Change Your Image
a-kos
Reviews
The Simpsons Movie (2007)
A Very Good 90 Min Episode, True to the Series (For Both Better and Worse).
The Simpson Movie has most of the great qualities of the TV series - pointed iconoclastic social satire (digs at religion, bureaucracy, crass materialism), clever slapstick humor, dialog that is both intelligent and intelligently stupid, and great visual gags (esp in the first 15 minutes). Much of the humor references some of the best specific scenes from various episodes (probably only long-time fans will understand these jokes).
'The Simpsons Movie' is basically a very good (not great) episode extended to 90 min - that's both reassuring and a slightly disappointing: Reassuring because it reaffirms the seemingly infinite versatility and mutability of the show's formula, but also a little disappointing because the writers/producers/etc don't take as many chances with the formula as I would've liked. I was hoping for something that would transcend the TV show the way 'South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut', took that that show's bawdy, offensive humor to new levels, then transformed it into a statement (and big middle-finger) at the MPA for it's misguided priorities and hypocrisy. The Simpson Movie never goes much farther than the TV show; the PG-13 rating does enable the writers to be a little more naughty with some of the jokes, but not in a way that enhances the TV show's insight, irreverence, or overall effectiveness.
As an ardent fan maybe I'm being too hard on the film and expecting too much. The series has been on so long and lampooned virtually every aspect of U.S. culture (and numerous others), maybe there just isn't anywhere left for the creative team to go they haven't at least touched on already. Taken as it is The Simpson movie is an intelligently written, visually clever satire. And even if it's not as potent as the best episodes it's still entertaining and mostly satisfying for both casual and avid fans.
The Secret Lives of Dentists (2002)
Glad I'm not alone in my disappointment
I just want to add another voice of disappointment for this film. Considering all the glowing national and local reviews, I was expecting much more. I don't always agree with critical consensus, but usually when a film is unanimously lauded it truly is at least somewhat worthwhile.
I won't reiterate the plot since that's already been done by several other users. This film really is as dull as many other users have stated. While the performances by Campbell Scott, Hope Davis, and Denis Leary (who steals the show) are fine, but the nebulous story and inert pacing deaden what few compelling scenes there are. The Secret Lives of Dentists is one of those films in which what the characters don't say is intended to be more important than what they actually do. Randolph intends for the film to be an emotionally weighty treatise on committment, responsibility, and personal satisfaction (and how these values often conflict), but his approach is so deliberately understated it makes little impression on the viewer. The only exceptions are the early scenes with Leary, whose acerbic, oft humorous presence is the only character that registers a pulse in an otherwise listless film (he isn't on screen enough to carry the film the way he might have been able to).
I'm sure there are probably many married (or previously married) individuals who will argue this film presents the complexities of marriage in a mature, realistic, and human manner. This might be true (as a single person I can't offer any perspective), but the characters are so drab (except for Leary), and the story so hazy and sluggish the result is a vague, unmemorable film.
A Mighty Wind (2003)
An Inconsistent, Limp Failure.
Most other viewers are either biased because this is a Christopher Guest movie or see something I just don't. For those who don't know, A Mighty Wind is mockumentary of the 1960s folk music revival. A famous folk musician dies and several other folksters decide to hold a reunion concert. The film follows the three groups who participate as they discuss their past and prepare for the concert.
As with all Guest mockumentaries, the individual groups are designed to parody actual figures (and the folk music scene itself). Unlike the targets of his two previous films (Waiting for Guffman and Best in Show), the subject matter of Wind isn't intrinsically funny. Community theater is funny because it's so pedestrian and cheap (Guffman) and Dog shows are ridiculous because the owners are pompous and deluded (Show). Middle-aged folksters aren't inherently funny and so it seems Guest has trouble evoking much humor and maintaining a lively pace. Unlike the characters in his previous films, the folk musicians in Wind are so similar to actual folk acts, the film leaves the realm of satire and becomes emulation. With Guffman and Show, Guest mocked his characters unmercifully. In Wind, he parody's his subject matter so closely, Wind fails to be consistently funny. This is especially true during the reunion concert, which takes on the personality of an actual concert rather than a satire of one. Even the music itself bares an uncanny resemblance to authentic folk music; the songs are catchy and well written but again sound more like actual songs rather than parodies.
