Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 October
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
2003 August
My Links
Mixed Reviews Home
Modern Fabulousity
Brilliant at Breakfast
Cinemarati
Film Snobs
Filmsnobs's Blog
Low IQ Canadian
The Nedpages
Nick's Flick Picks
The Film Experience
The Flick Filosopher
Strictly Film School
Dan Jardine's Cinemania
Slant Magazine
CineMe
Window to the Movies
Then Fuck You Jack: The Life and Art of Vern
Flim Flam Flummox at Movie Poop Shoot
Deep-Focus
Catherine Cantieri
Critical Eye
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
Visit us at: 
|
| SPIDERMAN 2 (2004) |
| 06.29.04 (11:41 pm) [edit] |
[b]Starring[/b]: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Alfred Molina, Rosemary Harris
[b]Director[/b]: Sam Raimi
[b]Written by[/b]: Alvin Sargent (screenplay)
[b]Distributor[/b]: Columbia Pictures (US 2004)
[b]Rated[/b]: Rated PG-13 for violence.
[b]Run Time[/b]: 127 min
Reviewed by: [b]Martin Scribbs[/b]
[i]Spiderman[/i], while fun, had very little heft. Every choice our nebbish hero Peter Parker faced was either clearly right (however costly) or clearly wrong (however expedient). On those few occasions where Spidey might have been faced with a difficult choice, such as whether to kill a wrongdoer, [i]Spiderman[/i]'s plot relieved Parker of having to make the call. The carjacker responsible for Uncle Ben's death tripped and fell out the window. The Green Goblin impaled himself on his own scooter. Even when the Goblin tried to force Spiderman to choose between saving a streetcar of adorable tots or selfishly rescuing just MJ, the movie didn't make Spidey decide. He was able to save both.
I'm happy to announce that not only is [b]SPIDERMAN 2[/b] more than its predecessor's equal in pure popcorn entertainment, it presents a complex moral universe and a genuine study in heroism. To be Spiderman, to save lives, Peter has had to continually break his promises, miss appointments, neglect studies, blow off friends, and risk his job. Peter's poverty may cost his Aunt May her home. Out of concern for Mary Jane, he will spurn her advances for as long as he wears the suit. After two years of unglamorous self-denial, Parker is losing his small coetrie of friends. Everyone in Parker's life is pissed-off with him, and rightly so.
Spiderman starts to lose his powers. Does Peter give up the life of the web so he can get the girl? Can he stand seeing police cars whizz by or cops give chase or a mugging go down without stepping in? To [b]SPIDERMAN 2[/b]'s credit, the answer is not at all foregone, not until the last frame of the film.
Raimi renders Spidey's life struggles with a light touch. Opening the film with a montage of comic book panels laying out the story of the first film, Raimi has Spidey swing into action on a minor key, trying to deliver pizzas fast enough to keep Peter Parker his job. Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst have scads of chemistry between them as the romantic leads -- it's something in their open eyes, their sweet expressions -- they look exactly like old friends in love. Rosemary Harris as dear old Aunt May has some deftly-acted scenes, including a speech on heroism that hints she may already know Peter's secret.
Alfred Molina makes a credible, ominous Doctor Octopus, the soft-spoken, portly, bespectacled villian with four mechanical arms. He talks to the arms and they talk to him. The arms move with a life of their own. Raimi makes the violence scary, and the pain, felt by Spidey and others in Doc Oct's way, wince-producing. Raimi fully harnesses his [i]Evil Dead[/i] multiple-camera prowress -- we get to see one kick-ass scene entirely from the viewpoint of Doc's mecha-limbs, for example.
While Doc Oct looks real as Monday morning, the CGI on Spidey-in-flight is fair to middling. And the bad Doctor's Doomsday Machine could have been grabbed randomly from any one of a hundred generic mad scientist movies.
No matter. While the action scenes are integral to the plot, the real developments come from Peter making decisions, coming clean, trying life out. If [b]SPIDERMAN 2[/b] had been staged entirely on a bare set, ala [i]Dogville[/i], it would still be an engrossing movie, and a big step forward for a thoughtful franchise that's just heating up.
|
|
|
| |
| FARENHEIT 9/11 (2004) |
| 06.29.04 (5:35 pm) [edit] |
[b]Starring[/b]: Michael Moore, George W. Bush, others
[b]Director[/b]: Michael Moore
[b]Distributor[/b]: Lion's Gate Films / IFC Films (US 2004)
[b]Rated[/b]: R for some violent and disturbing images, and for language
[b]Run Time[/b]: 116 minutes
Reviewed by: [b]Martin Scribbs[/b]
Michael Moore's [b]FARENHEIT 9/11[/b] marks an evolution in the documentary genre. In what can only be described as a shotgun wedding, Moore has joined the high moral tone of traditional docs with the frivolity of the mock doc format. As a result, [b]FARENHEIT 9/11[/b] is a work of stylistic genius, a perfect blend of cinema and cable TV.
We start on CNN, with a retrospective on the 2000 election. Then we [i][b]flip![/b][/i] to the morning shows and all the Bush Administration talking heads and [i][b]flip![/b][/i] to the Biography channel for a rundown of the life of George W. Bush.
Only, on Moore's alternate-world TV, every channel struggles to make old topics newly engaging. In the election coverage, we see riots during the inaugaration. Moore shows the talking heads getting poofed and primped for their soundbytes -- showing that truth-as-broadcast is very carefully manufactured. The unflattering Bush biography spells out W's constant business failures and the role of bin Laden family cash in bailing him out.
[i][b]Flip![/b][/i] We're on the [i]Daily Show[/i], with cartoons and grandstanding. Moore gets bitchslapped by many critics for his lampoonery, as though the audience is unable to tell when he's shifted from serious journalism to dog-and-pony antics. Here's a hint, folks -- when a guy's yelling at your Congressman from an ice cream truck, its safe to assume he's taking a respite from making a serious point. And we [i][b]flip![/b][/i] to PBS for a hard-hitting special on the cost of the Iraq war as paid by the Iraqi people and by our soldiers.
[b]FARENHEIT 9/11[/b] performs its greatest service by showing the American people suffering from which we would normally look away. The cost of war to those on the ground -- tallied in terms of dead bodies, shattered families, ruined homes, amputees -- has to be part of any substantial calculation of whether a war is worthwhile. But I've never seen images like these on network TV. Moore breaks through the wall of broadcast decency to bring us news of the highest order: a cry for help from our fellow human beings.
[i][b]Flip![/b][/i] to Lifetime, which does an Intimate Portrait of a servicemember's mom. She's falling apart wondering for what exactly her son paid the ultimate price. And back to the [i]Daily Show[/i] for a recap of the ragingly false grounds on which Bush led the nations to war.
Moore films exactly how we think, how our 164-channel cable TV culture has conditioned us to think, playing with a variety of moods and tones, hitting levels of discourse both high and low. This short-attention span polymorphing may be good or bad for documentaries in the long run, but it's not dishonest. Moore evokes sorrow and fear, pity and rage. If anyone has a better way to present the surreal failure of policy that has been these last four years, by all means, let's flip to it.
|
|
|
| |
| A FOOL THERE WAS (1915) |
| 06.26.04 (7:40 pm) [edit] |
[b]Genre[/b]: Horror (Silent)
[b]Cast[/b]: Edward Jose, Theda Bara
[b]Directed by[/b]: Frank Powell
[b]Written by[/b]: Rudyard Kipling (poem), Porter Emerson Browne (play), Roy L. McCardell, Frank Powell
[b]Running Time[/b]: 67 minutes
Reviewed by: [b]Martin Scribbs[/b]
[b]A FOOL THERE WAS (1915)[/b]
[i]A fool there was and he made his
prayer
(Even as you and I)
To a rag and a bone and a hank
of hair
(We called her the woman who
did not care)
But the fool, he called her his
Lady Fair
Even as you and I.[/i]-- Rudyard Kipling, The Vampire.
