Jeff 'The Movie Guy'

This is my spot where I can post my diatribes and musings about movies. It will be updated every so often with film reviews, articles or general thoughts. Hope you enjoy and I appreciate any comments, agree or disagree.

Name:
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

I studied film and multi-media at the University of New Brunswick and I did my post-grad in Advanced Film and Television production at Sheridan College in Oakville, Ontario. I work freelance in film production and film criticism and I'm also an independent filmmaker. I love to talk, debate, and ramble on about anything having to do with movies.

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Greatest Video Store Ever!

Written on February 18th/2006

Hey all! I'm in Moncton, New Brunswick for the weekend. Just wanted to let everyone know about this AWESOME video store here in Moncton. It's called Spin It Video and it is the best video store I've ever been to. They seperate their films by director, and they have EVERYTHING. I was there for maybe 20 minutes (because I had other things to do. If I could have I would have stayed all day) and I found a handfull of films that I could not find ANYWHERE else. I'm telling you, if you are a film lover and want to see many classic, underground, cult classic, or just any type of film - check out Spin It Video in Moncton, New Brunswick!

Sunday, February 12, 2006

The Demise of 'Arrested Development'

Written - Sunday, February 12, 2006

How do great television series continue being cancelled and yet shows like ‘Skating With Celebrities’ run for far more seasons than they are worth? Of course, I am referring to the recent cancellation of Fox’s brilliant yet greatly underappreciated series ‘Arrested Development’. What was potentially one of the smartest and funniest shows ever put on TV has now receded into the halls of cancellation, and possibly worse, syndication.

I am being melodramatic. However, one has to wonder how these types of things happen. Some may say that the explanation can be related to the exponential dwindling of the average viewer’s attention span. Others may say that Fox did not have enough faith in the show and because of that, did not focus enough attention and money on its advertising. Personally, I believe it is a combination of both.

Currently, the attention span of the average viewing audience member is shorter than ever before. It is no wonder that typical shows with a focus on lowbrow comedy get high ratings and are signed on season after season. The viewers need these shows because they have a steady supply of tasteless jokes, often occurring at a specific interval so that the audience member’s short attention span can keep up. You can set your watch to it. The days of smart, original and actually very funny comedies are gone. We are waiting for the next ‘Seinfeld’, ‘Cheers’ or ‘Murphy Brown’. ‘Arrested Development’ was that missing link. It had an original taste in comedy, unlike anything we had ever seen before. Often times the jokes were not shoved in the faces of the viewers. We had to think about them and it often took a while until some realized why exactly it was funny. However, once it was figured out, it was hilarious. In addition, many jokes were so subtle that you may not notice them until repeat viewings. As my good friend, 'Animal' (everyone calls him 'Animal', I'm not sure why) says about the show: “Arrested Development has the kind of funny that you can laugh at while you watch, think about it more and laugh more. Then you’ll watch again and get more and laugh more and think about it more and laugh more.

Another major problem that contributed to the show’s demise is the fact that Fox put maybe a third of the money they put into other shows, into advertising ‘Arrested Development’. Fox had no faith in this series, despite the numerous Emmy’s it attained. Would it not seem logical that if a show garners this much attention from its peers that audiences may thoroughly enjoy the show? Fox should have seen these signs and contributed more money into promoting and supporting the show.

I understand that my raving about this show is strictly a matter of my opinion, and in fact, I have met people who did not like ‘Arrested Development’, and that is fine. However, love it or hate it, you cannot deny how sharp and well written the show was. My point in all this is to illustrate how it is a sad thing that intelligent and genuinely funny shows like this often get the axe, and shows who sink to the lowest common denominator in order to achieve their laughs (‘The War At Home’ being one) get signed for multiple seasons and go on to find success. Maybe it is a statement on what exactly the viewing public enjoys. ‘Arrested Development’ was a brilliantly written and acted comedy series, with an almost ‘Monty Python’ style of dry wit and charm. It never sank to using racial or toilet humor in order to get its laughs, though it very easily could have gone in that direction. The sad fact may be that if it had gone that way, it probably would have had higher ratings and been kept on the air longer. I am glad it did not go down that road. I would rather see it cancelled and enjoy the episodes again on the DVD seasons, then to see it compromise and sell-out. I also loved how, for once, a great series was able to end with a fantastic final episode. After many disappointments such as the final episodes of ‘Seinfeld’ and ‘The X-Files’, this show ended with an episode that was just as good as every other.

‘Arrested Development’ was the best comedy series since ‘Seinfeld’. It was the show that every comedy series should try to be. It is so sad that so many will not be able to see it unless it is on DVD. Oh well, at least we still have ‘Skating With Celebrities’ and ‘The War At Home’ to keep us entertained…

Thursday, February 09, 2006

The Ten Best Films of 2005

Originally printed in the Fredericton newspaper 'The Brunswickan' on Feb. 1st/2006

With the Golden Globes handed out and with the Academy Awards quickly approaching, it is the time for all the critics’ infamous top ten lists. No one can say that 2005 was a bad year for movies. How could they when there were so many good ones, and quite a few great ones? It would have been impossible for me to see EVERY film released in 2005, but out of the ones I DID see – which were many - these are the 10 best.

10.) 'Sin City' (dir. Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, Quentin Tarantino)

Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller and Quentin Tarantino have joined to create one of the most visually thrilling films of all time. For the first time, and properly so, a movie has been made into comic book, instead of trying to turn a comic book into a movie, as is the usual routine. Every scene jumps off the screen with awesome visuals and stark contrasts of black and white and vivid color. The film has been criticized for its scenes of harsh violence, but I applaud its unapologetic fun. Every frame of ‘Sin City’ is stunning – to the point where you could watch it on mute and still enjoy watching it.

9.) 'Hustle & Flow' (dir. Craig Brewer)

Terrance Howard is the new Denzel Washington. After a stellar work year – including roles in ‘Get Rich or Die Tryin’’, ‘Four Brothers’ and ‘Crash’ – Howard gives the performance which will someday define his career in ‘Hustle & Flow’. Howard takes what could have been a standard ‘growing up through oppression in the hood movie’, and turns it into a full on powerhouse drama. This film is not a one-note show by any means. It actually makes us sympathize with Howard’s character – who is a drug dealing pimp. The hookers whom he pimps are not used as artificial plot devices as in most films of this nature, but are actual multi layered, sincere characters who we care about. This could be the best film of its kind since ‘Boyz N The Hood’ (1991).

8.) ‘A History of Violence' (dir. David Cronenberg)

David Cronenberg’s most mainstream film to date and his slyest. This film masquerades itself as an obvious, straight to the point, violent, mainstream film – which is confusing at first considering Cronenberg’s body of work. The truth to this film – much as it in its main character – lies underneath. There are more layers to this film then it presents and it asks some very fascinating questions as to the temperament of human nature and to the necessity of violence. One aspect I found particularly fascinating was how the son in the film (Ashton Holmes) discovers gifts he did not know he had, because they came from the secret life that he did not know his father had. The film continually asks the question ‘which life is real and which is the act’? This could be the most deceivingly ‘simple’ film of the year, but one of the most powerful in actuality.

