Change Your Image
gnovik
Reviews
Moving Malcolm (2003)
unmoving movie
Once again welcome to the self-indulgent world of wannabe writers who also think they can direct and act. I'm sure you'd agree there are only so many Orson Welles in this world and the writer, director, lead of this pic is not one of them.
Why would anyone want to watch a movie that is so full of nothing? How I made it to the end I'll never know...I guess we were hoping there would be some sort of last-minute twist to redeem it. That did not happen. There are some fairly good actors in this movie, but they weren't given roles that would have allowed them to shine. Of course John Neville is an institution in stage and film acting, but his part in this movie was strange and wierdly inconsistent. One minute he was a weak old, sweet senior...the next a snarling bastard. What's up with that? Jay Moreau is hard-working and does a lot of film work, but in this movie he never gets anything more than a two-dimensional character who alternately is sweet like Neville and then loud and idiotic...
I got the impression that the writer thinks he is Ben Stiller...would that he were!!! He writes his lead character as a loser...who can't grow up, someone who is masturbating in one scene (not very convincingly), paintballing (and not very well at that) in another, and destroying his supposedly X-rated homevideos in another. We aren't given a sense that he has any talent. He can't keep a girlfriend or hold a job. He doesn't even seem capable of packing boxes or taping them up for shipping. Someone should explain to the editor and the director that it isn't necessary to yap all the way through a film....you really can pause and show your characters doing things....it's called MONTAGE. By the way, the marriage ceremony that fails has been used in so many movies it no longer shocks anyone. The lead female has as much charisma as a clam. She plays the role as a flake...in most scenes she's not even very pretty so why in the heck would this geeky loser writer be so smitten with her? The audience sure won't like her.
My guess is that this a student film, one that's designed to lead to bigger and better things, preferably spending other people's money to get there. Let's hope the persons responsible for this going nowhere flic get some real life experience and learn that a movie needs to say something important and fresh, something that people will walk away from and say, "Wow that was great---what a movie". Let somebody critique the rough cut before you subject audiences to your film.
Morvern Callar (2002)
Shirley Valentine Meets Trainspotting
How do you comment on a film when your views will be treated as if you are non-intellectual? Somehow the only people who understand this film are the "in" crowd. Is this the Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome? Am I to assume I can't see how "brilliant" the director is because I don't appreciate genius!!!
It's obvious this film makes an impact on people's minds. That much at least is evident from the viewers' comments. Whether or not the creators of the film intended this kind of mostly negative commentary is doubtful. In this film I detect some very average story tellers getting together with some grant money and not much of an idea and getting a free trip to Spain in the deal. Wonderful, at least for them.
Imagine a writer scribbling all their words down on scraps of paper in their own bad handwriting, and then trying to read it. That's what this film is like. You can't read the actors' emotions. You can't unscramble the poorly recorded Scottish accents. You try to connect the dots of the plot. Good luck. The "star" never betrays any emotion for anyone...except when she's strung out on drugs. What school of acting is this? Method? It's just plain awful in reality.
The director never gives us a clue as to what is going on this character's mind. My feeling is that there is nothing going on. She can't even warm up a pizza, but does that scene indicate something profound? Not really. Other supporting actors especially the males are treated like extras. As in another man-hating film, "Thelma and Louise", all the men are idiots, sex-obsessed creeps, fat, and horrible. Mind you the miserable looking women in this film could not really expect to attract anything else. No wonder the boyfriend kills himself. If you lived with this inscrutable actress so would you! But I sure wouldn't leave her a ton of money. What does this indicate to us about life in general? Well, it appears to be merely the unbalanced view of a bunch of women.
