kmscb-1 Reviews

Unconditional Love (2002)

Sweet-hearted Smörgåsbord, But Could've Used A Dash Of Chaos

[8/10 · 24 April 2007]

I caught about two-thirds of this movie on an overseas flight and couldn't make head nor tails of it, but Kathy Bates was fun and Rupert Everett was in good form so I enjoyed what I saw. Then forgot about it (it was a damned long flight) until I read Rupert's latest bio and he mentioned it. So I rented it. And seeing from start to finish made me like it so much, I bought it.

You cannot really catch the essence of the pleasure of this story in a basic synopsis. A settled-in housewife fantasizes about a "Barry Manilow"-style singer named Victor Fox, but then her marriage falls apart and Victor is killed and she sets off on a journey initially to attend his funeral but actually to find herself...and finds all sorts of adventure and a different kind of love and a new meaning to her life, en route. It's almost like a modern "Candide" wrapped around a murder mystery that isn't so mysterious. Okay...maybe I'm stretching in the analogy, but it's still a movie that tries to be more than just an A-B-C style Hollywood piece of nonsense -- that, alone, is worth massive praise -- and comes so close to working, I hate to say anything negative about it.

Of course, it never hurts to have Kathy Bates at your center. As Grace, she is warm, accepting, stronger than she thinks and believable as a woman suddenly cast adrift after 25 years of a very safe and careful marriage. She's hidden herself in the guise of being nothing more than her husband's wife and mother to their now-grown children, and never realized how much she'd stopped being her own person. And Rupert Everett is in fine caustic form as Dirk, a man who's submerged himself in publicly being nothing but the "valet" to Victor Fox when he's really the man's long-time companion and is unable to openly grieve for someone who treated him like dirt but whom he still loves. Another lost soul in need of a new life. They play nicely off each other.

There's a fine compliment of supporting characters -- a over-sexed dwarf with an attitude, a mild- mannered husband, three greedy sisters, a window-washer with issues and Julie Andrews in her take-charge mode. Had things been mixed up just a little more with some serious farce all the way through and trimmed by about fifteen minutes, this could have been a fantastic movie. Instead, we get a neatly laid out smörgåsbord of fun moments that don't really come together as one complete meal. That's not to say it isn't tasty...and worth the watching...it's just missing that extra dash of chaos to give it just the right flavor.

Of course, that don't mean I won't go back for seconds.

Casino Royale (2006)

Sean who?

[10/10 · 25 December 2006]

Unlike many of the previous posters here, I've never been a huge Bond fan. The early Connery ones were okay as period pieces, but Roger Moore was too lightweight to play the role convincingly and Pierce Brosnan just plain too skinny. I did like Timothy Dalton because he seemed intelligent enough to pull things off, but overall I've only tolerated them for their opening stunts, chases and ridiculous gadgets. Despite having friends who are deep into Bond-age (something the movie-makers play with in this one), I've only seen half the movies, and for half of those I had to talk myself into watching them. That's why I didn't see "Casino Royale" till Christmas Day; I kept thinking I SHOULD go because everyone was saying it's great, but I just couldn't get myself up for it. I was finally talked into it by a buddy who's a Bondaholic and who wanted the excuse to see it for the third time. So I figured -- What they hey; I got nothing else going on.

Well...I was wrong to wait. This was one fan-friggin'-tastic movie! Not just a "James Bond" film, but a great action thriller that not only reinvents the whole notion of Bond as a blond but makes him seem realistic and human enough to empathize with. In a Bond film, you expect the action sequences to be brilliant -- and the chase in Uganda fit the bill, perfectly -- but they should also be SUSPENSEFUL, something the other movies had lost sight of. You have to really feel that Bond might just not make it...and there were a couple of moments where I wasn't sure he'd get to where he needed to be in time. It was magnificent.

The fact is, there's non-stop suspense in this film. And romance. And beauty. And CHARACTER! Bond's no longer just a machine with a Walther PPK, he's a man who hurts and bleeds and can easily die and knows it. And tries not to care...but can't quite achieve that last bit of remove from reality. And Daniel Craig -- with his ice-blue eyes and working- class-English looks and carefully pumped-up body -- fills the role to such a wonderful extent, you're left wondering who could have better filled the shoes of Ian Flemming's spy. I mean seriously, as we were leaving the theater, my buddy said he was almost as good as Sean Connery, and my first thought was, "Sean who?"

I cannot emphasize enough -- this is not just a Bond movie; this is a great story told by people at the top of their form that, for the first time, gives me an idea of what the allure of the whole 007 mythology is all about and helps me accept it. And want to see it, again. And that, alone, is worth making this a TEN.