Now almost 90 years old, [B]A FOOL THERE WAS[/b] grows more frightening with each passing year. Like a dusty book of Satanic curses, like shards of a ruined man's bones, like a long mile's walk on an unlit country road, [b]FOOL [/b]taps into our powerful, unsettled imaginations.
The Vampire, as [b]FOOL [/b]calls its main character in the opening credits scene, is played by Theda Bara. The Vampire seduces men of high standing, ruins them with a love that seems like cruelty to all others, and laughs derisively at the begging remains of her erstwhile suitors as she moves on to fresher prey. The origin of the phrase "Vamp," Bara's Vampire stands in for all the inexplicable urges by which a family man might be torn apart.
It's easy to laugh at Edward Jose as the Fool, and at the beggars, drunks, and suicides that comprise the Vampire's discarded paramours. When Bara, moderately attractive but made up with thick eyeshadow and gothic clothes, leers ""Kiss me, my Fool!," we the audience don't see the hypnotic appeal.
But then, that's the point. Like gambling in [i]Owning Mahowny[/i] or the One Ring in the [i]Lord of the Rings[/i], the Vampire inspires within the dark recesses of her targets a need that can never be shut off or satisfied. And, like most objects of obsession, there isn't even much of a reward in the moment. How many people are lost to obsessions that prove, in the end, about nothing at all, nothing anyone else could see?
[i]Oh, the years we waste and the
tears we waste
And the work of our head and
hand
Belong to the woman who did not
know
(And now we know that she
never could know)
And did not understand.[/i]
Cuts between the Vamp, in the gin-soaked darkness of her sex den, and the Fool's daughter, blond, young, and innocent in the sunlight, are somewhat primitive and heavyhanded by modern standards. By the same token, the primitive can be doubly frightening because it seems so authentic. When [b]FOOL[/b]'s world becomes tinted red for sin or blue for loss, the effect comes across as very real and appropriate. When the Fool lies on the floor, dying for his mistress, unable to leave even for the family he loves, and she stands over him, laughing, plucking rose petals and letting them fall on the Fool's face, there is no question that movie horror began before Hitchcock was out of short pants.
[i]The Fool was stripped to
his foolish hide.
So some of him lived, but
the most of him died.
(Even as you and I.)[/i]
[b]FOOL[/b] snaps all the louder for the years it suffered in neglect, passed from hand to hand on blurry, pirated VHS. The handsome Kino DVD set, introduced in 2002, marries the crackling, hypnotizing images of [b]FOOL[/b] with an appropriately melodramatic score. Kino's extras, a contemporary review of the piece and the complete text of the Kipling poem on which [b]FOOL[/b] is based, add measurably to the proceedings. This is a film to watch alone, in the dark, and recover from in a well-lit bed with a concerned and understanding spouse.
|
|
|
| |
| I'LL SLEEP WHEN I'M DEAD |
| 06.24.04 (9:31 am) [edit] |
I'LL SLEEP WHEN I'M DEAD
Cast: Clive Owen, Charlotte Rampling, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, and Malcolm McDowell
Directed by: Mike Hodges
Written by: Trevor Preston
Distributor: Paramount Classics (US 2004)
Rated: R for language, a rape scene, violent images and brief drug use
As Reviewed by: Gabriel Shanks
Moody atmospherics meet the London underworld in Mike Hodges' latest film, [b]I'LL SLEEP WHEN I'M DEAD[/b], a languid study in remorse and revenge that reunites the director with elements from his two greatest successes. From his surprise 1998 hit [i]Croupier[/i], Hodges borrows his dashing leading man, Clive Owen, who since then has emerged as a Hollywood player in films like [i]King Arthur[/i] and [i]The Bourne Identity[/i]. (His dark, smouldering looks and his undeniable suavity have also created buzz to have him follow in Pierce Brosnan's footsteps as the next James Bond.) Reaching even further back, Hodges also thieves an entire plot from his classic gangster 1974 film [i]Get Carter[/i]. The prospect of Owen starring in a loosly-tailored remake of Hodges' best work is a seductive arthouse combination.
Sadly, [b]I'LL SLEEP WHEN I'M DEAD[/b] loses its way pretty quickly, sludging through an impenetrable veneer of icy listlessness. Although one can appreciate Hodges' economy of dialogue and fixation on visual elements, the quiet gloom nearly makes the story incomprehensible, with major plot points and details left unexplained and unclear. As the film begins, there's clearly a lot of unexplained past going on. Will Graham (Owen) has left his gangster past behind, haunted by some experience not fully explained, and run away to live in a mobile camper and work as a lumberjack. When his younger brother Davey (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) is killed, Will must return to London to seek vengeance. Not everyone is happy to see him return, however, least of all the woman he left behind, Helen (Charlotte Rampling). The gangsters who have since moved in on his old territory might have a thing or two to say about it, too.
The plot wants to be deeper than it is, but essentially from this point on, Hodges' drama becomes a hunt for the killers revenge fantasy. Sadly however, the Lynch-meets-Tarantino landscape of petty thieves and gangsters never sparks to life, leaving the viewer little more than prettily composed pictures of London at night.
It's clear that a talented director is at work here, and Owen is a formidably talented performer. The cast includes legendary performers like Malcolm McDowell (as Owen's arch enemy), Rampling ([i]Swimming Pool[/i]), and inspiring up-and-comers (Meyers, who has impressed audiences in films like [i]Titus [/i]and [i]Velvet Goldmine[/i]). But frustratingly enough, [b]I'LL SLEEP WHEN I'M DEAD[/b] just never comes together, drifting between scenes with gorgeous style and little substance, meandering toward its conclusion like a car running on fumes.
|
|
|
| |
| TARNATION |
| 06.18.04 (8:17 am) [edit] |
TARNATION
Cast: Jonathan Caouette, Renee Leblanc, David Sanin Paz
Directed by: Jonathan Caouette
Written by: Jonathan Caouette
Distributor: Wellspring Media (US 2004)
Rated: Not Yet Rated
As Reviewed by: Gabriel Shanks
Clearly, the field of documentary filmmaking is changing at a frenetic pace. The genre's resident bad boy, Michael Moore ([i][url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Bowling for Columbine[/url][/i], [i]Fahrenheit 9/11[/i]), has totally eschewed the documentarian-as-observer paradigm, inserting himself (and his politic) into the very situations he chronicles. Last year's celebrated film [i]Capturing The Friedmans[/i], by Andrew Jarecki, depended almost entirely upon a calculated restructuring of home movies to tell its story...a purpose that one is fairly certain they were never intended for. Judging from the commercial success of these filmmakers (and of other documentaries like [i]Winged Migration[/i], [i][url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]The Fog of War[/url] [/i], [i]Spellbound[/i], [i]To Be and To Have[/i], and [i][url=http://www.tblog.com/template...]Super Size Me[/url] [/i]), the new breed of documentarian has energized audiences to explore non-fiction filmmaking with an unprecedented zeal.
Still, these shifting winds create many new questions. If a filmmaker indelibly affects (or changes) its subject, is it still a documentary...or something else? How much of the real world is changed by the very act of documentation? And where is the line (or is there a line at all) between the observed and the observer? In the age of Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock -- filmmakers who double as the star of their own self-made realities -- is there still a place (or an audience) for the more detached poignancy of classics like Albert Maysles' [i]Grey Gardens[/i], Steve James' [i]Hoop Dreams [/i]or Barbara Kopple's [i]Harlan County, USA[/i]?
