Change Your Image
vhmascitti
Reviews
Finding Neverland (2004)
Boy interrupted
Disclaimer: I 'd go to the movies just to watch Johnny Depp walk across the
street, so I'm certain that has colored my impressions of this film.
That being said, Depp does a lot more here than walk across the street,
although I think he should have had better writing to work with for his efforts. The story is compelling, the characters are complex and the setting -- early 20th century U.K. -- makes for great visuals (ball gowns, rustic country cottages, early cars and Victorian furnishings), but there is something that just falls short about this movie and I believe it is the writing. As a filmmaker, Forster is gifted and imaginative, which makes him well suited for the director's job on this film. His choice of folding in a play within the story of the movie was a good move. Yet it is ultimately the story path that becomes a problem -- one that wasn't helped by the less-than brilliant dialogue -- and that can be laid at the feet of both the writer and the film's editor. My complaint is that the story just doesn't hang together. In an attempt, perhaps, to elevate the James/Sylvia relationship to a higher plane, the movie merely makes it confused. Sexual tension is played
down, the overbearing mother role is way too played up and Barrie's poor
confused, lonely wife nibbles at the edges of a relationship that doesn't quite have a form.
The relationships in this film are complex and integrated, but yet the writers seem incapable of crafting a script that conveys how they are entwined. There is little exploration of Sylvia's past or how her losses affected her, not just her children. Barrie's marriage and wife are enigmatic to an extreme.
Despite all this, if I had a vote for best actor in next year's academy awards, Depp would get it. What an extraordinary actor. It is wonderful to watch him
work. And walk across the street.
Garden State (2004)
What's not to get?
After months of watching summer drivel, "Garden State" finally offered a reason to shamble off to the movies again.
This is a great little film. Don't let the curmudgeons convince you otherwise. It might remind moviegoers of Lost in Translation, but that's a second rate
compliment. The shots of characters who aren't doing anything dynamic is
reminiscent of Sofia Coppola's affinity for showing characters being, well,
human, not talking incessently or moving about like wind up toys. Braff makes us look at people long, hard and without blinking. His characters are human and flawed and attractive and ugly all at once. His movie is funny and sad and joyful and depressing by turns.
Like I said, this is a great little movie.
The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
Bourne to be wild....
I'm going to go see this movie again. This time, I'm going to actually count the number of cars that get wrecked in the process because the first time through, I really did lose count after the first 20 minutes. That's probably because, as thrillers go, this one is really pretty thrilling. And Matt Damon might just be the most darling boy to stare into a camera since Cary Grant. His little boy looks, his determined charm and the way he can wallop all adversaries is so much fun to watch that it's actually possible to forget that the plot of every "Bourne" movie tends to get lost in the action -- and in car body count. Leaving a trail of dead bodies, dead engines and broken windows behind, this Bourne-again movie is mesmerizing in its fast-forward style action. Barely has Jason eluded one enemy than another slinks in. The human body count rises as he races through every grim European city imaginable (except Helsinki I think) without the sun breaking through a single cloud and without a decent night's sleep. (In fact, in the course of the film, I became obsessed with the idea that this guy hadn't gotten a more than a catnap in 6 countries.) By willingly suspending disbelief for almost two hours, it's possible to thoroughly indulge in this often exhilarating, often exhausting film. At its conclusion, the "Bourne Supremacy" gives movie fans what they're all too often cheated of: Satisfaction. And a good, albeit, rocky ride.
The Village (2004)
Village idiots
FOLLOWING COMMENTS CONTAIN SPOILERS...I THINK! Okay, you can't really spoil this movie because the ending is telegraphed from the start when the cameras pan the landscape and show a reasonably modern tower that's in stark contrast to the rest of the set. When I saw it at first, I really thought the director/camera guys had made a mistake by including it in the shot. But then it showed up again and again. (I must confess, I visited this movie set right after the filming and was certain that tower was for use in filming, not in the movie! When I saw it in the first shot, I was amazed at how dumb it was.) To all other appearances, the villagers of The Village look like they're from the 19th century, they talk very much like they're from the 19th century, but because everything is soooooo very 19th century, it becomes very apparent, very early on that this ain't no 19th century village. It's just been set up to look like one for purposes of the Village "elders" -- a group of very self righteous, very sure of themselves Amish-like folk who try to explain away the scalping of village animals and the partial painting of village doors by claiming it must have been a very big coyote. Yes, a coyote with a knife and a bucket of red paint. Even 19th century villagers aren't that stupid. The folks who made this movie must be basing the intelligence of the average American viewer on the intelligence of its current leaders, but to say this film is an insult doesn't quite explain why the writer/producers/director feel like they have to lay the whole thing out so plainly and so early on. The isolation of the Village always feels self serving, always contrived. Monsters in red cloaks? Eerie sounds emanating from the woods. And paranoia about the color red? Nothing in this movie makes sense either literally or metaphorically. In the end, it's just a silly love story with lots of scary music to make you nervous. The only violence is the stabbing by one villager (whose scary behavior is to shut up for most of the movie) by another (whose scary behavior is to giggle, dance and drool -- before becoming a homicidal maniac, of course.) The only really evil character (the real village idiot) falls into a hole and dies. The purported evil beings of the forest who terrorize and seem to imprison the villagers are cartoon characters when you see them about half way through the film. Just like the aliens in the "Signs" these are poorly conceived, almost stereotypical villains that make this a C, not even a B, movie. In the end, the resolution isn't really a resolution at all. Just verification of what you figured out in the movie's first few scenes. The scariest thing about this film is that there are people out there who actually thought this was a thriller and was any good.
