air. If I were directing a movie, I'd certainly let Sophia Coppola select the music.

Center Stage (2000)

Guys: You'll Like It As Much As Your Girl!

[15 May 2000]

At first, this might seem "a girl's movie," except that it has so many well formed females in it. A local critic sniped "If you've seen Fame, there's no need to see *Center Stage*, and if you haven't, there 's still no reason to see it."

I don't know how much more wrong he could be. About 2/3 of the way through the movie it hit me: Not only is the acting in this film good, these kids can really dance, too! Later on, I found out it's the reverse: They are dancers who can act.

The story is fairly predictable with a few small surprises, but really this movie is not that terribly plot-driven. Most of the time you just want to see them dance.

The last half-hour or so is almost nothing but dancing, and even if the first part of the movie were boring (which it decidedly *isn't*!), this part alone would have been worth the price of admission.

Playing the lead, Amanda Schull is an absolute confection. Not only is she very easy on the eyes, but her dancing is superb and her acting is almost as good.

She's not the only well formed female in this flick, either. And I could tell that the females in the audience thought many of the male dancers were pretty attractive, too.

All in all, while no Academy Awards are in the future of this film, it's a very enjoyable way to spend two hours. And if I were going out on a date tonight, I'd probably consider seeing it again.

Battlefield Earth (2000)

The First Big Snoozzzzzzzzzze of the Summer

[13 May 2000]

One thousand years in the future, imagine a movie where Kiss eschews its white/blackface makeup, goes rasta, and makes the biggest bomb in the last millenium.

Billed as a special effects epic, the effects are very uneven: Some of them are astonishing, some of them are no better than Planet of the Apes.

And the Psychlos! They are such low-par morons right from the start, and they are so ungainly, clumping around in their platform boots just like Kiss struggled to do on stage, that one can't imagine them conquering anyone, much less having an advanced technology. They were portrayed more as galactic rednecks than any kind of superior being.

I'm betting that John Travolta and Forest Whitaker are wishing they'd never agreed to make this monstrous bore.

Gladiator (2000)

Despite Flaws, Worth Seeing

[8 May 2000]

At his best, few people can make a better movie than Ridley Scott. *Alien* and *Thelma and Louise* are masterpieces of two wildly different genres, sci-fi/horror and the on-the-run movie. Here, Ridley jumps into yet another genre, historical drama, and while his success isn't as great as it was in those two movies, it's still way ahead of some of his less successful efforts. (*Legend* comes to mind: a movie so boring that even Tom Cruise and Tim Curry couldn't save it.)

Let's talk about the bad stuff first STOP READING HERE IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS MOVIE!!!

It's common for historical dramas to take liberties with the facts for dramatic effect. However, I hope it doesn't come as a surprise to you that no Caesar was ever killed in the Colloseum. Stop and think about that for a second: Suppose someone made a movie where they fudged the facts a bit so that Richard Nixon died in a duel with a The Rev. Jesse Jackson.

Okay, so this story isn't really historical fiction after all: It's historical fabrication.

While I heard some TV critic complain that the accents were all over the map in this film, that actually wasn't a serious criticism if he meant that all the accents should be Latin (a language whose pronunciation we can really only guess at, by the way), that's false. By this time (several centuries after Christ), Rome was a cosmopolitan empire, and its armies were drawn from all over the empire, from Scotland to Egypt. However, whenever Russell Crowe talked, I could close my eyes and hear shades of Mel Gibson. One accent you can be sure wasn't present in Ancient Rome was Australian.

The movie was strangely lacking in color. Almost everything was brown or metallic and dark. When the camera moved over the virtual recreation of the Colloseum, it looked like the Colloseum on a cloudy day.

Probably the worst visual problem is the filming of the battle scenes, which was done in a jerky style that gave the effect of something like 6 frames per second. This, combined with very hectic cutting and editing, made the battle scenes somewhat headache inducing.

The digital tigers were a bit less than convincing, too.

Okay, enough for the complaints. Now on to the praise.

Russell Crowe (accent aside) was perfectly cast for this role. Imposing enough to be believable as a master warrior, he is also a good enough actor to bring off the dramatic aspects of the role. I'm sure someone would have preferred Jean-Claude VanDamme or Arnold Schwarzenegger, but those would have been too much. This was not a kick-boxing epic or *Son of Conan the Barbarian*, after all.

All of the supporting performances were very good, I thought, and I must say that Connie Nielsen (Lucilla) is simply one of the most beautiful women on the screen today. (If she seemed vaguely familiar, but you couldn't quite place her, you probably saw her in *Mission to Mars*, *The Devil's Advocate*, *Rushmore* or *Soldier*.)

The story, despite being 100% historical hogwash, is compelling once you let "willing suspension of disbelief" kick in. The production design was first rate, too.

The computer-generated recreation of Rome and the Colloseum were pretty good, although the virtual tigers were less than 100% convincing, as I said earlier.

On the whole, I recommend this movie, though I wouldn't nominate it for *any* Academy Awards. But then, who am I?

Sweet and Lowdown (1999)

Is Samantha Morton Great? DUH!!!

[20 February 2000]

I usually write long-winded and highly-analytical reviews. But there is only one thing to say about this movie: With Samantha Morton's performance, I fell head over heels in love.

A star is born!

She steals the movie acting with only her face.

Eye of the Beholder (1999)

A Stunningly Bad Movie

[1 February 2000]

I go to anything with Ashley Judd in it. I'm glad she's no longer limited to playing backseat rolls because I think she's one of the most beautiful and sexy women in Hollywood. I have also liked Ewan McGregor in everything he's done before.

However, while this movie is visually excellent, the writing is dreadful. Okay, while Ewan's character is basically a bit wacko, there's no excuse for some of the logical lapses in this movie.

SPOILER ALERT

For one thing (and here I'm getting into specifics, so if you don't want to hear them, this is where to stop reading), he seems to be able to put cameras up anywhere he likes at will. He can also always get a room across the street or next door to his subject.

Then, later on in the movie when Ashley's character takes up with the blind man (Patrick Bergin), he offers her a storefront from which to do astrology and numerology. At the very same time, Ewan's character sends a pubic hair in for DNA analysis, and he apparently expects results in just a few days. Well, the day he gets the results back, Ashley's storefront is set up with a brand new fancy sign, and presumably all the appointments inside one would need to run such an operation. I don't think you need to be a retail business person to know that this kind of stuff simply doesn't happen in a few days.

And then there's the ending, when she finally realizes he's the guy who took her picture in the museum. Not exactly another "Rosebud," is it?

I want my money back!