British feature-film tyro Sean Ellis has taken his 18-minute original, made in 2003 and nominated for a 2006 Live Action Short Film Academy Award, and expanded it into an ambitious and daring feature whose slight premise can’t sustain it, but which doesn’t fall in on itself either. It’s told to a great extent as narration over moving tableaux–sort of like those old Prince Valiant comic strips.
Goodwin stands out as a comic presence, particularly during a soccer match that’s an absolute paragon of self-delusion and inverted sports clichés, and Ellis conjures an image at the end that’s as beautiful as any you’ve seen on film. Ben may well be an artist, though at this point he was stopping time both on the screen and in the audience.
Ben and Sharon spend a lot of time talking, and Ben in his voiceover spends a lot of time talking about them talking, and that’s a breakthrough right there, because so many teen romances in the movies operate on the premise of love at first sight and do not realize that while you should like someone in order to make out with them, getting beyond second base requires actual dialogue.
The movie is lightweight, as it should be. It doesn’t get all supercharged. Ben and Sharon, despite setbacks, are delighted to be admired by such wonderful partners, and we are happy for them. And that’s about it. Even though this movie stops time, it did not require a science adviser.
Thankfully, screenwriter Paul Haggis strikes gold again with his directorial debut “Crash” after “Million Dollar Baby”, here Haggis takes a turn into the realm of human collision in the decaying world of Los Angeles through many connecting and disconnecting characters. It is a location where Robert Altman (Short Cuts) and Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia) once told their own stories about healing and redemption.
Haggis has assembled a large, accomplished cast that includes Matt Dillon, Don Cheadle, Sandra Bullock, Thandie Newton, and Ryan Phillippe. Amongst other things, this group virtually assures that the film will be seen. All are more than competent in their roles, and each does his or her best to enhance the two-dimensionality of the characters as they are presented in the screenplay.
The strength of “Crash” is that it deals intelligently with serious subjects. Racism is a hot-button issue, yet Haggis manages to approach it in a universal, reasonable manner. We don’t feel like we’re being preached to, nor does this seem like a sanctimonious “message movie.” The film’s numerous stories are tied together by a web of coincidence.
After all, how you can live in a town or large city and yet somehow you can feel disconnected with those around you? With that said, everyone has a story and everyone is connected, and the pleasure of a film like “Crash”, a wonderful story, beautifully performed and written, is that there is hope in this world, and there can be a future where all is redeemed and all is right.
One of the delights of the first two “Back to the Future” movies was the way the story moved dizzyingly through time. Paradoxes piled on top of paradoxes, until we had to abandon any attempt to follow the plot on a rational level, and go with the temporal flow.It’s wonderful to see Steenburgen get this kind of comic showcase. Her presence has a leavening effect; she gives the movie a touch of twitterpated elegance. Also quite good are Lea Thompson, convincing as an Irish immigrant ancestor of Marty’s; Thomas F. Wilson, who has a great time as evil Mad Dog; and veteran character actors Matt Clark as the philosophical bartender and Burton Gilliam as a gun salesman.
It is Lloyd and Steenburgen’s lovely romance that gives the movie a core it might not otherwise have, and they are both excellent. And a sort of bittersweet, elegiac quality involving romance and time is the one thing that remains constant in all of the “Back to the Future” movies. In the first movie, McFly went back in time to be certain his parents had their first date. The second involved his own romance. The third involves Doc Brown and Clara. In all of these stories, there is the realization that love depends entirely on time.
“Back to the Future III” has the expansiveness of a classic fantasy; it’s a big, sprawling adventure, full of wonderments and rich surprises. Not only is it junk transformed, it’s junk redeemed.
“The Day After Tomorrow” examines what might happen if global warming and the greenhouse effect drastically changed the world’s climate. Top scientist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) has been warning government officials about a new ice age. Unfortunately, his dire predictions come true sooner than even he expected.
This is a disaster movie that Irwin Allen, the godfather of such pictures, would be proud of — whole city blocks, whole cities, entire communities are destroyed, and lives are lost in the millions. The film’s scenes of dangerous treks through deserted ships and even more perilous buildings recall such fondly remembered Allen productions as “The Poseidon Adventure” and “The Towering Inferno.”
Of the science in this movie I have no opinion. I am sure global warming is real, but I doubt that the cataclysm, if it comes, will come like this. It makes for a fun movie, though. Especially the parts where Americans become illegal immigrants in Mexico, and the vice president addresses the world via the Weather Channel.