It may be too easy to just assume the answer is yes. For now a 34-year-old, first-time director has taken the found-object qualities of Jarecki and the director-as-star narcissism of Moore and Spurlock, and made a dazzlingly gangly hit-to-be called [b]TARNATION[/b]. Having filmed himself since the age of 11, Jonathan Caouette has a life's worth of personal trauma to publicly expose: a mentally ill mother suffering from the lingering effects of electric shock therapy in the 1960's, a set of loving but dysfunctional grandparents, and his own burgeoning homosexuality. All of these elements coalesce into a new variation of documentary: the pop-art diary, the self-made soap opera, the arthouse version of a reality show. In the film's final scene, Caouette even steps out of his own archives to film an extremely overblown, calculated emotional coda that would be at home in any Hollywood drama weeper. It is a fascinating but bloated movie, one that is engrossing even as it struggles to maintain authenticity, some ties to a life truly lived.
Having lived on camera for most of his life, Caouette is almost always "on"; the truly revealing moments are few and far between, stuck between long segments of coyness that is the standard of home movies. His family, who graciously agree to be on camera even at their worst, exhibit an honesty that is rare in Mr. Caouette himself. The narrative -- following his mother's lithium overdose and backtracking through his childhood and adolescence -- is given almost entirely in subtitles, and very rarely are discussed in the scenes themselves. The effect of [b]TARNATION [/b]is like looking through someone's old Polaroids, and each one has been captioned in case you're unclear what's happening. How you judge the effectiveness of the technique may be in direct proportion to how much you like looking at your friends' old wedding pictures.
And, of course, you can grade on a curve. Much of the pre-release press about [b]TARNATION [/b]has been about the film's unbelievably cheap cost -- $218.00, to make the entire film. Caouette edited the film himself on his boyfriend's Macintosh computer, the first major film to use the I-Movie technology. This technological accomplishment should not be diminished -- indeed, its scruffy look is professional enough to have wowed both Gus Van Sant ([i]My Own Private Idaho[/i]) and John Cameron Mitchell ([i]Hedwig and the Angry Inch[/i]) to become executive producers, ensuring its eventual release -- but these details must also be placed in perspective. Whether due to the software or Caouette's own personal style, [b]TARNATION [/b]is a choppy, cluttered affair more interested in creating atmosphere than in delving too deeply. Split screens, jump cuts, and other editing tricks give the film a Warholian glitz...but when was the last time you loved a film solely because of its editing?
I don't mean to make light of Caouette's achievements, for there's clearly an innovative artist's sensibility buried under the publicity, and a tormented person visible underneath the plastic wrapping of video diary. Certainly, [b]TARNATION [/b]will find some passionate devotees, and it deserves to. But I do wonder if anyone would be talking about this film if it had been made for millions instead of hundreds. I'll be interested to see Caouette's next film, but [b]TARNATION [/b]is too much trying to tell too little.
|
|
|
| |
| DODGEBALL: A TRUE UNDERDOG STORY (2004) |
| 06.16.04 (5:33 am) [edit] |
[b]Starring[/b]: Vaughn, Ben Stiller, Rip Torn
[b]Director[/b]: Rawson Marshall Thurber
[b]Writing Credits[/b]: Rawson Marshall Thurber
[b]Distributor[/b]: 20th Century Fox (US 2004)
[b]Rated[/b]: Rated PG-13 for rude and sexual humor, and language.
Reviewed by: [b]Martin Scribbs[/b]
Interestingly enough, [b]DODGEBALL[/b], subtitled [b]A TRUE UNDERDOG STORY[/b], misleads on all three counts. The sport, team, and event are fabricated; even the dimmest of audience members knows from Moment One that the lovable losers will win; and, like [i]Airplane![/i] or [i]Zoolander[/i], [b]DODGEBALL [/b] isn't so much a story as a collection of thematically-related gags. I guess [i]Dodgeball: A Fake and Entirely Predictable Hodgepodge of Gym Class Jokes[/i] must have already been taken.
Three elements of [b]DODGEBALL[/b] pay off big. Vince Vaughn, as Pete La Fleur, owner of dilapidated gym Average Joe's, finds a perfect comic foil in Ben Stiller, as gym tycoon and fitness fascist White Goodman. They have a high energy-low energy vibe that makes inane exchanges hilarious. Most of [b]DODGEBALL[/b]'s considerable humor comes from droopy-eyed Vince Vaughn watching manic, macho Ben Stiller wear himself out verbally chasing his own tail.
The second working part is the dodgeball itself. Improbably enough, the matches are exciting to watch, realistically staged, and have an unpredictable flow that keeps you on the edge of your seat.
Lastly, the PE jokes are genuinely funny. If you enjoyed Kurt Russell as a hard-nosed hockey coach in Miracle, just wait until you get a load of Rip Torn. With a training regimen that inflicts more cartoonish pain than an Itchy and Scratchy marathon, Torn gets my vote for Film Coach of the Year. And the Dodgeball training film shown would do [i]The Simpsons[/i] proud.
To call the rest of [b]DODGEBALL[/b] negligible is an insult to hardworking negligible actors, screenwriters, and directors everywhere. One of Joe's ballers may, or may not be a pirate. The shoehorned-in love story suffers from neglect and the worst on-screen chemistry since [i]Alex and Emma[/i]. One of Joe's ballers may, or may not be a male cheerleader. One of Joe's ballers is in love with a unibrowed Romanian. Some initially-funny jokes get worn into the ground. George Will has a word for all this -- and I believe it's “piffle.”
All-in-all, I'd say the funny-to-stupid ratio is about 2-to-1. Not bad.
[b]SPECIAL NOTE[/b]: [b]DODGEBALL[/b], which happens to debut in June, Gay Pride Month, is rife with homophobic asides. There's a continual snide insinuation that White Goodman, a character composed entirely of defects, is a closeted homosexual. The female lead, a talented athlete, is automatically deemed a lesbian by her teammates. Their suspicions seem justified when her girlfriend shows up and, to the hoots and catcalls of the audience with which I saw [b]DODGEBALL[/b], the girls share an extended kiss. But, much to Vince's relief, it turns out the baller is bisexual and, of course, just dying to sleep with Vince as well. You know, 'cos bisexual people are whores. And a happy Pride Month to you, [b]DODGEBALL[/b]!
|
|
|
| |
| WHO SHOULD DECIDE? |
| 06.15.04 (9:58 am) [edit] |
[b]WHO SHOULD DECIDE WHAT FILMS YOU SEE?[/b]
an essay by [b]Jill Cozzi[/b]
Who should decide which films you see? That decision is made by two parties: The releasing studio, and you -- assuming you are over the age of seventeen.
While we might like to believe that a film is released solely because of its merit as a work of art or entertainment quality, the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. In most cases, a movie will receive a theatrical release if a studio thinks it will make money.
Unless that movie is [b]FAHRENHEIT 9/11[/b], Michael Moore's Palme d'Or-winning documentary that his highly critical of George W. Bush.
You already know the [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4...]story[/url] of how the Walt Disney Co. ordered its subsidiary, Miramax, not to distribute the film. Disney chief Michael Eisner's lame excuse that the company "did not want a film in the middle of the political process where we’re such a nonpartisan company and our guests, that participate in all of our attractions, do not look for us to take sides” is disingenuous on the face of it, given that Disney owns the ABC Network, which distributes Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, Matt Drudge, and Sean Hannity on their major market radio affiliates. But Disney is within its rights to pull distribution, however wrongly the decision was made.
Lion's Gate and IFC Films, who do not have concerns about tax break retribution on the part of the President's brother, are distributing the film in the U.S., and a June 25 opening in 700-1000 theatres has been set.
An organization that calls itself [url=http://www.moveamericaforward...]"Moving America Forward"[/url] is urging the public to stop the release of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 by contacting theatre owners and asking them not to show it.
The site states:
"This movie is nothing more than a political campaign advertisement against the war on terrorism, our troops and President Bush.
"So why on earth are ANY movie theaters showing this film? “Fahrenheit 9/11” should be shown as a recruiting video for Al-Qaeda, not in our movie theaters."