Half Nelson (2006)

Blessed perfection

[10/10 · 12 September 2006]

The story of a man trying to do good and being so overwhelmed by feelings of futility, all he can do is numb himself. The story of an adolescent girl who's seen way to much in her 12 years to hold any beliefs, anymore...but still almost sort of hopes. The story of how maybe they might be able to help each other...and maybe they can't because the world is stacked against them.

This film is heartbreaking and bracing in a way that only fine storytelling can be. You get pitch perfect acting by Ryan Gosling, Shareeka Epps and Anthony Mackie that is so real, you forget they're acting. Supple camera-work by Andrij Parekh (the confrontation between Dan and Frank over Drey is elegant). Beautiful unobtrusive editing by Anna Boden (who co-wrote the script). A music score that fits without being obvious, obnoxious or saccharine. A subtle, deep, honest script, where nobody's perfectly good or bad but just human (co-written by Ryan Fleck). And Fleck's directing? Let's put it this way -- there was a moment near the end I saw coming. Anyone who knows anything about storytelling knows this moment is coming. Ryan Fleck doesn't even try to hide the fact that it's coming. But when it comes, you are so caught up in the characters and the situation, you're praying that moment doesn't come...and Fleck plays on that prayer. Uses it to emphasize the devastation it brings. I actually realized I was holding my breath through the whole thing just hoping and hurting and worrying and fearing and knowing...and shaking from the wish that it wouldn't be so. And then there it was. And it was handled with such gentle simplicity, I just sat there, numb.

This film also holds a drug message that isn't a message but still gets the message across. A political commentary on the state of not only the reality of day to day life for many black families living a bare existence and faced with impossible choices, but also a stunning example of the flat out moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy of "No Child Left Behind." But neither is an in-your-face "THIS IS WRONG" polemic; everything is just...there for you to take what you will from it.

Ryan Gosling and Shareeka Epps deserve Oscars for their work. Period. I'm hoping the Academy will honor this film all over the place, but I know that's also something that's probably not going to happen. It's not a "studio" film, nor is it handled by one of the so-called "Indies" that aren't really Indies, anymore. But one can still hope...and that at the end is the real message of "Half Nelson." Even when your life lies in ruins around you, you can still hope. And that is what makes this movie blessed perfection.

Underworld (2003)

How do I dislike this movie?

[1/10 · 15 August 2006]

Let me count the ways -- 1. Lousy script with moments of chit-chat meant only to string together ludicrous action bits.

2. Stupid dialogue that makes all the characters sound like 12 year old brats trying to sound butch.

3. So much one-note acting I felt like I was watching a Philip Glass rendition of "Dracula Meets the Wolfman" with "Waiting for Godot" nothingness behind it.

4. Uncool sets. SERIOUSLY uncool.

5. Even uncooler costumes (which actually looked really uncomfortable).

And I could go on and on about the clunky editing and second-rate music and nothing directing...but you get my drift. I wish I could find something nice to say about it...I mean, I like Kate Beckinsale, really I do...but better to put a stake in it and let it just wither away. Such a sad waste of resources.

A History of Violence (2005)

The story lets the actors down.

[8/10 · 8 October 2005]

"A History of Violence" is one of those movies where as you're watching it you're thinking, "This is very well acted and well directed" but where there are still so many little things that consistently pop up to keep you from being fully involved in the story, it begins to hurt.

The basic premise is the perfect American myth -- a gentle family man confronted with violence is forced to take action to protect himself and his family...again and again. You can see it in classic movies ranging from "High Noon" to "Cape Fear". Added into the mix is the American ideal of a second chance, of re-inventing yourself and starting life anew. And Tom Stall is, without question, the epitome of an American man caught in a bad situation who is forced to do things he swore never to do to end the danger to his wife and children. It's too bad the filmmakers became more interested in keeping the pace of the movie up rather than letting the story tell itself.

First let me emphasize, the acting in this film is exquisite. Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ashton Homes, even Ed Harris and William Hurt in characters that are written as one-note, all of them make these people as real and believable as you can imagine. And David Cronenberg knows exactly where to put the camera for the maximum effect, even if it's for a long, languorous take that leads to a horrible realization.

(SPOILERS FROM THIS POINT ON)

But the script! It's B-movie at best, and not even good at that. It ignores story for effect, ignores logic for pacing, ignores reality because it's just too inconvenient. And I know both Cronenberg and Jack Olson are responsible for it. There are so many occasions where the truth of the moment is violated by something stupid or by confusion as to the basic timeline. In the opening, for instance, a man guns down two people off camera with a pistol in the middle of a deathly quiet morning...and you don't hear a sound. Not even a cry. The only point being Cronenberg and Olson want us to be horrified at the realization of what happened as we waited, bored, outside. Okay...maybe that's a stylistic choice, but dumb things like that keep happening.

