A trick film, not especially memorable for anything.
Trite, predictable comedy about a couple, Joe Fox, a chain bookstore manager, and Kathleen Kelly, the owner of a small bookshop, (Hanks, Ryan) who develop a relationship by e-mail, fall in love, while unwittingly antagonizing each other in real life. The film pays some lip service to reality. Hanks' superchain demolishes Ryan's cute little book store, and the film doesn't sentimentalize by having Hanks convert, or Ryan find some trick to survive. The relationship develops over time, though a few false notes ring out: she never seems to suspect what the audience knows: that Hanks is her e-mail romance. At first, the explanation is that they agree not to exchange specific details (she never mentions her book store !), then later, Hanks becomes aware of it but she doesn't. Ultimately, the film falls back on witless Hollywood stereo-types, the love-hate relationship. Most disappointingly, it e-mail device becomes a gutless prop. In real life, e-mail can generate highly intense relationships very quickly. Language gets stretched, exploited. Men court women on the internet with lavish, romantic phrases, and my experience has been that those phrases can become highly sexualized, and even explicit, and that the female recipients can cheer this on. This film has none of that. The cyber-relationship is very innocent and chaste. And, frankly, boring. Ephron doesn't even bother to capture the electricity of on-line chats. And she forces her actors to speak to their computers, rather than focussing on the words themselves in some creative, inventive, insightful way. And what a waste of Parker Posey! She plays a boring shrew of a lover to Hanks flat executive. But Jean Stapleton is refreshing as "Birdie", Kathleen's mentor. A dud. Too bad. Even Hanks and Ryan look unexpectedly wan and bored.
MEG RYAN, TOM HANKS, PARKER POSEY, GREG KINNEAR, JEAN STAPLETON
Mark Hunter attends "Hubert Humphrey High" in Arizona during the day. At night, he becomes "Hard Harry", a pirate radio dj, whose ravings about dishonesty and corruption begin to attract a devoted audience and makes waves for the adults around them. One of his biggest fans is Nora DeNiro (Samantha Mathis), who writes poetry and feels ravished by Hard Harry's raves. Well, outrage needs a target. Unfortunately, director Moyle utterly cops out here. On the one hand, he pretends to be saying that people should get passionate, take risks, care about the injustices around them. On the other hand, he is terrified of offending potential sponsors, so Harry's raves become increasingly vague and pointless as the movie rolls on towards it's rather predictable conclusion. Hard Harry, beacon of outrage and authenticity, ends up sounding like Deepak Chopra on steroids. He preaches exactly the same harmless, vacuous tripe that the first half of the movie seems to militate against. The most obvious thing about this movie, in the end, is the excruciatingly deliberate avoidance of the most in-your-face offense of all: commercialism, materialism, consumerism, and corruption. Having said that, it should be admitted that the first half of the movie is compelling. Slater is effective as the dissident dj, and you can almost believe that people really would find him fascinating to listen to-- because he doesn't follow the standard procedures, doesn't fill dead air space with aimless banter or commercials. And because he plays some fairly interesting music. In fact, the sound track of this film may be the best thing about it, including the Leonard Cohen cuts. Worth seeing. Worth raging about the cop-out in the end.
CHRISTIAN SLATER, ANTHONY LUCERO, ANDY ROMANO, KEITH STUART THAYER, SAMANTHA MATHIS, JONATHAN MAZER
Thoughtful portrait of one of the last men to be executed in Britain, after a bungled robbery during which he shouted "Let him have it". The Crown interpreted the statement to mean he wanted his accomplice to shoot the policeman. It seems clear, however, that he meant "let him have the gun". Not artistically impressive, but well acted and non-exploitive.
