bsilvey Reviews

Blithe Spirit (1945)

Harmless, But Uninspired

[10 October 2003]

"Blithe Spirit" has Rex Harrison in his acerbic bachelor mode unable to get rid of either of his dead wives. Now if that's not a knock-out premise, I don't know what is, yet this film fell flat for me. This came out the same year as David Lean's other 1946 release, "Brief Encounter," but it doesn't have any of that film's elegance and style. "Blithe Spirit" feels pretty anonymous from a filmmaking standpoint. However, this movie's strength is its writing. The screenplay is terrific, and all of the lines are delivered with such throw away dryness that I have the feeling I could watch this again and find everything funnier than I did the first time.

No quibbles with the performances, though no one is asked to stretch him/herself much. My favorite performance probably came from Kay Hammond, playing Harrison's first dead wife. Others rave about Margaret Rutherford, but I found her a bit too mannered and spastic.

I love that movies like this won Oscars for special effects. They're so quaint and fake, but you know the artists had to be so inventive to pull stuff like this off in the pre-computer era.

My most negative comments concern the quality of the DVD itself. I wholeheartedly agree with previous commenters on the horrible color and sound quality on display here. I wish the film had been in black and white, because the copy I saw was washed out and ugly. And my wife and I missed about the first 20 minutes of dialogue because of bad sound.

Grade: B-

Roger Dodger (2002)

A Sleeper Romance

[9 October 2003]

I wouldn't have thought from previews that "Roger Dodger" would have an ounce of romance in it, but it does. The scene between Elizabeth Berkeley, Jennifer Beals (both very good by the way--who would have thought?) and Roger's nephew is incredibly sweet and touching, but without being overly sentimental or cloying. Campbell Scott gives a fabulous performance as Roger, illustrating how broad his acting range is.

My only complaint with the movie is its incredibly annoying cinematography. All of the compositions are cluttered and claustrophobic, sometimes so much so that the main focus of the shot is entirely obscured. And this trend toward hand-held cameras needs to be stopped. I think directors feel that hand-held cinematography lends a gritty, realistic point of view to their films, but more frequently it serves only to distract.

But a fairly minor quibble about an otherwise very good film.

Grade: A-

Phone Booth (2002)

Could It Be? A Joel Schumacher Film I Actually Liked?

[9 October 2003]

No one wanted to hate "Phone Booth" more than me, since I absolutely despise Joel Schumacher and almost every movie he's ever made. I've actually taken the trouble to think about who my least favorite director of all time is, and Schumacher won the booby prize. So blame it on my incredibly low expectations, but I really liked this movie. I agree with the other people here that the script is weak. No effort is made to develop characters--it seems as if the screenwriter began to add dimension to Forest Whitaker's cop and then thought better of it. But do you really want a lot of script in a movie like this? The film makers were wise to keep the running time to a swift 80 minutes, and while I didn't think they were especially clever in the set up or execution, it was competent enough to hold my interest.

I was pleasantly surprised by Colin Farrell's performance. He's great, and does much more with what he's given than the material probably warrants. I watched this by myself, but was still slightly embarrassed to find myself moved by his speech in which he confesses all of his sins to the assembled crowd. Even as I'm writing this review, I can't believe I didn't find this display hokier, but I guess I was in the right mood at the time.

This movie reminded me of the kind of "B" thriller they might have made in the 40's--slick, quick and not especially intended to impress. Frequently, because those films aimed low, they scored high, as does "Phone Booth" for me.

Grade: B+

Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002)

When Actors Become Directors

[29 September 2003]

All too often, when an actor decides to try his/her hand at directing, the result is disappointing. It's as if actors feel such a need to prove themselves as having a bold directorial vision that the style of their movie takes precedence over the substance. That is the case here with "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind."

George Clooney overdirects this film to the hilt. Count the number of unconventional compositions that serve no purpose other than to be unconventional. I love experimental, original cinema, but I hate pretentious directors who think merely by shooting a scene from a crooked angle they're making high art. "Confessions" should be much better than it is, since it's full of striking images, propulsive music and pretty good performances. But it's a mish-mash, not helped at all by the mess of a screenplay by Charlie (most over-rated screenwriter in Hollywood) Kaufman.