To be fair, A Mighty Wind does have a few very funny scenes, but for every minute of genuine humor there are ten minutes of dead air. Wind is the type of film which keeps you grinning, but only seldom evokes laughter and is easily forgotten after you exit the theater. Ultimately, Guest just seems too fond of his characters to lampoon them effectively and create good satire. The community actors in Guffman were absurdly incompetent, the dog owners in Show were ridiculously serious. The musicians in Wind know they're just innocuous nostalgia acts and have no pretense about it. Consequently, Wind just doesn't have the sharp wit of Guffman and Show. A Mighty Wind is more pseudo-documentary than comedy, or more accurately, a mockumentary sans the mock.
Rating: 2.5 out of 5
25th Hour (2002)
A Perfectly Directed Film Without Interesting Characters.
The premise of 25th Hour is simple, but fairly original. Monty (Edward Norton) is a drug dealer who is spending the last day of freedom with his family and friends before going to jail. The films follows Monty as he spends time with his father (Brian Cox), friends Jakob (Philip Seymore Hoffman and Barry (Frank Slaughtery), and girlfriend Naturelle (Rossario Dawson). The film follows these characters to various locations (restaurants, clubs, parks, etc.) and also features a number of flashbacks from Monty as he remembers various experiences that led him to his current pathos and impending incarceration.
[There are some very minor spoilers that follow, but not enough is revealed to ruin the film if you haven't seen it.]
I understand why so many viewers and critics have been duped by this film. Spike Lee's direction is masterful (as usual) and the cinematography is beautiful. Lee effectively creates a melancholic mood which, to him, not only represents the characters feelings, but the feelings of post-9/11 NYC. It's a testament to his formidable talent that he's able to hold our attention in a film where nothing interesting really happens. The only slightly compelling plot element is the mystery of who turned Monty in to the DEA, and in this film it really doesn't matter.
In film like 25th Hour the focus falls squarely on the characters and their dialogue. This is where 25th Hour falls short, because none of the charaters are compelling or have anything interesting to say. Monty isn't an intrinsically interesting character, and as the architect of his own demise we don't feel much sympathy for him. Jakob is a pitifully meek educator who teaches at the prep school he and Monty attended as teenagers. Jakob's insecurity is so pathetic that when he kisses a teenage student (Anna Paquin), it's more sad than creepy. Even worse is Barry, a boorish, megalomaniacal stockbroker who is obsessed with discussing his system for rating male attractiveness to females. Discussions among two opposite, but equally dull personalities (Barry and Jakob) are still dull. The only character that warms the tepid cinematic stew is Naturelle, but her presence isn't enough to redeem the film.
25th Hour concludes with a dream sequence which gives it more of an emotional payoff than we expect. However, this doesn't compensate for the fact that we're forced to spend the first two hours with three numbingly insipid, one-dimensional characters. The result is a very well made, but substantively boring film. 25th Hour is like a beautifully wrapped present with an uninspiring gift inside.
Alias (2001)
A Series with Potential, but Often Calculated and Forced.
I won't spend much time describing Alias, since most readers are probably already familiar. The premise is intriguing and fairly original, but the execution is too often calculated. It's obvious that some elements are specifically marketed to draw male viewers, while other are intended to appeal to females.
The two basic elements that are meant to appeal to males are the action sequences and Jennifer Garner's sex appeal. Both are too often forced. Even though the action sequences sometimes feel artificial, they're usually creative enough to compensate for this flaw. Almost every episode finds a reason to put Sydney (Garner) into a lingerie, bikini, or some other revealing outfit to show off her admittedly stunning beauty. While her physical beauty is striking, this cheap marketing ploy diminishes the show's emotional substance.