7.) 'Jarhead' (dir. Sam Mendes)

Sam Mendes has created a contemporary war classic, in the tradition of ‘Full Metal Jacket’ and ‘Platoon’. Mendes and his cinematographer Roger Deakins are often able to make a raw, gritty war film while at the same time allowing almost every shot to be as visually appealing as a painting, such as when the oil wells ignite, the vastness of the desert, and when Jake Gyllenhall’s character ‘Swoff’ comes across an oil-drenched horse in the desert. The beauty of the film is in the way it perfectly exemplifies the futility of the war, and the frustration of the soldiers – who train for so long and yet feel useless, with no outlet for that training. The film does not give in to the urge of being a typical war or action movie. The fact that this film is about the soldiers and their struggles against loneliness, boredom, and the constant feeling of ineffectiveness is what makes it so great.

6.) 'Walk The Line' (dir. James Mangold)

Joaquin Phoenix gives a more impressive performance in ‘Walk The Line’ than Jamie Foxx gave in ‘Ray’ – and that is saying something. Mangold’s ‘Walk The Line’ is the brilliant portrayal of the life of rock/country legend Johnny Cash. Mangold makes the story accessible to the audience by using Cash’s drug dependency problem and his love for June Carter (Reese Witherspoon) as the two initial subplots. One phenomenal aspect of the film is that Phoenix and Witherspoon sang all of their own songs – which initially made many Cash fans – as well as his family – nervous. That is until they heard Phoenix’s voice. He is not merely imitating Johnny Cash is in this role, he is channeling him. Witherspoon steps out of her ‘Legally Blond’ mode to deliver one of the best performances by an actress this year. I would not be surprised if the two of them take home Oscars for this film.

5.) 'King Kong' (dir. Peter Jackson)

Peter Jackson has the most guts of any Hollywood director right now. Not only did he take the chance of being crucified when he decided to take on the L.O.T.R. trilogy, but then he decides to remake one of the greatest films ever made. Yet again, he pulled it off. ‘Kong’ is the biggest adrenaline rush of the year, utilizing some of the most impressive special effects in history. What makes the film so great though, is the human aspect of it. There is real platonic love between Kong and Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts). She cares for the ape as much as he cares for her. The scenes in which they interact – especially at the end with her attempts to save him from his persecutors – gives the film a wonderful emotional appeal that saves it from being merely a special effects extravaganza. Jackson has made another great film, and not only stayed true to the original material, but in many ways improved on it.

4.) 'Brokeback Mountain' (dir. Ang Lee)

Featuring one of the most powerful love stories I have ever seen in a film, it is a real shame that ‘Brokeback Mountain’ gets unfairly labeled as ‘the gay cowboy movie’. In fact, the point of the film is not homosexuality – it is love, plain and simple. It is a story of how love can be unpredictable, everlasting, and even dangerous. By the end of the film, I did not even think in terms of gay or straight or men and women. It is the fact that there is a love between these two that supercedes all – whether they want it to or not. The fact that their relationship begins in the 1960’s and lasts over 20 years makes it all the more poignant because they fell in love at a time when living that lifestyle could get them killed. This perfectly exemplifies the power of their relationship – the fact that if they could control their emotions, it would have been smarter not having them at all – but no matter what, they could not deny what was there. When I saw it, a few people walked out of the film. I understand that this subject matter can make some people uncomfortable, but if people see it in its entirety, many may realize what a great film this is.

3.) 'Syriana' (dir. Stephen Gaghan)

The year 2005 was the year for political films that stirred up controversial and thought provoking questions. Films such as ‘Good Night and Good Luck’ are important because they force their audience to think about certain topics that they may not otherwise think about. ‘Syriana’ sheds new light on the war over oil. Its plot is convoluted and often flat out confusing, and yet you cannot look away. You do not follow the plot - the plot engulfs you. The film allows you to look inside the worlds of everyone involved in the oil business – from the corrupt politicians, to a burnt out CIA agent, to the royalty of an oil controlling country, and even into the life of a suicide bomber. The film may even be brave enough to allow the audience to sympathize with the bomber, depending on how the viewer reads that particular story arc. The same team who created Steven Soderbergh’s ‘Traffic’ created ‘Syriana’, and while I would not say that ‘Syriana’ is as exalted as that film, it is still a powerhouse political thriller.

2.) 'Munich' (dir. Steven Spielberg)

The most courageous film of the year, Steven Spielberg’s ‘Munich’ is the legendary director’s most personal and heart-felt film since his 1992 masterpiece ‘Schindler’s List’. The film starts with the murder of the 11 Israeli Olympians in Munich, Germany by Palestinian terrorists in 1972. It then follows the secret death squad put together by Golda Meir and the Israeli government, as they track down and kill those involved in the events at Munich. The film speaks volumes in the way that it does not take a side in the murders or the events thereafter. It is a message to all people of the ways that violence begets violence and that the vengeance put forth by governments only perpetuates the cycle of violence and terrorism.

1.) 'Crash' (dir. Paul Haggis)

Undoubtedly, the most poignant, influential and flat out best film of the year is Paul Haggis’ ‘Crash’. Films like ‘Crash’ come along only on occasion - the kind of film that can actually have an influence on people. The kind of film that stays with you long after the screen has gone black. ‘Crash’ follows the same interconnecting plot structure as ‘Syriana’, but ‘Crash’ never loses its audience – it grabs hold and mesmerizes. It uses the interlocking plot to show how people are connected and that everyone is on the same playing field. Everyone has the ability to sin and be sinned. No matter what sex or nationality you are, everyone will walk out of ‘Crash’ thinking – at least for a moment - about the way in which you treat or think of other people. Films that affect me in the ways ‘Crash’ did, do not come along all the time and for that, it is my pick as the best film of 2005.

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Jeff's 78th Academy Award Pics

Oscar Nominations 2006

Key:
(X) – Who I think SHOULD win

(W) – Whom I think WILL win

*Note* - I have not included the categories 'BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT', 'BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM' and 'BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM' because the films in these categories are difficult to come by and so I have not seen them, therefore I cannot make an accurate decision as to who I think should win.


BEST MOTION PICTURE OF THE YEAR
(W) Brokeback Mountain
Capote
(X) Crash
Good Night, And Good Luck.
Munich

ACHIEVEMENT IN DIRECTING
(W) Ang Lee - Brokeback Mountain
Bennett Miller - Capote
(X) Paul Haggis - Crash
George Clooney - Good Night, And Good Luck.
Steven Spielberg - Munich

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
(X) (W) Philip Seymour Hoffman - Capote
Terrence Howard - Hustle & Flow
Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain
Joaquin Phoenix - Walk the Line
David Strathairn - Good Night, And Good Luck.