But this movie has the good sense not to have man attempt to overcome nature’s wrath (the point of such films like Armageddon and The Core). Instead, it’s a given that there’s nothing we can do, so the emphasis is on survival. The knowledge that victory is impossible makes for a more compelling story, since the goal becomes intensely personal: staying alive.
This flick takes you places that sometimes, well you don’t want to go. It makes the hair on your arms stand up and take notice and your shoulders shiver. You almost want to hide under your seat, but you can’t bear to miss any of the fabulous movie. Bruce Willis, Hayley Osment, and Toni Collette intertwine flawlessly together. With an ending that will knock your socks off, ”The Sixth Sense” is best horror/suspense flick.
”The Sixth Sense” is wonderfully written and lovingly directed by M. Night Shyamalan. The film is set in Philadelphia, a city with a long and often violent history; it’s easy to imagine such a place haunted by the spectres of the dead. Cole and his mother (a fabulous Toni Collette) share one of the best, most loving mother/son relationships I’ve seen on screen — Shyamalan as well as his actors capture the frustration of trying to protect those we love from our awful secrets.
Haley Joel Osment is a very good actor in a film where his character possibly has more lines than anyone else. He’s in most of the scenes, and he has to act in them–this isn’t a role for a cute kid who can stand there and look solemn in reaction shots. There are fairly involved dialogue passages between Willis and Osment that require good timing, reactions and the ability to listen. Osment is more than equal to them.
Those scenes give the movie its weight and make it as convincing as, under the circumstances, it can possibly be.
The Simpsons Movie begins as an extended Lisa episode — she undertakes a one-girl effort to save Lake Springfield from pollution Then the movie flips into a Homer episode, as the befuddled patriarch adopts a pig, whose voluminous leavings contaminate the lake and get the entire town isolated under a dome.
Voice cast—Dan Castellaneta, Julie Kavner, Nancy Cartwright, Yeardley Smith, Hank Azaria, Harry Shearer—are in great form, as they’ve been for close to 20 amazing years. All of Springfield is on hand, but some beloved residents—Krusty the Clown, Principal Skinner, Apu, Barney the drunk—get slighted in their big-screen debuts. And one (deliberately) annoying character will likely never be seen again, except in syndication.
When it comes to The Simpsons, longevity is an asset few can ignore. 18 years old and counting, the TV series has carved its niche into pop culture. Most of today’s high school students hadn’t been born when The Simpsons debuted as filler on Tracey Ullman’s variety show. It’s no longer as fresh, as acerbic, and as popular as it once was, but could one expect anything else from a show that has turned out about 400 twenty-two minute episodes?
The Simpsons Movie was worth the wait. A sequel may be a long time away, but fans with Homer-sized appetites can take comfort knowing season 19 is in production and this essential TV family shows no signs of stopping.
An impressive adaptation of the dense novel by Michaella Ondaatje, “The English Patient” is a sweeping epic loaded with gorgeously photographed, effectively staged set-pieces in North Africa and Italy, along with several rich and rewarding performances.
Minghella doesn’t shy away from overwhelming romance; he runs toward it with a clear head. And clear eyes: photographed by John Seale, this is easily the most ravishing film of the year. The sand seems to drench the actors in deep golden light; the sky is a rich, muted blue, like a still and suspended sea.
The performances are of great clarity, which is a help to us in finding our way through the story. Binoche is a woman whose heart has been so pounded by war that she seems drawn to its wounded, as a distraction from her own hurts. Fiennes, in what is essentially a dual role, plays a man who conceals as much as he can–at first because that is his nature, later because his injuries force him to. Thomas is one of those bright, energetic British women who seem perfectly groomed even in a sandstorm, and whose core is steel and courage.
When the film is mysterious and exotic, and when the characters are allowed to engage each other, “The English Patient” soars. With all the eye-popping scenery and outstanding performances, there is much to recommend. And perhaps we should acknowledge that Minghella has accomplished no small feat in mounting an involving film from such a difficult source.
In his day, Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) was the best “cut man” in the business, working magic to give his battered fighters one more round. Now he passes his time as the manager of the Hit Pit, a dank, sweat soaked gym. Frankie’s daily regime takes it on the chin when Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank) skulks into the gym. Equal parts raw talent and unwaivering determination, she’s looking for someone to train her, and despite Frankie’s repeated rebuffs, she remains a fixture in the gym that he can’t avoid.