Tom Stall kills two men in his diner, saving several lives, and the only people who greet him as he leaves the hospital -- that night? the next day? two days later? -- are some townsfolk thanking him for what he did. No reporters, even tho' the story's even being carried by CNN; no cops wanting to talk to find out if these guys mentioned any of the other killings they were involved in; nothing. He just drives home and a lone TV reporter waits patiently beside his door to question him at just the right moment...and he blows her off.

Then some gangsters come rolling into town, not quietly or subtly or even gently, as any supposedly intelligent man who's running a major crime syndicate might do; no, they come in with everything but trumpets sounding to announce their arrival. My first thought was, "How'd those idiots live so long?"

I think the one that really tore it for me was the "climactic scene" at a mansion outside Philadelphia, where we have a gunbattle and not one cop shows up. Not one security guard. Nothing. Gunshots going all over the place in an area of filthy rich homes, and nobody takes notice. Yeah, right.

What makes me hate not loving this story, tho', is the final scene. Where the actors did work so silently beautiful and heartbreaking, I ached for them being in a movie whose story was only half-baked.

I attended a screening of "A History Of Violence" where Josh Olsen said a lot of things were left out of the script and the movie because he and David deemed them unnecessary and/or boring. And that made me was to scream. A similar comment was made, once, by a film teacher when I was in college. We were discussing "The Grand Illusion," a 1937 film by Jean Renoir about POWs in WW One. There is a sequence in the movie where two Frenchmen who've escaped a German prison camp spend the night with a German widow and her daughter...and for the first time we realize that war has wiped out a generation of men, leaving behind families who now have to cope with their futures. My professor said, "The whole bit is unnecessary; the film could have ended with the men's escape and still been a great movie." My automatic response was, "And that's all it would have been. With that section included, the film's story became poetry."

And that to me is the one great fault with this movie -- its makers became so focused on telling a quick lean story, they all but deliberately removed any possibility this could have been poetry on film. The actors sensed what it could have been and delivered; too bad Olson and Cronenberg let them down.

Project Greenlight (2001–2023)

Promises Broken

[21 March 2005]

I watched the first episode of PGL-3......and that did it.

I stayed with the whole concept of a competition to offer amateur screenwriters and directors a chance at making their movie all the way through PGL-1 and PGL-2. I mean, I loved the idea; and I really wanted it to work, to be an honest attempt at leveling the playing field a little...just a little.

Yes, I groaned at Pete Jones winning for a script I found borderline offensive in PGL-1, but then I recalled there was a great movie about children and death that I saw years ago in college (it was French and made just after WW2..."something Garden"...but I can't remember the name of it) that sounded foul and turned out to be brilliant, so I accepted it as one of those "Maybe this could work" moments. It didn't.

Then came 2, and I liked the script for "Battle of Shaker Heights" but the panel seemed to almost deliberately choose the worst two directors to make it, a pair of guys who wouldn't know sensitive unless it slapped them up side the head. But I convinced myself it could be seen as an experiment in trying something different, a collision of Yin and Yang to see if we get fusion (though it took a LOT of convincing). The directors ruined that script.

And now...now we have a series where the studio (which I refuse to name because I now despise it) forces the worst script to be the winner of the "competition" (and Matt and Ben roll over like a nice pair of...well, you know whats) and then the middle-aged son of an actor who was in Craven's "Nightmare On Elm Street 2" is chosen to direct, despite him having no vision, no passion, no communication abilities, no concept of the creature, no nothing to show for himself except a pair of fairly decent shorts. It was then I had to admit to myself this show was never about giving amateurs a chance to make a movie, it was just about making another "reality" TV show that is scripted to within an inch of its existence. (Could the set-up be more obvious? The old Lincoln that won't start and with the tape on the seats; the credit cards that don't work; the "Eyeore" personality.) I actually screamed at the TV when I saw it.

Yes, I was angry at the suggestion that the viewers are so stupid they can't see through this three-card-Monte nonsense. But even more, I was hurt. I really thought Ben and Matt , considering the breaks they've received (and made very good use of), meant it when they set up Project Greenlight. Well, to paraphrase a too-well known saying, "What fools we mortals be." Blind fools willing to believe anything we're told if we want to, badly enough.

So if you want to see how movies get made in Hollywood, go ahead and watch this "reality series". You'll learn it's not what you know or how good you are that gets you ahead, it's who you know and whether or not they like the initial concept. And maybe that's the ultimate message.

