IzzyTree Reviews

Random Hearts (1999)

Leave it to the Europeans

[4/10 · 12 August 2023]

This is the kind of movie that Europeans can do well, but Americans can't seem to get right. When two lovers die in a plane crash, their grieving spouses find each other. Unfortunately, we're not given any real feeling or emotions in these spouses, except unexplained rage on the part of Harrison Ford, and Kristin Scott Thomas's usual ice princess. No real grief is in evidence here, although Ford's character keeps telling us he's upset about his wife's infidelity. Compare this film to Kiezlowski's "Blue" and you'll see what I mean. Similar plot, but real feeling is portrayed in the latter movie.

The movie is way too long, as well. For no apparent reason, a subplot about police corruption that has no relevance to the main plot is included. It gives Ford a reason to act tough and beat a guy up, so maybe that's why it's in there. That subplot felt jarring, like the viewer was yo-yoing between a movie about two people in grief and a schlocky detective show on TV.

This movie could've been an interesting study of grief. Instead, we get two inscrutable characters sleepwalking through a bad script for over 2 interminable hours. I gave it a 4/10 for valiant efforts by Ford and Scott Thomas.

Uncertainty (2008)

Two thin plots do not make one interesting one

[4/10 · 30 April 2019]

Sheriff Bill Gillespie of the TV show "In the Heat of the Night"once said he rarely goes to modern movies because "they leave nothing to the imagination but the story". He might have been thinking of "Uncertainty".

There are actually two stories in "Uncertainty", both about the same couple. Like the conceit in "Sliding Doors", two simultaneous storylines play out on a July 4th weekend, one in Manhattan and the other in Brooklyn. Neither story holds much interest (Brooklyn) or makes much sense (Manhattan). If the movie depended on either story alone, I doubt it would've gotten made.

You can tell the Manhattan version of the couple from the Brooklyn version by their clothes, and the general color scheme: In Manhattan, they're wearing yellow; in Brooklyn, green. (In fact, those interested in art direction might find it fascinating to see how the filmmakers worked the two colors into each plot line.)

The acting was decent, but the script was minimal (in fact, I've read that there was little script and the actors improvised a lot). I was hoping the two stories would somehow connect at the end, but (spoiler) they didn't.

Also, I didn't really like the Manhattan couple version as much as the Brooklyn one. The M-couple was interesting but slightly evil; the B-couple was more sympathetic but rather boring. This illustrated Simone Weil's contention that only evil is really interesting. Whether Weil was right or not, in the abstract (and my favorite movies violate her dictum), this movie certainly upheld it.

My basic criticism is that two thin plot lines, added together, do not equal one interesting plot line. Watch it for the acting, especially Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It's a harmless enough way to spend an afternoon. Just don't expect too much.

Summer Eleven (2010)

The way it was... or at least, the way we wish it was

[9/10 · 15 June 2011]

This movie is a throwback to classic movies like Stand by Me: a tender, involving character-based coming of age story of four young girls. It is serious, yet with touches of humor here and there.

The story line involves four girlfriends in their 11th summer, right before they enter middle school. The four girls include Vanessa (Alice Ziolkoski), an up-and-coming young actress who is amazingly unspoiled (probably because her mother, played very well by Valerie Mahaffey, keeps her feet firmly planted on the ground). Jess (Sarah Butterworth) is a young tomboy whose main concerns in life are her absent father and her mother's annoying live-in boyfriend. Lizzie (Meaghan Hughes) is the nerd of the group, a reader in glasses who is small for her age; but she must deal with some of the biggest issues there are when her older brother comes home wounded from Iraq. And Peri (Sydney Fox), brought into the group by Vanessa, is dealing with her own difficult issues: an unemployed mother who lives with her and her brother out of her car.

Yes, that's a lot of "issues." However, a film that might have become like four Movies of the Week rolled into one, somehow finds cohesion because of some delicate writing, as well as some very good, naturalistic acting by the four young actresses. Not to denigrate the adult actors; they are good, too (including Adam Arkin in a charming cameo); but the movie hangs on the able performances of the four young actresses.

