Change Your Image
JakeSpy
Reviews
The Perfect Storm (2000)
Perfect example of formula summer fare
I went to both of the July Fourth blockbusters this week--The Patriot on Wednesday and The Perfect Storm on Friday. Both films played to the formula for their respective genres. The Patriot shines as an example of a film that works well within its formula, thanks in large part to Mel Gibson's performance. Unfortunately, The Perfect Storm left me feeling completely ambivalent about what had happened on screen. This film is nothing more than an exercise in groundbreaking visual effects set to a roaring soundtrack and James Horner's standout score. The opening half gives us the usual mix of cliche-ridden eclectic characters and corny dialogue. As they set out to sea, we know very little of who these men are and what they leave behind. This matter is worsened by almost hollow performances from every person on the boat and largely scream and cry exercises from the cast of loved ones left to watch the Weather Channel and sip beer at the local bar.
So when the storm does hit, there is nothing left to do but watch and marvel at the show. The characters are largely indistinguishable from one another throughout most of the storm sequences and, sadly, it wouldn't matter if we saw what was happening to who. When the film moves to the rescue of a sail boat and a coast guard helicopter crew, characters who are never introduced in the story, we care even less than we do for the crew of the Andrea Gail.
The film rings hollow and empty at the end when it shouldn't. Even more insulting is that this movie is based on a true story. But you wouldn't know that watching this film filled with cut-out characters who are more flimsy than the boats tossed about by the Perfect Storm.
The Patriot (2000)
Films are not history . . .
I have grown weary of people who bash films for historical inaccuracies, as if to suggest all films are meant to serve the same purpose as history books. I am even more amazed at how when someone likes a movie they conveniently forgive historical revisionism (Titanic or Saving Private Ryan anyone?). Much of the criticism against The Patriot is leveled not at the film, but at the history the film supposedly presents. The filmmakers made it very clear to reasonable people that they had no intention of making a historical film. They changed the main character's name to avoid confusion, they intentionally kept most real historical figures of the American Revolution at a distance. History is not always good storytelling, but good films always are about good storytelling. Basically, nowhere in the film itself is there any suggestion that it should be viewed as or aspires to be a history lesson of any kind.
That being said, people can debate the merits of the real actions of the real Francis Marion and the cause of the real American Revolution until they are blue in the face, but it has nothing to do with this film. Suspension of disbelief is a big part of any filmmaking endeavor, and when a filmmaker wishes to bypass that mechanism it is pointed out to the audience (Schindler's List for example). Yet storytelling still prevails even in the most historically accurate films as most filmmakers will attest. The Patriot is not such a film, it is intended to entertain, not educate, and that is just fine--we need both types of films, just as much as we need people who can tell the difference.
The Patriot is a truly remarkable achievement considering the last film from this producing/directing team was Godzilla. The film is centered and held together by Mel Gibson's performance which is certainly his best to date. Still, much credit is due the cinematographer, director, screenwriter, and editor for being able to take melodrama to such high levels. There are many characters here and their inner-struggles are brought out. Benjamin Marten's character is most compelling in that he is not so perfect--he makes mistakes, has regrets, and is still dealing with his temper.
There is no pretense in this film--it does not "reinvent the wheel," but never claims to either. It is just a film that gives us some great characters, a compelling story, and solid delivery.
In the end (at least for those of us who leave our baggage about PC historical accuracy at the door) we are well-rewarded with a solid film that pays off more than most.
Cradle Will Rock (1999)
Cradle will Fall Apart
I have admired Tim Robbin's work as a director and actor. Yet Cradle Will Rock was fell far short of what Tim Robbins is capable of. The acting and energetic performances in this film was enough to keep me watching, but I could not help but wonder how such a disorganized film came to be made. First of all, it very loosely connects so many events that you are left unsatisfied with all of them--not one is completely explored. The most interesting plotline of the film--the political feud between the federal theater project and representative Dies. Next, Robbins makes a blunder that I cannot accept from any filmmaker--he tells the audience what to think. In Dead Man Walking he had the ability to present a very poignant view both for and against capital punishment. Here, there is no such attempt. What is even more baffling, is this shallow view of the situation. It was not just about art and politics as this story would suggest. Economic factors came into play also. By the end of this film, it has disintegrated into a goofy exercise in politics and poor story-telling despite outstanding performances from the cast.