Universal Pictures' CEO, Ron Meyer, dropped this film when he became aware of the fact that it portrayed a pedophile as a human being-- that is, with realism and sensitivity. This film emerged with controversy after it's award winning screenings at Cannes and Toronto. Oddly enough, it comes off as far more refined and sensitive than you expect. The acting, first of all, is uniformly excellent. The structure of the film is reminiscent of Nashville, though Solondz isn't as daring or innovative as Altman. Allan is a shy computer data specialist who makes obscene phone calls and fantasizes about his neighbor, Helen. Helen is one of three sisters, the brilliant one, who has published novels and had extraordinary success in life. She has a sudden epiphany, finds her life hollow and inauthentic, and begins to enjoy obscene calls (from Allan). Her other sister, Trish, seems to be living the other American dream: a happy housewife with two children (though three are sometimes suggested), a successful husband, and social life. What she doesn't know is that her husband, Bill, a psychiatrist (who is treating boring Allen) is a nascent pedophile, lusting for some of his son's friends. The part of the film that some audiences find so shocking are the scenes of Bill being a good father to his son. These scenes are extremely well acted and written-- they are convincing. I suppose what people find offensive is the suggestion that a sinner could be honest and wise, and possibly redeemable. It offends our desire to see him strung up. Joy, the youngest sister, is a living disaster. The loser she breaks up with commits suicide (her co-workers argue about who he was and what he looked like) and her next lover robs her parents' house and beats his other girlfriend. Finally, we have Kristine, who lives down the hall from Allen, and Helen. She is immensely overweight and needy, yet she has a believable attractiveness that finally begins to have an effect on Allen, who finds Helen (hooked on his obscene calls, remember) too much to handle. The title, of course, is ironic. These characters are all miserable. Even more ironic than the title is the music, which sounds like it belongs on "Father Knows Best" or "Leave it Beaver"-- and I mean that in the nicest way. The music makes the movie work for me. It guides scenes from pathos to irony to comedy and finally, to black farce and tragedy. "Happiness" is, without a doubt, one of the most offensive films of the past few years. Lest you think this is a sign of the times, think back to Andy Warhol's "Bad", and "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". But "Happiness" is far more sensitive, evocative, and meaningful than either of those. It is worth seeing, but not for everyone.
JANE ADAMS, CYNTHIA STEVENSON, LARA FLYNN BOYLE, PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN, DYLAN BAKER, BEN GAZZARA, LOUISE LASSER, JON LOVITZ, CAMRYN MANHEIM, RUFUS READ, JOSE RABELO, EVAN SILVERBERG,
Tight, well-scripted, well cut comedy of manners-- the classic love/hate relationship, with Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert as the principals. She's eloped with someone else and when her father tries to annull the wedding, she escapes, but ends up travelling with Gable instead of her lover. They cross the country, have lots of adventures, and she begins to fall in love with him, and he with her, of course. I've never bought the argument that old, black & white movies were better written or acted or filmed than current Hollywood fare, but "It Happened One Night" makes a pretty good argument for it. The script is wonderful, lively, literate. The action, while inevitable, keeps you on your toes-- the twists and turns are very sly, and occasionally more clever than you think they're going to be. Very worth seeing.
CLAUDETTE COLBERT, CLARK GABLE
Henry Fool starts out as an alternative film. Simon Grim has a basement apartment to let; Henry Fool, travelling light, needs a place to stay. Simon works with the city sanitation department. He is a nerd, a loser, a wimp, with his thick glasses and akward mannerisms. Henry Fool is a suave, if unkempt, self-styled genuis, who declares himself to be a brilliant poet who is working on his Opus Magnum, a long biographical poem, that will reveal his shining brightness to a dim world. He encourages Simon to start writing. It is soon apparent that Simon is the genius. The people in the town who are exposed to his poetry are generally awestruck-- or mortally offended. Meanwhile, Henry strikes up a relationship with Fay, Simon's sister, but ends up going to bed with his mother. Gradually, layers are peeled away: is Henry really a genius, or just a janitor with grandiose ideas? Is Simon's stuff really all that good? Then why do the publishers turn it down? Up to this point, the movie has been original, engrossing, and unpredictable. You wait for the next twist: maybe Henry really is a genius. Maybe Simon is successful, but finds himself compared to Rod McKuen. Maybe Fay is smarter than she thinks. But, beginning with the revelations about Henry's manuscript, the movie starts to fall apart. Gratuitous developments follow, and the core of what was a sweet movie begins to rot. The last 45 minutes are pure weasily big bang theory: what can we do that will have the audiences yakking as they walk out of the theatre? Have Henry rescue a baby from a burning building? Have Fay get pregnant? Have Simon's mother discover a gift for writing? Have Simon win the Nobel Prize? Come on-- anything goes. Anything, that is, except for something you wouldn't expect from even the cheesiest Hollywood flick. Hartley completely abandons the most compelling dynamic of the film: the relationship, including all the unknowns, between Henry and Simon. After the first twenty minutes, you realize that this edgy film might have Simon and Fay end up in bed. For the last 90 minutes, you almost expect Demi Moore to make a guest appearance. Parker Posey is wasted here. She is a star waiting to happen, a clever actress who takes risks, and has the most inviting upper lip of anybody since Tuesday Weld. Urbaniak and Ryan are steller. The dialogue is snappy, at least at first, and the film is well-shot, if conventionally arranged. A promising film that disappoints in the end.
