Change Your Image
strus2001
Reviews
Blue Valentine (2010)
good loving gone bad
This movie was often difficult to watch. Difficult because it seemed to be so real. A close, intimate look at the private moments of a dysfunctional married couple who are hurting all the time. Cindy is a cute, promiscuous, blonde young woman with a hankering for bad boys. She has no trouble finding what she likes. The tension of the story revolves around her inability to put her previous relationship with Bobby (very bad, jealous, violent) behind her while married to Dean (drifter, alcoholic, jealous, violent). Cindy has a sweet face, but never smiles until a chance encounter with Bobby in a grocery store early on in the movie. She mentions this to Dean in the car, and immediately regrets it. His venomous response is one of the scenes that makes this film seem so real. An issue never addressed is that when in a car together, Cindy drives. I can only assume Dean has lost his license due to drunk driving. This is unspoken but you can't help but notice. Cindy is the central character of the movie. Intelligent enough to succeed in nursing school, but not smart with men. Her father is hot tempered, domineering, and hooked to o2 to treat his COPD. She has the face and body that men will fight for in real life and in the movies. She works for an obstetrician, who clearly likes her and may be scheming to get this honey into his bed. She clearly likes the attention. So now this is thrown into the hormonal stew - and will be dealt with. I highly recommend this movie - if you prefer reality to escapism, and have had difficulties in the romance department, it will really hit home.
Spanglish (2004)
Curious but compelling
There were a few aspects of this movie I found puzzling. 1) Why would this family, although obviously successful in the restaurant business, hire a full-time domestic with a tag-a-long daughter, when the wife is spectacularly physically fit and the freeloading mother-in-law have such an excess of free time on their hands that they invariably create trouble for themselves and everyone else? 2) Why can't the father, who is acknowledged as the "best working chef in the USA" develop a healthy diet for his overweight daughter? That being said, why doesn't the mother, a self acknowledged college track star, take the child along on her daily runs?
That being said, the core conflicts of the story were compelling and often hilarious. It was not substantially different than the themes used in "The Beverly Hillbillies," or "Fresh Prince of BelAir." An individual, or family, is relocated into an environment of unimagined affluence, and the process of adaptation begins, with humor and bilateral education.
There is an all too willing attitude in the entertainment industry to marginalize and cartoonize and buffoonize the hardworking Caucasian family man, and by doing so, to sanctify the life of the American woman. In reality we all know better; people come in widely different personalities and moralities, some with high integrity and others slither with the snakes regardless of the hardware between their legs.
I loved the way Adam Sandler played John, the father, a man who gives 100% for his family who he loves unapologetically, even when they make him want to tear his hair out. Here is a man who is the moral center of his family, who in any other film he has been in would be flying off the handle. It was satisfying to see a man fight the good fight of staying faithful, staying sane, staying calm when there were innumerable opportunities to lose it.
Having had an opportunity to visit Central America, the characters of Flor and Christina, resonated strong and true for myself. There are millions of people in these struggling countries who will never realize the opportunities and wealth that we Americans too often take for granted. They know it too - but are not bitter. What impressed me the most in my visit was how they value love and friendship and family above any material possessions. That core sensitivity is what held this mother and daughter together through thick and thin and is what made this movie work.
Monster (2003)
Great argument for the death penalty
"Monster" is the dramatized story of real-life serial killer Aileen Wuornos, who was executed in Florida for her crimes in 2002 after spending 12 years on death row. The film does not "pre-quel" her killing spree or spend any time whatsoever on her prison time. It tells only the story of her killing and relationship with her lesbian girlfriend Selby.