How could this film be improved? If you want to make a film with minimal dialogue study the work of film makers who know how to let action and visuals reveal the story. Take a good hard look at "In the Bedroom" for film making basics. Learn to edit. Get to the point. Don't shoot details that have no meaning. Find a sound recordist. Take elocution lessons. Don't ask the viewer to accept too much. A few close ups of ants or cockroaches won't make you into Bunuel. Prove that the characters are worthless or deserve what happens. Get a story editor. Don't start shooting until you know how it will end. In fact, shoot the end first so that you know for sure. Get out and have some relationships. Nothing like real life to put things in perspective. Directors and writers as devoid as these about detailing a film need life experience before they should be allowed to call, "action!". These local, independent films deserve to be seen, but only if the film makers aren't having one over on us. Pretending to be a film maker is irksome when there are plenty of people with talent who should be making films.
This film is like the scrawl of an illegible signature. You can't read it but the pretentiousness of the author is loud and clear.
Bringing Down the House (2003)
They Really Don't Get Worse Than This
Let's see. How do you spell "STINKER"? Could we call this movie charming diversion? Hardly. Witless and un-clever maybe. So predictable I defy you to bother seeing it to the credits. Who would need to? It's all so pat and obvious. What were they thinking when they made this movie? Or better yet, why did they bother to make this movie? Does it illuminate the human condition? Does it even amuse?
You'll be treated to women fighting with each other for 10 minutes and not getting injured... nice. Just the sort of thing that young girls need to see. Gunplay with no loss of life. Now that's realism. Enter the cell phone as both the Devil and Savior. What is so funny about violence? You'll witness Steve Martin jive talking. Oh the talent! Oh the humor! Oh pleeese! Steve, it's been done before...or didn't you see "Airplane"? Where are the people who made "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles" now that we need them?
Every character is a stereotype. They're all shallow, silly people, certainly not humorous, just sadly lacking in real life issues. But hey, they live in Hollywood, so maybe they can be forgiven for being vapid and plastic all at once.
I'm not sure what message this movie is trying to send about minorities. It sure seems sick to me. So many scenes reinforce idiotic views of Latin or Black people. Please don't let the kids see this junk. If they're not bored to tears, they'll be subjected to scenes where lying, and prevaricating to "get the contract" are justified. Witness the kids in the movie become liars as they are pressed into service to help Dad land "the Big one". See supposedly grown-up and intelligent people saying absolutely nothing to contradict racist neighbors. See Blacks once again portrayed as jail birds, evil backstabbing gangsters and Afro-American families as layabouts who will take over your home. We are supposed to find this funny. The producers of this film need a serious reality check.
The low standards of writing in this production make it as close to pornographic as you can get without showing any human flesh. Ships at sea wouldn't buy this flick.
La turbulence des fluides (2002)
Does the word "Tripe" translate into French?
Here is a film that starts with a great deal of promise and winds up leaving the viewer miserable, thirsting for a real ending.
If you are like me you will wonder if the producers of this film got government money to splurge on a trip to Tokyo. I suspect that was the only reason those expensive opening scenes could have been shot there. The Japanese scenes didn't make a bit of difference to the film and could have been faked for a lot less money.
As Canadian films go this one is really no different. Too much dialogue and pretensions to be an important work of film making. The plot seems to be some sort of Twin Peaks reincarnation, but without the real intrigue. As the movie plods along with some silly investigations of the quasi paranormal the viewer is lulled into a sense that nothing is going to happen. And really nothing does.
Then too late in the film an extremely important scene, perhaps the pivotal scene in a newspaper office comes along. By this point you'll be so bored you might miss it. The direction so dull that what should have been an extremely dramatic turning point, with intense lighting and close-ups and a sensible pace to allow us to absorb the importance of this scene. But no, it's an over lit room with a cliche newspaper editor. Who ever heard of a newspaper office in this day and age keeping a clipping file for a specif ic story? Even in Quebec they use computers. The whole film suffers from this kind of lack of attention to detail. Do they expect us to believe this stuff? Script doctor required.
The film might be about sex, or love, but it's so catholic and reserved about the sex it's something that no one at Disney would blush over. Count the kisses..are there two in the whole film?