PARKER POSEY, JAMES URBANIAK, THOMAS JAY RYAN, MARIA PORTER, JAMES SAITO, KEVIN CORRIGAN, LIAM AIKEN
Special effects (computer animation) dominate ANTZ but the story and characters are fresher than average, and Allen and Stallone are used well in this entertaining feature. Allen plays a whiney, self-obsessed worker ant named Z (Z-4195) who resents his lot in life and sets off a sequence of events that eventually frustrates the evil plans of General Mandible (Hackman). Allen is matched up with Sharon Stone as Princess Bala, who ends up wandering outside the nest with Allen until Colonel Cutter re-abducts her. Dan Akroyd and Jane Curtin play Chip and Muffy, and Anne Bancroft is wonderful as the domineering but rational queen. More adult than traditional Disney fare (Antz was produced by Dreamworks SKG), and less predictable, though that's a relative turn. Put it this way: doesn't insult your intelligence the way Anastasia did.
WOODY ALLEN, SHARON STONE, DAN AKROYD, GENE HACKMAN, CHRISTOPHER WALKEN, DANNY GLOVER, SYLVESTER STALLONE, JENNIFER LOPEZ
Vastly over-rated fantasy about a man who dies and goes to heaven, only to discover that his wife, despondent over his car accident, commits suicide, and ends up in hell. One critic called it a "two hour Hallmark card" but that may be too kind. Every cliche of new-age pseudo-spirituality is here, every hackneyed idea about cosmic justice and joy. It's like a gigantic cream puff that keeps stuffing itself into your face. I intuitively understood from the promotion for this film that they were hoping that anyone that wouldn't weep with the stars would at least be dazzled by the special effects. If there was ever an argument for the point that special effects can't save a movie, this is it. What Dreams May Come wallows in giddy computer generated images, borrowed mostly from impressionist art (drawn, we are told, from the imaginations of the characters). It's a confection. Yes, it's impressive that they can do this. No, it doesn't make a good movie, just as ANTZ isn't a good movie BECAUSE of the special effects. (It's good because it's written: not baked, or half-baked). New age? Probably. More like new wimpy generalized and meaningless platitudes about love and life that are so disconnected from reality that this movie never touches down anywhere. There are those who rave about this movie. I challenge them to sit through it twice. I didn't think so.
ROBIN WILLIAMS, ANABELLA SCIORRA, CURTIS GOODING JR., MAX VON SYDOW
Powerful film about domestic abuse, set among the Maori population on the fringes in New Zealand. (Maori make up 12 percent of the general population in New Zealand, and 50% of the population of the prison system-- similar to blacks in the U.S.). Jake Heke is the explosive, violent, hard-drinking husband. He can also be a charming and affectionate husband to Beth, who, in compromising with her husband's faults, puts her own children at risk. She reaches an epiphany of sorts when her daughter, Gracie, is raped by one of her husband's friends. At this point, the film develops a sub-text about the moral integrity of native culture over the synthetic pavement and neon of western civilization. I have a problem with this-- it's a bit of a cliche, and it's a bad cliche. Native populations in most Western nations have their own serious problems, especially around drug abuse, alcoholism, and violence. It's not their fault-- that was the end result of a clash of cultures. But nor does it justify a sentimental wash. The other problem I have is with the transition to Beth's epiphany. For the first hour, we understand why she stays in the relationship. Yes, Jake is abusive and drunk, but he can also be charming and funny. He is always singing and laughing. She is charmed by him. She can also stand up to him, until he beats her down. But the last half of the film is devoted to a big statement about Beth's newfound strength, and, as a result, begins to caricature Jake's faults. We never catch a glimpse of the charming Jake again. The change is very abrupt, and logically explained, but not dramatically justified. Nor is Beth's transformation into angel of redemption. She suddenly has no faults. So a layer of complexity and reality is stripped away and we are left with another domestic abuse cliche. The funny thing is, you keep rooting for Beth to dump the guy and move on. Why? Because that's what a guy would do in that situation.