More problematic are the the romantic angles that are intended to draw female viewers. They are perfunctory elements which only serve to stall Alias's emotional momentum. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with romance when done in the context of an interesting story, but in Alias the relationships feel tacked-on and calculated.
The writers and producers of Alias should simply focus on creating a taut spy drama. Truly great shows don't use calculated plot elements as attempts to appeal to specific demographics. An example of a similar (but much better) show is 24. 24 is more successful than Alias because it is taut and always feels natural. The artificiality and attempts at deliberate marketability of Alias sap it's potential emotional energy; consequently, it can be interesting, but the viewer never feels emotionally invested. As some writers have noted, right now, Alias is just 24-lite. It's you're looking for a truly compelling spy series, 24 is the show to watch. Despite it's potential, Alias (right now at least) is just something you might watch if you don't have anything else going on.
Punch-Drunk Love (2002)
Under the Weirdness is a Hollow, Underdeveloped Film.
Many critics seem to have been taken in by this film because it's weird. Granted, it is, but not an engaging, enjoyable way, but in a self-conscious, annoying way. [There are few minor SPOILERS that follow, but nothing that will ruin the film (if that's possible) if you haven't seen it.]
For those who don't know the story premise: Barry Egan his a socially maladjusted plunger salesman, the only male sibling among several (7 I think) domineering sisters who've basically squelched his confidence and masculinity. One of his sisters introduces Barry to her coworker, Lena Leonard (Emily Watson) who inexplicably falls in love with him (later she reveals that she was interested before they met).
To his credit, Adam Sandler gives easily the best performance of his career as Barry. The mean, annoying misfit from his previous films is replaced by a more sympathetic, somewhat less annoying misfit. Despite Barry's chronic problems (in fits of rage, he destroys a restaurant restroom, breaks patio doors), he's a likeable character. Sandler took a real chance taking this role; too bad it wasn't spent on a better movie.
While it's a fairly original premise, director/writer P.T. Anderson simply makes the film too deliberately strange for it's own good. Films are good when they're unpredictable in an entertaining way as relevant parts of the story. In PDL, weird stuff just happens without any connection to the rest of the story. This isn't necessarily a problem in and off itself; in Fargo, for instance, there are several scenes which aren't really connect to the main story, but they're amusing, ingenious scenes which enhance they story's believability. In contrast, Anderson just throws in some unconnected subplots that are unexpected, but also un-engaging: Early in the film, Barry finds a harmonium left in the street after a car crash; Barry calls a phone-sex line and is subsequently persued by a related group of thugs who think he's rich (this story facet really goes no where). Elements such as these are at best superfluous, at worst annoying.
Also, the relationship between Barry and Lena is poorly explained and undeveloped. Lena is a nice, seemingly normal and well-adjusted person. While Watson is a superb actress, her character is under-developed and consequently she gives a merely average performance. But the real problem is the inexplicable nature of her attraction to Barry. Anderson provides no overt or subtle rationale for her interest in such an awkward misfit like Barry. It's not unthinkable that she might like Barry, but there the emotional connection between the two seems totally artificial. This is a major shortcoming that only further dulls the impact of an already impenetrable film.
Perhaps those who like PDL are responding to the uncreative malaise that hangs over that general film industry. While PDL is more unique and bizarre than the vast majority of films released, it's strangeness is so unnatural and insular that it generates little emotional impact. For those of us who see through Anderson's weirdness, PDL is a meandering, emotionally hollow film; The kind of film a first-year film student would make with a budget of more than $5000. Sandler's performance is the film's only redeeming quality. I'd like to see him try more dramatic performances, hopefully in better films.
Insomnia (2002)
Good Twist on Film Noir, but View the Scandinavian Original.
