erialc0 Reviews

The Notebook (2004)

A sentimental and predictable movie with a few genuinely touching moments

[6 August 2005]

After being told time and time again by my female friends to "watch The Notebook, you'll cry soooo much!" I finally did it, alone, in the privacy of my own home, so that if it was too terrible I could deny ever having seen it later.

It was almost exactly what I expected it to be. Boy from lower class meets girl from upper class, separated by parents, reunited by chance years later, girl has to decide between the man she loved at 17 and her fiancée, who represents the world she "belongs" in. Sound familiar? It should, it's a plot that's been worn thin through overuse, and a charming performance by Rachel McAdams is not enough to give it new life. Nicholas Sparks, known mostly for for his even greater offender on the sentimental scene, A Walk to Remember, seems more interested in constructing a tale that entertains due to its predictability and tried-and-true appeal, not its originality or the freshness of dialogue, setting, or character. Despite showing a few impressive chops, Ryan Gosling fails to break out of the stock underdog role, and achieves his distinctive moments only during the moments where he's pitted against McAdams in their frequent fights, not during the love scenes themselves.

The real charm of this movie, for me, was the structure that the story is set against. An old man reads the story of the two young lovers to an old woman suffering for the last stages of Alzheimer's, a routine that we are given to understand happens every day. This elderly act of love is a thousand times sweeter and more convincing than any part of the story he retells--though Sparks can't resist tossing in further cheap sentiment by constant references to an expected "miracle" that will cure his companion's disease.

Technically, the movie is impressive. The sets and directing are generally above par, but cannot save the movie from being a typical chick-flick tear jerker. It has redeeming qualities, certainly, but after watching it I felt the hype it's received as "a perfect and enduring love story" was not fully deserved. In a few years, it will still have its fans, but it will be regaled to two copies in Blockbuster's that get rented perhaps once a month, replaced by similar movies that are again declared "beautiful and heartwarming". The acclaim it's earned popularly is, in my opinion, only earned because the lovers of this film loved the story before they even entered the theatre, and were thrilled to get exactly what they expected.

Heights (2005)

Do we ever want what we think we want?

[18 July 2005]

Heights is, at its most basic, an exploration of desires. The characters around whom the movie revolves think they know, at the beginning, where they're headed, what will happen to them, what they want to happen to them. But as the movie progresses, their certainties are challenged and sometimes swept away entirely, and their carefully constructed lives begin to unravel.

Glenn Close is Diana, a brilliant 40-something Shakespearean actress and somewhat irresponsible mother. Her open marriage once seemed like a terrific idea--have your fun on the side, have a loving husband at home--but as her "loving husband" becomes more and more deeply involved with another woman, she begins to realize just how unfulfilling that philosophy is.

Diana's daughter is played by Elizabeth Banks, in a very Scarlett Johanssen-esquire role. Isabel is a struggling photographer who makes ends meet by taking wedding pictures, while still trying to pursue a more serious career. Her second thoughts begin to appear when her upcoming wedding to Jonathan becomes an obstacle to a once-in-a-lifetime chance to use her talent. Jonathan himself has a past he's desperate to hide, potentially ruinous secrets he's working to keep from his wife-to-be.

The situations are strung together by the existence of a never-seen photographer named Benjamin Stone, who is scheduled for an exhibition in a few weeks. A man named Peter, who we are given to understand is Benjamin's current flame, is tracking down his previous models (and incidentally, lovers) to compile his memoirs. His work loosely ties in the rest of the characters, providing some structure to the interlocking plot lines.

This movie has the power and appeal that you generally find in beautiful films about unhappy people. No matter how happy or hopeful you find the ending, it's still a bit of a downer, because of the raw exposure of the characters. There are uncomfortable moments when we're privy to deep-seated emotions and unsettling situations, but there are also remarkably tender moments. The acting is generally understated and simple, with a few intense moments--your basic fare from a character study movie. But the adaptation from stage to screen, though apparent, is nearly seamless, and the text translates well to film.

Highly recommended to fans of Closer and similar movies.

War of the Worlds (2005)

Giant killer robots from space...what's not to love?

[3 July 2005]

I admit, I have never seen the original War of the Worlds. I am slowly compiling a list of all the classic sci-fi movies I have never seen, and it's currently embarrassingly long. That confession made, I can at least say that I'm reviewing this movie with a fresh perspective.

The first and most obvious thing to be said is that visually, the movie is stunning. The beginning of the invasion, when the Tripods climb out of the craters in the asphalt, surrounded by buildings that are imploding, crumbling, and being split down the middle, is an incredible image and one of the best uses of CGI I've seen in a long time. The machinery, the destruction, the aliens themselves are rendered beautifully and terrifyingly.