Think about that statement for a minute. A film that asks legitimate questions about the conduct of the President on 9/11/2001, his family's cozy relationship with the Bin Laden family, and the false pretenses under which he committed troops to war in Iraq, is "a recruiting video for Al Qaeda." Dissent = Al Qaeda. That's what the so-called "freedom fighters" on the right are reduced to.
But there's more. Turns out that until very recently, the domain "moveamericaforward.org" was owned by the San Francisco public-relations firm of Russo Marsh & Rogers. Sal Russo, one of the firm's principals, has extensive GOP ties, including service as an adviser for the "Recall Grey Davis" campaign. Since this fact first came to light in several web logs, the domain has changed hands, and is now in the hands of one Howard Kaloogian, who was behind the successful effort to intimidate CBS and stop the network from running the miniseries "The Reagans."
The site urges:
"Please join us in telling the movie theater companies below your opinion as it relates to their attempt to profit from the showing of “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
"We need these executives to be overwhelmed with letters, phone calls and FAXes… in addition to emails. Sending an email alone is not enough – since in some cases an aide can easily click “DELETE.”"
On this I agree. We DO need these executives to be overwhelmed with correspondence from those of us who still believe that the freedom to THINK INDEPENDENTLY is what makes our nation special; who believe that America is more than whoever sits in the White House at any given time, and that the government is accountable to us. We DO need them to hear from those of us who believe that WE have a voice too, not just those individuals who feel threatened by any viewpoint that doesn't agree with their own.
You don't have to love Michael Moore. God knows I don't. As a Ralph Nader supporter in 2000, Moore was as instrumental as anyone else influential in putting George W. Bush in the White House in the first place. He's a pain in the ass, and yes, sometimes he ambushes his subjects. And if you don't want to see [b]FAHRENHEIT 9/11[/b], then [i]just don't buy a ticket[/i].
See? Isn't that simple?
But if you believe that YOU, not faceless Republican operatives, ought to be making the decision whether you see this film or not, I urge you accordingly to contact your local theatre chain and voice your opinion.
The list, shamelessly filched from "Moving Forward America"'s site, follows.
Thank you, and let [[b]real[/b]] freedom ring.
[b]Loews Cineplex Entertainment[/b] brian_blatchley@loewscpx.com
michael_norris@loewscpx.com
kerry_moots@loewscpx.com
John_mccauley@loewscpx.com
john_walker@loewscpx.com
maura_Campbell@loewscpx.com Loews Cineplex Entertainment, Inc.
711 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 646-521-6000
[b]Landmark Theaters[/b] lorim@landmarktheatres.com
MattL@landmarktheatres.com
dianea@landmarktheatres.com
hughw@landmarktheatres.com
magnolia@landmarktheatres .com
comments@landmarktheatres .com
[b]Cinema Arts Theaters [/b] Send Email Via Website
[b]http://www.cinemaartstheatre....[/b] Phone: 703-978-6853
[b]The Little Theatre[/b] info@little-theatre.com
marketing@little-theatre.com
240 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14604
Phone: 585-232-3906
Fax: 585-423-9912
[b]Drexel Theatres Group[/b] info@drexel.net
webmaster@drexel.net 300 Marconi Blvd., Suite 203
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: 614-231-1050
[b]The Avon Theatre[/b] Skip@TheAvon.com 426 North
Water Street
Decatur, Illinois 62523
Phone: (217) 422-1776
Fax: 217-422-9040
[b]Camera Cinemas[/b] Cameranet@aol.com P.O. Box 720728
San Jose, CA 95172-0728
Phone: 408-998-3022
Fax: (408) 294-3300
[b]Rialto Theatre, Corp.[/b] info@rialtoarts.com Rialto Theatre Corporation
172 Main Street, Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
Phone: 201-994-0618
[b]Rialto Cinemas Lakeside[/b] info@rialtocinemas.com 551 Summerfield Road
Santa Rosa, CA 95405
Phone: 707-539-9771
[b]The Savoy Theater[/b] film@savoytheater.com
The Savoy Theater
26 Main Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
[b]National
Chains Who Have Yet To Decide
Whether They Will Show “Fahrenheit 9/11”[/b]
[b]Regal Entertainment Group[/b] dgurin@regalcinemas.com
mcampbell@regalcinemas.com
amiles@regalcinemas.com
gdunn@regalcinemas.com
pbrandow@regalcinemas.com
barry.brown@regalcinemas.com
rwinograd@regalcinemedia.com
robbya@regalcinemas.com
kevink@regalcinemas.com
ddelaria@regalcinemas.com Regal Entertainment Group
9110 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 200
Centennial, CO 80112
Phone: 303-792-3600
Fax: 865-922-3188
[b]AMC Theaters[/b] gslayton@amctheatres.com
gthyer@amctheatres.com
vdaniels@amctheatres.com
mcook@amctheatres.com
Mmcdonald@amctheatres.com
Jmcdonald@amctheatres.com
Psingleton@amctheatres.com
Jbeynon@amctheatres.com
Kconnor@amctheatres.com AMC Theaters
920 Main
Kansas City, MO 64105
Phone: 816-221-4000
Fax: 816-480-4617
[b]Carmike Cinemas[/b] fred@carmike.com
philip@carmike.com
film@carmike.com
do07@carmike.com
do12@carmike.com
do14@carmike.com Carmike Cinemas
1301 First Avenue
Columbus, GA 31901
Phone: 706-576-3400
[b]Century Theatres[/b] Jacque_clark@centurytheat res.com
Chris_OKelley@CenturyThea tres.com
Nancy_Klasky@centurytheat res.com
David_shesgreen@centuryth eatres.com
Victor_Castillo@centuryth eatres.com Century
Theatres
150 Pelican Way
San Rafael, CA 94901
Phone: 415-448-8457
Fax: 415-448-8358
[b]Mann Theatres[/b] srodriguez@manntheatres.com
jhebert@manntheatres.com
info@manntheatres.com
comments@manntheatres.com
rjansson@manntheatres.com Mann Theatres
16530 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 500
Encino, California 91436
Phone: 818-784-6266
[b]National Amusements[/b] jhanson@national-amusemen ts.com
mdixon@national-amusement s.com
operations@national-amuse ments.com [b]National Amusements[/b]
200 Elm Street
Dedham, MA 02026
Phone: 781-461-1600
Fax: 781-407-0052
[b]Crown Theatres, L.P.[/b] jwelman@crowntheatres.com hcleveland@crowntheatres.com cdugger@crowntheatres.com zcole@crowntheatres.com 64 North Main Street
South Norwalk, CT 06854
Phone: 800-932-2054
Fax: 203-846-9828
[b]Goodrich Quality Theatres [/b] bmcmannis@gqti.com
mjohnson@gqti.com
Goodrich@gqti.com [b]Goodrich Quality Theaters[/b]
4417 Broadmoor SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49512
Phone: 616-698-7733
FAX: 616-698-7220
[b]Kerasotes Theaters[/b] dkerasotes@kerasotes.com
tjohnson@kerasotes.com
kjohnson@kerasotes.com Kerasotes Theaters
224 N. Des Plaines
Suite 200
Chicago, IL 60661
PHONE: 312-775-3160
FAX: 312-258-9943
[b]Marcus Theatres[/b] joanvoelzke@marcuscorp.com
stevemarcus@marcuscorp.com
bruceolson@marcuscorp.com
The Marcus Corp
100 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1900
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: (414) 905-1000
Fax: (414) 272-0669
[b]Wallace Theaters[/b] ghill@wallacetheaters.com
marketing@wallacetheaters .com
service@wallacetheaters.com Wallace Theaters
919 SW Taylor
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: 503-221-7090
Fax: 503-796-0229
[b]Consolidated Theatres[/b] astone@consolidatedth.com
customerservice@consolida tedth.com
ctortolano@pacifictheatre s.com
Consolidated Theatres
5970 Fairview Road
Suite 600
Charlotte, NC 28210
PHONE: 704-554-1695
FAX: 704-554-1696
[b]Clearview Cinemas[/b] cdougher@clearcin.com
wsalisch@clearcin.com
dlewis1@clearcin.com Clearview Cinemas
97 Main Street
Chatham, NJ 07928
PHONE: 908-918-2000
FAX: 973-377-4303
|
|
|
| |
| HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN |
| 06.09.04 (9:33 pm) [edit] |
[b]HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF
AZKABAN [/b]
------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -----
[b]Starring[/b]: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman, David Thewlis, Michael Gambon, Emma Thompson, Robbie Coltrane
[b]Director[/b]: Alfonso Cuaron
[b]Writing Credits[/b]: Steven Kloves
[b]Distributor[/b]: Warner Bros. (USA 2004)
[b]Running Time[/b]: 139 minutes
[b]Rated[/b]: PG for frightening moments, creature violence and mild language
[i]Let's peek inside Harry Potter's inbox, to see what day-to-day life is like for the protagonist of the edgy new [b]PRISONER OF AZKABAN[/b][/i]:
To: hpotter@hogwarts.edu
Subject: Developments Afoot
From: "Uncle Padfoot"
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 15:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
My Dear Harry,
I am most intrigued by your latest e-mail concerning this new Headmaster Cuaron! He sounds to have shaken up the old [i]alma mater[/i], made things more difficult and exciting. Just what you'd want, I imagine. I can see the place now, creaking and groaning with magic in every nook and cranny, skies dark with portent, a world of mystery. And here I am, exiled to Delaware!