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Judi Dench - Mrs. Henderson Presents
Felicity Huffman - TransAmerica
Keira Knightley - Pride & Prejudice
Charlize Theron - North Country
(X) (W) Reese Witherspoon - Walk the Line

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
(W) George Clooney - Syriana
(X) Matt Dillon - Crash
Paul Giamatti - Cinderella Man
Jake Gyllenhaal - Brokeback Mountain
William Hurt - A History of Violence

PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
(X) Amy Adams - Junebug
Catherine Keener - Capote
Frances McDormand - North Country
(W) Rachel Weisz - The Constant Gardener
Michelle Williams - Brokeback Mountain

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
(W) Larry McMurtry & Diana Ossana - Brokeback Mountain
Dan Futterman - Capote
Jeffrey Caine - The Constant Gardener
Josh Olson - A History of Violence
(X) Tony Kushner and Eric Roth - Munich

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
(X) (W) Paul Haggis & Bobby Moresco - Crash
George Clooney & Grant Heslov - Good Night, And Good Luck.
Woody Allen - Match Point
Noah Baumbach - The Squid and the Whale
Stephen Gaghan - Syriana

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM OF THE YEAR
Howl's Moving Castle
Tim Burton's Corpse Bride
(X) (W) Wallace & Gromit - The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

ACHIEVEMENT IN ART DIRECTION
Good Night, And Good Luck.
Art Direction: Jim Bissell
Set Decoration: Jan Pascale
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Art Direction: Stuart Craig
Set Decoration: Stephenie McMillan
(X) King Kong
Art Direction: Grant Major
Set Decoration: Dan Hennah and Simon Bright
(W) Memoirs of a Geisha
Art Direction: John Myhre
Set Decoration: Gretchen Rau
Pride & Prejudice
Art Direction: Sarah Greenwood
Set Decoration: Katie Spencer

ACHIEVEMENT IN CINEMATOGRAPHY
Batman Begins
Wally Pfister
(W) Brokeback Mountain
Rodrigo Prieto
Good Night, And Good Luck.
Robert Elswit
(X) Memoirs of a Geisha
Dion Beebe
The New World
Emmanuel Lubezki

ACHIEVEMENT IN COSTUME DESIGN
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Gabriella Pescucci
(X) Memoirs of a Geisha
Colleen Atwood
Mrs. Henderson Presents
Sandy Powell
(W) Pride & Prejudice
Jacqueline Durran
Walk the Line
Arianne Phillips

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Darwin's Nightmare
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
(X) (W) March of the Penguins
Murderball
Street Fight

ACHIEVEMENT IN FILM EDITING
Cinderella Man
Mike Hill and Dan Hanley
The Constant Gardener
Claire Simpson
Crash
Hughes Winborne
(X) (W) Munich
Michael Kahn
Walk the Line
Michael McCusker

ACHIEVEMENT IN MAKEUP
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
Howard Berger and Tami Lane
(W) Cinderella Man
David Leroy Anderson and Lance Anderson
(X) Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith
Dave Elsey and Annette Miles

ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES
(ORIGINAL SCORE)

(X) (W) Brokeback Mountain
Gustavo Santaolalla
The Constant Gardener
Alberto Iglesias
Memoirs of a Geisha
John Williams
Munich
John Williams
Pride & Prejudice
Dario Marianelli

ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES
(ORIGINAL SONG)

(X) "In the Deep" - Crash
Music by Kathleen “Bird” York and Michael Becker
Lyric by Kathleen “Bird” York
"It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp" - Hustle & Flow
Music and Lyric by Jordan Houston, Cedric Coleman and Paul Beauregard
(W) "Travelin' Thru" - TransAmerica
Music and Lyric by Dolly Parton

ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND MIXING
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
Terry Porter, Dean A. Zupancic and Tony Johnson
King Kong
Christopher Boyes, Michael Semanick, Michael Hedges and Hammond Peek
Memoirs of a Geisha
Kevin O’Connell, Greg P. Russell, Rick Kline and John Pritchett
(X) (W) Walk the Line
Paul Massey, D.M. Hemphill and Peter F. Kurland
War of the Worlds
Andy Nelson, Anna Behlmer and Ronald Judkins

ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND EDITING
(X) (W) King Kong
Mike Hopkins and Ethan Van der Ryn
Memoirs of a Geisha

Wylie Stateman
War of the Worlds
Richard King

ACHIEVEMENT IN VISUAL EFFECTS
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
Dean Wright, Bill Westenhofer, Jim Berney and Scott Farrar
(X) (W) King Kong
Joe Letteri, Brian Van’t Hul, Christian Rivers and Richard Taylor
War of the Worlds
Dennis Muren, Pablo Helman, Randy Dutra and Daniel Sudick

Saturday, February 04, 2006

'Scarface (1983)' revisit

Originally written the week of Feb. 10th/04

Rating: **** out of ****
An update of the 1932 film of the same name, Brian De Palma’s “Scarface” is the story that follows gangster Antonio “Tony” Montana and his close friend Manolo Ray from their trip on the Cuban Refugee Boat Lift to their arrival in Miami. After killing a powerful Cuban figure, Montana and company gain the ability to leave their refugee camps and roam around the U.S. After unsuccessfully trying to make it legitimately in the country, Montana and Ray resort to selling cocaine to dealers around the world. Tony's rise is quick, but as he becomes more powerful, his enemies and his own paranoia begin to plague his empire. Although it is the archetypal ‘rags to riches’ story, there is an obvious theme to the film: as power rises, happiness falls. It is the classic morality tale. We may end up cheering for the bad guy, but in the end, one way or another he must go down.

It is Al Pacino that allows us to cheer for the bad guy; in what is arguably his best on-screen performance. Pacino more than fulfils this role as he conveys the ruthless nature of Montana and likewise the ruthless nature of Miami's Cocaine underworld. Michelle Pfeiffer is almost equally as good as his cocaine-addled ice queen. It is the characters and relationships in Tony’s life that help him survive, allow the story to thrive and eventually lead to Tony’s downfall. If it was not for his pseudo-sexual possessiveness over his sister, Gina (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio), he would not have killed his best friend, Manolo (Steven Bauer). If not for his growing megalomania, he would not have killed Alberto (Mark Margolis), leading to a war with the drug lord Sosa (Paul Shenar), foreshadowing Tony’s final hours.

All these elements would be for not, if it was not for the man behind the scenes bringing them together so beautifully, director Brian De Palma. De Palma brings the audience not only into the inner recesses of Montana's world, but also the reality of the world that he has built. For this film, De Palma sacrificed his usual “Hitchcock-ian” style to explore a much more dazzling, edgier style – one that would fit the action of the film, and the heat of the Miami Beach scene. It is this adopted style that brought us such memorable sequences as the infamous chainsaw scene, as well as Tony’s last stand at his manor, which features one of the best gun battles since ‘The Battle of Bloody Porch’ in Sam Peckinpah’s “The Wild Bunch” (1969).