As one of the few viewers who's seen the the original Scandinavian film, I'd like to offer a comparative perspective. I won't summarize the story because that's been done countless times on this forum already. Instead I'd like to convince other viewers to compare it with the Scandinavian original.
First the good: The production in this newer version is a significant improvement over the original. Since the original had a lower budget, it didn't feature many dramatic technical devices. Consequently, even though the story is excellent, the deliberate pace and relatively stark production make it sometimes feel dry and placid. The dramatic elements (eerie music, camera effects, etc.) of the remake make the story more compelling.
In terms of the story itself, the remake takes compromises that make it less believable than the original. I'll discuss the details later, but it's interesting to compare a few of the details with the original. The compromises made in the re-make were probably done to make it more palatable to American audiences.
Overall, both films are very good and worth seeing, but I'd like encourage people to view the Scandinavian original. Comparing both films, it's also interesting to see how these cinematic differences might also relate to cultural differences. I'll discuss the details below, so if you haven't seen either film, I advise you to stop reading now.
Warning: SPOILERS below.
There are two specific scenes that are distinctly different when comparing the original with the remake. Firstly, the scene where the detective (Skarrsgaard in the original, Paccino in the remake) shoots the dog as part of a plot to conceal his mistake. In the original, the detective finds a live stray dog, then shoots it. In the remake, the detective shoots a dead animal he just happened to find earlier in the story. The Scandinavian film is more realistic because it's much more likely he would need to seek an animal to shoot rather than just happen upon a dead one. While this scene might be more palatable in the remake, it compromises believability for sentiment (as is often the case in American cinema).
Secondly, in the original conclusion, the detective (Skaarsgaard) survives, while in the remake he is killed. In terms of emotional substance, the original is superior because the character is forced to "live-with" what he did. In the remake, the character more or less redeems himself and dies tragically. While this makes for a more dramatic conclusion, it's also more artificial. Again, believability is compromised for a more satisfying, but artificial conclusion.
I encourage viewers to see both films and compare. Overall, I think both films are more or less equally good, but in different ways. The fact that the the original is less sentimental and more realistic might be indicative of some of the differences between Scandinavian and American cultures.
Homicide: The Movie (2000)
Satisfying & Frustrating Coda for a Seminal TV series.
To be sure, Homicide (the series) deserved a TV-movie after it's unsatisfying series finale, which was admittedly rushed (NBC cancelled the series only a few weeks prior to the end of the 1999 season). Indeed, viewers were left hanging as many storylines were left unanswered, and "Homicide: The Movie" does work as a coda for the series. However, it seems like a series finale elongated to fill 90 minutes.
The premise is extremely promising (for those who don't know): Lt. Giardello is the front-running Baltimore mayoral candidate, whose primary issue is the decriminalization of drugs. During a campaign stop, he is shot (but not killed) by an unknown assailant. This event brings every regular character (and I mean everyone) back to investigate the crime and visit Giardello in the hospital. [This brilliant premise is also frustrating to me as a long-time fan. If NBC had given the show one more full season (and let the producers know it would be the last) there could have been some intriguing episodes leading to the campaign.]
As a fan it's satisfying in sense to see all the regular characters again, but it's also a tremendous burden on the film. Several scenes do nothing to enhance the story: Shepherd and Ballard repeatedly watch videotape of the shooting in an an attempt to find a lead; Mike Giardello and Kellerman roust everyone who might have a grudge; Med. examiners discuss medical advancements at Gee's bedside. These and a few other scenes only serve to give some members of the bloated cast a reason to make an appearance. What probably would have worked brilliantly as a 40-minute series finale just doesn't cut it as a full-length film.
Fortunately, this substantial shortcoming is largely redeemed by the film's conclusion, which is set-up perfectly by the writers. The final twist is a complete and devastating surprise that's entirely believable and satisfying in the spirit of the original series. Even if "Homicide: The Movie" is more than a bit diluted, it works as an appropriately bitter-sweet coda for one of the best shows in the history of television.