I really didn't know how to react to this story. It seemed to play both sides of the fence in its perspective toward Aileen, sometimes sympathetic sometimes horrified. What I can say for sure is that there will be a great deal of hyperbole in the entertainment media that will praise the appearance of Charlize Theron in her resemblance to the real Aileen; it is eerily on the money. The thematic elements of the story itself have been told before in earlier films. Forbidden lovers on a real life killing rampage? Try renting "Badlands." Lost lesbians short on brains and cash looking to get away from it all and start a new life together? Try "Boys don't Cry." Whatever elements are to be realized from this story, they are unapologetically sordid and the movie wallows in them. A.W.'s victims were typically middle class 60-something white males, well dressed and driving nice cars, wearing their wedding rings for the world to see. It is obvious she is symbolically killing her abusive father, but we never get to see this man. All we hear is Aileen's version of him.
In summary I can't say this story needed to be told. True crime stories are inherently fascinating especially when it is intertwined with a large dose of sex. Do you ever drive by a bad car accident and gawk, hoping to see a dead body? Then you get my point. If there had been some concrete reason to understand and gain at least a glimmer of sympathy for this devil, I could recommend this movie. There wasn't, so I can't.
Something's Gotta Give (2003)
Been there, done that
Have you ever seen one of those made for TV movies that you can watch any evening on the Lifetime channel or CBS, that chronicles the romantic pursuits of upper middle class white suburbanite women, divorced and/or widowed, where dialogue is sappy, the scenes are time consuming and uneventful, there is no moral or dramatic weight to anything that goes on, and the action is immediately forgettable?
"Somethings Gotta Give" is like one of those movies, the only, and I mean ONLY difference is pedigree of the talent, and the presentation of that aforementioned talent's bare skin. Remove or interchange those factors and this movie would go straight to cable TV. It's that mediocre.
All the hyperbole about Jack Nicholson playing an aging stud who is very much like his real-life persona is irrelevant. If you want to get the scoop on that story, read People magazine. His whole presentation was disorienting to me; I am used to seeing him ooze fake sincerity; in this film it is real sincerity, and I wasn't buying it.
I also found it hard to find any sort of sympathy for a crowd of people who are blessed with good looks, personality, wealth, oceanfront homes, apartments "in the city," laptops, spacious kitchens, fashionable clothes. Is there a single character in this movie who does not carry a cell phone? The cell phone addiction in this movie is so annoying I wanted to take all those cell phones and throw them in the ocean.
Jack Nicholson is a true treasure of American film. "About Schmidt" added to his legend. "Somethings Gotta Give" subtracts from it. He has strayed a long way from Randall McMurphy and Jake Gittes, would have eaten this guy alive.
Wonderland (2003)
not a wonderful world
If a case could be made for the total depravity of man in the Christian sense, John Holmes was it. The concept that man is inherently inclined toward evil and his baser instincts is on full display in this film.
Whatever happened in his life as a child, teenager, private in the US Army is not addressed. I remember seeing him in a video in about 1980 at a bachelor party. Like all porn films, the action and story were immediately forgettable. What I do remember is the star's profound air of indifference to his duties. He was there, but not there, if you know what I mean. All the action in "Wonderlan" takes place within the space of a few days in the summer of 1981. All the major players have hit rock bottom, drowned in a sea of cocaine, heroin, alcohol and nicotine; The rush of the high and tachycardia of the action is unrelenting. The style was very similar to "Blackhawk Down", in that the viewer never gets a chance to catch his breath. I wish it would have been more linear; as events are told and retold from different perspectives, the plot becomes more confusing than it needed to be. The facts are well documented. Holmes was the middleman in the robbery of one drug house that exacted a brutal revenge on the second drug house located on Wonderland ave in Hollywood. How he managed to escape with his life and freedom fills the second half of the movie. Very few characters are presented that contrast to Holmes and his doper pals. His estranged wife, Sharon, is played with a solid midwestern-type moral center by Lisa Kudrow. "You told me you were a survivor, John" she replies to his drug-soaked pleas. "Is this what you call surviving?" She deserves an acadamy award nomination for best-supporting actress for this role. Val Kilmer as John Holmes ultimately has to carry this film. Twelve years ago he played Jim Morrison in "The Doors." Holmes and Morrison were both pop icons of the 60's and 70's, lived lives of unrestrained excess and died because of it. Doors fans could never forgive Kilmer (and Oliver Stone) for trivializing the legend of Jim Morrison. Is Kilmer trying to make restitution? My take on "Wonderland" is that it is a story of people who are dark and doomed. I don't want to go where they have been; it is painful to even visit. However is you want to see a film about the extreme margins of humanity, this is the one to see because it really happened like this. Just take a long shower and read your Bible when you get home; You'll need time to recover.