RENA OWEN, TEMUERA MORRISON, MAMAENGAROA KERR-BELL, JULIAN ARHANGA
Seen any movies about admirable men lately? Nah, me neither. "One True Thing" joins a long list of movies, dating back to "Terms of Endearment", and including movies like "Fried Green Tomatoes", "Thelma and Louise", that make all men out to be either inept or cruel, and all women as both victims and enablers. If it's not an abusive husband or father, it's a terminal illness! Well, I guess it's our own fault. I mean, those of us who embraced Feminism when it burst onto the scene in the late 60's and early 70's, because we really believed that women could be more than just victims. We believed that women were capable of leadership and discipline, and that, given a chance, they could accomplish almost everything men could accomplish. We agreed that movies and television tended to portray women as stereo-types: gossips, dim-witted, foolish, incompetent, and manipulative. We believed that bringing feminine strengths like compassion and empathy and cooperation into the workplace would make everyone's lives better. And so we sat back helplessly as Feminism mutated into something else. And movies like "One True Thing" are the result. What did it mutate into? Well, a combination of classical Feminism's most hostile views of men, with a conservatives view of what role women should play in our society. It is a weird mutation, but it has far greater popular acceptance than classical feminism. So we have Kate Gulden (Meryl Streep), a very traditional housewife and mother, whose husband, George, is a well-known professor and critic. Her daughter, Ellen, is a career girl, an ambitious writer working at a cutting edge magazine in New York City, who has always felt much closer to her intellectual father than her homespun mother. Enter the crisis: mom gets cancer. Ellen is called home. In one of the more unbelievable scenes in the film, her father orders her to move back home to look after her mother. This is a baffling event. Is her father an arch-conservative who believes that a woman's place is in the home? There's no indication that he is. Is he an obsessive control freak who believes his adult children must obey his every whim? Given his other characteristics, that doesn't seem reasonable. So why does he order his daughter to stay home? Well, the most obvious reason is because the story needs some pathetic excuse for the main engine of the plot, which is the daughter-mother conflict. How else can we develop a story out of this, that has a situation in which the daughter can make a number of discoveries about herself and her father, and in which an opposition can be established between the cold intellect of the daughter (passed on from dad) and the warm-hearted fuzzy affections of the mother? Anyway, I don't mean to belabor the point, but this device is fairly typical of the movie. In fact, this movie is all surfaces. You never get the sense that any character is acting from instinct, not even the mother, who is supposed to be all instinct. We have a sense that the director is more interested in setting up certain emotional tableaus than he is in explaining how or why those confrontations come into being. Thus, he wants us to see the faithful daughter sitting at her dying mother's bedside while the father is out drinking. A nice, touching seen, guarranteed to warm the righteous cockles of every domestic feminist's heart: man - bad, woman - good. He wants us to see that the father is an unfeeling cad, while the daughter is learning to care. It is an utterly preposterous idea, and the director can't quite make it come off, because, to make the rest of the story work, George has to be intelligent and respected. Yet he is so dumb he doesn't even know how to give the correct appearance to his actions. For example, when he misses dinner and comes home late one night, he claims that he had a class, and we are supposed to believe that his wife, married to him for at least 20 years, doesn't know what night his classes are scheduled? "One True Thing" takes itself seriously. It doesn't want to seem to caricature George, or Kate, so it offers a few token redeeming qualities, and tries to make you think that Ellen could have believed that George was having an affair, and then suddenly realize that he wasn't. It's a pointless tease. It's as if the makes of the film weren't convinced that a woman dying of cancer didn't have enough drama in it, so they added gratuitious suspense to the story. It would have been far more interesting, especially considering current events at the White House, to play with the daughter's acceptance or non-acceptance of her father's infidelity. But then, they would have had to give George some real character to do that, and that would have required an effort to go beyond the surface.