Joan of Arc (1999)
An epic disappointment
This movie really can't decide what it is. Is it a tale of a girl's struggle to reconcile faith? Is it an action film based loosely on historical events? In battle, Joan runs around and screams, confused and shaking most of the time. Do we sense her torment at the momentousness of what she is leading? No. Instead our fearless director gives us a battle with no sense of direction or staging. Just running around--slicing and dicing. He also throws in some comic relief in the form of larger-than-life soldiers who can scare away two English soldiers with just a growl (that's original). And what of our supporting cast of accomplished actors? They stand around most of the time acting eccentric but lack any characterization. Joan is much the same. There is a shallow attempt to give her motivation and some music video-esque visions, but she sings one tune throughout the entire film and Milla Jovovich lacks the acting arsenal to bring weight to the character. There is some redemption in her conversations with Dustin Hoffman's character, but, unfortunately, that character is unnecessary to this film. Basically, The Messenger comes off as a film with no center, no clear purpose, and turns a powerful conclusion into something you just want the film to get over with so you can get on with your life.
Election (1999)
Election--one of the best school satires in years
I first saw Election and wasn't impressed. It was good, but nothing more. However, there was something about this film in the back of my mind that made me revisit is a few days later. When I saw Election the second time and finally realized this film was amazing. For all its satirical hyperbole, Election is also a realistic film like no other. This school looks like a school and the characters look like teachers and students--costumes, houses, cars, and haircuts. I later watched the film with Alexander Payne's commentary and discovered that this film was made in a working high school in Nebraska, and most students and teachers in the film were actual students and teachers. Election looks real.
However, what makes Election an excellent film is its characters. This is not a film which gives us a good vs. evil with one character who we can root for. Rather, every character is both good and bad. Each character has good and bad traits. This is real life. Especially standout are the performances by Matthew Broderick, Reese Witherspoon, and Jessica Campbell. But every supporting role deserves accolades for their contribution to one of the most solid casting jobs in any recent film.
Finally, Election shines because it takes time to show the lives of these characters beyond the school setting. Rarely are teachers given a dimension of being a real person--flawed and vulnerable like anyone else. The same goes for the students.
Titanic (1997)
Years from now, people will look back and wonder why.
Why did James Cameron go to so much trouble making a film that presented the physical and visual dimensions of Titanic and take the human dimensions on a fantasy-romp of titanic-sized contrivances? There are enough historical documents and memoirs about REAL people on that ship who had REAL lives and some were actually very compelling. So why did Cameron opt to give these REAL people bit parts and invent two shallow characters?
Good acting and high production values go a long way to cover up a poor script, and Titanic is proof of that with the Oscar frenzy that surrounded it (However, it was the first film in a long time that did not earn a screenplay nomination and won best picture). Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet both did excellent jobs acting as did Gloria Stuart and Kathy Bates. They all deserved an Oscar in light of what they had to work with on the page. How conventional, shallow and contrived does this sound? Rose is in what is for all intents and purposes an arranged marriage, but she is really a free spirit ready to fly away from her upper-class roots. If it wasn't for her darn mother. Now to make this issue even more clear, her fiance is controlling and abusive. The decision is clear. She has to fall for Jack, a fellow free spirit who shows her real love. Alas, Jack must be symbolically sacrificed so she can avoid being drowned in her life and truly find freedom in the new land. Not only are the mechanics of the script clear, but the story is old and tired. Titanic works because it plays on stereotypical conventions and latent emotions; it does not earn its emotional climax on its own merit. This subject has the opportunity to be so much more genuine and powerful if only someone had taken the time to look beyond fictional romance and into true life tragedy.
Mission to Mars (2000)
Good idea, better than average presentation, story lacks
Mission to Mars caught me by surprise. Although Brian dePalma is the director, I was expecting this film to be either another Armaggedon (hyper-directing, editing, and full of silly, contrived disasters) or another Contact (bloated, overlong, pretentious, and unfulfilling). Instead, Mission to Mars surprised me. It took time and is beautifully photographed--there are no jump-cuts, double-takes, or rapid-fire edits. There is not a pumping rock soundtrack. Mission to Mars looks good until the end when the cgi plays a little too unrealistic. dePalma also takes his time and lets the film breath. Mission to Mars is not a very long movie, but several scenes that could have been handled very rapidly are wisely slowed down as dePalma lets the vastness of space provide the tension rather than the editing pace.
The cast is also commendable and does a fine job. There is genuine time devoted to the lives of these characters and how they deal with what is happening.