After seeing the trailer for this film many viewers will likely be left with the impression that “Million Dollar Baby” is another sports film where the underdog triumphs against all odds. Even if was as simple as that, you could rest assured that given the cast’s pedigree it would be a good film. Indeed the training and fight sequences are both inspirational and enthralling, but what sets this film apart is what happens when the gloves are off.
The relationship between Maggie and Frank is initially tepid at best, but eventually he can’t help being won over by her enthusiasm. As a director, Eastwood is exacting with the pacing, drawing the characters out slowly. This ensures a natural evolution and allows us to accept the transformation of their relationship from a fighter/trainer to familial. These insights in turn provide the film’s most powerful and poignant moments.
Suffice it to say, it offers something for every cinephile: superb direction, a brilliant script, a haunting score, and outstanding performances by a standout cast. In short, it’s wonderful.
“Becoming Jane” tries to tell the life story of author Jane Austen by turning her into a tragic romantic character that might have come from one of her novels.
The film looks at the life of Jane Austen through the prism of her novels. This film is a semi-fictional biography of the esteemed author; although it incorporates people and events from her life, it also takes liberties with known events. Like Shakespeare in Love, this is intended to be a homage, not a serious reconstruction of the factors underlying the development of an icon.
It’s also another good starring vehicle for American actress Anne Hathaway, who adopts a credible British accent to play the younger version of Austen. Hathaway and her co-star McAvoy manage to put over line after line of awful dialogue and to overcome Jarrold’s inability to control the film. Hathaway is at her best when she is alone, writing or playing the piano; in these scenes, she communicates, partly because of her youth but mainly because of her instincts, all the vigor and imagination that Jane Austen must have had at that age.
At its heart, “Becoming Jane” is a costume drama romance. In the end, “Becoming Jane” can be said to capture the spirit of Austen without the sophistication.
“Silent Hill” is a film that eschews logic in favor of atmosphere, a film that sets out to put you into a nightmare. When you’re trapped in a nightmare, logic has no place.
Director Christophe Gans has an absolutely wonderful visual style. Combine with Dan Laustsen, the director of photography, the movie is unique and intriguing. Gans has delivered a film of vision and ambition. It is nice to see a horror film with such ambition, an attempt to show us something new and different.
Despite the numerous lines of laughable dialog, and some bad acting, this movie grabbed me by the throat and had me on the edge of my seat for the entire film. Each time the siren went off and the screen went black, I got a little edgier, anticipating some new nasties to appear. The barebones plot may be easily plucked, the explanation is a little tougher, and as impenetrable as it is, it is completely satisfying.
Not completely effective, but it was enough to win me over and take me on the journey through a mother’s nightmare. A wonderfully eerie visual style leads the way. It is not another remake, nor is it a torture film, nor is it a rollercoaster of jump scares, rather it creates an atmosphere and uses that as a tool to dig into the viewer’s psyche. I urge you to take a trip to “Silent Hill”.
Chaos theory teaches us that small events can have enormous consequences. An opening title informs us that butterfly flapping its wings in Asia could result in a hurricane halfway around the world. Yes, although given the number of butterflies and the determination with which they flap their little wings, isn’t it extraordinary how rarely that happens? “The Butterfly Effect” applies this theory to the lives of four children whose early lives are marred by tragedy. When one of them finds that he can go back in time and make changes, he tries to improve the present by altering the past.
And there’s a certain grim humor in the way the movie illustrates the truth that you can make plans, but you can’t make results. Some of the futures Even returns to are so seriously wrong from his point of view that he’s lucky he doesn’t just disappear from the picture, having been killed at 15, say, because of his meddling.
I enjoyed “The Butterfly Effect”, up to a point. That point was reached too long before the end of the movie. There’s so much flashing forward and backward, so many spins of fate, so many chapters in the journals, that after awhile I felt that I, as well as time, was being jerked around.
Eric Bress and J. Mackye Gruber, the co-writers and directors, also collaborated on “Final Destination 2″, another film in which fate works in mysterious way, its ironies to reveal. I gave that half of a star, so “The Butterfly Effect” is five times better. And outside, the wind is rising.
”Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” is a red-blooded adventure movie, dripping with atmosphere, filled with the gruesome and the sublime, and surprisingly faithful to the novel. The novel by J.K. Rowling was muscular and vivid, and the danger was that the movie would make things too cute and cuddly. It doesn’t.
