Reviews

Ebert starts his review of Elf this way:

"If I were to tell you 'Elf' stars Will Ferrell as a human named Buddy who thinks he is an elf and Ed Asner as Santa Claus, would you feel an urgent desire to see this film? Neither did I. I thought it would be clunky, stupid and obvious, like 'The Santa Clause 2' or 'How the Grinch Stole Christmas.' It would have grotesque special effects and lumber about in the wreckage of holiday cheer..."

And that's just how I saw it: clunky, stupid and obvious. And let me add, painfully unfunny. I cheerfully admit that I am in the minority here; Rotten Tomatoes has it at 83% I think, essentially a rave, and Ebert gives it three stars.

We turned it off after half an hour, and, if watching by myself, I might have turned it off after the nearly endless opening credits, because I knew I was in trouble. Very early in the film, Santa Claus sees something moving in his bag of toys. He says, "What in the name of Sam Hill is that?" Gee, what a useless, trite thing to say at the first moment of tension in the film. Even a simple scream would have been an improvement.

Ferrell's performance has been praised; I found him unlikable and tiresome. We've seen too much of this before, and done better, as in Starman, Moscow on the Hudson, and Time after Time: the naive waif encountering modern civilization for the first time. The elevator scene is almost funny: Buddy joyfully pushes all the buttons. What does the stranger in the elevator do or say? NOTHING! What a riot. Buster Keaton could have saved the scene with his "great stone face," but here it's just one more opportunity squandered.

Is there anything good about this film? Yes, Bob Newhart puts in a welcome appearance, but it's a good thing that his old stand-up comedy persona is that of looking "out of place and anxious about it," because that's exactly how he looks here in his elf costume, talking to the camera. Fortunately it's mildly amusing rather than yet another embarrassment. The special effects are reasonable... "Buddy" is convincingly a lot bigger than all the elves, though his animated toy friends look off, somehow. The paintings used during the opening credits are attractive. I saw nothing else to like about this awful, painful film.

Alan Nicoll www.angelfire.com/art/megathink

The setting is Berlin during the last days of World War II. Aimée and Jaguar are nicknames for two women. Jaguar, or Felice Schragenheim, is played by Maria Schrader, a painfully slender, winsome, enigmatic, and devastatingly beautiful actress whose character rolls through this story like a loose cannon. She is well matched by Aimée, or Lilly Wust, played by Juliane Köhler, attractive but older, by turns lustful and distraught.

To survive in difficult times, young Felice poses for nude photos, works in a newspaper office, and gives dance lessons. Lilly is a housewife, mother of four small children, and her husband is at the eastern front. She entertains single men while her children go to the zoo "again?" Felice conceives a passion for Lilly from afar and writes her a romantic letter, signed "Jaguar."

I don't want to spoil the story, so I will say no more about it. This is a frankly sexy, exceedingly passionate movie based on a true story. The acting is spectacular, the recreation of time and place is convincing enough, and the music and photography are exemplary. In German with English subtitles. Highest recommendation.

In a few scenes, especially during the first hour, I had the impression that I was getting the text of what was being said, but was missing the subtext--i.e., what was really going on. I plan to watch it again before sending it back to Netflix, something I've not done previously (though I came close with High Noon). If you suspect that I conceived a passion for Felice from afar, you'd be right; you might, too, if you see this movie. But see it also because it's simply excellent from beginning to end.

Alan Nicoll

John Huston's Moby Dick is an epic, a masterpiece, a unique and essential viewing experience. Some reviewers have said that Gregory Peck was grotesquely miscast as Captain Ahab, or that his acting was terrible. I think just the opposite, that he is the perfect Ahab. His face, his voice, his physical presence are the very backbone of the picture, and it would be hard to accept anyone else in the role after seeing Peck's Ahab. The entire movie is at the pinnacle of drama, sometimes at the edge of collapsing into self-parody while never quite doing so, and Peck's performance is entirely in keeping with this approach. It is risk-taking, by director and by actor, and if Peck goes over the edge in his scenery-chewing once or twice, far more often he is intensity restrained-driven in the very way that we want to see Ahab. The other actors are up to the challenges: Orson Welles as Father Mapple is one of the most memorable performances in his great career; veterans Leo Genn and Harry Andrews are well suited to their roles as the quiet and prim Starbuck and the boisterous Stubb; Royal Dano as Elijah is creepy and amusing; and Frederick Ledebur is a convincing and attractive Queequeg. If the cast has a weakness, it is in Richard Basehart as the 'young' Ishamel, but he is at least adequate and his voice is suited to the task of narrator. The music provides a lyrical background to the sailing scenes and a unique punctuation and highlighting to the dialog, adding weight and grandeur to each pronouncement-most especially those of Ahab-making the whole seem profound and poetic. Regrettably, the special effects are vintage 1956, making some of the great whaling scenes look like what they are: toys. That one quibble aside, this is simply magnificent entertainment that encourages thought.