The Business of Strangers (2001)
Well Acted, but Contrived and Predictable.
Stettner offers a microcosm of the modern business world in his first full length film, The Business of Strangers. Stockard Channing plays Julie, a professional so devouted to her career she has neglect virtually every other aspect of her life. She suspects she might be fired soon, and meets with an employment "headhunter", Nick (Fred Weller). Julia Stiles is Paula (at least that's the name she provides), Julie's young, impetuous, obviously unstable assistant. After an acrimonious initial meeting, the two serendipidously meet in a hotel bar and become friends (Julie sees Paul as herself 20 years ago). It turns out Julie has been promoted, not fired, and Julie and Paula decide to live it up in the bar. During the party, Nick shows up (his flight was cancelled). Later, Paula tells Julie she knew Nick in college, and he committed an atrocity against her best friend. Later, when Nick shows up at Julie's room, the two women decide to get even.
(WARNING: Some spoilers ahead).
From the time Julie, Paula, and Nick meet at the bar the film is very predictable and staged. It's obvious from the time her character is introduced that Paula is unstable and duplicitous (she's hostile to virtually everyone she encounters). It's unreasonable to think a shrewd businesswoman like Julie wouldn't see through Paula's guise, and even more inconceivable she would risk her career to abet Paula in her malicious treatment of Nick (what they do is felonious).
After Julie and Paul part ways (neither one too worse for wear), Julie reconsiders her life decisions and seems to re-evaluate her priorities. This gesture by Stettner, while earnest, isn't the epiphany he seems to think it is, and in fact it's obvious from early on that Julie will realize this. The Business of Strangers is one of those films that seems tailored for critics, with little appeal for anyone else: Yes, the acting is first rate and the deliberately antiseptic direction is an effective, somber indictment of the modern business world. But, anyone who has seen more than a few films knows exactly where this one is headed after the first 30 minutes. Ultimately, The Business of Strangers is just an exercise for Channing, Stiles, and director Stettner.
Gideon's Crossing (2000)
A Serious with Great Potential, but often Tediously Philosophical
Gideon's Crossing has the potential to be a great series, and they have had a couple good episodes. Andre Braugher is his usual fascinating self and the ensemble cast is fine as well.
Too often, Gideon's Crossing get's bogged down by overt philosophical pretense. The scene which seems to conclude (and often occurs in the middle as well) just about every show features Gideon lecturing his students about various issues that have occurred. While this is intended to be insightful and inspiring, it usually comes across as tedious, trite, platitudes. Occasionally, this does punctuate an episode effectively, but usually it's just a ponderous bore. The show is at it's best when it shows the characters act as good physicians instead of overtly discussing what it means to be a good physician.
In spite of it's problems, Gideon's Crossing has the potential to evolve into a first rate drama. The show doesn't incorporate enough humor into the mix, but when it does, the results are usually effective. With more humor, and less pomposity, it could be one of the best series on TV, though it will probably never achieve high ratings because it is often inaccessible and difficult for many viewers.
Slums of Beverly Hills (1998)
A Generic Coming of Age story.
"Slums" is a film of decent acting performances in an exceedingly cliche' coming of age film. The story takes place during the 1970's in Los Angeles. A mother-less family of near-destitute nomads lead by the father manage to exist by skipping on rent, then finding a new apartment every month or so. Most of the characters are tedious stereotypes.
The main character is Vivian (Natasha Lyonne); a teenage girl who is curious and insecure about her developing sexuality. She is a decent actress, but Lyonne gets nothing interesting to work with. We see Vivian go through all the coming of age experiences we've come to expect: Smoking dope, loss of virginity, etc. Her brother is a typical drug dealer/user. Rita (Marisa Tomei), a flaky emigrant from the east coast enters the picture somewhat later.
