Reviews

I was very surprised by how much I liked this film. Reviews were mixed. But the film is beautifully paced, and directed by a master of the medium. This is a worthy addition to Campion's oeuvre. The night- time scenes outdoors in NYC are visually striking, especially when it is raining. Meg Ryan's insecure, withdrawn, armored character was the perfect foil for her "charming" sex-kitten roles. In this film she is a mature woman coming to grips with issues of repression and sexuality. Jennifer Jason Leigh's role as the wild sister is masterfully done as well. And Mark Rufallo's hard-boiled detective is played to perfection. The script is great as well. Nothing gratuitous occurs. The nudity and sex scenes are believable and are erotic without being needlessly prurient or overtly violent. They are believable and lovely. Perhaps this is because it is a woman who is directing the action in bed. Mark's character learned about sex as a teen, from an older woman who he regards kindly. He is respectful and caring despite being 100% macho cop. Kevin Bacon is wonderful as a scorned - and neurotic - lover. Sharrieff Pugh as a black student of Franny's is both sensitive, aggressive, and compelling to watch. The only flaw that I have with the film is that Franny (Meg) doesn't ask certain questions that to the viewer seem obvious. But if she did ask them early on the film would have been much shorter, and that would have been a shame. While the plot has some obvious turns, there is enough tension to keep the viewer involved. I won't answer the critics who didn't like the movie. If you are a fan of film noir and don't mind nudity you will love this film. I certainly did. I have no qualms about recommending this to aficionados of the genre.

I went to Berkeley in the 1960s and it was a transformative experience. While there I did research for Martin Meyerson, at the time acting Chancellor during the Free Speech Movement )and other campus protest movements). I was also a Teaching Assistant and active in the anti-war movement of the time. I was intimately connected to University governance, which is the main business of this film. Being in Berkeley then to take part in a thrilling moment in history... that this long, long film entirely misses. The film, as much as I could take of it, consists of boring classroom sessions during which students discuss issues of concern, alternating with classroom discussions held by various faculty committees discussing philosophical and intellectual concerns regarding the operation of a large public institution. If you have ever been to a college faculty meeting then you know how deadly it can be. This film completely ignores the many artistic and political events that made UC Berkeley such an exciting place to be in the 1960s. The University was pivotal in social change of the time: anti-war, civil rights, feminist issues, police-citizen relations, the place of a university in a time of social upheaval. In the time I watched, none of these vital issues were discussed in the film. If you are an administrator, or someone who is interested in the philosophical and moral issues involved in running a billion dollar institution, then this four hour film might be for you. It mostly takes place in classrooms and committee meetings. It was like a series of graduate seminars in governance. I found it a real snoozer.

Frankly, I stopped paying much attention to this film after the second time Colin Firth got punched in the nose. Why is it considered funny to see a harmless person abused by a fat idiot? I find it disturbing and characteristic of a weak plot and inferior and unbelievable character development. Which is to say, there wasn't any. Firth was his generally understated engaging self and Alan Rickman was his usually aloof and interesting nasty guy. Cameron Diaz played her ditzy self, somewhat reprising her character in Something about Mary. But what a terrible waste of good actors. The star power in the film should have guaranteed a better film: Tom Courtenay, Stanley Tucci , Cloris Leachman, Ben Kingsley. And, for good measure, a couple of hot babes: Jennifer Aniston and Lisa Bonet. Stars, however, for the most part do what they are told and in this case what they were told was of not much help. This has to be the worst film ever written by Ethan and Joel Coen. Are they getting lazy? Or should the blame be placed on the director, Michael Hoffman? If you are looking for a piece of fluff that might appeal to people who don't take movies seriously, and if you enjoy watching babes and seeing people get hit in the face then you might like this film. But I much, much, much prefer the original Gambit starring Michael Caine and Shirley McLane. Save your money and save your time and see the earlier one instead. This one is just awful.