Yours,
Sirius
***
To: hpotter@hogwarts.edu
Subject: You Cad!
From: "Hermione"
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Harry, you rotter! Ron says you've been telling EVERYONE you caught my golden snitch! Which we both know to be far from the facts as they actually stand -- and are quite likely to stand into the indefinite future. This is one chamber of secrets you shan't be getting into!
Mistress Hermione Granger
***
To: hpotter@hogwarts.edu
Subject: Add Inchez two Youre Broom!
From: "info@zonkonovelty.com"
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:22:47 -0700 (PDT)
Hey... your friend DRACO #1 suggested we e-mail you this exciting new offer, HAIRLESS PETER! Is the constant strain of study, finding your parent's killer amid harrowing twists and turns, and riding magical hippogriffs in scenes of raw exhilaration wearing you down? Then you need our new, extra-potent VIAGREW brew -- guaranteed to add you-know-what to you-know-where! Affordable rates available -- reply for details! (Minors under 21 require a signed permission slip from a parent or guardian and an R rating to purchase).
***
To: ALLHOGWARTS@hogwarts.edu
Subject: Position Listing
From: "acuaron@hogwarts.edu"
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:22:37 -0700 (PDT)
Wanted: one Professor to teach Defense Against the Dark Arts to Harry Potter and to other, more expendable, students. No experience or references required. Though Hogwarts is an equal opportunity employer, preference will be shown to classically-trained British actors. Rowan Atkinson need not apply.
***
To: hpotter@hogwarts.edu
Subject: Re: Butterfly Effect
From: "Martin Scribbs"
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2004 15:16:36 -0700 (PDT)
Harry,
Thanks for the e-mail! I hear so little from my readers, most of whom are prison inmates, that I appreciate any feedback. I agree with your comments on Ashton's latest opus -- there's nothing worse for a movie than using time-travel as a gimmick by which it can justify all sorts of narrative absurdities.
A school for magic! Wow, that sounds like fun. Ever hear of the Amazing Kreskin? Do you have to study math and grammar and science and all that? If not, I may have to call the Board of Education! :)
Anyhow, best luck on your studies and drop me a line anytime.
Sincerely,
Martin Scribbs
|
|
|
| |
| SHREK 2 |
| 06.09.04 (8:18 pm) [edit] |
[b]SHREK 2[/b]
------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -----
[b]Starring[/b]: Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Jennifer Saunders, Rupert Everett, John Cleese, Julie Andrews, and Antonio Banderas
[b]Directors[/b]: Andrew Adamson, Kelly Asbury and Conrad Vernon
[b]Writing Credits[/b]: J. David Stem, Joe Stillman, and David N. Weiss
[b]Distributor[/b]: DreamWorks Pictures (US 2004)
[b]Rated[/b]: PG for some crude humor, a brief substance reference and some suggestive content
Reviewed by: [b]Martin Scribbs[/b]
[b]SHREK 2[/b] is kinda-sorta-Bob Hope-laugh-and-forget-abo ut-it funny. Mike Meyers in [i]Greenmember[/i]. Mild hijinks abound as the big green guy (Myers) and his newly Hulk-ed out wife, Fiona (Diaz), confront Fiona's almost-certainly constipated parents, the King (Cleese) and Queen (Andrews) of Far, Far Away (get it? get it? do ya? don't worry, you'll get another chance). The King and Queen disapprove of this love match, and, egged on by the status-conscious Fairy Godmother (Saunders) and her loathsome son, the lothario Prince Charming (Everett), they try to separate Lady Shrek from her mint-toned love muffin.
Which raises the question: Why, exactly, do the King and Queen disapprove of Shrek? Why, as my [i]Mixed Reviews[/i] colleague Jill Cozzi alludes to, have they cast Shrek in the Sidney Poitier role of [i]Guess Who's Coming To Dinner Far, Far Away[/i]?
"Look, he's a freakin' ogre!" I hear you, sit down, Mr. Slater. The King doesn't like Shrek because Shrek is an ogre. But what about ogres doesn't the king like? Because ogres aren't real in the world of the audience, prejudice against ogres has to be presented as a variant on prejudices we have experienced and do understand. (And, as is typical of kid's fare since the [i]Muppet Movie[/i], the taboo on cross-species romance isn't what anyone's objecting to, much to the relief of certain Edward Albee characters).
[b]SHREK 2[/b] presents anti-orgratism (c, 2004) as a bubbling cauldron of:
[i]Lookism[/i]. Ogres are, by conventional human standards, butt-ugly.
[i]Racism[/i]. While "black is beautiful" has made some headway in Far, Far Away, the "green is gorgeous" movement lags far behind. Shrek and Fiona have the same facial features, which are visibly different from those of her parents.
[i]Classism[/i]. Ogres, much to the King and Queen's chagrin, live in a swamp. They have, by regal standards, bad manners, a poor education, and low standing.
[i]Heterosexism[/i]. I know, I know, Shrek's an Adam and Fiona's an Eve. But think about her backstory -- a beautiful princess, she changed every night into something they loathed. Her parents locked her away in a tower, the upscale medieval equivalent of a closet, expecting her to eventually be rescued by Prince Charming and to forever adopt an acceptable form. Instead, she's saved by the very thing into which the parents feared she would change. She elects to permanently assume the unacceptable form, out of love for her rescuer. If Shrek were a badly-stereotyped dyke to watch out for, and Donkey were her magical talking Harley, and Fiona elected to out herself as gay to the world as her "transformation," there aren't a ton of lines that would need to be changed in [i]Shrek[/i]. And [b]SHREK 2[/b] would be about whether our heroine would swallow a potion and become a man for approval of the parents of the woman she loves.
Because it touches on all of these topics by analogy, [b]SHREK 2[/b] doesn't have to reinforce stereotypes on its way to refuting them. If [b]SHREK 2[/b] were very closely linked to one problem of discrimination, say, racism, it would make that affilliation known by introducing conventional signifiers of the abjected group. How would we know it was about racism? The Swamp would be ghetto-fied as a crib, Shrek would have a gold tooth and be pimped out, Fiona, as part of her orgrification, would grow a substantial amount of booty. There are, of course, more subtle and dignified ways of connoting race, but in the season of [i]Soul Plane[/i] and [i]White Chicks[/i], I'm not optimistic enough to think they'd be used. Look at how Shrek and Fiona belch and fart and have poor hygeine and rotten tempers -- typical poor green trash, as the King might say.