And whoever made the decision to shoot the entire film in a funky, surreal color scheme should be denied the right to work in film forever. Again, it serves no thematic purpose and does nothing but distract.

This isn't a horrible movie--it's not even necessarily a bad movie. Yet, I just didn't like it. It contains good elements--the acting, for one, is pretty solid over all--but I thought the whole thing just felt flat, and wasn't anywhere nearly as interesting or dynamic as it seemed to think it was.

Grade: C

13 Conversations About One Thing (2001)

A Terrific Ensemble in a Provocative Conversation Starter

[29 September 2003]

My wife and I launched immediately into a conversation about this film before the end credits had even finished rolling. It's the kind of film that makes you want to apply some of its ideas and themes to your own life and experiences.

At first I was worried. When the film began, I thought it was going to be an episodic experimental piece, with 13 different scenes each dealing with an aspect of happiness. This bothered me, because the first segment of the film left me wanting more of the same story and I would have been disappointed if the screenplay had never come back to it. However, the first few segments that seem at first to be unrelated begin to mesh in a fluid way (but never in a way that feels forced), and what happens in one begins to illuminate the actions and feelings in another.

Because of it's episodic nature, the actors don't get a lot of room to flesh out their characters, but the performances are still strong. Alan Arkin is especially good (he always is).

This one comes highly recommended.

Grade: A-

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

This Takes Me Back

[10/10 · 20 August 2003]

It's nearly impossible for me to write objectively about the quality of "The Wizard of Oz," so bundled up is it with associations from my childhood. It's like trying to do a critical analysis of "Star Wars." Sorry, can't be done---at least, not by me.

"Oz" is such a strange movie, in some ways so creaky and old-fashioned, in other ways so incredibly ahead of its time. Few films I've seen during my lifetime have such a complete vision as "Oz" does---such painstaking care went into the look and design of the film; it's as if the filmmakers really did create a whole other world for this film to take place in. It's odd that during a time in American film history, when movies were being cranked out like cars on an assembly line, a film could feel like such an auteurish product (increasingly odd, since the credited director, Victor Fleming, actually shared directing duties with several others. The same is true for "Gone with the Wind," released in the same year and also bearing Fleming's name as sole director. He was quite a lucky guy in 1939).

The plot and feeling of "Oz" veers quite a bit from that of the book on which it is based. The book is much nastier and darker, but the film manages its fair share of grimness for all that. The Wicked Witch is spectacularly scary (Margaret Hamilton admits to regretting the intensity with which she approached this character) as are the Flying Monkeys. There's such a feeling of ominous dread underlaying this entire film. As if the land of Oz is a bit too beautiful and perfect, like a perfectly ripe piece of fruit that at any moment can begin to rot at the edges.

Really, despite her scariness, the Witch is the most fun character in the film---it's really a riot to watch this film as an adult and enjoy her sarcasm and nastiness; it's refreshing as juxtaposed to the goody goodiness of the other characters. Frank Morgan in a variety of roles is also great.

A cloud of darkness has come to surround this film over the last couple of decades, due to the urban legends about the stagehand supposedly caught on film hanging himself and the truly bizarre stories about the arduous process of making the film (and the many accidents and tragedies that occurred along the way). This reputation may be responsible for the cult status that has arisen around this film and perhaps even for elevating it to the level of admiration it has received.

On a side note, an excellent book by Gregory Maguire called "Wicked" offers back story to the events leading up to "The Wizard of Oz," and most particulary focuses on the early life of the Wicked Witch of the West. It's an outstanding book, and I venture that you won't be able to watch "Oz" in quite the same way again after reading it.