We were very disappointed in this film. We chose it because of Julie Gavras' father (Costga-Gavras), who made the very special "Z." Although we did not think that a director's ability would be genetic we did hope that some of her father's bravery and awareness would be available to the daughter. How wrong we were. The movie has just about zero social content. At times it seemed to deal with aging and a man's difficulty in staying current in his profession (architecture). Yet Hurt seemed to be cold and uncaring and the people in his family never confronted him on this. He assumed the role of a stiff, unemotional man with great ease because relatively little is called for in this role. I was fairly well bored by his character. At other times the movie dealt with a woman aging and feeling that she was becoming less attractive. She tries to do something about her sagging flesh, then gets discouraged, then gets active again. Just as we are about to be drawn into this drama the film became a family burlesque before shortly turning again as the main characters drifted apart and then drifted back together again, without explanation or further character development. William Hurt and Isabella Rosselini deserve a better film with a better script and a more mature director. The film seems thrown together, rather poorly edited, and concludes abruptly with what seems like a capitulation to the American audience. The pleasures in this film are too few and too far between. Woody Allen's "Whatever Works" covers much the same ground with much more intelligence, good humor, and plenty of laughs.

What's not to like? -- not a lot. I enjoyed it very much from start to finish. It is a movie that keeps its tongue in its cheek at all times. The special effects rival those of Crouching Tiger H.D. and Titanic, while not as elegant as Avatar. Abe Lincoln was a working class president with a great sense of humor, something which the movie didn't quite capture, although the allusion is there. It is, after all, a comic book of a film, with both lots of comic book violence and some great movie mayhem. While the movie Abe is sweet and charming, the historic Abe's anecdotes and stories would keep people in thrall for hours. Ben Walker's Abe Lincoln is a bit too laid back to be very captivating. The real Abe was a vital, charming character, but not so pretty. I thought in general the movie version of Abe's life was rather flat and understated. Too kind, perhaps, to Mary Todd, who was a very difficult person. I loved how the movie linked slavery with the evils of vampires. These vampires are mean! Not like the gentle souls in the teenage vampire movies. No delicate puncture wounds here. In fact, these vampires come to be linked to slavery in several surprising ways, which I felt required a deft, light hand. Timur Bekmambetov caught that aspect just right and made the film both historically accurate as well as providing justification for movie Abe's eventual anti- slavery position. As a history buff I appreciated the research and attention to detail that went into the making of the film. The fight scenes are marvels of choreography. The cinematography is perfect. The acting was adequate, if understated. Tim Burton is a genius and his hand is evident throughout. I was expecting a B movie, but I give this movie a solid 8 stars. It is well worth watching and will delight on many levels.

As I said, I thought the film is over-rated, over-hyped, formless, basically plot less, and trite. The father is a mean drunk (who still loves his kid), and the kid is a solemn and wise six year-old. Two stereotypes, wouldn't you say? They live in The Bathtub, a shattered but colorful community on the gulf side of the levee. The community is comprised of other drunk people who also love and care about Hushpuppy, the young girl. Hushpuppy is quite precocious, interested in things that don't usually concern girls of her age: the after-life, ecology, such eternal questions as the meaning of life. She of course loves her mean drunk father and all the furred and feathered creatures that live in their little farmlet. There is an air about the film that is surreal. The characters in their madness are a bit like the characters in Mad Max. They are all over-sized and eminently watchable in their enthusiastic inebriation. But I wished for a few moments of lucidity, where people just talk to each other without ranting and raving. The overall impression that I got is one of sadness. There is very little joy -- other than that which comes from the bottle -- in their lives. This said, I enjoyed the movie. It is very watchable, but in a guilty sort of way. Their lives are painful. It is set in a part of the world that we don't normally see, with people we would generally avoid. Technically it is very well done. The visuals are great. I would recommend seeing it but not attending too much to the surrounding hype.

Whatever Works.