“Scarface” was only the fifth major writing project for Oliver Stone so the screenplay has a raw edge to it; a certain flare that may only come from a combination of experience, guts, inexperience, drugs (Stone became addicted to cocaine while researching and writing the script) and just a bit of luck. This is the same untreated formula that created Apocalypse Now’. With De Palma as director and Stone as screenwriter, is it any wonder that ‘Scarface’ is a force to be reckoned with?

We see elements of the era in every aspect of the film from the clothing to the cars the characters drive – especially in one funny scene where Pacino buys a Porsche to impress Michelle Pfeiffer. Clothing designer Patricia Norris captures the look and the feel of the 1970’s and 1980’s flawlessly. Another defining characteristic of this film is the music. Many key scenes take place in nightclubs and bars in the end of the disco era, and the music blares with that bubblegum pop of disco mixed with the neon and synthesized elements that were the 80’s. The film was released and takes place in the highlight of the 80’s and thanks to composer Giorgio Moroder, we will forever be teleported back there when we watch this film.

De Palma’s remake is a perfect example of when a film can be a financial disappointment, and still manage to be locked as a cultural phenomenon. The film had a production budget of $25 million but it only garnered $44 million - not a huge profit for a film when it was released in 1983. This was probably due to its attempted censoring. The MPAA threatened it with an X rating, though it was finally released with an R. Still, after a re-release and high DVD sales, the ultra violent gangster film has been locked in our social subconscious as a surefire classic. How many times have we heard someone be called a “cock-a-roach” or have them say “Say hello to my little friend?” Even the critics backpedaled with the film. When it came out originally, they savaged it and now it is called a “consummate gangster movie” or “one of the greatest gangster movies ever”. You’ve got to love poetic justice.

'The Passion Of The Christ' review

Originally written the week of Feb. 18th/04
Rating: **1/2 out of ****

I hate going into a film with a preconceived notion. I like to see a film and make up my own mind. So, normally I ignore all the talk and go in clean. However, with Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”, it was difficult to avoid the news about the film. It has been the talk of the entire world ever since it hit theaters on February 25, so unfortunately I ran into a few hundred different opinions of it. The opinions I got were pretty much the same: some saying it was amazing, not a film but an ‘experience’, and the violence was enough to make you sick.

I finally had my chance to see ‘The Passion’ and I was not that impressed. I think Mel Gibson would have been better off making a movie of Christ’s life, or even the last week or so. The fact of the film being based solely on the last twelve hours of Christ’s life made it seem dragged on and dull at times. The scene with Christ carrying the cross up the hill lasted almost a half an hour - or maybe it just felt like it - and near the end of the scene I heard someone in the audience mumble to themselves, “just get up the f***ing hill already.” While I would not state it so discourteously, the scene did drag on and could have used a trimming in the editing room. It was if Gibson had enough material to make a one-hour long film and felt he had to drag it out to a reasonable length because it was supposed to be an “epic”. Mel Gibson could have made a three and a half hour long epic and had the “Passion” be the final hour of the film.

The violence of the film was nothing too disturbing as well. I heard so much about how some people had to cover their eyes for two thirds of the film, and even Roger Ebert himself was quoted as saying it was “the most violent film I have ever seen.” Perhaps I am just desensitized from seeing so many horror films, but I do not know what these people are watching but I have seen worse violence than that in films. I will admit it was probably the most realistic violence I have ever seen, but the most disturbing – hardly.

I will commend the film for its historical accuracy – whether or not there are any real occurrences to be considered accurate is another story. However, according to everything that I have heard and learned about the Bible and the events that supposedly took place, this film is very accurate. Accuracies or no accuracies, the film as a whole just did not do it for me.

Many critics are bashing the film saying that Gibson just wanted to shock people and get his kicks by making a film about torture. I am not ignorant enough to believe those comments. I do think Gibson would have been better off taking the route that Martin Scorsese took with “The Last Temptation of Christ” (a better film in my opinion), and make a film about Christ in it’s entirety – or at least more than a film about his death. I understand the message that Gibson was telling with his film – that Jesus died for our sins and that we must realize and appreciate this. His message was received, but I felt that towards the end of the film, the message had been expressed and understood, and now it was being drummed into our heads repeatedly. If one prefers to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what they think it should have done then the film is a renowned success.

I appreciate and understand what Gibson was trying to do and say with this film, and I commend him for succeeding and fulfilling a personal vision. I think it is unfortunate that the film fell short of its potential. As the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

Friday, February 03, 2006

'Any Given Sunday' revisit

Originally written the week of Feb. 4th/04
Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

Every year it seems that when I watch the Superbowl I get an urge to watch Oliver Stone’s “Any Given Sunday”, and this year was no exception. While I am not a football fan by any stretch (I only watch the Superbowl for the beer and food with my friends), I personally love the film. As goes with Spike Lee’s “He Got Game”, I think “Any Given Sunday” goes down as one of the most underrated and under-appreciated sports films, and yet it should be up with the best.

When I first heard that Oliver Stone was doing a take on professional football, I did not know what to expect. What I got was an aesthetic thrill, as well as a great social and political commentary on the game of football. Stone presents football to us in a way which we never seen before. Instead of the standard in game shots, we have steady cams running right along with the players, and in some instances, the camera is actually strapped onto player’s bodies, just to get the right effect. For the film, Stone worked with Cinematographer Salvatore Totino and Editor Thomas J. Nordberg of Stone’s other films “U-Turn”, and his upcoming “Alexander”. These men help give Stone that signature look that has become synonymous with his films. The fast cutting, the splicing of different footage or sequences or sounds into a scene to build its intensity. For example, we may hear a rumbling of Buffalo stampeding while the players run in slow motion across the field. My favorite sequence in the film involves Jamie Foxx at Al Pacino’s house to have dinner and there is an old Gladiator film on TV. The two get into an argument, and as the argument escalates, we are cutting more rapidly between shots of the argument and scenes of battles from the Gladiator film. This symbolizes how both men are gladiators of their time and both battle in different ways – and are more similar then one might see at a first glance.

I love the aspect that the story is shown from. It’s not a film about the game of football; it’s about the life of football. We see everything from the game itself, to the relationships off the field between the players and their families, to the politics between owners, managers and coaches, to the insecurities and sometimes-bitter rivalries between players.

For a subject matter that would seem to be out of the realm of Stone’s usual hits, he presented it with a grace and ease as if he’d done it many times before. In many ways, the battles, relationships and hierarchy of professional sports is not worlds away from those of the military – making Stone more suited for this kind of film than one might think – considering his films ‘Platoon’, Born on the Fourth of July’ and ‘Heaven & Earth’.