MERYL STREEP, RENEE ZELLWEGER, WILLIAM HURT, TOM EVERETT SCOTT, LAUREN GRAHAM, NICKY KATT, JAMES ECKHOUSE, GERRIT GRAHAM
Entertaining, refreshing retelling of Cinderella story, with a moderate feminist slant, which, however, is charmingly unintrustive. Drew Berrymore is very appealling at the lovely heroine, and Angelica Huston is wonderful as the "wicked" step-mother. Even Prince Charming has personality. Some acute political observations, and playful insights into human character. Great date movie.
DREW BARRYMORE, ANGELICA HUSTON, DOUGRAY SCOTT, PATRICK GODFREY, MELANIE LYNSKEY, MEGAN DODDS, JUDY PARFITT
Interesting though flawed study of a future society in which status and job opportunities become depending on genetic manipulation, and those who do not use genetic engineering to "design" their children, preferring authentic passion and nature, doom their children to inferior status.
UMA THURMAN, ETHAN HAWKE, GORE VIDAL, XANDER BERKELEY, ALAN ARKIN
Strange, interesting, but not completely successful. Why is there almost no information here?
SYLVESTER STALLONE, AMY BRENNEMAN, VIGGO MORTENSON, DAN HEDAYA, CLAIRE BLOOM
The movie is pretty faithful to the television series. The same basic story line, the same basic characters, the same vague paranoia, and I mean vague. It's hard to figure out what the writers want you to think, unless you are willing to come to the conclusion, as I have, that the writers don't really have a coherent schemata behind all the machinations of the plot: just a lot of compelling images, contradictory but suggestive clues, and a lot of slimey images. The original for this movie is really "Alien", Ridley Scott's opus which originated the new organic look for sci-fi thrillers, and introduced to popular audiences the concept of a parasitical alien that uses living human hosts to incubate its young. This is a horrifying, grotesque idea, and it's being flogged to death by derivatives. Well, the acting is pretty good, the writing is above average, in spite of its obvious flaws, and the over-all look and feel of the picture is strong. What this movie tells us about our society is that we have no faith whatsoever in government: they're lying to us. The movie and tv series keeps telling us to "trust no one" (a schtick better played in the "I Claudius" tv series) but focus most of that cynicism at the government... as if, in real life, large corporations weren't more of a threat to our privacy, safety, and sanity.
DAVID DUCOVNY, GILLIAN ANDERSON, MARTIN LANDAU
Realistic and lively true story about FBI agent who infiltrated the mob, and began to merge with his cover story. Well acted and written.
AL PACINO
Pedestrian comedy with Tom Hanks as a New York City something or another who discovers that a childhood friend (Darryl Hannah) is actually a mermaid, and must rescue her from evil scientists. Not impressive on any score.
TOM HANKS, DARRYL HANNAH, EUGENE LEVY, JOHN CANDY, SHECKY GREENE
Hollywood turns these out by the egg carton: suspense story about a serial kidnapper and the courageous, determined police forensic psychologist who tracks him down. Right. Maybe I'm too old for these films. Within five minutes, the smart veteran movie goer will know the following facts: * Morgan Freeman will confront the killer alone at the end and probably kill him. * Ashley Judd, who is beautiful, a doctor, and knows how to kick-box, will nevertheless end up screaming her pretty little head off, waiting for courageous, smart Morgan Freeman to rescue her. * The killer will not be any of the five most obvious suspects-- not because these suspects are less plausible in the end, but because the average audience has seen so many of these stupid films that it is no longer suspenseful if even the third or fourth alternative suspect turns out to be the killer. At the end, we're supposed to go: OH, WOW! I NEVER THOUGHT HE WAS THE KILLER! Of course not. The director simply picked someone at random, to make sure you didn't guess who it was. How limited is your attention span? Are you capable of remembering back all the way to the start of the movie? There are a lot of other ridiculous conventions of this genre that Kiss the Girls adheres to. The heroine is herself not a rape victim, though the other girls, presumably are. Why? Well, that is a dark secret of the audience. Hollywood knows for a fact that audiences don't like it if the primary romantic interest is... is what? What does the audience think? That she is damaged goods? That, for all the so-called moral decay of the past three decades, we still prefer our heroines "pure"? I don't know, but it's pretty stupid. And the Morgan Freeman character ends up single-handedly (with Ashley Judd along to shriek in terror) uncovering the secret lair of the killer... and then, instead of immediately notifying the police, moves in all by himself to rescue the girls. You know, there are several really good reasons why the FBI, as a policy, does not allow their agents to do this. Numero uno is that if the Freeman character is killed, nobody else will ever find the