Wonderland (2003)
not a wonderful world
If a case could be made for the total depravity of man in the Christian sense, John Holmes was it. The concept that man is inherently inclined toward evil and his baser instincts is on full display in this film.
Whatever happened in his life as a child, teenager, private in the US Army is not addressed. I remember seeing him in a video in about 1980 at a bachelor party. Like all porn films, the action and story were immediately forgettable. What I do remember is the star's profound air of indifference to his duties. He was there, but not there, if you know what I mean. All the action in "Wonderlan" takes place within the space of a few days in the summer of 1981. All the major players have hit rock bottom, drowned in a sea of cocaine, heroin, alcohol and nicotine; The rush of the high and tachycardia of the action is unrelenting. The style was very similar to "Blackhawk Down", in that the viewer never gets a chance to catch his breath. I wish it would have been more linear; as events are told and retold from different perspectives, the plot becomes more confusing than it needed to be. The facts are well documented. Holmes was the middleman in the robbery of one drug house that exacted a brutal revenge on the second drug house located on Wonderland ave in Hollywood. How he managed to escape with his life and freedom fills the second half of the movie. Very few characters are presented that contrast to Holmes and his doper pals. His estranged wife, Sharon, is played with a solid midwestern-type moral center by Lisa Kudrow. "You told me you were a survivor, John" she replies to his drug-soaked pleas. "Is this what you call surviving?" She deserves an acadamy award nomination for best-supporting actress for this role. Val Kilmer as John Holmes ultimately has to carry this film. Twelve years ago he played Jim Morrison in "The Doors." Holmes and Morrison were both pop icons of the 60's and 70's, lived lives of unrestrained excess and died because of it. Doors fans could never forgive Kilmer (and Oliver Stone) for trivializing the legend of Jim Morrison. Is Kilmer trying to make restitution? My take on "Wonderland" is that it is a story of people who are dark and doomed. I don't want to go where they have been; it is painful to even visit. However is you want to see a film about the extreme margins of humanity, this is the one to see because it really happened like this. Just take a long shower and read your Bible when you get home; You'll need time to recover.
Intolerable Cruelty (2003)
barely tolerable
Coen brother movies have consistently recognizable patterns;
1) Characters who are actually caricatures and are played to the hilt, over the top, really. Nicholas Cage as a reckless white-trash father in "Raising Arizona," John Turturro as a nervous, sweaty, blocked, screenwriter in "Barton Fink," Charles Durning as a corpulent, corrupt, southern pol in "Oh Brother where art thou." That is just a sample. The list could be a lot longer. 2) An individual somewhere in the plot who has a lot of power and money and is no afraid to coeerce others to do his will. Often a minor role. 3) A scene of unexpected violence, usually point-blank execution.
"Intolerable Cruelty" contains all these elements. George Clooney is a California divorce attorney, using his God-given good looks and charm to advance the interests of his wealthy clients. Catherine Zeta-Jones is one of those well-chiseled, perfectly dressed and groomed females who has made being a trophy-wife a highly paid professtion. They are both grifters; he uses the law, and she uses men who are intoxicated by her obvious assets to get very rich with very little effort. Clooney's character thinks he is above all the chicanery, but falls hard for Marilyn, and that is where all the trouble starts. The entire movie is mostly devoted to the attack and counterattacks, the give and take of these two sad souls.