2003 (76th) Oscar Nominations Thoughts

Originally Written the week of Jan. 28th/04


I find myself being disappointed all too often when year after year I get up in the morning to hear the Oscar Nominations. Undeserving nominations, deserving people not being nominated, and the obvious politics included - which has the smaller, more independent, and often better films, never being nominated. Politics seems to be the name of the game.

This year seems to be different though. We have the usual crop of the big budget epics getting nominated (i.e. “The Lord of the Rings”, “Master and Commander”), but this year seems to be the year of the underdogs. Besides the Best Picture and Best Director categories - which feature the usual heavyweights the categories are made up of the smaller or unexpected pictures and the more unexpected actors. Aside from Sean Penn, the Best Actor category is made up of Jude Law, Bill Murray, and in a much unexpected nomination Johnny Depp. In fact “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl” might be the most surprising film this year with its 5 nominations. It is a big moment for the more independent crowd this year as well, since Sophia Coppola’s second feature; film “Lost In Translation” garnered four nominations, including Best Director and Best Picture.

“The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King” could prove to be the “Titanic” of 2004 with 11 nominations, the most of any other film this year. There are predictions that the film could go on to be the second highest or even the highest grossing picture of all time. It has already raked in $877,600,000 worldwide – making it the sixth highest grossing film. However, with all the Oscar buzz, and especially if it takes home the Best Picture award, the numbers will surely grow even farther.

I have my predictions, as anyone does. I predict this will be the year for “The Lord Of The Rings” as well as for Peter Jackson. After disappointing ratios of wins to nominations for the first two films, and no Best Director or Best Picture awards being given to the Tolkien masterpiece, I believe they will save the best for last. I can see “Return Of The King” taking the Best Picture this year, as well as Jackson taking home his Best Director award.

There is little doubt that Charlize Theron will not take home the statue for her portrayal of real life serial killer Aileen Wuornos, a Daytona Beach prostitute who became a serial killer in “Monster”. I could also see Tim Robbins taking home the Best Supporting Actor award for “Mystic River”, as well as Renée Zellweger getting hers in the Best Supporting Actress category for “Cold Mountain”. This is her third nomination after all. Maybe third time will be the charm.

The Best Actor category seems to be the hardest to decide. I could see Bill Murray taking it because he seems to be the favorite this year, but this could also be the year for Sean Penn at last after three previous losses. As a personal favorite, I would love to see Johnny Depp sneak in and take it.

Who knows? It actually seems to be a real race this year instead of being able to look at the list of nominees and pick out the winners without a second glance. There are always a few Oscar surprises though. After all, who would have ever expected Eminem to win an Academy Award?!

Thursday, February 02, 2006

'Heat' review

Originally written the week of Jan. 14th/04
Rating: **** out of ****

Michael Mann’s “Heat” could possibly be one of the greatest police tales ever made. It is an epic tale of crime and obsession between two men on opposite sides of the law. It is also perhaps the greatest meeting of two legends since “The Rumble in the Jungle” with Ali and Foreman in 1974. For the first time ever, Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro share the screen. Though they had both featured in ‘The Godfather Part II’, they could not share the screen because their characters lived in two different periods. However, in this film they actually have their first on screen encounter. It is one of my all time favorite scenes in movie history.

The storyline is simple. Pacino plays Officer Vincent Hanna, a master cop who is hunting a master criminal, Neil McCauley played by DeNiro, and his crew, which features Val Kilmer, Danny Trejo, Tom Sizemore and a very different performance for Jon Voight, but a great one nonetheless. This film is so much more than a vacant cop and robber picture. There are so many layers to this film that one can read. Hanna is a man driven through life only by his work. At the expense of his private life, he becomes obsessed with bringing criminals down, or as his wife states: “You search for the scent of your prey, and then you hunt them down. That's the only thing you're committed to. The rest is the mess you leave as you pass through.

McCauley on the other hand, lives by the personal mantra of never attaching himself to anything that he “can’t walk out on in 30 seconds flat if he feels the ‘heat’ around the corner”. McCauley makes this statement, ironically enough, as he is falling in love with a woman.

Michael Mann’s screenplay is brilliant. He is able to provide us with at least 15 characters that are equally important, and develop them all without losing his audience for a step in the crowd. He can also take what could have been a simple cops and robbers action movie, and turn it into a story of people and emotions. It is an epic; and at 3 hours in length, it goes by faster than most films because of how engrossed in the characters you become. The pinnacle scene is the aforementioned collision between Pacino and DeNiro. Hannah tales McCauley in a car and then pulls him over, only to invite him out for coffee. These characters find out that they are not as different as they would have believed. In fact, under different circumstances they may have even been friends. The wit and spark in the dialogue during this scene is dead on. Mann writes these characters with such precision that we are able to delve into their minds and expose their flaws. Hanna, while being a top cop, is very neglecting of those he loves. McCauley, while being a sociopath, lives by a very strict set of values and rules.

Mann’s directing is superb. Few directors could direct a film of this scope and magnitude, as well as direct many of the biggest actors in the world in one film. Many would worry about the logistics of a story this complex. That’s a heavy responsibility, but Mann seems to handle it effortlessly, with little difficulty. This film is one of my top ten favorite films of all time.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

'Elephant' review

Originally written the week of Jan. 7th/04

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

Winner of the Palm D’or at the Cannes Film Festival in 2003, Gus Van Sant’s ‘Elephant’ was met with controversy over its astonishing resemblance of the Columbine shootings. Many people believed that it was too soon for a film so closely resembling the Columbine shootings top is made. Others believe that an event such as that one, someone was going to make a movie about it. Beliefs aside, ‘Elephant’ is a great film, strictly from a critical standpoint.

What I found amusing was that Van Sant covered his bases against such accusations. At no point does he say this film is dedicated to, or made for, those who died in Columbine or any other school shooting for that matter. At the end it has the classic disclaimer: “The events, places and people in this film are fictitious, etc.” This is a clear indicator that the film is in no way a retelling of Columbine. It was just a day at any random high school where two kids decided were pushed over the edge.

Many people will feel that Van Sant has a moral responsibility to explain the motives involved in the killings, and he obviously does not agree. Van Sant has no such responsibility. It’s just his job to tell a story, which he did. He told a story of a day at a school where people ended up dying at the hands of fellow students. The students’ motives were incidental.

My favorite aspect of the film was realistic tone portrayed through the lack of music. The silence makes us feel like we are roaming the halls with these children and when the shooting begins; it gives the violence an eerie realism. There was no glorification of killing in this film, and it did not purposely try to make it too disturbing. It was just systematic killing. They just showed us what happened in that school and that’s that. No beating around the bush, but not trying to scare us either.

Still, I couldn’t help but feel a little unsatisfied with the film, and I don’t know why. At first I didn’t like the sudden cut-off ending, but upon a second viewing I understood it and enjoyed it more. I really enjoy how Van Sant made us feel like we were right in the experience. But still for some reason I felt as if there was something missing from the film, which I will have to ponder.