As examples of the good writing: When Vanessa's mom invites Peri's mom to stay in her guest house, it's done gently, with humor and sensitivity. When Lizzie's older brother finally comes out of his shell, once again, the light, deft touch of a master writer and good acting saved it from being a schmaltz-fest. Certain other hackneyed story lines were thankfully avoided (having the other girls compete with Vanessa for acting gigs, for example).

Sometimes, the "issues" did seem to drag the viewer down into the "issue-mill," and things threatened to get a little depressing. However, scenes like that were always followed by light, delicate scenes between the four girls that seemed so REAL. One scene where the girls are swinging on a tree rope reminded me very much of my childhood summers where we did similar things. Another scene between the four girls and two of their boy "friends" gave me the chills, it seemed so real.

If I were going to be picky, I could have done without the final scene of the movie, where one of the girls' concerns is wrapped up a little too neatly. However, over all, this was an extremely well-written and acted ensemble piece. There are very few PG-rated family movies of this quality these days. This is one I would highly recommend, especially for mothers and daughters to watch together. 9/10

Dreaming Lhasa (2005)

Boring, little story, and bad dialogue

[2/10 · 8 July 2010]

It's hard to believe a film about political dissent and torture could be boring, but somehow this is.

The storyline is barely an excuse for a film, the dialogue is unbelievable, and the acting is atrocious. If this had been a documentary, it might have been decent. Since it can be revealed without spoilers that this is about a woman making a documentary, I can say that the scenes where she's viewing her interviews are gripping and are the best thing about this film.

Example of dialogue: "So many have given their lives for Tibet, for us." "What the ... do I care about that?" And she loves this guy and she's doing a documentary on Tibet. OK, yeah.

Spoiler here: The story involves a conspiracy about the CIA agitating the Tibetan resisters. Now, I don't know if this is true or not, but it sure distances the viewer from the torture and dissent to think it was all a CIA plot, doesn't it? It also makes the story totally uninteresting. If this guy they're looking for is just a CIA mole, who cares?

Another problem is technical: The sound is awful, fuzzy and muffled. I could barely understand the English being spoken in a Tibetan accent, and there were no English subtitles for the deaf on the DVD. This led to the paradoxical situation where I could understand what was happening better when they were speaking Tibetan, because then there were English subtitles.

I'll give it a 2 for the documentary-type scenes, the Tibetan chanting, and the scenery.

Skylark (1993 TV Movie)

Well-done family entertainment

[9/10 · 10 October 2009]

Perhaps this sequel to Sarah, Plain and Tall does not have the inherent drama of the original. But it is still wonderful, well-done family entertainment.

One of my favorite things about this movie is how it lingers on moments. For example, when Sarah receives a birthday gift of a Victrola and hears music again for the first time in years, the camera lingers on not only her face but those of Jacob and her friends and neighbors. Then slowly she melts as we see her remembering how much she loved and missed music. As the Italian aria continues to play, her husband takes her by the hand and they dance together. It is a small moment but one to treasure along with Sarah and her family.

Another example is when Jacob first arrives in Maine and sees the ocean for the first time. His eyes register wonder and awe that makes us realize how similar the ocean is to the prairie that he loves (a theme that runs throughout the film).

The script is good. The dialogue is believable and generally not trite or predictable. When the drought is starting to get really bad, Sarah tells Jacob she is not leaving. She doesn't want him to worry; she repeats the phrase over and over, and finally getting through, Jacob grabs her hand, they circle one another and laugh and kiss. His daughter watches form the window. It's another precious, original moment in the script.

I also have to mention that I love Glenn Close and Chris Walken in this film. Both are extremely well-cast. Glenn glows, and Walken is sweet and dashingly handsome, especially when he dons "town clothes" to travel to Maine.

Overall, a wonderful family film. I also remember how my father, who was born in the decade portrayed by the Sarah, Plain and Tall films, loved them, perhaps because he remembered how hard life could be in earlier times. A great series of films. I recommend all three.

10 Questions for the Dalai Lama (2006)

Beverly Hillbillies Goes to Tibet

[5/10 · 2 August 2008]

I'm giving this movie 5 stars just for its informational value. I did learn a lot about the Tibetans' struggle for freedom under Chinese oppression, and there was some fascinating archival footage. Also, it gets some points for the overly prepped and belabored, but finally interesting scenes where the Dalai Lama actually talks.