As for me, I'm still fool enough to hope the movie turns out well. But I won't watch anymore of this thing. All it will remind me of is promises broken.

Win a Date with Tad Hamilton! (2004)

I'd give this piece of dogmeat a 0 but for two things...

[3/10 · 6 March 2005]

...Topher Grace, whom I must now admit is talented enough to give even a ludicrous character like "Pete" some semblance of humanity, and (to my even bigger surprise) Josh Duhamel, who made the title character someone you could care about, which in and of itself is an achievement worthy of an Oscar. They, alone, are worth the hour and a half this movie takes up of your life.

As for the rest...well...the main characters in West Virginia are supposedly in their early twenties, but they all talk and act like they're freshmen in high school. I can't tell if that was a deliberate choice in dialog, a problem in casting or an obscene swipe at the "simplicity of the rural folk," known to those on the coasts as "the great flyover." The "big date" is tossed aside so quickly and perfunctorily, it's like a bad blind date from a bad "reality" TV show on a low- rent cable channel. And then there's the vomiting moment that...oh, I have to stop.

Y'know, I was talked into watching this...and for the sakes of Josh and Topher, I'm glad I did. Nothing else -- from Kate Bosworth's one-note performance to the barely-even-hack TV direction to the PAINFULLY ROTTEN SCRIPT -- is worthy of further comment.

Rory O'Shea Was Here (2004)

F****N' Amazin'

[10/10 · 2 February 2005]

I just witnessed a movie that by all rights should have been fodder for a second rate MOW on Lifetime...but trust the Irish to keep it from being anything but saccharine. The set-up all but SCREAMS "Here's a message concerning what's TRULY important in life" but the execution was way into the "Let's see just what we can get away with, here."

It helps to have two fantastic actors in the leads -- James McAvoy (as Rory) and Stephen Robertson (as Michael). While Rory is offered up as the near saintly one -- never mind the language and attitude, he's the "life force" in this piece and could easily have been insufferable in his ultimately "caring" attitude -- McAvoy keeps him sharp enough to keep him from being too sweet. But the revelation is Stephen Robertson as Michael. Not since Leonardo Di Caprio in "...Gilbert Grape" has anyone so perfectly captured a person with an affliction that I began to believe he really was an actor with cerebral palsy. And his eyes...my God, he can rip you apart with them.

This movie is, to paraphrase Rory, f****n' amazing. Go see it. Take a box of Kleenex and enjoy every well-earned tear...and laugh.

Sideways (2004)

More Mogen David than Dom Perignon

[6/10 · 20 January 2005]

I really wanted to like this movie when I saw it. The script was off-beat. The acting was, for the most part, good. I love road movies ("Kings Of The Road" by Wim Wenders is one of my favorite films). The background was unusual and interesting. But the directing was so nothing...so bland and A-B-C...and the structure of the film was so predictable, I grew bored with it.

The praise for Paul Giamatti, playing a man I'd avoid at all costs, and Virginia Madsen, playing the perfect Earth mother, is well-deserved. Any actor who can make you pay attention to a sad sack like Miles, or believe a wonderful person like Maya would fall for him, is top drawer. And the script has some sharp moments and commentary in it along with some nice dialog. But there was a lot of padding in the story. Scenes that did nothing to further events...and did nothing to give only moments of tranquility...but only seemed to be there to makes us see that a lot of time is passing in that particular day. And Thomas Hadden Church and Sandra Oh weren't bad or even just so-so; they brought a lot of life to characters who were little more than the usual stock creatures you find in every "last fling before a wedding" story.

But all of these nit-picky comments would mean nothing if the director had actually bothered directing this piece. I cannot think of one shot or scene that stayed with me...that haunted me...that added one damned thing to the narrative except to give it a frame to allow the characters to talk. I'm not saying Alexander Payne should have had swooping camera moves and flashy angles that called major amounts of attention to themselves, but you know...you don't have to use the basic TV movie concept of "two-shot, over the shoulder on subject A then over the shoulder on subject B, then closeup and closeup, then back to a wide shot" to make sure you got coverage on the film and nothing more. It's boring and suggests, to me anyway, that the director didn't really care much about the story or project. And if I get that feeling from it, then why should I care about it?