'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)' review

Originally written the week of November 10th/03

Rating: * out of ****


It is such a shame when a once great piece of work is diminished and destroyed by those who wish to cash in on it a second time. I am referring to those who drool at the chance to make a sequel, or two, or three, or a prequel, or a remake. It has happened a million times. Some recent examples are The Matrix, Star Wars, Batman, Bad Boys, Terminator (I’m referring to T3, not T2 which is amazing!) among many others. The example I’m making here is the new and reprehensible version of the Tobe Hooper classic “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”.

The original “Massacre” was as original as horror films come for the time it was released. In 1974, the audience was exposed to a horrific array of suspense and horror with an unrestrained attitude. By today’s standards, we might not find it as scary, but then again neither many do not find The Exorcist scary anymore. However, if you see it now for the first time or if you are just a fan, you will still see a truly shocking movie that features very little gore and more than a little social commentary about the dark side of the American family. Hooper practically gave birth to the slasher movie with his original design. Over the past 29 years, it has been revamped, remade and recycled so many times that a genuine remake (not a sequel, as many had thought) comes off as a copy of the copies.

That is exactly what director Marcus Nispel did with the remake - produced another copy. We should not be surprised after all considering that he is the protégé of Michael Bay. Moreover, that is just what this film looks like – Michael Bay doing a horror movie. Perhaps Jerry Bruckheimer would not let Bay do a horror movie, so he decided to live vicariously through his protégé. In the classic Michael Bay style, the film sacrifices substance for style. The original had both. It had the style to scare without needing to be too disgusting. Instead, it left our imaginations to assume the terrible.

While not on par with the original, the new version has some of the same excellent shooting style; however that is all it has. It may have the style but it can’t even begin to make up for the substance that original had. For example, in the 1974 version, the house that the kids were lured into was a nice, serine place that was painted white and looked to be a trusting place to ask for help - and there in lies the game. Now in the 2003 version, the set designers made the house into a dark, ominous looking castle that Dracula would feel at home in. The fear effect is lost there. We knew in the original that something bad was going to happen in that house, but the characters trusted it. Anyone who took one look at the house in the new version would have taken off running moments after laying eyes on it.

This is due to the screenwriter, Scott Kosar, who took it upon himself to change many of the great aspects of the original. In the original, the kids were making a pilgrimage to a cemetery to see if their grandfather's grave had been desecrated. Nispel and Kosar have their youngsters traveling to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert, after coming back from a trip to Mexico to buy weed. Now that is a stereotype of young adults if I have ever seen one.

The original “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” is one of the greatest horror films of all time. It is in my personal list of favorites, after ‘The Exorcist’ and ‘The Shining’. It is such a shame that took a classic film that was genuinely scary and turned it into a standard slasher film in the tradition of the ‘Friday The 13th’ series. If you are reading this and you have not yet seen the new version, don’t. See the original version instead; you will thank me later.

'School of Rock' review

Originally written the week of Oct. 20th/03

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

Jack Black could very well be the essential ‘fat man’ comedian. He has all the wit and spark of John Candy, with the physical hilarity of Chris Farley, and he’s by far the closest thing to a resurrection of John Belushi that we’ve seen since the great comedian’s death.

Jack Black has one aspect going for him that places him on the same level as John Belushi – he is also a musician. His band “Tenacious D” has a hit record out and Black’s personal film career is going well. This ability to multi-task film makes Jack Black the definitive choice for the lead roll in “School Of Rock”, the new film by Richard Linklater. Linklater’s previous efforts include “Dazed and Confused”, “The Newton Boys”, “Tape”, and the tremendous “Waking Life”. “School Of Rock” may be the first “kid’s movie” that the adults will enjoy more than the children do.

Black plays Dewey Finn, a failing rock star who, after being kicked out his own rock band, assumes his best friend’s identity and takes a job as fifth grade substitute teacher at a snobby prep school. This is a great situational comedy written by Mike White, who previously has written “Orange County” (also starring Black) and “The Good Girl” – starring Jennifer Aniston. There were plenty of opportunities and elements in this film to make a campy, hokey, cliché. Examples are: the buffoon of a “teacher”, the evil principal of the school, and most importantly the children. That is where the film really surprised me and really shines. The children were not automatons. They were not robots, or made to be background noise – as in such films as “Daddy Day Care”. The children in this film reminded me more of “Kindergarten Cop”, in which the children could hold their own with the likes of Schwarzenegger. They were actually actors. As in that film, the child actors in “School Of Rock” is of such a caliber that they could hold there own with the likes of Jack Black or Joan Cusack – who plays the uptight principal.

Cusack is about as much a villain as a story like this affords itself. She is not a bad person, just a woman so overcome with rules and regulations that this has made her become distant from her friends and even her staff. Black’s character is able to bring the happiness in her out a little bit one afternoon, in a great scene, when he has her out for a drink and she has a few too many.

The women of the film seem to be shown in a very different light as compared to the men. There are really only two main women roles in the film and that is the Cusak role and the role of Patty Di Marco played by Sarah Silverman. Both women are very over-bearing and controlling. The character of Patty Di Marco is very demanding and controlling over her boyfriend Ned (whose identity Jack Black assumes). Ned is very whipped by her even though, ironically enough, she is always bitching at him to stand up for himself.

The men of the film seem to have a problem with maturity. The character of Ned needs to grow up and become his own man. He is always being walked on by everyone including his best friend and his girlfriend. Dewey seems to have the same problem except he needs to grow up, forget about the rock star fantasy, and get a real job.

School of Rock is by far one of the best comedies I’ve seen in the last few years. It is cute and sweet with intelligent humor for all ages and it succeeds in both being an enjoyable family film and in being a straight up funny movie – which many comedies have a hard time doing these days.

'Owning Mahony' review

Originally written the week of Oct. 20th/03

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****
Owning Mahowny is one of those classic stories. It is a morality tale. It’s the story of someone who built themselves up to almost a god-like status on something illegal they’ve done and how it all comes crashing down upon them. The character then has to live with the repercussions of what they’ve done to themselves and to the others they’ve hurt. This goes up there with the likes of other such films including Scarface, Blow, and American History X.

The true story is of Brian Molony, a Toronto bank manager who supported his gambling addiction with more than $10 million in fraudulent loans from his employer, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. It is Molony on whom Philip Seymour Hoffman's character Dan Mahowny is based in the film.

I have not read the book nor have I seen real footage of the actual man, so I had to watch the film with the basic attitude that the man was fictional and that this was a fictional story. I sometimes like to do that. That way I will not be hung up on wondering how accurate the film is to the real life story – there is plenty of time to do that later. This was easy to do with the brilliant performances in the film.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s portrayal of Mahowny was nothing short of amazing. The way that he captured the adrenaline of a gambler on the win, and the desperation of a gambler on the loss was superb. I had heard a rumor that Hoffman spent much time at Gambler’s Anonymous meetings to research the role. Whether that’s true or not, I am unsure. Whatever he did to prepare for the role, he did his homework.

