Reviews

Off the bat it must be said in Peter Jackson's defense that the Lord of the Rings is simply too large and sprawling a tale to condense into even three three-hour films. While I have read and enjoyed the books, I am in no way a LOTR fanatic, and was more than prepared for changes to the book in order to streamline the story. That out of the way, The Fellowship of the Ring makes some bizarre narrative choices which ruin what could have been a tremendous accomplishment.

For some reason, Jackson and company have decided to spend far too much time on the build-up to the forging of the actual fellowship. A good half-hour is wasted in Hobbiton, and the slow trek to Rivendell eats up a good hour and a half of screen time. This part of the film lags badly, and is equally hampered by some poor story-telling decisions, such as: why is Saruman suddenly working FOR Sauron? If you're going to add more to Arwen's character, why make it so sudden, random, and pointless? And most importantly, why undermine the mystery surrounding Aragorn? This last point is the most egregious error, in that the actual lineage of Aragorn is in question through the original trilogy, whereas here it is one of the very first things we learn about him.

By the time Jackson gets to the actual journey of the Fellowship, he has run out of screen time, and so the actual traversing of Middle Earth's painstakingly described landscapes is condensed into several swooping longshots cut back-to-back. There is no time to become attached to the Fellowship before their eventual break-up. This is a serious story-telling error on the part of the filmmakers. It is here, during their travels, that there was an opportunity to flesh out the cast of nine characters, as well as divulge the exposition surrounding the origin of the Ring of Power more fluidly and naturally. Instead, Jackson has decided to cram the entire backstory of the Ring into a very awkward and hoky prologue.

Other pet peeves which are more subjective are the irritating overuse of slow-motion and the heavy-handed urgency which is given to every scene (thereby undercutting any actual dramatic moments as the story reaches its climax). The film's score is dreadfully overwrought and completely washes out the incredible sound design. Astoundingly there are points where it even drowns out the dialogue (not that this is a bad thing, considering much of the chatter that goes on).

On the plus side, most of the acting is quite good, esp. Ian McKellan as Gandalf, Sean Astin as Sam Gangee, and Sean Bean as Boromir. Many of the other characters suffer from underwritten parts, and Cate Blanchett is given very little to work with as the Lady Galadriel. Most of the settings are beautifully rendered, although there is a bit too much CGI at work in many of the larger sequences. A necessary evil in most cases, considering the scope of the books.

Overall, the film was a big let down. There is a breath of hope for The Two Towers, however, inasmuch as the characters are split up, which should allow for personalities to develop unhindered by the sheer number of characters onscreen in this first chapter of the trilogy. While expectations are now tempered, I have faith that the two follow-ups in the series will at least be enjoyable romps. Still, given the efforts put into The Fellowship of the Ring, a few smarter narrative decisions could have made for a breathtaking spectacle. Pity.

I did not expect much from this film when I went to see it, but I was pleasantly surprised. The film is sweet, funny, and only mildly sappy at its conclusion. Sobieski is far better here than I have ever seen her: not only is her normal wooden persona fit the character well at the onset, but she exhibits an impressive range as the character grows throughout the film. Albert Brooks is superb, really the best he's been in a long, long time. The love between these two unlikely characters (a 17-year-old goth chick and a 49-year-old clothing store owner) is handled delicately, lovingly, and not at all timidly. The script is carefully crafted and allows for more than the "safe" platonic relationship without resorting to the "shocking" physical relationship that so many other films give into in the misguided hopes of being daring or original.

There is so much to like about the first two thirds of this film that it is almost a shame when it appears to devolve into a conventional, terminal illness, "you've taught me so much" heart-string-puller. Even this is handled far better than it could have been, and much of this credit must go to director Christine Lahti. The final dinner scene with Sobieski, her family, and Brooks - after a brief flirtation with cheesiness - is wrenchingly heartfelt and real.

This is one of the better films that you will see before the onslaught of "quality" Oscar-grubbing event films later in the fall. Do yourself a favor and see it before wasting money on something as trite as Serendipity.