Grade: A-

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

Majesty in the Desert

[9/10 · 19 August 2003]

The moment David Lean makes you aware you are in the hands of a master comes early on in "Lawrence of Arabia." Lawrence (Peter O'Toole) holds a lit match close to his lips and with one quick puff of air blows it out. Before the action is even completed, however, Lean has cut to a shot of a desert vista, with the sun slowly rising over the lip of the horizon. It's one of the most famous elliptical edits in cinema history, second maybe only to the bone/spaceship cut in "2001: A Space Odyssey." And it's only the first of countless memorable moments in "Lawrence of Arabia."

The appeal of David Lean epics has always been his ability as a director to maintain an equilibrium between the scope of his films and the characters in them. Character development is never sacrificed to massive set pieces or knock-your-socks-off action sequences. "Lawrence of Arabia" has these elements too, but at heart it's a character study of one remarkable man. Lean seemed to understand that impressive landscapes alone are not inherently interesting; but if you place a fascinating character among those impressive landscapes, you can have movie magic.

"Lawrence" feels unlike other historical epics of its time. In most "big" films--I'm thinking of movies like "Ben-Hur," "Spartacus," "Cleopatra," all movies that premiered roughly around the same time as "Lawrence"--one gets the sense that directors framed compositions based on how much they were able to fit into their widescreen lenses. One rarely sees characters filmed from anything closer than a medium shot, and usually the background is stuffed to overflowing with garish art direction. Everything feels static and wooden. But in "Lawrence," Lean keeps his frames constantly alive by juxtaposing huge landscape shots with extreme close-ups of actor faces. In one especially brutal scene, after a battle that results in the slaughter of many people, the action cuts to a close-up of O'Toole, looking panicked and crazed, gripping a bloody knife in his hand as if he's reluctant to drop it, obviously both disturbed and titillated by the carnage he just witnessed. It's moments like that---not just an impressive battle scene but a character's reactions to the results of that scene---that set "Lawrence" apart from other standard epics.

And of course, I have to reserve space in my review for the performance of Mr. O'Toole. He is perhaps my favorite actor, not one of the most prolific, but certainly one of the most unpredictable. He has a flair for choosing eccentric characters that give him almost unlimited room in which to perform. He carries "Lawrence of Arabia" almost singlehandedly on his slim shoulders. That's not to say the supporting cast isn't great, but O'Toole towers above them all. O'Toole understands that the most influential figures in history could also be the most difficult and ruthless when they needed to be, and he gives Lawrence an incredibly complex characterization, leaving his audience in doubt as to whether he should be worshipped or feared, or perhaps both.

Lean would never direct an equal to "Lawrence of Arabia" again. His later films are certainly more than watchable, and "A Passage to India" is even quite remarkable in its own way, but we would never get another "Lawrence." Even more reason to appreciate it now.

My Grade: A+

The Godfather (1972)

Oh Those Corleones

[9/10 · 18 August 2003]

No American filmmaker has had a more disappointing trajectory to his film career than Francis Ford Coppola. To have directed four of the most influential films of the 70's (the first two "Godfather" films, "The Conversation," and "Apocalypse Now") and then to spend the last two decades churning out one stinky product after another ("Peggy Sue Got Married," "Bram Stoker's Dracula", the third "Godfather") earns Coppola my award for Most Promising Director Who Most Miserably Failed at Establishing Himself as an Important Figure of American Cinema. But before "Jack" there was "The Godfather." While I feel the whole "Godfather" trilogy has been lauded into oblivion and is somewhat overrated, who am I to argue with the majority? People think these are great movies, and they've certainly implanted themselves permanently in our cultural consciousness.

And don't get me wrong: these films have moments of greatness (at least the first two installments do). But I think "The Conversation" and "Apocalypse Now" are ultimately more interesting films, and I think Coppola stretched himself more artistically in those two films than he did in the entire "Godfather" trilogy combined.

Of the trilogy, the first film is by far the best. It shows Coppola's flair for being able to craft a story with extreme mainstream appeal while staying faithful to his artistic vision. "The Godfather" doesn't look or sound quite like any gangster film before it, with it's muddy lighting and sound. It's also much more ambiguous morally than the usual Hollywood gangster film, at least any produced up to that point. The line between crime and justice is blurred sometimes beyond distinction, and the Corleone family at times acts with more honor (in its own way) than the institutions charged with upholding freedom, justice and morality. In this way, "The Godfather" offered a scathing critique of the foundations on which America as a country was built.