The problem with [b]SHREK 2[/b]'s message of tolerance is that it sticks up for ogres, which don't exist, and the concept of which draws almost equally from a dozen discriminated-against groups. In the best Hollywood tradition, [b]SHREK 2[/b] boldly argues against a prejudice nobody actually has by tapdancing around prejudices that people DO have. Not that [b]SHREK 2[/b] is a message movie -- it's more of a retirement home for dated gags and sickly-sweet sentiments.
|
|
|
| |
| TROY AND THE CRYPT OF ST. PETER |
| 06.09.04 (11:23 am) [edit] |
TROY and THE CRYPT OF SAINT PETER
Cast: Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom, Brian Cox, Brendan Gleeson, Julie Christie, Sean Bean, and Peter O'Toole
Directed by: Wolfgang Petersen
Written by: David Benioff
Distributor: Warner Bros. (US 2004)
Rated:R for graphic violence and some sexuality/nudity
As Reviewed by: Martin Scribbs
Early on in [b]TROY[/b], a Messenger Boy (the credited name of the character played by Jacob Smith) comes on the king's orders to wake up mighty Achilles (Brad Pitt) from a night of decidedly heterosexual carousing. A fight to the death between champions had been proposed. Of Achilles' opponent, who stands 6 foot 10 inches and weighs 345 pounds, the Boy says, "The Thessalonian you're fighting, he's the biggest man I've ever seen. I wouldn't want to fight him." To which Achilles snorts, "That is why no one will remember your name."
Oooh, burn! Way to tell a ten-year old!
The theme of immortality through worldly acclaim, that one's name will live forever linked to great deeds, is crammed into every nook and cranny of [b]TROY[/b]. Vainglorious Greek king Agamemnon (Brian Cox), Achilles's divine mother Thetis (Julie Christie), even our erstwhile level-headed narrator Odysseus (Sean Bean), all echo the Myrmidon's blood-curdling battle cry to his men upon landing at Troy, "Do you know what's waiting beyond that beach? Immortality! Take it! It's yours!"
If any place on earth could convine a skeptic of the prospect of immortality through earthly fame, it would be the Eternal City, Rome. I went on a tour of excavation under St. Peter's Basillica, where in the 1960s archeologists found the bones of Saint Peter, conemporary of Christ and the first Pope. Peter's bones had been in a wall covered with the grafitti of thousands of pilgrims, scratchings praising Jesus, Peter, the Church, and the Blessed Virgin. They wrote of hope to come.
For hundreds of years, pilgrims had come to Peter's grave on the Roman hillside, to ask for intercession and pray for miracles. Cloth touched to the grave was itself reputed to have restorative power. Then Emporers built the Basilica atop Peter's grave (and many other Roman masoleums). While the veneration of Peter did not stop, pilgrimages to the body did. Until, in the mid- to late 20th century, a tightly circumscribed expedition found its tortuous way back to the bones, taking care not to undermine the structural integrity of the church above.
I saw Saint Peter's body, in plastic containers, in the niche of the wall where he had lain for so long, a wall covered with weird, coded, ecstatic Christian writings. Barbaric as I find the whole business of relics, I prayed a prayer for Peter's intercession.
And yet -- powerful, visceral feelings aside -- surely neither [b]TROY[/b] nor the crypt captures more than a cartoon of the man who was. People may, indeed, always speak of Achilles, as they will of the Apostle. But they will speak of Achilles in tongues alien to him, in contexts he could never understand (try explaining a movie to a Myrmidon), representing him in an unrecognizable form (Brad Pitt?), saying not a thing he ever said. Likewise, Peter, who fully expected the world to end two millenia ago, is warmly embraced by Christians everywhere, most of whom espouse religious positions and lifestyles with which Peter would violently disagree. By modern standards, Peter-for-himself was a reactionary, misogynist, fanatic, and communist. Peter died a martyr, head of a Christian family on the verge of extinction. That his Messianic cult has become a decadent worldly power would no doubt throw the fisherman for a loop.
The truth is, we are always lost to time. Even if our names, our very bones, are secured in place and venerated, the understanding of the world recedes from around us. In the end, Anonymous claims even signed works.
|
|
|
| |
| NAPOLEON DYNAMITE |
| 06.03.04 (9:10 am) [edit] |
NAPOLEON DYNAMITE
Cast: Jon Heder, Efren Ramirez, Aaron Ruell, Tina Majorino, Diedrich Bader
Directed by: Jared Hess
Written by: Jared Hess
Distributor: Fox Searchlight Pictures (US 2004) Rated:PG for thematic elements and language
As Reviewed by: Gabriel Shanks
Cinema's never-ending fascination with the geek continues apace in [b]NAPOLEON DYNAMITE[/b], a character study of an Idahoan teen whose every move is out of step with his surroundings. That doesn't mean he doesn't find a groove -- with his retro glasses, out of control frizztop, overused slang, and fascination with other worlds (including fantastical animals and urban street dancing), he's one of the most fascinating outcasts since Harold and Maude sauntered their way across the big screen.
Trouble is, Harold and Maude were going someplace; their story had a direction. Napoleon, for all of his detail (played with mirthful conviction by Jon Heder), seems to get lost in mundanity, passing through a life filled with quirks but not interest. What emerges is a character that is endlessly fascinating, trapped in a film that isn't at all. From the very first moments of the opening credits of [b]NAPOLEON DYNAMITE[/b], you know there's going to be kitschy style aplenty. And director Jared Hess doesn't disappoint -- although clearly set in modern times (cellphones are everywhere), the vibe is circa 1982, with a costume and production design (and a soundtrack) meant to evoke the Reagan Years.
Napoleon is the younger of the Napoleon brothers, raised by their grandmother (Sandy Martin); after she has an accident, Napoleon and his chat room-addicted brother Kip (Aaron Ruell) are temporarily left under the dubious care of Uncle Rico (Jon Gries), an overcompensating former jock who still relives his long-past glory days. School isn't going too well for Napoleon, either -- a girl he kind of likes, Deb (Tina Majorino), is going to the prom with his only friend, Pedro (Efren Ramirez). You can see that plot isn't really [b]NAPOLEON DYNAMITE[/b]'s strong point. Really, Hess and his co-screenwriter (and wife) Jerusha Hess are interested in the details of rural/suburban existence, the quirky idiosyncrasies that place us apart from one another.
But really, it's unclear as to whether we are laughing with Napoleon...or simply at him. The best teen comedies allow us a sort of personal transference, a vicarious understanding of the characters' trials and tribulations because, hey, we were all there once, right? We can see ourselves in their experiences. In [b]NAPOLEON DYNAMITE[/b], few will empathize with Napoleon's foibles. Yes, almost everyone felt nerdy in high school, everyone felt out of sync. But this isn't about you...it's about the guy who sat next to you in biology, stuffing food in his pants and drawing unicorns. The guy who made you feel better -- because at least you weren't that nerdy. This is the Nerd Alpha/Omega, the guy who played Dungeons and Dragons...by himself. This is the apotheosis of geekdom. We can all relate to a degree, but at some point, Napoleon passes all of us by, and our ability to share in his experience dissipates.
Despite its plot problems, however, you can't do much better for a character study; [b]NAPOLEON DYNAMITE[/b] features a half-dozen of the most original characters you'll ever see. Heder gives Napoleon a slowly fomenting vitality -- not a joie de vivre, exactly, but locomotion driven by the excitement in day-to-day life. Napoleon makes snap decisions and lives by them; Heder, magnificently, plays these with a decisiveness that gives Napoleon a refreshing vibrancy. Ruell gives Kip both a bravado and wimpiness that makes for witty contrasts, and Ramirez charges the entire room by having Pedro suck the energy out of every scene. (He gives new meaning to the phrase deadpan delivery.) Perhaps best is Majorino, the child star of [i]Waterworld[/i] and [i]Corrina Corrina[/i], who finds a textured vulnerability as the put-upon Deb.