Can it be that the best film of 1999 is....a CARTOON? I would have to say yes. This is perhaps the best animated feature in the past 10 years (or maybe even further back than that.) What makes it so great? First of all, it is a visual marvel. The film contained some of the smoothest animation ever, with CG elements flawlessly incorporated into the traditional elements. Vibrant colors and wonderfully expressive characters make the movie much more than a cartoon - it is merely animated life. The story is a gem. The hypothetical question "what if a gun had a soul?" lies at the heart of the plot, and issues, of spirituality, redemption, and sacrifice make the plot much more substantive than anything Disney churns out to make a quick buck. There are parts where I actually teared up. Yes, I admit it, a strapping young man such as myself actually cries at films if they deserve it, and this one does. The fact that very few people actually saw this film is very upsetting to me. It is the perfect movie for parents to take their children to, because not only will their children be wildly entertained by the endearing, larger-than-life title character, but they as parents will also enjoy a rich movie experience - thanks to a script which pokes fun at Cold War hysteria and propaganda, among other things. This review might ramble, but let's wrap it up like this: This is a fabulous movie for the young and old. If you are a parent, PLEASE show this movie to your children. And if you don't have kids, watch it for yourself. You won't regret it.

Magnolia is not a perfect film. Certain plot threads are left dangling, and maybe a few characters could have either been developed more complexly or eliminated. But how can you argue these points when the final result is such a stirring success? This is about as good a movie as you are going to get this year. There is no one out there in his generation with an eye for the cinema like Paul Thomas Anderson. He borrows from greats such as Scorcese, Demme, and Altman, but gives it all his own unique and brilliant spin. In one instance he is impressing you with fancy camera work, the next he simply sits the camera down and lets the actors do their thing (which they all do marvelously). I personally think that one of the best things going for Anderson as an upcoming director is that he clearly has a profound respect for his actors, and as a result he rings incredible performances out of all of them. Jason Robards is heart-wrenchingly realistic as a man dying of cancer, Melora Walters gives an excellent turn as a stressed out coke-head searching for stability and love, and John C. Reilly gives his usual excellent best as the cop who falls for her. While is may not be perfect, Magnolia is nevertheless an awe-inspiring, sweeping masterpiece about regret, forgiveness, and "the things that happen".

Ok, let's get something straight. Mel Gibson is the MAN. He is this generation's Steve McQueen, as in "cool personified". But this movie is a letdown. There is more than a little violence. Heck, there is more than a LOT of violence. There is so much gruesome mayhem that there is very little room for anything else, like say, oh, a plot. The movie feels generic, trying hard to be gritty and funny, like a hardcore Get Shorty, but it fails to muster more than an occasional chuckle. And Gibson's character is flat. Yeah, he's a bad guy, but that's not the problem. He's a BORING bad guy. He's done similar roles in the past, only much better. It still amazes me that Gibson's best work since Braveheart (in Conspiracy Theory) is for the most part overlooked. Watch this if you like violence and mayhem and not much else.

I love 2001. I love Full Metal Jacket. I like A Clockwork Orange (for the most part). Here's what I don't love or like: Eyes Wide Shut. What a stinker. Now, don't get me wrong, it wasn't completely awful or shoddily put together. It was just far too long, and ultimately misguided. What starts out as a semi-surreal exploration of sex, the subconscious, and the merging of these things degenerates (after the infamous orgy scene) into a dull, plodding, unsuspenseful thriller that peters out rather than builidng tension. The final explanatory scene with Sidney Pollack deflates what little mystery there might be left. It is a dreadfully generic way for such a pioneer as Kubrick to end what started out as a promising film. Tom Cruise is decent in the lead role, but unfortunately, Nicole Kidman is wooden. At least when she has her clothes on and is talking. Kubrick's visual style is as breathtaking as ever, especially during the costuemed orgy and whenever he lovingly frames Kidman's perfect body, but the script is bad, and some points downright laughable. Too bad this is the last taste of Kubrick we'll ever have.

I applaud the unique, un-cliche-ridden approach that the filmmakers took with their "Blair Witch Project". It is very refreshing to see a horror film that doesn't breakdown into all the predictable and ridiculous situations ("Don't back into that dark room alone!!") There is nothing particularly ORIGINAL about "Blar Witch", although it is an unusual approach and one that is rarely done, let alone done well.