Coppola, however, drives this point into the ground over the course of three films. There's really not much more to say after the first film (it's already apparent that Michael Corleone's style of rule is different from his father's, his coldness and ruthlessness necessitated by a changing time), but we have to sit through a nearly 3 1/2 hour second installment that does nothing but reiterate this point again and again. Part II at least is saved by the back story of Vito Corleone (played by Marlon Brando in Part I and Robert De Niro in Part II), and that story alone keeps Part II afloat. But Part III is wholly unnecessary and mars the whole enterprise, turning the franchise into the stuff of parody and camp.

Al Pacino is the glue that holds the trilogy together, though his character really isn't as complex as a first viewing would have you believe. The major conflict facing him is resolved in the first film, and the second and third films give him nothing to do but replay what are essentially the same scenes over and over again.

Other standouts in the cast include Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton and Talia Shire (who alone makes the third chapter worth watching).

Obviously a must see for cinema buffs, or even casual fans, but don't feel you have to label this trilogy as great just because of the reputation that precedes it.

My Grade--- Part I: A Part II: B Part III: C-

Casablanca (1942)

It Took Me a While to Come Around to This One

[8/10 · 18 August 2003]

Ah, "Casablanca." Is there a line from the film that hasn't become a cliche? That's not a criticism of the movie. If anything it's the reverse. What greater compliment to a film screenplay can a film audience make than so completely absorbing every word of it into its common cultural consciousness?

It took me a long time and multiple viewings before I warmed up to Michael Curtiz's 1943 film (by some accounts a 1942 release). I'm not particularly a fan of either Ingrid Bergman or Humphrey Bogart, and the filmmaking techniques didn't strike me as anything inventive or unique and they still don't. At best, "Casablanca" exists as an example of the classic Hollywood style of filmmaking working at its slickest and most polished.

But then on about the fourth viewing, it struck me. The people who love this movie don't love it for the striking visuals or the daring narrative or any of the elements that make, say, "Citizen Kane" such continual fuel for film discussion. People still love "Casablanca" for coming out at exactly the right moment in our cultural history, and somehow it's retained that "right place, right time" allure. America had been involved in World War II for at least two years by the time of this film's wide release, and many women had seen their men leave to face uncertain futures. So no wonder a film with such an intense nostalgic glow about it would strike a universal chord. No wonder the forbidden romance between the Bergman and Bogart characters seemed so instensely poignant. And no wonder the patriotic, "do whatever you must for the good of the cause" propaganda (for let's call it what it is), seemed so stirring (and still does).

Is "Casablanca" a great film? I won't attempt to answer that, though it's not one of my personal favorites. But any film that carries its legacy with it the way this one does can't be completely dismissed either.

My grade: B+

Gone with the Wind (1939)

Frankly, One Damn Fine Movie

[18 August 2003]

I know "Gone with the Wind" has been teased to death, and there seems to be a sort of snob appeal among the film critical community in denegrating this film as overblown Hollywood melodrama. But the thing that impresses me about "Gone with the Wind" after seeing it recently on the big screen is that it's one hell of a good movie. The entire first half moves with a propulsive energy that not many films can match. Victor Fleming (billed as director, though there were at least four director names attached to the project) stages one sensational set piece after another, and hardly a scene goes by without a quotable line or a memorable image.

The success of any adaptation of "Wind" is going to rely greatly on its Scarlett, and here I can't say enough about Vivien Leigh's performance. I quite simply cannot imagine any other actress in this role, so perfectly does Ms. Leigh embody it. She's in virtually every scene, but even after four hours of her, I'm not tired of her, and her ability to captivate the screen while she's on it doesn't lessen for an instant.

Clark Gable is Clark Gable, perfect for his role as well and an able match for Leigh, but his performance plays as window dressing as compared to Leigh's powerhouse work.