A recent critique of Whatever Works was headed, "watching woody masturbate." Since Woody, Larry David, and I come from similar neighborhoods in Brooklyn (Brighton Beach and Flatbush) I thought to ask them what they thought of this review. Larry wrote, "He -- the review's author -- is clearly one of the morons in the film, the kind of person Woody was talking about. A cretin. An inchworm. He can't even spell "masturbate." Yet he used it in the title. Imagine what people who can spell must think of him. His ignorance is stunning." Woody was a bit more generous. "Really, he needs to see the film again. Did he even understand what was going on? When I write about masturbation I write about masturbation, not about meaning, or lack of it, in the life of a person who fears death. For me, masturbation is no laughing matter." In any case, the reviewer didn't even comment on the film. One of the points of the film -- either missed through lack of acuity or because he didn't see the film -- is that everybody --Boris, and Marietta, Melody,and Jon Celestine, et. al. -- learns to accept social mores on the deepest level. They learn to give and to accept love. Just like in Love, Actually. But this film has teeth. So, to the erstwhile reviewer, my advice is: See it again. You might learn something. And enjoy lots of good laughs in the process. This film is one of Woody's funniest though it won't be for everybody's taste. It ranks with Annie Hall and Manhattan as Woody's best. Larry David is pretty, pretty, pretty good, too. Yours, Mrs. Nettie Konigsburg.

I was surprised by how much my wife and I both liked this film. It brings to mind Attack the Block and Super 8, but surpasses those in depth of character, script, humor and special effects. The special effects are astounding. But the depth of character surpasses the kitsch that most special effects really are, in this age of CGI and other computer generated marvels. We found ourselves really liking and caring about the main character, a quiet, smart, nerdy kid who is bullied both at home and at school. His creative outlet is amateur filming, which is a theme that runs through the movie and which lends itself very well to the idea of an Indy produced, hand-held camera that gives an otherwise unbelievable film its cinema verite quality. This serves to make the special effects even more memorable and believable, since the boys' powers are so understated and minimized at first. Great script, beautiful characterizations, heartfelt sympathy for teens, the whole enlivened by humorous and believable teenage testosterone ... and some real magic. I had some very minor issues with the film, but this did not prevent me -- and my wife, who usually can't sit through a real sci-fi film -- from enjoying this nearly perfectly realized film. Thoroughly enjoyable and highly recommended.

I can't believe that people take this film seriously. The brutality is extreme and inexplicable. The soldiers who whip Jesus have little motivation for their cruelty. Everything about this movie is sappy and over the top. It is more like watching a dog-fight than watching a film about the savior of mankind. There is nothing human about the film, nothing that one can relate to. Some have commented that while they do not believe in God, this is a great story. But where's the story? What is the plot line? Where is the drama- except for the extreme cruelty there's little character development and no tension except the tension created by endless scenes of cruelty that cause you to ask, "when will it stop?" And when it does stop it is replaced by over-the-top scenes of maudlin sentimentality. Is it historically accurate? Of course not. To begin with, Jesus is not a white European. Jesus was a black man. If he existed, and if he was from Nazareth, then he was certainly not a white European. Nor was his mother a beautiful white woman. And as for his hair, Paul said, in the NT, that it's disgraceful for a man to wear long hair. People of that period had to have reasonably short hair. But, as with notions of God, people will construct their Jesus to fit what they think is an ideal. Certain scenes are so grotesque that they repel rather than fascinate: such as the scene with the woman holding a misshapen dwarf. What is the point of it all? This isn't Christian. It is not historical at all. It has nothing to with the kind of love I experience. It glorifies sadism. And it is a boring film. There isn't any drama- just a lot of blood interspersed with scenes of weeping. All of this causes one to wonder what kind of a religion worships so much blood and suffering? Do all Christians delight in agony? Is this the best of what Christianity offers the world? The film is a testament to a distorted, sick view of spirituality. You have to pity Mel Gibson –- and anybody else who believes in God and this story -- if he lives in the religious hell that this film extols.