But....the film balances on the line of mediocrity. It only grazes the surface of the ideas this film presents. Space travel is only treated in one amazing sequence involving a micro-meteroid, but the issues of time, isolation, and psychology are not explored. When they get to Mars, the suggestion and discovery of aliens, human history, and cosmic unity is only brushed upon. These characters are in the midst of what should be the biggest realization of all time, yet there is no sense of that in how they act. They are more interested in getting away than they are in what is potentially the greatest adventure of all time. And the film ends too early. It is the easy approach to leave some mystery as to what awaits a certain character, but it is also unfulfilling when the film goes to so much trouble to explain the entire situation. It would have taken some sincere thought, creativity, and originality to extend this film, so they just ended it instead.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
After the hype has passed, this film falls flat.
I have cogitated on this film since May, wondering where to place this film in the Star Wars canon. This film undeniably set the standard for visual effects and sound design, much like A New Hope did in 1977. There is no denying the technical accomplishments of this film. For many, it is this technical accomplishment that is used to judge an entire film. The pod race is perhaps one of the most exhilarating race sequences to ever be put on film, and the lightsaber duel with Darth Maul certainly has energy. From beginning to end the film is full of visual "treats."
That said, Episode I ultimately has to have more to be a good film. A New Hope had more with its epic feeling, ominous star destroyers and sleek x-wings, the presence of Darth Vader who makes an impression from scene one, and the archetypal, mythical appeal of Luke, Obi Wan, Han Solo, and Leia. And this all from episode IV--in medias rez. Episode I should be all that more compelling having such a complete future already established. Obi Wan and Anakin inspired no such feelings and neither did any other character. We all know the ultimate realization of these characters, but they play flat and unrealized in spite of what we know they will become. Not a good start for a film series.
The story also falls short. There is no clear conflict and the villains are laughably ineffective. Darth Maul is only a villain because he opposes the Jedi, but there is no development of why he should be considered a villain. Stripped of a few battles, there is no conflict and no solid, developed explanation for why they are fighting (Yeah, yeah, yeah I know about the Trade Federation blockade and such nonsense, but that is a thin veil for lacking conflict). The main problem is that Episode I is working too hard at being the prologue to Episode II and not enough at being its own movie. We get too much foreshadowing and setting up for events to come (which makes the die hard fans giddy with moments of realization but makes for a shallow film). Despite its interconnectedness with future and past films in a series, this film needs to hold its own and it does not.
The Loss of Sexual Innocence (1998)
Mike Figgis' rich and powerful allegorical film challenges conventional cinema
This is not a film for someone who wants to "sit back" and be mindlessly entertained. It is a challenge to watch and an even bigger challenge to decipher. However, this film is such a demonstration of where film can go (beyond a linear storyline and literal constructions). It is patient and relaxed in its pace, is free to navigate through time and place. At first glance it appears to be a random compilation of shorts, but it really is a powerful interconnection of dreams, memories, archetypes, and life. What is most admirable about this film, though, is its confidence in its imagery (some of which is extremely powerful) and its minimal dialogue. This is not a film that "spoon feeds" theme and gives us chatterbox characters to walk us through what is happening. To be honest, I have seen the film three times and still am not sure about what is happening at every point, but it does leave room for personal meaning that makes it priceless and so rich. How many films can it be said of that even after a third viewing you have not even begun to realize its full meaning? There is much more said in the silence of "Loss of Sexual Innocence" that is ever said in any of its verbose contemporaries.
Heat (1995)
Lost among the giants, HEAT is vastly underappreciated
I must admit that when I first saw Michael Mann's HEAT I was not too impressed. However, now that I have had the chance to watch it again on DVD (twice this week), I am struck by what Mann, Pacino and de Niro have accomplished. HEAT capably juggles many characters and situations. It resists the temptation to go for melodrama. Mann gives us characters and lets their lives play out on the screen. The opportunities for extended weeping and the emotional trappings of long soliloquies are resisted even though opportunities are ample, especially when the film delves into the relationships of the characters. The film also has confidence enough to meander through the lives of its characters--in and out of the main plot. It is a masterful case study not of crime and action, but of the lives of the people who inhabit these lifestyles as "cops and robbers." Pacino and de Niro both shine in the character-types they do best--Pacino over the top, borderline maniac and de Niro as the cool and confident man of action. But it all comes down to the observation made in this film that there is no difference between these two characters on opposite sides of the law. In fact, the de Niro character seems more admirable than Pacino's much of the time. HEAT could easily run ten hours, and it is admirable that Mann was able to condense this film down to just under three hours and still cover the ground he does (I would love to see an expanded cut of this film). Finally, this film looks good--from cold blue nights to amazing action sequences. One of the best films of the 90s.