I also want to mention Olivia de Havilland. In her own way, she is just as powerful in her role as Leigh is in Scarlett's. Melanie's character is less dynamic and so by sheer necessity de Havilland is frequently upstaged by Leigh. But she holds her own nonetheless. And what struck me is the chemistry the two actresses have when on screen together. The scene in which Scarlett attends a party dressed in bright red, braving the gossip she knows will attend her presence, and Melanie walks slowly forward, determined to prove herself a refined lady by welcoming Scarlett unconditionally, is a tour de force for both actresses.

I take points away for some soap operatic elements in the second half that grind the story to a halt, but otherwise this film deserves its place as one of the greatest achievements in American cinematic history.

Grade: A

Gosford Park (2001)

Altman Back in Top Form

[25 October 2002]

It thrills me to say that after a string of stinkers ("Dr. T and the Women," "The Gingerbread Man") and so-so light films ("Cookie's Fortune"), Robert Altman has an unequivocally excellent film on his hands with "Gosford Park." It's a film that works on many layers and needs to be seen more than once for one to fully appreciate its resonance.

The film admittedly stinks as a murder mystery---it's almost funny how little Altman himself seems interested in the who-dunnit. But, typically for Altman, it's the deconstruction of the genre that he's interested in, not the genre itself. This movie isn't about a murder in a country house; it's a movie about class differences and people connecting (or not connecting) with one another.

It seems futile to mention stand out performances in a film filled to the rafters with stand-out performances, but I did especially like Emily Watson as a cheeky maid, Helen Mirren as the "perfect servant," and Kelly MacDonald as the novice lady's attendant who grows more than anyone else over the course of the film.

The film is at its best when it's probing the emotional depths of the story---it comes across as a bit too glib when the satire gets especially acidic (mostly with the Kristin Scott Thomas character), but like the best of his movies ("Nashville," "M*A*S*H," "Short Cuts") Altman knows how to control his own cynicism and doesn't let sarcasm rule.

With his on again-off again track record, we can expect the next Altman film to tank, so let's enjoy this one while we can.

In the Bedroom (2001)

One of the Most Disappointing Films of 2001

[25 October 2002]

This film wouldn't have been as disappointing as it was if it hadn't been hyped so much. I was expecting to come away powerfully moved, and instead I came away thinking--"That's it?"

The film has an interesting enough conceit, and while it bears similarities to "Ordinary People"---an affluent married couple ill-equipped to help each other deal with the death of a child---it takes the story in a unique direction. In this case, the death is not an accident, and the couple's feelings of helpless rage and desire for revenge become directed at each other, since the killer is out of their reach.

However, the emotional showdown the film builds to is anti-climactic, and the screenplay makes a big mistake in dumping the Sissy Spacek character three quarters of the way through the film to deliver a clunky plot-driven finale that feels jarringly out of place with the rest of the film.

This film isn't satisfying in any respect; even the performances leave much to be desired, not because the actors aren't all uniformly fine, but because they're hampered by underwritten characters. Marisa Tomei suffers especially in this regard.

Note: I just saw the new Mike Leigh film "All or Nothing," and while obviously very different from "In the Bedroom" it delivers the kind of bare-bones emotional showdown I felt that "In the Bedroom" wanted to give us. Check it out when you get a chance.

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

More of the same from Ron Howard

[13 March 2002]

I wasn't at all excited about the prospect of sitting through "A Beautiful Mind," but since I enjoy the Oscars much more when I've seen the majority of films up for competition, I felt obliged to see this one. I can't say I was disappointed, because I didn't expect much to begin with. The film is typical of what I've come to expect from Ron Howard: polished, glossy, safe, and dull.

This is the kind of movie where everyone looks like they've stepped out of a magazine. Everyone is attractive, and if there are characters who aren't, they stay well within an acceptable range of unattractiveness. Welcome to Ron Howard's world, where the techniques of film making are so encumbered by the demands of mainstream movie America that one feels as if he's seen this movie already. And you have. If you've seen any film about someone overcoming a mental illness to deliver an uplifting message about the triumph of the human spirit, you've seen "A Beautiful Mind." It's paint by numbers film making. All of the required scenes are there---I felt as if I needed a little checklist so that I could tick them off as I went.