Alan Nicoll

This Disney animated has so many terrible flaws that I'm forced to put it in my "guilty pleasures" category. I love this movie, but I wince at the laughable (or insulting) Disney view of ancient Chinese culture and the Disney-typical "cute sidekicks." The animation is uneven: the waving flags are marvelous and must be computer-generated, but the heads of the characters sometimes visibly change shape as they turn left or right. The charging Hun army looks too reminiscent of other CGI scenes and looks cartoony. The character of Mushu (voice by Eddie Murphy) is hilarious but also hilariously miscast. The designs of some characters (The Emperor and Shan-Yu) are grotesque, while other designs (e.g., settings, Mulan's horse) are marvelous. The face of Mulan herself is a crude blank with vividly expressive eyebrows and mouth. The voices of Mulan and her family are very good, the songs are good and the music is magnificent (Jerry Goldsmith). The action scenes are generally exciting while also being laughably illogical. Fortunately, if you can vigorously suspend your disbelief, Mulan is both very funny and somewhat touching.

Alan Nicoll

This is a black comedy or satire about a teen girl who is confronted by friends and family about her sexuality, then is sent to True Directions, a camp where crooked gays are made straight. Natasha Lyonne is appealing if uncharismatic as Megan (the cheerleader), and Clea DuVall likewise as Graham, one of Megan's roommates. Unfortunately, the script takes a fine idea and makes it dull; the movie is not very funny and not touching enough.

The major problem is Mary, the camp director (played by Cathy Moriarty), who is rigid and harsh without being funny, yet she has a lot of screen time when we viewers, who are sympathetic to the plight of the kids, want to see more of them and less of her. Maybe the greatest strength of the movie, and the biggest lost opportunity, is the kids, who present an array of sexual misfits, but as clichés and stereotypes rather than as real kids. They are all appealing, but seldom real; Melanie Lynskey's powerful talent (of Heavenly Creatures fame) is squandered here. Despite these failings, for certain viewers this movie might provide a sorely needed education in tolerance; if you don't need such an education, see Heavenly Creatures instead, which movie indeed provides a much superior education.

Alan Nicoll

Memento is a brilliantly conceived Chinese box puzzle of a movie. It tells of Leonard Shelby (played by Guy Pearce) who, due to a brain injury, is unable to form new long-term memories. Every time he wakes up he has to rediscover his life and his quest, based on notes, photographs, and tattoos he has created for the purpose. The movie starts at the end and works backwards--most scenes begin with Leonard gathering the threads of his life together. The next scene then shows how he got to the beginning of the last scene. It's an unsettling technique, but it is also a marvelous idea, because it puts the viewer in a similar situation to that of Leonard. When he wakes up, he doesn't know where he is, and we don't, either. This is a unique conception, and it makes a movie not to be missed. Unfortunately, it is also rather unsavory, full of violence and murder; but it also comes to a piquant and satisfying conclusion. It's only later that one begins to pick apart the logic. Not for all tastes, and some viewers will start completely lost and never figure out what the heck is going on. But for those up to its challenges, Memento is a unique viewing experience.

Despite what another reviewer said, these actors are hardly unknowns. Jack Hawkins and James Robertson Justice--unknowns? Ridiculous. Given that, the dialog is pretty lame and the acting is middling. Dewey Martin and Alex Minotis are both terrible. Joan Collins is okay, but not nearly as gorgeous as we're supposed to believe. But for me the true worth of the movie is the pyramid spectacle. A huge cast of extras cutting and hauling stone---first, singing, later under the lash. I love the music, and the pyramid building scenes are awesome. If these things appeal to you, and you don't mind a fairly stupid melodrama getting in the way, see this film.

Alan Nicoll