The tone is black comedy, which will stoop to any depth for humor. Outside of a few isolated scenes, though, it just simply wasn't that funny. I couldn't understand the attraction. Why would a character like Miles Massey, smart, educated, and obviously well-experienced in the pitfalls of a hastily pursued marriage do precisely that? And with a woman who is demonstrably as mercenary as they come? Are there no available women of high integrity anywhere in California for this man?
The only scenes that worked well are the small cameos that locked into your memory. Jonathan Hadary as a courtroom witness of undetermined national origin and sexual orientation. Julia Duffy as Marilyn's best friend and mentor in the marriage for money business. My favorite is Tom Aldredge as a decrepit, dying, IV'd, ventilated, oxygenated, head of George Clooney's law firm. He appears twice as in a nightmarish sequence, totally rattling the cocky Miles Massey. The second scene is the highlight of the movie.
As a total package it doesn't work. I think the main problem was that there were no characters I could actually feel any affection or sympathy for. Humor doesn't work when there isn't any emotion attatched to the humorous situation. My motivation as an audience member was that I wanted nothing whatsoever to do with these people.
Head of State (2003)
recycled formula
Back in the late 70's and through the early 80's, Richard Pryor made a string of formulaic type movies, the formula being a street-wise black man is unexpectedly placed in a position of great responsibility or privilege for which he is totally unprepared: (Silver Streak, Brewster's Millions, Critical Condition, Bustin Loose). Inevitably, the hero not only succeeds in his newfound role, but excels, all thanks to his streetwise background, which allowed him to confound the numerous white people in these movies who were either thick-headed or cruel mercenaries. This formula, not surprisingly, ran out of gas before Pryor's health started to go downhill, just like the Elvis movie formula did. It was all very unfortunate, because it repackaged Pryor, a true hardcore radical comedian into a middle of the road movie star palatable to a broad based audience. He never reclaimed what he had lost, and neither did Elvis. "Head of State" recycles the same Richard Pryor formula, only updating it to a hip-hop fed generation. Chris Rock plays the Richard Pryor -type character, a Washington DC alderman who catches the attention of Democratic party headquarters as an innovative replacement candidate for the nominee who dies in a plane crash only weeks before the general election. The overall effect is the same watered-down comedy that the RP movies left me with. The backroom cunning and maneuvering is all supposed to look very devious, and Chris Rock turns it all to his advantage, outsmarting the professional politicians at every turn.
The attempted humor in this movie left me cold and annoyed. There were joking references to the assassination of Malcolm X and JonBenet Ramsey that I guess were supposed to make me laugh. They didn't, and nothing, absolutely nothing, in this movie did. The slapping, punching, and assault & battery incidents are continuous and an assault on the senses. Someone has been watching a lot of 3 Stooges. Robin Givens plays a disgruntled ex-girlfriend of the candidate who is repeatedly victimized. In light of her experiences with Mike Tyson, this seems to hit a new low in bad taste. Rock speechifies in his presidential debate scene on the benefits of knocking children in the head when they misbehave, and receives a standing ovation. Not funny.
The problem with a watered-down movie is that it always hedges its bets, flip-flopping between earthy comedy and the serious tones. This movie, which actually has an interesting premise, would have been a lot better if it had gone way over the top, and not pandered to any sense of reality or decorum, like say for example, "Animal House." Put Chris Tucker or Ice-T in the candidate role, with no attempt to be loved by the audience. Bring the 'hood to the White House, and rename it the Black House. Load it with sex, drugs, rock & roll, and FUN!
I couldn't help but feel cynical about the Hollywood establishment's political vendetta associated with this movie. Chris Rock's opponent has an identifiable Texas twang, is personally venemous and slow-witted. Sound familiar? This same establishment will also back liberal governors and senators with expensive haircuts, but has never seriously gotten behind a black presidential candidate. I guess if you produce a movie about it instead of making it happen, that excuses you.