However, the hype surrounding this movie leaves me baffled. For one, it really hurt to know certain details beforehand (these details have been crammed down our throats via TV and radio for a month or so, now). There are so few points in the movie where something creepy actually happens, that to know of them before the lights have even gone down strips them of any eeriness. But more than that, it created expectations for this film which were unrealistic. Is it a good film? Yes, if you can technically call it a "film". Is it a GREAT film? Not by a long shot.

The movie is more creepy to think about than it is scary to watch, and I don't regret seeing it. Just think twice before you join the mobs downtown who are waiting for hours to get in.

Forgive me, for some reason I thought Howard Hawkes' directed The More the Merrier, but I have been corrected. My apologies to George Stevens.

I admit, I am biased, and I fully admit, I have a rather big crush on Jean Arthur, but I think that I am justified in saying this is one of the funniest romantic comedies of the century, and it ranks as one of Hawkes' best romantic comedies, right up there with Bringing Up Baby. Joel McRea and Jean are a perfectly mismatched couple. Watch it with someone you luuuuuv.

Without mincing words, "Glory" is one of the greatest war movies of all time. It shines in every category, with no weaknesses (except maybe Carey Elwes). Mathew Broderick, Morgan Freeman, and especially Denzel Washington all give magnificent performances. The cinematography is terrific. While it is not as impressive technically as "Saving Private Ryan", the script is much tighter, and it is overall a better picture. How this movie wasn't even NOMINATED for Best Picture is beyond me.

See this movie. You'll love it.

Warren Beatty's "Dick Tracy" is not just a tribute to the famous comic strip, it is an homage to the great film tradition of the past.

"Dick Tracy" benefits from three vital components: Beautiful, smart cinematography, a terrific Danny Elfman score, and strong acting performances. Al Pacino has finally found a role where his hammy overacting is warranted in the role of Big Boy Caprice. Warren Beatty serves Tracy in good stead, Madonna is sufficiently steamy as Breathless Mahoney, and Glen Headly shines in perhaps the best performance of the movie. Her Tess Trueheart is the perfect foil for Tracy and the antithesis of Breathless. Headly gives a funny and very subtle performance. Just watch her face closely, every frown, every twitched eyebrow serves as a window into her character's emotions. Cameo performances by Paul Sorvino, Dustin Hoffman, and Kathy Bates among others are hilarious.

The lasting power of "Dick Tracy" lies in the cinematography. The use of primary colors creates a cartoon world, and by using this very striking color canvas, it gives the movie a look which is, paradoxically, similar to the classic black and white detective stories of the 40's. The use of soft lenses and familiar noir backdrops adds to this effect.

At it's heart, Dick Tracy is a classic romance; you can almost see Humphrey Bogart as Tracy and Lauren Bacall as Breathless. This romanticism is enhanced by a score which ranks as one of Elfman's finest.

I would recommend this movie all sorts of movie-viewers: those looking for action, romance, comedy, and those looking for technical genius which is balanced by superb acting. And after you've seen it, watch it again, you might catch something you missed!

Michael Cimino's "The Deerhunter" is, quite simply, a masterpiece that ranks as one of the greatest films of all time. The strength of this movie does not lie in its subject matter (as we all know, Vietnam movies are a dime a dozen), but in the presentation. The characters are all *real* people. Conversations are natural and fluid, and actions are believable because the characters have been portrayed as capable of carrying them out. Also, they *look* like real people. They sweat, they are rumpled, etc. All performances in the movie are wonderful, standing out are Christopher Walken, John Savage, John Cazale, and of course, the MAN, Robert De Niro.

The movie flows very naturally, while the plot structure is not wholly open, it does not have the artificial, closed structure that is commonplace in Hollywood movies. This allows you to accept the film as a real course of events, "real" life which becomes "reel" life. The movie is long and at points slow, but this is not a weakness. The strength of the film is that it does not simply manipulate emotions to elicit a response. It is subtle and touching, and rather than being shown how you should feel, you come to an understanding with the characters on your own. You empathize, not just sympathize.

You have to be in the mood to sit through "The Deerhunter", but if you do, you won't regret it.