Though these characters are played by generally fine actors, they are given nothing interesting to do. Most of story revolves around Vivian, and the film tries to find humor in her sexual development. This could have worked, but most of what happens has been used so many times before that it's no longer funny, if it ever was to begin with. A typical example is a scene with Rita and Vivian that involves Rita's vibrator. It concludes with both of them lip-synching into it. What is supposed to be funny comes off as silly and pointless. Setting the film in the 1970's might have nostalgic appeal for some, but it doesn't help the plot of the film at all.
The only interesting element of the film is the father Murray (Alan Arkin). It's a refreshing switch to see a single father struggling with parenthood. Arkin plays Murray well, conveying strength and vulnerability in a relatively unique role. Murray is really the only character we feel anything for. We might have felt something for Vivian if she didn't appear in such familiar scenes.
"Slums" is one of the few films that I think was more accurately evaluated by the general public than critics. When it was released, Slums received moderately positive reviews, but completely bombed at the box office. It isn't one of the worst comedies I've seen, but that's not saying much considering how awful most comedies are. The only people who might enjoy this are those obsessed with 1970's nostalgia.
Proof (1991)
An Emotionally-Rewarding and Original Masterpiece
Proof is an outstanding film that few people have even heard of, especially in the U.S. There are a few SPOILERS that follow, but I'll try not to reveal too much.
The plot of Proof is simple: A blind photographer (Martin) is obsessed with taking pictures to prove that what he senses it the truth. Numerous flashbacks of Martin's childhood indicate that his mother may have lied to him repeatedly. This is the emotional root of his pathological distrust of everyone. As a child, Martin's first photo reveals definitively whether his mother was in fact lying. Now, he must find someone he can trust to describe it for him.
Martin's life revolves around two other characters (well, three if you include Bill, the canine). First, Celia is his pernicious housekeeper with an obsessive love for Martin. The relationship operates in a vicious circle; Martin knows of Celia's feelings and uses this as a weapon to torment Celia. Celia resents this and vindictively torments Martin. This circle is the source of some fascinating dark humor. Later, Martin forms a friendship with Andy. Seemingly honest and forthright, Andy describes Martin's photos for him. Celia feels threatened by Andy, feeling that her territory (Martin) is being violated. Celia uses her sexuality to manipulate Andy to lie to Martin. Celia subsequently reveals Andy's lie to Martin in an attempt to destroy their friendship. In the final scene, Andy describes Martin's first photo for him (like Martin, we never actually see it).
The simple plot and limited number of characters allow Martin, Celia, and Andy to develop a triangle of emotional depth and resonance. Proof is psychologically complex and multi-faceted, requiring undivided attention. It is about the fragility of true friendship, betrayal, obsession, forgiveness and ultimately accepting the indefinite nature of truth. Proof evokes a full spectrum emotions, often being simultaneously comical and sad.
Though writer/director Moorhouse uses elements from other filmmakers (most notably, Hitchcock), Proof is like no other film I have ever seen. Such an usual story could have easily slipped into melodramatic theatrics, but the writing is supple and the characters are played with perfect balance by outstanding actors (Russell Crowe garnered critical acclaim in this film well before he became popular). Viewers with patience and commitment will have difficulty finding a more emotionally rewarding film experience.
[Note: I'd be happy to discuss (no petty insults) this film with anyone. Please feel free to e-mail me any comments.]
Hitman Hart: Wrestling with Shadows (1998)
One of the Most Compelling Documentaries Ever.
(WARNING: Some spoilers ahead. I don't reveal many details, but if you aren't familiar with what transpired, you may want to skip the last couple paragraphs.)
Shadows is that rare documentary that is actually more interesting than it's source material. Director Paul Jay exposes Bret Hart's final year with the WWF, simultaneously revealing the machine behind the stage-show of wrestling.