Gods and Generals (2003)
Re-enactment gone wrong
I remember an old Don Williams song about a boy going to sleep at night with a "picture of Stonewall Jackson above my head." I went into the theater with the concept that General Thomas Jackson still remains a heroic icon to many southerners. I also remembered my late father, who having read just about everything he could get his hands on would have made his way into the cineplex for this movie, which would have been his first since, say, the Godfather?
Dad would have been bored stiff by this turkey. It seems to me that there was some executive producer behind the scenes that instructed the director to include: Scenes of the battles of first Bull Run, Fredricksburg, and Chancellorsville. Get up close and personal with the life of Stonewall Jackson. Deify and sanctify the heroism and leadership of all southern generals. Explain in lengthy detail the Confederacy's rightful position to wage this war. And do it on a budget! And make it entertaining!
The movie opens with an emotionally moving song called "Going Home" sung by folksinger Mary Fagan, with credits rolling over a backdrop of regimental flags from both north and south. The story then begins with the historically inaccurate appointment of Robert E. Lee as the commander of the confederate army before the first bullet flew. In a civil war movie, there is no battle scene until close to an hour into the film. And then there are the speeches; again and again and again ad nauseum every general gets to spill his guts (verbally) about the hot topics of the day. My guess is that this was budgetarily motivated; filling screen time in an epic on the cheap.
I kept feeling a sense of emotional disconnection. The music was heroic, emotional, stirring! But over what? There was not a single character in the movie that I felt an emotional connection to. The poor infantrymen that were marched into a hail of miniballs to meet their God deserved more character development than their sanctimonious generals, and probably would have made this story much more interesting. However when they are given lines to speak, it is almost as if the writers were looking for some comic relief. It really does a grave disservice to the real men who fought and died on these all too real battlefields.
I think this movie logged in at over 3 1/2 hours long. Even with those epic proportions. it did not have the feel of a great epic war movie, like Braveheart. The aforementioned battles were only brushed over in regards to the facts of the battles, with the exception of Fredricksburg. The peninsular campaign of 1862, Jackson's Shenandoah valley maneuvers, second Bull Run, and the battle of Antietam are not even mentioned. Stonewall Jackson was involved in all of these.
It was a letdown to see a movie on a subject that I had a significant level of personal interest in, and to be so bored that I was strongly tempted to leave at intermission. The only reason I stayed was that I felt it would be unfair to submit these comments only having seen the first half of the movie.
Punch-Drunk Love (2002)
Sandler updates lonely man for new millenium.
Any new effort by director P. Anderson deserves serious consideration. Although prior releases "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia" were seemingly disorganized films, they presented characters so fascinating, so flawed, that you couldn't take your eyes off the screen. It's refreshing to watch a film that disregards all the Hollywood cliches of film making but is still different from independent no-talent wasteland.
The center of the movie is Barry Egan, frighteningly played by Adam Sandler. This soft spoken, clean-cut, small businessman appears outwardly harmless, but is a volcano of violence and sexual energy, that can explode without warning. He unwisely (and he immediately realizes so) calls a phone sex line to simply reach out to another human being. In the same time frame, he meets up with an attractive young lady who genuinely likes him. The romance and the phone sex scam play out way beyond anywhere he has ever been before. Barry mirrors the phone sex scam with a scam of his own - collecting bar codes from grocery pudding jars to amass a lifetime's worth of frequent flier miles. The playing out of these converging story lines is the crux of the movie. It is a much tighter story and plot than the aforementioned movies, and considerably shorter in length, and this change in structure serves the film well.
There are no heroes in Anderson movies. Just real people with real problems, trying to deal with life the best they can - and the choices that they make can mean drastic consequences. I couldn't help but think of Bill Clinton after watching his movie; I guess you could say Barry Egan had a little Bill Clinton in him and vice versa.
I highly recommend the film; it does what the best movies and novels do, which is to illuminate the human condition through characters that are so real we can even begin to care a little (or a lot) about them.