Like an “Indiana Jones” for younger viewers, it tells a rip-roaring tale of supernatural adventure, where colorful and eccentric characters alternate with scary stuff. Computers are used, exuberantly, to create a plausible look in the gravity-defying action scenes, chess game with life-size, deadly pieces. And a dark forest where a loathsome creature threatens Harry but is scared away by a centaur. And the dark shadows of Hogwarts library, cellars, hidden passages and dungeons, where an invisibility cloak can keep you out of sight but not out of trouble.
Three high-spirited, clear-eyed kids populate the center of the movie. They perform well, especially Daniel Radcliffe, whose smile is infectious. With the round glasses, in the few moments when he falters, he’s buoyed up by a stellar supporting cast, which includes Richard Harris, Maggie Smith and Alan Rickman.
Chris Columbus ”Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” is an enchanting classic that does full justice to a story that was a daunting challenge. Scary, yes, but not too scary–just scary enough.
Brad Bird may be one of the few animated filmmakers working today who understands what the concept of a “family film” means. It’s something that offers material to viewers of all ages and doesn’t lose one group by catering too strongly to another.
“Ratatouille” is a film brave enough to move at a slower pace; even its later moments of comical chaos have something of a refreshing patience to them. This is the third Pixar feature in a row with a running time that bumps rather close against the two hour mark, and how brave of them to realize that children do not need digest adventures thrown at them at the cost of character and story. Kids will indeed sit still for that long if the story’s right – and of course the story is right.
At nearly two hours in length, it rewards those with patience, regardless of age. The movie wisely saves its best and most impressive set pieces for the second half, whether they’re the chase or the sight of hundreds of rats invading a restaurant kitchen. And, while Ratatouille isn’t specifically about the love of food, that’s another ingredient Bird has stirred into the pot.
“Ratatouille” is clearly one of the best of the year’s films. Every time an animated film is successful, you have to read all over again about how animation isn’t “just for children” but “for the whole family,” and “even for adults going on their own.”
“The Professional” is a superficial yarn about a hitman (French star Jean Reno) who is befriended in his New York apartment building by an abused 12-year-old girl (newcomer Natalie Portman). When her family are killed by a vicious government agent (Gary Oldman), he reluctantly takes her in. The rest of the film, as you might imagine, has Reno recognizing a side of him that has been awakened by his paternal friendship with this little girl. And he eventually teaches her about being a “cleaner.”
Although bathes in grit and was shot in the scuzziest locations New York has to offer, it’s a romantic fantasy, not a realistic crime picture. Besson’s visual approach gives it a European look; he finds Paris in Manhattan. That air of slight displacement helps it get away with various improbabilities, as when Matilda teaches Leon to read (in a few days, apparently), or when Leon is able to foresee the movements of his enemies with almost psychic accuracy.
“The Professional” is a well-directed film, because Besson has a natural gift for plunging into drama with a charged-up visual style. Not only does music play an important role in giving texture to his material, his scenes — especially the violent ones — are presented as arias, chamber pieces, symphonies. Even though its hero is a killer, “The Professional” pays tribute to the simple nobility of his craftsmanship. It’s an evil job that he does, but at least he has standards.
Jack Skellington (speaking voice by Chris Sarandon, singing voice by Danny Elfman) is the “pumpkin king” of Halloweentown, the man responsible for bringing the very best in the ghastly and the morbid to the eager townspeople. Jack has grown weary of his job, though; He discovers a doorway to Christmasland, where Santa Claus prepares for his own yearly blowout. Jack decides to co-opt Christmas for his own purposes, over the objections of stitched-together Sally (Catherine O’Hara), who’s infatuated with him.
“The Nightmare Before Christmas” is a Tim Burton film in the sense that the story, its world and its look first took shape in Burton’s mind, and he supervised their filming. It is a visual splendor. Done on the cheap, this could have been a gimmicky, unsatisfying experience, but, as the result of considerable time and effort, it is an unqualified success. All of the figures move smoothly and naturally, and the attention to detail is exquisite. We are given a group of cleverly-fashioned characters that look like refugees from Edward Gorey’s sketchbook.
The songs by Danny Elfman are fun, too, a couple of them using lyrics so clever they could be updated from Gilbert & Sullivan. And the choreography, liberated from gravity and reality, has an energy of its own, as when the furniture, the architecture and the very landscape itself gets into the act.
“The Nightmare Before Christmas” is just short enough not to wear out its welcome and just long enough to brushstroke its pagan vs. In short, it does what it intends to: entertain.