However, the overall tone of the film annoyed me. Because of the way the voice-overs are done, the Dalai Lama is presented in a disrespectful way.

It is a well-known fact that the Dalai Lama is a refreshing, fun-loving person who likes to laugh. But here we are treated to a montage where he is semi-mocked for proposing festivals for world peace, followed by the his assistant's informing us that he doesn't even like festivals himself and often falls asleep during them (is the assistant accusing him of hypocrisy - proposing something he himself hates?), all over top of video where he seems to be thoroughly enjoying himself at festivals. Which is the truth? I thought it was Documentary Making 101 not to confront the viewer with pictures and words that conflict with each other, unless this cognitive dissonance is being created on purpose for some subversive intent. What was the subversive intent, here? I don't think there was one, I think it was just sloppy film-making.

Next we are informed how much the Dalai Lama loves to laugh, even at "inappropriate" moments, and we are treated to video after video where he is laughing with the rich and powerful figures that he has met with over the years, in ceremonies which are supposedly very formal. I personally do not consider his behavior here inappropriate. It's not like people are offended. His laughter is infectious and he makes people happier by it. Yet the overly serious intoning of the narrator goes on and on how "inappropriate" this is. Is the Dalai Lama a giggling idiot? Apparently the narrator thinks so.

And then there's just something about the way the interviewer looks while he's interviewing the Dalai Lama -- sort of like Jed Clampett come to the mountain to talk to the wise man.

Even when there was fascinating archival footage, the narration almost ruined it, with the narrator's flat and uninteresting delivery. I don't want to discourage anyone from learning more about Tibet and the Dalai Lama, but I myself could barely sit through this film. It was that annoying to me to see the 14th Dalai Lama reduced to some giggling idiot who cannot even lead his people to squash the nasty Chinese (and that was there as a subtext, in my opinion -- like Jed Clampett, I felt like the narrator was someone who might admire a pacifist and a wise man, but really, dudes, let's break out the rifles, 'kay?).

I hope someone, someday soon makes a really thought-provoking and well-done documentary about the Dalai Lama. In my opinion, this isn't it.

The Red Danube (1949)

Barrymore and Pidgeon in a B&W classic

[8/10 · 20 February 2008]

I truly enjoyed this film. The themes of individual responsibility in an evil world, and the problem of faith in God, are handled sensitively and well. Although it is unclear at the beginning, the main characters are the Colonel played by Walter Pidgeon and the Reverend Mother played by Ethel Barrymore. The romance between Peter Lawford's adjutant and Janet Leigh's sylph-like Russian refugee ballerina is, in a sense, just an excuse plot to build the movie around, although that storyline is satisfying as well, mainly due to these two talented actors. Also noteworthy is Angela Lansbury cast against type (at least, compared to her debut in Gaslight) as a highly sympathetic, yet somewhat salty woman officer.

I found others' comments on the relationship to McCarthyism and/or anti-Communism in general to be interesting. I do believe this movie showed the evils of the Soviet system, which to me, is fine. I have no idea if it fed McCarthyism, since I wasn't alive during that period. However, to me, it seems to be more about anti-totalitarianism of all stripes, rather than merely anti-Communism. In particular, the scene of the refugees in boxcars seems to be a direct reference to the Holocaust.

That The Red Danube was nominated for best art direction speaks, as well, to the technical beauty of this black & white film. This film reminded me of The Third Man, in its location, art direction, and storyline. (Orson Welles always said that "Black & white is the actor's friend" -- how true, in both these movies!) Although this film is inferior to The Third Man overall, in terms of its acting, atmosphere, and skill of the director, it is still worthy of viewing. Whereas The Third Man focuses on the moral dilemma of dealing with the evil in one individual (in a corrupt society), this film deals more generally with the morality of living in a corrupt society. In other words, The Third Man asks: "Why do men turn evil in an evil society?" (which, when you think about it, may not be such a profound question; although the further question of "What can be done about it?" is also explored), whereas The Red Danube asks: "How can men stay good in an evil society?" (which is really a much more useful question). So, although there's no denying that The Third Man is the better movie overall, I would highly recommend The Red Danube due to its high production values, the collection of wonderful actors in its ensemble cast, and a very engaging, philosophical script.