Russell Crowe does o.k. with his role, though it's mostly a collection of physical tricks rather than a fully fleshed out performance. I don't know why everyone's going nuts over Jennifer Connelly. She's adequate, but nothing more, and she isn't given a lot to do as Nash's stoic wife.

Nash's schizophrenia is handled with sledgehammer subtlety by Howard. The movie could and should have been much shorter had whole scenes detailing Nash's hallucinations been left on the cutting room floor. I'm sorry Ed Harris---I like you, but your whole performance could have been left out and the movie would be unchanged.

Howard treats mental illness like it's a new topic that's never been dealt with before. He's caught Steven Spielberg syndrome---it's as if he suddenly feels it's his duty to bring awareness to "serious" topics, but he handles them in such a shameless way, and gives his audience such little credit for being able to understand and appreciate nuance (let alone have a genuine emotional response) that his movies are becoming progressively tedious and boring.

I'm waiting for "Parenthood 2." Let Howard get back on familiar terrain.

Cradle Will Rock (1999)

Sorely Underrated

[6 July 2001]

Tim Robbins is one of the most exciting directors working today. "Dead Man Walking" was my favorite film of 1995, and "Cradle Will Rock" (together with "Magnolia" and "Topsy-Turvy") tops the list for 1999.

"Cradle" was also one of the most underrated films in its year. Everyone went ape over "American Beauty" and ignored this movie. The Academy snubbed it completely (but who really cares) and audiences avoided it (which doesn't really surprise me). But even critics couldn't get behind this one.

It's a rousing bit of work, and if it's a bit one-sided, at least it's one-sided for a good cause. The film makes a point about art appreciation that I think desperately needs to be made in these days of "Survivor" and "Temptation Island" and every other sort of banal entertainment corporate conglomerates are serving up to the public. Tim Robbins directs with visual flair and gets top-notch performances from everyone, even when the actors are miscast (John Cusack, Susan Sarandon). Standouts include Cherry Jones, Joan Cusack, and Vanessa Redgrave.

I came away from this movie with the desire to sing, dance, write, paint, sculpt--anything that involves passion and creativity and freedom of expression. Thank you Tim Robbins for making a movie about issues that matter. Next time you sit down to watch "Survivor," pop this in instead.

Life Is Beautiful (1997)

Roberto Benigni should be locked away

[3/10 · 6 July 2001]

1998 saw the release of three high-profile films about WWII, and "Life Is Beautiful" is by far the worst. It's silly, manic, zany--all good qualities if we're watching a Mel Brooks film. But there's something distinctly distasteful about a joke built around the drudgery prison camp inmates were forced to undergo. Call me a stick in the mud. Tell me I missed the point of this movie. I've heard it all. However, I didn't miss the point of this movie. Roberto Benigni isn't exactly Ingmar Bergman, and his points aren't all that hard to grasp. And I don't mind the point of the movie. I just hated the execution of it.

As for the other two WWII movies released that year, I thought "Saving Private Ryan" stunk too. I know, call me sacriligeous, but there you have it. On the other hand, I thought "The Thin Red Line" was breathtaking--a stunner, pure and simple.

Nashville (1975)

Where to begin?....

[10/10 · 6 July 2001]

Where do you start with a movie you love so much? I don't think I'm even going to try. Suffice it to say that "Nashville" captivates from beginning to end. It exposes everything I love and hate about America, wrapping it all into one big complicated deliriously funny firework of a movie.

Give it a chance--if you're unfamiliar with Altman's work, just know that he doesn't develop a movie in the traditional ways, and it can be frustrating at first. But try to watch this film not with the expectation of seeing a plot unfold from point A to point B, but rather with an eye for associations, similar themes, irony, and juxtapositions. And don't be afraid to laugh. This film is a hilarious human comedy, and we're meant to laugh at it, even if we're uncomfortable for doing so.

People will argue with me of course, but I think "Nashville" is perhaps the best movie of the last 25 years, and one of the best movies in the history of film making.