I don't know, I just got the feeling that this could have been a champagne project and instead was made into your basic Mogen David Brand of cheap wine by the director's lack of interest. Which is too bad -- the raw material was there for Dom Perignon

Gods and Monsters (1998)

A Film That Has Meaning and Grace

[10/10 · 17 September 2004]

It's the quiet movies that get to you. The simple ones that seem to be nothing then wind up slipping under your skin to make you wonder about life in general. Junk like "Pearl Harbor" and "XXX" vanish like cotton candy into your memory. Stories like "Gods and Monsters" make you contemplate what is truth and reality...and Oh, don't I prefer the latter to the former.

On the surface, this film is about James Whale's attempts to manipulate Clay Boone into a new version of his most famous creation, the Hollywood version of the Frankenstein monster...a creature that destroyed its creator in the first Frankenstein movie. He knows the best way to achieve his goal is to gain the younger man's trust and friendship...and then betray them. All nice and simple and quietly played out. But underneath that quiet pond lie rip currents ready to seize you and drag you into new directions.

Clay finds a surprising sense of worth in the older man's attentions...and Whale becomes a near father figure in their relationship...and their interaction winds up mirroring what happened between Clay and his real father. It also parallels another relationship of trust and understanding "Jimmy" had with another young man in the trenches of World War One. And ALSO parallels a director's relationships with his actors. And that is just one thread of the story to follow.

There are the changes Clay goes through. He starts out hard and alone, like a junk yard dog, but grows to care for a man he would never have even paid attention to, once, even after that man brutally betrays him. And Whale...he comes to care so much for Clay, he puts his devious plan aside (until a spur of the moment change of heart) even though it may mean more deterioration in what is left of his life.

What makes this movie so wonderful, to me, is how there is no one way to view it. You can see it as a character study of an old man nearing the end of his existence and wanting to end it; you can see it as a parable on friendship and manipulation; you can see it as a story about trust and the betrayal of that trust. The layers fit so neatly and seamlessly into each other, one becomes almost indistinguishable from the other.

Needless to say, I love "Gods & Monsters." I already had massive respect for Ian McKellen and Lynn Redgrave (they was robbed at the Oscars), but Brendan Fraser's low-key, almost brutally gentle performance was a revelation.

Brendan, you kick it.

This film is richly deserving of praise for every aspect of it -- from the writing and low-key directing to the perfect pitch music to the sense of time and place to the performances. A Michael Bay "Look At Me, I'm Directing And Making You Watch Me And Who Cares About The Story Or Characters" piece of crap this is not...and if that's what you like, you'll hate this film. But if you want something that has meaning and grace, then witness the beauty of "Gods And Monsters."

High and Low (1963)

The film "Ransom" could have been.

[10/10 · 27 July 2004]

"High and Low" is one of those deceptive detective-thrillers that sneak in under your radar and grab you from behind with their storytelling magic. It's proof positive of Kurosawa's mastery of film and all its imagery.

The story was adapted from an Ed McBain "87th Precinct" novel, "King's Ransom", and is really very simple. A successful businessman (Mr. Gondo) in the middle of a major deal is told his son has been kidnapped. All concerns about money fly out the window...until Gondo learns it was actually his chauffeur's son who was taken by mistake. Doesn't matter; the kidnapper still wants him to pay the ransom, even though it will bankrupt him. Will Gondo destroy his standing in the business world to save the life of a child that is not even his? Or will he just leave it to the police and fate to determine whether the child lives or dies? This makes up the first half of the film.

The second half deals with the search for the kidnapper and his accomplices, and it does not shy away from showing how dull and grueling good police work is. Step by step, the cops narrow their field of suspects and build their evidence to link their prey to murder as well as the kidnapping, meaning he would face execution. This makes up the second half of the film.

It helps to know that in the original story, the businessman refuses to pay the ransom but does help the police track down the kidnappers. It also helps to understand that in Japan, working your way up from making shoes and satchels by hand to being in a position where you could wind up owning the company is a HUGE accomplishment in a caste driven society. It means he is due additional respect, and this is what Gondo faces losing if he pays the ransom, which is far more important than the fact that he will be driven into bankruptcy.

From the first scene through an amazingly exciting section on a bullet train to the ending moments between Gondo and the kidnapper, Kurosawa shows exactly why he is a master of cinema. To take what is basically an episode of "Law and Order" and make it into a meditation on the meaning of life and evil is not something just any film school twit could do.

To me, the best moment on a human level comes when Gondo descends the stairs the morning after the kidnapping to explain to the police why he cannot pay the ransom for a child not even his. You can see the man realizing he is allowing himself go to hell in order to protect his family and station in life, and Toshiro Mifune underplays it beautifully...and Kurosawa lets it just simply happen. Wonderful.

THIS is the movie Mel Gibson's "Ransom" wishes it had been. something real and human and meaningful instead of merely kick-ass.

Ten out of ten stars.