The supporting characters were great to see as well. John Hurt was possibly on par with Hoffman, as the casino boss interested in making Mahowny his personal pet. Minnie Driver, however, was mediocre at best in her performance of Belinda, Mahowny’s girlfriend. Again, I don’t know anything about the real woman, but if she’s that boring, I don’t think I could be in a relationship with her. Her character had no depth, and the fact that she was such a pushover made it difficult to like the character. Her one redeeming moment was when she finally stuck up for herself and left Dan in the casino after she had expected them to get married. Driver should have done some more research on her part, because I found her Canadian accent very unauthentic.

The possible Canadian stereotype was one feature of the film that was covered tastefully. They possibility to play up to cheap stereotypes had presented itself, but the filmmakers did a good job. The film was perfect though - such as the bright yellow police cars (kind of conspicuous), the Canadian police eating donuts and drinking coffee all the time, and the over trusting of almost everyone by the Canadian bank managers.

One aspect of the film I enjoyed was the cinematography, specifically the contrasting use of colors. Dan Mahowny has three different aspects to his life, the public life, the private life, and the secret life. He feels almost the same about his public and his private lives. He feels they are boring and dull. He sits in his car and wonders, “what’s the point?” However, his secret life is the world he loves and through it, gets enjoyment. To differentiate between these two aspects, very opposing colors are used. For his public life - his office, or his car - and his private life - apartment with his girlfriend - very drab colors such as grays, whites, and blues are used. His secret world is filled with casinos, lights and adventure. To represent this other end of the spectrum, a relative rainbow is used. We see every color imaginable: reds, yellows and oranges. It is the total opposite of his normal world, which he returns to after every adventure at the casino.

Another appealing trait was the metaphorical use of mirrors. In the story, mirrors present a self-reflection that Dan has on his own life as well as his decisions that affect his life, and the lives of the people in his life – such as Belinda. This is shown in the scene where Dan is looking at his reflection in the men’s room mirror after losing nine million dollars. He stares at himself, reflecting on what he’s done to bury himself deeper and deeper in his addiction. Another great representation of the mirror metaphor is when Belinda is coming down the escalator in the casino, and she passes by the wedding party. In the scene, she was under the impression that she and Dan were coming to Las Vegas to get married, and as she comes down the escalator, she is mirrored on all sides by the walls of the escalator. It affords her the opportunity to reflect on her relationship with Dan as well as the chance to leave and change her life.

The film was done very well by all parties involved. The actors were superb, the direction by Richard Kwietniowski (who previously did “Love and Death on Long Island” among others) was nothing short of brilliant. This is a genuine portrayal of addiction. It does not glorify or make it into a melodrama. It hits all the right notes.

'Kill Bill vol. 1' review

Originally written the week of Oct. 6th/03

Rating: **** out of ****

I’m going to cut right to the chase. “Kill Bill Vol. 1” blew my freakin’ mind! I have seen few films of this magnitude. I don’t care how you say it, 2 thumbs up, 4 stars – the film is perfect. I mean, it is perfect in every sense: the script, the acting, the cinematography, the direction, the choreography, the animation – all were flawless.

Let’s break this down one element at a time, shall we? I’ll start with my favorite aspect, the direction. Quentin Tarantino is by far one of the most innovative, explosive, and over-all ballsy directors going right now. Who else would start there movie with a beautiful woman getting her head blown off? And then to top it off, he emblazons the phrase, “The 4th Film by Quentin Tarantino” across the screen. Few directors would have the moxie, or the ego to do that after only making three previous films and be able to get away with it. However, his films are not just films that you watch. They’re films that you strap in and enjoy the ride! Let’s look at his roster. The films that he’s directed: Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, and Kill Bill Volumes 1 and 2. Those are just the films that he’s directed himself. Others that he has been involved in are: True Romance, From Dusk Till Dawn, and Natural Born Killers. All of these films have adrenaline written all over them.

Next, we have the oh-so-brilliantly written script. Aspects of all the classic Japanese action films are present in Tarantino’s work here. We see pieces of Kurosawa’s films, the exaggeration of violence as in many Japanese anime features such as “Akira” or “X” - especially during the 10 minute anime sequence which was fantastic to say the least - and aspects of almost every fighting style in the action scenes from “The Matrix” to those of Bruce Lee. In fact the outfit worn by Uma Thurman is an exact replica of the one that Bruce Lee wore in his last film. Tarantino must absorb these films through his skin through osmosis.

One aspect that was particularly interesting was the vibrant color of the film. It had the potential to be a very dark and violent film, and violent it was! However, for having such dark subject matter, it was as colorful and visually stimulating as a children’s television show. Some of the bloodiest scenes in the film are set against a bright backdrop of yellows and whites. One scene that stands out in my mind in particular is the breathtaking fight scene between The Bride (Thurman) and O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu) set in a snowy garden sequence.

The cinematography and fight choreography are eye candy to put it simply. Every angle you can imagine - oblique, high, low, mid-shots, even a cool bird’s eye angle inside Vernita Green’s house - were used to make the every second of the film as visually stimulating as possible. Flashy editing, camerawork incorporating some gorgeous black and white cinematography by ace helmsman Bob Richardson, as well as some Grand Guignol* humor, add to the frantic pacing and at times plain hilarious amount of bloodletting. This all makes for an entertaining if not stomach-churning experience in filmmaking.

The shame is that a masterpiece of filmmaking such as Kill Bill Vol. 1 will go well overlooked by the Academy and many other Awards Panels. Sure, ‘Pulp Fiction’ was nominated for seven Academy Awards, but only took home one for Best Original Screenplay. I think even those on the Academy knew that if Tarantino wasn’t given that one at least, then there would be a massive revolt on the Academy members. I’m talking revolution here.

But something tells me that Kill Bill won’t even be given the honor of that disrespect. It will probably be one of many great films such as Gangs of New York, The Shawshank Redemption, Pulp Fiction, The Man Who Wasn’t There, Memento, and Fargo along with many others that are constantly overlooked by the Academy. They either are overlooked completely or maybe are given one award just so they can say they gave the film one for good measure.

But that’s just my pet peeve.

* A theatre in Paris where some pretty twisted stuff happened for the amusement of others

'Spellbound' review

Originally written the week of Oct. 6th/03
Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

Spellbound is the story of 8 American children who struggle and fight and manage to make it to the 1999 National Spelling Bee in Washington, D.C. They all come from different American locales, different ethnicities, and very much different families with different values.

All I can say about Spellbound is that it was G-R-E-A-T. Director Jeffrey Blitz takes us into the homes and everyday lives of these children with such comfort that we remember a million different kids that we went to school with when we were younger.