And if you should see [b]NAPOLEON DYNAMITE[/b], make sure you're fully alert for its climactic moment. As a part of his election for school president, Pedro is surprised to learn that all of the candidates were expected to prepare a musical skit for the school assembly. Having nothing prepared, Pedro succumbs to depressed defeat. It's up to our hero Napoleon to save the day, and he does so in a bogglingly spectacular fashion, to the music of Jamiroquai's infectious dance song "Canned Heat." It must be seen to be believed, and I don't say that very often. You may feel a sense of incompleteness when the credits roll, but [b]NAPOLEON DYNAMITE[/b]'s characters are almost a wonder to behold.
|
|
|
| |
| LO SGUARDO DI MICHELANGELO |
| 06.02.04 (9:21 pm) [edit] |
[b]LO SGUARDO DI MICHELANGELO, a.k.a. THE LOOK OF MICHELANGELO[/b]
------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -----
[b]Starring[/b]: Michelangelo Antonioni
[b]Director[/b]: Michelangelo Antonioni
[b]Writing Credits[/b]: Michelangelo Antonioni
[b]Distributor[/b]: Screened at Festival Di Palazzo Venezia (Rome, May 28, 2004); produced by Instituto Luce, Lottomatica
[b]Rated[/b]: Unrated, would be G (no objectionable material).
Reviewed by: [b]Martin Scribbs[/b]
Without words, [b]LO SGUARDO[/b] embodies and reveals the pilgrim's experience of the sacred in art.
Antonioni, director of [i]L' Avventura[/i] (1960), acts out the central role of this documentary. Now 92-years old, Antonioni walks into the Roman church of Saint Peter in Chains, to see Michelangelo's restored Moses. The massive marble statute, originally meant to adorn the tomb of Pope Julius II, was Michelangelo's frustration unto death. The patron buried elsewhere, the funding evaporated, and the Master dead, Michelangelo's students finished the surrounding statuary of Virgin and Child, and Jacob's wives Leah and Rachel. Though all of the installation is technically proficient, the difference between genius and imitation shows starkly.
Antonioni, in [b]LO SGUARDO[/b] a proxy for art audiences everywhere, walks into a well-lit church to admire, to touch, to be touched. The camera moves with his gaze, first and naturally to Moses, the lawgiver's eyes dilated with awe from an unthinkable meeting with Yahweh atop Mount Sinai and with anger over the Israelites' apostasy. Now we turn to Mary and the Child Christ. The old man, taking in the scourge and the balm of religion, nods, approvingly, sympathetically. He tears up, alone in the church.
In full daylight, intended to replicate Michelangelo's working conditions, we see the amazing musculature of Moses's hand, the deep furrow of the statue's troubled brow. The man coughs, breaking the moment. In the face of the most transcendent art, self disappears, and is startled and a bit disappointed to resurface. The old man is in darkness; Moses crouches in the sunlight, eternally at the point of holy action.
Our stand-in does what the ordinary tourist is strongly, repeatedly admonished never to do -- he touches the marble itself. The folds of the robe. The leg. Antonioni's badly wrinkled, all-too-human hand sounds slightly as he runs it against the white, immortal marble of the Moses. We see this scene from the height of Moses's head. Moses gazes past the man, connecting not at all with the mortal seeking vainly to drink him in. Paradoxically, our most cherished icons are always above and beyond us.
The statue's eyes are clear, strong, visionary -- then we see through the old man's corrective lenses. Feelings of inadequacy and irrelevance, of being merely a corrupt copy, are inevitable when faced with the titans of the past. No doubt some filmmakers feel about Antonioni's work as he feels about the Master's.
We see our man on the margin of the Virgin's form. He connects fully, at last -- with the faces of pagans on an adjacent frieze, locked forever in agony, only partially drawn into existence from the wall. In a longshot, Antonioni walks through the empty 5th century church. Until now, the 16-minute film has been almost silent. At the close, angelic voices. For all that our most cherished ideas in stone ignore everything on the human scale, for all that they resist our entreaties to open up, they elevate us by the integrity of their presence-to-themselves. [b]LO SGUARDO[/b], a Top Ten movie in this or any other year, speaks for every tourist left speechless by Rome's scenes of religious and artistic enormity.
|
|
|
| |
| RAISING HELEN |
| 06.02.04 (9:05 pm) [edit] |
[b]RAISING HELEN[/b]
[b]Cast[/b]: Kate Hudson, John Corbett, Joan Cusack
[b]Directed by[/b]: Garry Marshall
[b]Written by[/b]: Patrick J. Clifton, Beth Rigazio, Jack Amiel and Michael Begler
[b]Distributor[/b]: Touchstone Pictures (US 2004)
[b]Rated[/b]: PG-13
As Reviewed by: [b]Martin Scribbs[/b]
[i]In our reality, RAISING HELEN is a sweet-hearted, lighter-than-air romantic comedy starring Kate Hudson and John Corbett. It is the best escapist fare that's been offered so far in 2004. But what if history had taken a different course?[/i]...
"By the power of Mark Mothersbaugh, I compel you!"
With these chilling words and a pitch-black screen, Garry Marshall ([i]Young Doctors in Love[/i]; [i]Eraserhead[/i]) begins his RAISING HELEN, a macabre tale of three plucky orphans placed in the care of their loving but undead aunt (Kate Hudson).
We soon discover that the exhortation to the dark power of Devo is made by little Henry Davis, played by thug-in-the-offing Spencer Breslin. With the lipstick of his recently deceased mother, Henry has covered the walls of his room with one repeated phrase, "[i]Are you experienced[/i]?" Henry's red flowerpot hat twirls uncontrollably to a synth-pop cresendo. But, instead of his mother, Henry has raised his Aunt Helen.
We learn by flashbacks that Helen was a go-go NYC gal with a tragic flaw: laughing gas addiction. While RAISING HELEN is far from the first Garry Marshall work([i]I'm Spackling as Fast as I Can![/i]; plus, a special episode of [i]Me and the Chimp[/i]) to cover the topic of huffing, never before has he presented the plight of the huffee so movingly. Helen, exhausted from hours and hours of uncontrollable giggling, is easy prey for a maniacal male model who smothers her in bubble wrap. Her last few tragic *pops* will wet even the driest of eyes.
Now reanimated as a zombie, the risen Helen has a second shot at (un)life. She goes about raising Henry and his sisters Sarah (Abagail Breslin) and Audrey (Hayden Panettiere). While initially revolted by the stench of Helen's rotted flesh, they come to love her madcap, brain-eating ways. Much to the chagrin of Helen's nit-picky sister Jenny (Joan Cusack), Helen raises the children in her own inimitable style -- lurching to and fro, drool running in an constant stream out of her always-open mouth. (Jenny's eventual come-uppance at the Mother's Day black mass is Marshall's most joyous moment since [i]The Other Sister[/i] got hit by a bus.)
Zombie Helen moves with the kids from Manhattan to a neighborhood where she better blends in (Queens, of course). There, she's wooed by the children's principal, a Lutheran eunech porn enthusiast played by John Corbett. Their easy banter evokes Tracy and Hepburn:
[i]He[/i]: I'm a sexy man of God, and I know it.
[i]She[/i]: Unnnh! BRAINS! Whip it good!
Of course, into every Marshall movie there must come late complications, and RAISING HELEN is no exception. The minister starts to have terrible nightmares of being attacked with a piping hot carmel enema. He wakes, up, screaming:
[i]He[/i]: Oh my God! A piping hot carmel enema!
Subtext: It's almost worse than sleeping with Nia!
Is this the price to be paid for Henry's tampering with the forces of the Big 80s? Can a Lutheran minister and a zombie single mom find love? I won't spoil it for you, but suffice it to say that everyone should leave the theatre a little happier, a little wiser, and a bit more hungry for brains.