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Get this guy some Prozac!
THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN HERE!!!! I must confess to an irrational affection for Toby McGuire at the outset, because that's the only way I can really explain actually enjoying this movie at all. What started out with some promise, quickly declined into a exploration of Peter Parker's relentless depression and his depressing life as a poorly paid freelance photographer and sometime university student. By the film's midpoint, I wanted to shout out "Get some therapy Peter!" -- or at least some good medication. I mean, this guy is so depressed the webs stop shooting out of his palms, his super strength begins to fade, his resolve to be a good guy shrivels until all we're left with is, well, Peter Parker. His Spiderman alter-ego has lost what ever ego it had and Parker slinks around, whining about his lot in life, irresolute and faced with irreconcilable differences with his lady love, Mary Jane Elliott. Meanwhile, he's ignoring the evil mechanical octopus -- Doc Ock -- who wants, for no explained reason, to blow up the city. In his spare time, Peter's irrationally confessing that he's responsible for his uncle's murder and trying in vain to hang onto a fading friendship with his vain best friend. (Also irrational and unexplained: Peter Parker pays rent on a New York City apartment while his aunt is having her house foreclosed on. You mean this guy couldn't move home and give old auntie the rent money for all those years of good meals and motherly advice?) All this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but it is increasingly sad and depressing. The action picks up toward the end when Peter manages to talk the silly octopus into self destructing and becomes resolute once more in his determination to save the world and deny himself the pleasures of his despairing life. Of course, Mary Jane is on hand to cheer him on with probably the silliest walk off line in movie history to date: "Go get 'em tiger." How much did they have to pay Kirsten Dunst to utter that lame line? I'm sure it's much more than you'll save by being one of the 9 people in America who hasn't paid to see this film.
The Brothers McMullen (1995)
What movie did the reviewer watch?
I wound up watching the movie by accident and it turned out to be an experience much like passing road kill: It's so horrid you can't look away.
And because it was so awful, I thought it might be fun to read a few reviews of it (reading reviews of bad movies is somewhat cathartic; you watch something awful and then let someone else vent about your wasted time....). What I found here was somewhat unbelievable. Somebody actually thought it had some redeeming features. It doesn't.
This film did not just have a surfeit of uninteresting characters who spoke extraordinarily turgid dialogue (one character says to the other "I don't think we should see ONE ANOTHER for awhile...." Nobody, really nobody, ever says ONE ANOTHER except in church.) It was also woodenly acted, nonsensically directed and had a plot so boring I kept switching to Tony Robbins infomercials for excitement. Shoestring budget or not, there's no excuse for inflicting this kind of movie on the paying public. Okay, I didn't actually pay to see it because it was on Bravo, but I paid my cable bill and that should count for something.
Bottom line is that this movie isn't funny, isn't sad, isn't thought provoking and isn't interesting. It is annoying.
A Mighty Wind (2003)
A Mighty Wind is Blowin for You and Me
Chris Guest's humor might be too intelligent and subtle for some mainstream
moviegoers, but even mainstream fans of bad 60's folk music will be able to
sense the affection this gifted movie maker has for his latest subculture. The big surprise in this film is that it's not just funny. There are sad and poignant moments that will surprise fans of Guest's former films, Waiting for Guffman and Best in Show. "A Mighty Wind" looks at music making and music celebrity on a number of levels, some of thm funny, some of them not. That Guest can make us laugh and cry in the same hour and 27 minutes is a rare and precious talent.
The film brings together all the usual suspects of Guest's former films; Catherine O'Hara deserves an award for her performance (and I hope the studio
campaigns to get her one) as Mickey, the female half of a romantic 60s folks duo called "Mitch & Mickey"; Eugene Levy creates yet another of his unique
characters for film, this one a musical mental patient whose conversation and facial expressions are rarely in sync; Jennifer Coolidge steals with movie as Amber Cole, a public relations flak who dresses like an Austrailian's nightmare and talks like a cross between a Swedish porn star and Jennifer Lopez; and
John Michael Higgins gets to showcase his musical staging talents, not just his dead--on drag queen (or princess) .
This is a movie that all Guest film fans will be eagerly awaiting on DVD Then we'll get to see the wonderful scenes that were cut and we'll get to watch for all the embedded Guest jokes that can be picked out in props, costumes and
character movement.
And for those who've seen "A Mighty Wind" already, buy the soundtrack. It
includes a priceless music video from Mitch and Mickey that's not in the film.