As the film begins, Hart is the prominent hero ("face"): A popular character who works hard and always tries to do the right thing. His contract with the WWF has expired and he is offered a big-money deal from WCW (a rival wrestling organization). Rather than going exclusively for the big bucks, Hart shows loyalty to the WWF and his fans, re-signing with the WWF for much less money.
The film shows footage of Hart's family and comments by Hart about his experiences growing up in a wrestling family. As the film progresses, fans begin to react negatively to good-guys (characters who behave in a fair manner). Hart is forced to become a "heal"(unpopular character) by the fans. Though he understands why WWF owner Vince McMahon takes his character in this direction, he still resents the fans, feeling betrayed. Wrestling fans become polarized towards the Hitman character. Comments of fans offer insight related to the psychology of wrestling (most fans are portrayed very negatively). The film concludes with a stunning betrayal of Hart by McMahon that effectively "kills" the Hitman character. Many critics have commented (justifiably) that this real "story" is more compelling than most novelists could even hope to write. Shadows is an outstanding documentary, with emotional resonance for both wrestling and non-wrestling fans.
The film itself is superb, but the home-video contains a bonus: An interview with with director Paul Jay and Bret Hart that serves as a post-script. Of particular interest are discussions related to wrestling as a reflection of pop culture. Hart and Jay also offer conjecture as to why McMahon betrayed Hart. Hart also reveals the impact the betrayal has had on his personal life.
(Note: I'd be happy to discuss this film with anyone. In particular, I'm curious to hear ideas about the confrontation between Hart and McMahon in the locker-room. I suspect that McMahon intentionally provoked Hart into assaulting him. I'd like to discuss this topic, or any others.)
The Usual Suspects (1995)
Very clever and superficially entertaining, but unsatisfying
Last week in a comparative literature class, we watched and discussed The Usual Suspects. After listening to many perspectives on the film, I've arrived at this conclusion: It's not challenging or difficult, it's impossible (or at least seems that way).
I'm going to assume that anyone who reads this is at least familiar with the plot, so I won't summarize too much hear. I also won't reveal the details of the ending, as not to spoil it for anyone.
The Usual Suspects does have quite a bit going for it: A clever and often funny screenplay, first rate acting, and direction that is generally very riveting. Even though the characters are well acted, they are presented in relatively superficial manner; we never really know them accept on a surface level. There isn't anything intrinsically wrong with that, but for this film it is a crucial flaw because it renders the conclusion unsatisfying.
The story and plot are extremely complicated and the details are mind-numbingly intricate: We get multiple perspectives and interpretations from at least two characters (sometimes simultaneously) of what happened during different times. It is difficult to determine what flashbacks actually did happen and which are fallacies. The plot is almost impossible to follow, even before the conclusion. The conclusion is genuinely surprising (for MOST people, including me), but later doesn't seem to make sense.
Throughout the film, it is suggested that Keyser Soce is the devil. It is not clear if he literally is the devil, or just a PERSON so evil as to be like the devil. Regardless of which assumption you make, the ending of the film isn't satisfying. If Soce isn't the devil (and has no supernatural powers), the film does not work: The pieces of the plot simply don't fit together (from what I can tell). If you accept that Soce literally is the devil, then this premise gives the filmmakers license to do almost anything, regardless of whether it unfolds in a plausible manner. This isn't satisfying either because it seems to render much of the plot irrelevant.
If the viewer completely disregards all plot holes and only observes the surface, The Usual Suspects is an entertaining movie. In that sense it is worth seeing. The pleasure does seem to be entirely superficial. It is clear that a great deal of thought went in to making this film, and it certainly isn't mindless. However, the film is void of any depth of human element and any real meaning. The plot may fit together if the film is closely and repeatedly examined, but it's shallow nature doesn't motivate the viewer to do so. This makes The Usual Suspects a good, but not great film, and certainly not one of the best films of the 1990's.
Note: If anyone would like to e-mail me to agree, disagree, or make any other criticism, I'd be happy to hear from you (not petty complaints please).