The scenes at the competition were shown excellently with such grace. So much so, that at the competition, even though the parents were putting on fronts for the cameras, the children did not even notice the cameras. I am sure this is because they were under so much stress, as well as having about a hundred other cameras on them. In addition, we could feel the stress as well. I’m kind of embarrassed to say this, but I was actually on the edge of my seat a few times. Jeffrey Blitz actually had the ability to make a Spelling Bee – which I would normally say is boring – actually exciting. We can feel the pressure on these children, as well as the heartbreak for some of them when they lose.

The scenes in the competition were not the most entertaining to see however. The episodes of the various children in their homes and in their natural environments I found particularly captivating. The way we see the pressures on the children to win - some by the parents, sometimes by themselves – it is engaging, and sometimes frustrating. These overbearing parents consistently reminded me of those “pageant parents” who force their children into child beauty pageants. You know these kids are going to need some serious therapy when they’re older. For example, one girl, Angela, her whole reason for entering the pageant was to make her parents proud. Now, what will happen if she loses? How proud will those parents be? The film left us with these kinds of questions, so much so that I was asking them to myself after I left the theater. It wasn’t always directly the parent’s fault. Many of these people come from varying cultural backgrounds; some of which have very strong work ethics, and whether they realize it or not, may be pressuring their children to succeed.

It is not always the parents though. Sometimes it was the child’s own pressure on themselves that caused them to drive for that goal and go to such measures as studying the dictionary for four to five hours a day.

Jeffrey Blitz has the makings of a great documentarian. This film may not have had the razor’s edge of Bowling For Columbine, but it was still great and definitely deserved a nomination for Best Documentary Feature.

One thing bothered me about the film though. Blitz must’ve interviewed many, many children for this film and then selected the 8 specific ones for the picture. Well, the film did its job SO well, that it left me wanting to know about the other children who were left out of the picture.

Johnny Depp the next Marlon Brando?

Originally written the week of Sept. 22nd/03


Since when did Johnny Depp become Marlon Brando? I mean, I’ve always been a Depp fan. In my opinion he’s one the best actors of my generation but he’s always been known as one of those actors that you see all the time, but never really stood out or been associated as a superstar, kind of along the lines of Ethan Hawke, rather than Tom Hanks or Al Pacino. However, in the past few years he’s really come into his own.

I’d say it started in 1999 and hasn’t stopped since then. In 1999, he pleased critics and audiences alike as his portrayal of Ichabod Crane in Tim Burton’s “Sleepy Hollow”. This became Depp’s first film to top the 100 million dollar mark at the box office. After that, it was his excellent supporting role in “Chocolat”, followed by his remarkable performance in the late Ted Demme’s film “Blow”. Even though the film was not well received by many, even the coldest critic could not deny how well Depp was in the lead role. After that, he did another good job in the Hughes Brothers’ film “From Hell” playing a detective tracking Jack the Ripper. But this summer seems to be the relative turning point for Depp. After starring in the second highest grossing movie of the summer, “Pirates of the Caribbean”, Depp then brought to life what could have been a disaster with “Once Upon a time in Mexico.” Surely this seems to be Depp’s time, which could very well propel him to superstardom status and maybe even the infamous “20 million dollar club”. I could never see him taking that much money per role though. He seems to be the kind of actor to option for more roles more often rather than more money. You’ll notice that Depp has at least one movie every year, where as a twenty million dollar actor such as Bruce Willis or Tom Hanks has one every three or four.

I think Hollywood needs more actors like Johnny Depp, who option for enforced performances, interesting roles, less money and working on a regular basis, as opposed to slacking off, one-dimensional roles, bags of money, and doing one role every three years.

The shame is that actors of this caliber such as Depp, Morgan Freeman, Ethan Hawke, and Benicio Del Toro, are constantly overlooked by critics, awards academies, and moviegoers alike, because in this twisted day and age, the majority of viewers would rather watch Vin Diesel blow something up than see a real actor perform a real role that would be something deep, and hard-hitting and would give us something to think about and really digest. Audiences need to remember what a good steak tastes like and let go of the Big Mac.

'Matchstick Men' review

Originally written the week of Sept. 22nd/03
Rating: **** out of ****

'Matchstick Men' is one of the best pictures I’ve seen this year. This film has all the elements of a masterpiece: an excellent script adapted from an equally great novel, a cast of extraordinary actors including Nicolas Cage and Sam Rockwell, and a brilliant director like Ridley Scott behind the camera. Nicolas Cage has Oscar Nomination printed well on his forehead in this film. His portrayal as a man suffering from obsessive compulsions and neuroticism is done so well it’s almost scary.

The editing by Dody Dorn and the cinematography by John Mathieson I found particularly compelling in this film as well. Whenever Nicolas Cage’s character is having a neurotic attack, we are shown many fast and creative cuts and indecisiveness of the camera as well as varying focuses of the lens; almost as if the camera itself has OCD. It’s brilliant - It left me with a very unsettling and edgy feeling as I was watching; it gives us as close a feeling as possible to what Nicolas Cage’s character is experiencing at that time. The style of the film definitely fits the subject matter with what we are dealing. Ridley Scott develops that relationship with his casts and crews. If you look at his previous works such as “Alien”, “Blade Runner”, to his newer stuff like, “Gladiator”, and “Black Hawk Down”, they all seem to have a certain visual quality to them that Scott seems to keep true to all his films. I think he has an ability to make things appear dark in nature. Like in such films as “Gladiator”, and “Black Hawk Down”, there are scenes which take place in the day-time, but with Scott’s signature filmmaking techniques he is able to apply a certain feeling of darkness to scenes which take place in the daylight.

I must say that the one point of the film I found disappointing was the character of Sam Rockwell. I personally feel that Sam Rockwell is one of the best up and coming actors in the business right now. After his performances in “Confessions of a Dangerous Ming”, and “Welcome to Collinwood”, especially the former, I just knew he was going to be a superstar. Then I heard that he was starring opposite Nicolas Cage in a Ridley Scott film and I was very excited. However, his character is no stretch for the kinds of roles that Rockwell has been doing. He needed to be in a more challenging role, such as Cage’s. Rockwell’s character was just a sidekick or a lackey. If that was supposed to be the point, than he hit it right on the money. Otherwise, I found it less than superb. Perhaps they would’ve been better off going with someone like Johnny Depp, who is red hot right now riding off the success of two huge summer movies: “Pirates Of The Caribbean”, and “Once Upon A Time In Mexico”. It surely would’ve been nice on Mr. Depp’s resume to have a summer hat trick on there. A “Hat Trick” for those who do not follow hockey is scoring three times in one game.

Minor qualms aside, Matchstick Men is still a tour de force and one of the best films of the year. It is great to see someone like Scott, whose big budget action spectaculars have made him legendary, take on a smaller more personal project and still make it equally as appealing.