The female lead is struggling with some deeply seated emotional trauma and this apparently is causing her to be callously casual about sex on one hand and in a bizarre turn around later, suffer a schoolgirl crush....madly trying to locate the object of her desire. The male "lead" if you can call someone who gets 15 minutes of screen time a lead, comes across one minute as a devil-may-care, jaunty risk-taker and then later he claims to be "shy". This kind of unexplained inconsistent character may be realistic to the director but for the viewer this guy comes across as a goof who acts like a sexy guy one minute and a fool the next.
The film could have been reduced by about a half hour and several characters cut without losing anything. In fact it would have been tighter and better paced if the editor had been a bit more ruthless. There are some puerile dabblings with a lesbian sub-plot which really goes nowhere. Incidently who ever heard of a police woman kissing a member of their own sex in a squad car. Then there's the singing nuns. That's how weird this movie can get. Oh did I mention the fact that the lead cannot swim? Who ever heard of this? She must be a rare creature indeed. The writers should learn that you can only stretch the disbelief of the audience so far---then it snaps and the whole film begins to look infantile.
The best guess is the writers decided they wanted to have some fun time in Japan so they wrote that in. They also wanted a nude scene, so they gave the lead the improbable role of a non-swimmer. You'll notice the male lead is never naked. Men always have time to get dressed before they panic. Women seem to be slow-dressers.
There is something distressingly childish about the direction of this film. Canadians aren't really this afraid of love and sex are they? If you last until the credits roll you may be just as disappointed as me. Another low for Canadian film making.
Croupier (1998)
Drivel
If you ever go to a movie and suddenly a voice-over starts telling you what you are seeing...look out. It's usually a sign of script and direction shortcomings. I suspect the original writing doesn't have any voice-over, but after the movie is shot they realize nobody can tell what the heck is going on so they decide to explain it all in a disembodied voice...coming from one of the character's minds.
Dish up the same kind of drivel for the Croupier. Unexplained violence...beatings that are never investigated, ugly sexuality which comes across as either pedestrian or rape-like. A main character that amazingly has incredible (read: not believable) talents not only as a mathematician but as a writer. Does any of this equal a good movie? Not really. Plot points are so obvious that this can hardly be called a thriller. But imagine a guy who has no background whatsoever suddenly writing a best-selling book...all the while holding down a job in a casino. Well it's so silly you almost want to weep. The movie soundtrack drones away..."Chapter 8, blah blah blah...", "Chapter 9, blah blah blah." All to keep us on track as to what is going on.
Maybe if you knew how to gamble or play cards, or play roulette, you'd find some sort of interest in this movie...but don't count on it. Don't expect to learn anything about the human condition from this film. Don't expect to learn how to gamble, or write, or love either. In fact the best bet for this flick is leave it on the Video Rental shelves and put your money on the lottery.
Intimacy (2001)
Refreshingly candid insight into the complexity of human relationships
Once in a while you run across a movie that breaks boundaries. This film does that in many ways. If you remember seeing an old David Lean movie called "Brief Encounter", "Intimacy" may remind you of it only this film takes you much farther into the actual affair than many films dare to go. Whoever trains British actors gets my undying admiration. Mark Rylance gives an understated performance that simply thrills a person with its reality. Anyone who knows the work of Mike Leigh (Secrets and Lies) will want to see this movie. All of the actors give performances that rate highly with me. Imagine a scene where actors have to pretend that they are in an actors training session and they are supposedly doing improvisation. How would you script this? Could you script this? It's marvelous to watch.
As the plot advances the dialogue is spare. A sign of great film making in my view. The camera work and editing provide the clues as to what is transpiring. At the heart of the movie, the tables turn in an unexpected way that leaves the viewer breathless. You almost have to stop watching to consider all of the implications of what has happened.
Sure there are some strange inexplicable events, but that's life isn't it? So based on boldness, superb acting, amazing realization or direction this film will shock and satisfy, puzzle and pique your interest. One of the greats to emerge from the new realist school of European film making. Along with Romance and Blais Moi. Finally film making that looks at sexuality in an adult way and doesn't get coy when the actual act of sex is depicted. I delight in seeing films that are brave enough to illuminate the act of sex, after all it's what most humans are designed to do.