Stephen Spielberg does something else incredible, beyond the sheer impressiveness of the visuals--he keeps the tension pulsing throughout the entire movie. There is an honest question of who will make it out alive, of how we will prevail, when we will prevail, even if we will prevail at all (though honestly, if this question had been answered unsatisfyingly, no one would have liked this movie at all). Tom Cruise, as a dead-beat dad, is suddenly forced to figure out a way to bring his two children to safety. His daughter Rachel (played by the unbearably cute Dakota Fanning) in particular adds to the sense of urgency, both through her young age and her frequent panic attacks due to a bad case of claustrophobia.

I do have two criticisms, though. The first is Tim Robbins' bizarre sequence. Despite the fact that he is unquestionably an amazingly talented actor, I had trouble feeling that his role as an obsessive would-be leader of the (literally) "underground resistance" added much to the movie at all. The second would be the sticking point that many other viewers have complained about--the fairly ending. The audience is asked to swallow a weak explanation and a tie-up-loose-ends approach that rarely seems credible in film and literature. Still, my attitude is that by the time you reach the end, who cares? It's been a satisfying ride.

Whole-heartedly recommended to lovers of thrillers, action, and sci-fi alike.

Crash (I) (2004)

You think you know who they are. You have no idea.

[18 May 2005]

By the end of Crash, it was clear to me that the movie's tagline can be turned on the audience as easily as on the characters. The thing about this film that really got to me is that the actors, the writers, the director don't allow you to feel comfortable with yourself. You are forced to re-evaluate each character over and over throughout the course of this complex story, until you're left with only a partial understanding of the difficult and often unexpected decisions both likable and despicable people can make.

Crash weaves together the stories of several groups of people from many races and levels of society in Los Angeles. A Persian store owner is accused of being a terrorist sympathizer. A young black man, working with a friend, rails against the injustice of stereotyping against blacks while stealing cars. The LA district attorney tries to balance his chances of winning an upcoming election with a possibly racially motivated killing. These and several more plot lines run tangetally to each other, touching at significant points to illustrate just how thin the line between right and wrong really is--and how much moral grey area one can fit there.

The acting is tight and superb. The fact that there are so many "main" means that no one person dominated the film, but it also meant that we ere given a Hemingway-esquire treatment of each--short and to the point, without wasted and unconvincing emoting, or sloppy tug-at-the-heartstrings moments.

Recommended whole-heatedly.

House of Wax (2005)

Stay home.

[18 May 2005]

It's no secret that Paris Hilton dies in this movie. It is a satisfying horror movie death.

That said, save yourself the $9 and find a still on the internet of her with a stake through her head. Or at least wait till this comes out on DVD, and watch it at a bad-horror fest with friends. Because if you plan on seeing this for entertainment value in a theatre, odds are you will be pretty disappointed.

The movie is, quite simply, not scary. Gory, sure, though if you want gore you can check out Tarantino and get a much better movie. It has moments that made me wince, but so did Oldboy, which is a beautiful and well-made film. It had a couple attractive people in it, but so do most commercial breaks. The characters are unconvincing (not uncommon for a B-movie, but uncommonly bad even for the genre) and make unconvincing decisions (seriously--why would you go into the creepy deserted wax museum at night? more to the point, why wouldn't you leave immediately?) that just barely push a sub-par plot along. The villains are pretty lame. We aren't even given a real explanation for them. Instead they pass off a few half-thought-out drafting ideas as their background.

I'm trying to think of redeeming qualities this movie has, but I'm telling you, it's hard. There are a couple killer-chases-victim scenes that are okay, but they're short and not terribly suspenseful, and the "creepy" plot twist that the movie aims for at the end falls completely flat.

My advice? Duck out and see Kingdom of Heaven, or Crash, or Hitchhiker's, or really anything else. You'll be better off.

Zoolander (2001)

A Classic of the Idiot Genre

[18 December 2004]

Since Zoolander was released, I think I can safely say that it's become one of the most popular dumb comedies of the past ten years (a decade that was all too saturated with dumb comedies). Maybe it's the tongue-in-cheek attitude, or the clever writing, or the fact that it's immensely quotable ("I'm pretty sure there's more to life than being really, really, ridiculously good looking"). But whatever it is, it makes for a terrifically fun movie.

Ben Stiller is Derek Zoolander, three-time male model of the year, whose brainpower never quite caught up to his really, really ridiculous good looks. After losing his title to up-and-coming model Hansel (he's so hot right now), played by a Zen-ed out Owen Wilson, and the death of three of his model friends in a tragic gasoline fight accident, he goes on a quest to find his purpose in life. Turns out, his purpose in life is as the face of Mugatu (Will Ferrel with the world's best hair)'s new Derelicte fashion campaign--or so he's led to believe.

The plot is not strong. The characters are not fleshed out. But Ben Stiller keeps Derek's stupidity hysterical instead of irritating, and the rest of the cast adds gimmick after gimmick to keep things running. (Come on, the coal mines of New Jersey? Tell me that's not funny.)