[i]Note: Martin Scribbs is the Jayson Blair Professor of Journalism at SUNY-Stony Brook.[/i][LINE]
|
|
|
| |
| TYING THE KNOT |
| 06.01.04 (11:04 am) [edit] |
TYING THE KNOT
Directed by: Jim De Seve
Written by: Jim De Seve
Distributor: Roadside Attractions (US 2004)
Rated: Unrated
As Reviewed by: Gabriel Shanks
In my opinion, Jim De Seve's compelling documentary [b]TYING THE KNOT[/b] wins the zeitgeist sweepstakes...for in all of recorded history, could there possibly have been a better time than now to release a documentary about gay marriage? Whether it is merely a happy coincidence or a fortuitously shrewd prescience, De Seve's [i]au courant[/i] film never feels opportunistic. On the contrary, [b]TYING THE KNOT[/b] exhibits a surprisingly accomplished maturity from the first-time director, deftly applying a dry wit, a healthy sense of irony, and a nonexploitive approach to emotionality. The film may have relevance for the events of today, but it will remain a powerful testament long after the controversies are gone.
As a social psychologist (one of the two dozen people profiled in [b]TYING THE KNOT[/b]) notes, you can judge a civilization by the way it treats its minorities. Shot with an understanding of history, legal precedents, and a pro-marriage sensibility (for both gays and straights), the film gives a much-needed human dimension to the political debate, focusing on three couples: a male couple in Holland benefiting from legal protections, a surviving widower in Oklahoma who is in the process of losing his house (a legal mistake having put it solely in the name of his deceased partner, whose estranged family does not recognize the relationship and wants to sell the property), and a lesbian widow fighting for her survivor benefits from the Tampa police department, where her partner was openly gay and killed heroically in the line of duty. With a minimum of explication, [b]TYING THE KNOT[/b] erases the polemics to focus on the personal. One might argue that this is the very definition of good political documentaries...to move beyond the headlines, and reach for a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the issue at hand.
Even more valuable are the experts, who erasure conservative bluster and evangelical bigotry in one fell swoop. Throughout [b]TYING THE KNOT[/b], they give a historical context for the ever-evolving cultural event of marriage, a context that is sorely lacking from the national debate. Through their data, it is pointed out that love for marriage's sake is barely a century old, and that economics, not religion, have driven the forces behind marriage for thousands of years. The parallels to interracial marriage in America, both legally and historically, are incredibly powerful. [b]TYING THE KNOT [/b]may not change anyone's minds, but it is a banquet of food for thought.
|
|
|
| |
| SAMARIA |
| 06.01.04 (11:01 am) [edit] |
SAMARIA
Cast: Ji-min Kwak, Min-jeong Seo, Eol Lee, and Oh Young
Directed by: Kim Ki-Duk
Written by: Kim Ki-Duk
Distributor: Cineclick Asia (US 2004)
Rated: Not Yet Rated
As Reviewed by: Gabriel Shanks
After conquering the world with his 2003 spiritual masterpiece [i]Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring[/i], director Kim Ki-Duk has returned to the difficulties of modern life for his latest film, [b]SAMARIA[/b]. The film, which recently garnered Ki-Duk the Silver Bear Award for Best Director at the Berlin Film Festival, deal with the director’s pet concerns of spirituality, forgiveness, and the powerlessness of the individual to control their destiny. This quiet, intimate story of two young girls is perhaps less moving that [i]Spring, Summer[/i]; and yet, it is a wholly unique tale that gives expressive voice to the pains childhood and the parents forced to bear witness.
Jae-Young (Min-jeong Seo) is a teenage prostitute; her best friend Yeo-Jin (Ji-min Kwak) serves as both her lookout and manager, and the two girls share a plan to take the money to run away to Europe. A police sting operation causes Jae-Young to panic, with devastating consequences. As Yeo-Jin struggles to make sense of tragedy and the end of their dreams, Yeo-Jin tracks down every man Jae-Young slept with and does the same, returning all of the money in a desperate act of penance. Tragically, Yeo-Jin's father (Eol Lee) discovers her secret, and exacts a rage-fueled revenge on the men she sleeps with. A final, desperate trip holds the only hope for these lost souls to gain absolution, redemption, and peace.
Like much of Kim Ki-Duk's work, [b]SAMARIA [/b]struggles with themes of good and evil in highly complex moralities. (The director/writer's experiences growing up Catholic, and as a visual artist, no doubt give personal resonance to the ethical esoterics.) There is violence, to be sure, but much of it is psychological...the torment one inflicts on oneself. His stark, brutal landscapes are the perfect settings for these internal battles; the film has a minimal amount of dialogue, preferring instead to capture the characters' confusion and struggle with sparse visuals.
What is true innocence...of sprit, of soul? Beneath [b]SAMARIA[/b]'s gorgeous exterior, the film seems to thrash and pitch over the question. There are no easy answers, of course, but that doesn't mean the questions shouldn't be asked. As Ki-Duk has noted in interviews about the film, there are over a half-million teen prostitutes in South Korea; that means there are over a half-million fathers who must face the unthinkable. Finding a way to personal salvation may in fact be the most profound question anyone living in the modern age can ask.
|
|
|
| |
| BULGARIAN LOVERS (Los Novios Búlgaros) |
| 06.01.04 (10:56 am) [edit] |
BULGARIAN LOVERS (Los Novios Búlgaros)
Cast: Fernando Guillén Cuervo, Dritan Biba, Pepón Nieto, Anita Sinkovic .... Kalina, and Fernando Albizu
Directed by: Eloy de la Iglesia
Written by: Fernando Guillén Cuervo, Antonio Hens, Eloy de la Iglesia
Distributor: TLA Releasing (US 2004)
Rated: Not Rated
As Reviewed by: Gabriel Shanks
Ah, beware falling in love with a hustler. That's the age-old premise of [b]BULGARIAN LOVERS[/b], the deft but uneven comic drama by Eloy de la Iglesia ([i]Glass Ceiling[/i]). Despite the stale premise, there's a certain charm at work in the story of Daniel (Fernando Guillen Cuervo), an aging architect in Madrid whose loneliness pushes him to stop living a life of quiet desperation. But falling for a straight boy -- as anyone who has ever done so can tell you -- is a really bad idea, especially the gay-for-pay Kyril (Dritan Biba), a Bulgarian émigré who in an earlier age might have been called 'rough trade.' Yep, he doesn't kiss. Yep, he's always the top. And yep, he's got a girlfriend, Kalina (Anita Sinkovic).
The film offers little beyond its central premise, with Daniel receiving constant advice from his dedicated, colorful circle of friends. If there is a theme hanging over the meandering drama of [b]BULGARIAN LOVERS[/b], it is displacement: friends displaced by lovers, lovers displaced by women, women displaced by gay men. I don't have to tell you that it's probably not going to end well, but its lack of suspense doesn't completely dampen the film's sense of fun. There's just not a lot that happens, and the audience is left waiting for the other shoe to inevitably drop.
Unimpressive in design or technical detail, [b]BULGARIAN LOVERS[/b] is left with nothing to entertain its audience but its soap-sudsy narrative and its soft-core fixation on flesh, both of which it delivers in ample quantities. There's an audience for mindless gay entertainment, and the talent of de la Iglesia makes this a better choice than most. As a friend of mine says (and I'll paraphrase), it's no [i]Citizen Kane[/i]...but it'll do. A qualified success, [b]BULGARIAN LOVERS[/b] won't leave you disappointed, but it may leave you hungry for something more substantial.
|
|
|
| |
|
Welcome to Mixed Reviews Single Servings. Here you'll find short reviews of current and past movies for people too busy to read a full review.
You can find full-length reviews of present and past films, from Hollywood releases to independent films to "hidden treasures" that haven't been released yet, at our main site, Mixed Reviews. Please browse our archive for links to reviews of films dating back to 1998.
For more smart stuff about movies, please visit the Cinemarati Roundtable.
|