girls. Number 2: he is far less likely to succeed by himself than he is with the assistance of other officers. Number 3: he is far more likely to get himself and everyone else killed by going solo. Number 4: he can't, of course, cut off any escape routes if he goes in the front door by himself. Number 5: he endangers the life of Ashley Judd, who is waiting in the woods for her hero to return... And there's about ten other reasons. Remember Silence of the Lambs? Jodie Foster did the same thing: plunged into the lair of the killer without assistance. Glorious. I'll bet you can quickly think of at least ten outher films that do this. Well, I confess, it's partly my fault. I used to laugh at "ADAM-12", the TV series that tried to give a more realistic portrayal of police work. Of course, it's sense of realism didn't extend to police corruption, brutality, racism, or any of that stuff, but hey, beggars can't be choosers. Well, if you can suspend your disbelief to a great degree, you may will enjoy the film. Why should I care? I would argue that there are reasons why we should have reservations about enjoying films like Kiss the Girls. This movie, and the others like it, do supply America with their myths about good and evil, about justice, the police, and law and order. Like it or not, people tend to "buy" a lot of the crap that Hollywood sends us. And the first thing that movies like this do, is make everything simple. At the end, when Morgan Freeman kills the bad guy, the audience is relieved of one tiny but very significant burden: that of knowing whether or not he really did it. Freeman blows him away. The audience is relieved because the bad guy is gone and cute little Ashley Judd can collapse into the manly arms of our heroic forensic psychologist. The trouble is, in real life, the police rarely know if the man they caught is the man who did it. The other problem is that in real life when the police have a sudden confrontation with a violent offender, there is often a great deal of confusion. The police don't take one look and say: hey, he's a minor actor-- he must be the killer, while Mel Gibson over there is obviously the hostage. In one scene in Kiss the Girls, Morgan Freeman, waving his gun, not in a police uniform, chases the killer through a hotel. Excuse me? A man with a gun runs through a hotel hallway, past dozens of startled guests, and no one thinks: hey, we should call the police? Of course. And the audience, which knows that Freeman is a cop, is undisturbed. The audience projects its inside information to the screen. Do audiences transfer that sense of catharsis to real life criminal investigations also? The recent enthusiasm for capital punishment in the United States would suggest they do. So would all the regressive decisions by the Supreme Court in the past few years, expanding the rights of the police to enfringe upon our civil rights in the pursuit of "justice". It's as if we're saying to the police: hey, we know that YOU know who the bad guys are -- just take care of it. In real life, unfortunately, the police are not all the bright, they often arrest the wrong man, they get most of their information from tips. But that wouldn't be as exciting, would it? Just as it wouldn't have been as exciting, at the end of Kiss the Girls, if Freeman had merely called the local police so they could radio a nearby squad car to go rescue Miss Judd from the cruel villain, instead of driving all the way across town to do it himself. Well, this is a losing battle, but I, personally, am not giving in. There was a time, back in the late 60's, when at least some Hollywood movie-makers felt a sense of responsibility towards their audience. They felt oblidged to pass along a bit of accurate information about police work and criminals and social problems, along with the whiz-bang entertainment.
ASHLEY JUDD, MORGAN FREEMAN, CARRY ELWES
This movie belongs in a long line of expensive Hollywood films, including "Dead Poet's Society" (by the same director), "Forrest Gump", and "The Fisher King" that are based on high concept but end up as traditional Hollywood kitsch. The concept sounds brilliant. Truman Burbank lives a charmed life in a sunny little town called Seahaven, where the streets are clean, racial harmony reigns, and everyone has a job, a home, and a sunny disposition. The only problem is that it isn't real. Seahaven is a television set, the people of the town are all actors, and Truman is the unwitting star. He doesn't know it, but he is living in a television show. The tension in the story derives from the fact that Truman is becoming suspicious. And the first sign that this movie is going wrong is way the first clue is introduced: a stage light falls in front of Truman one morning as he is on his way to work. Now, nobody expects a Hollywood fantasy to be "realistic" in a conventional sense. But we do expect films to adhere to the rules they create for themselves. All right-- so Seahaven is a gigantic TV set, the only other man-made object (other than the Great Wall of China) that can be seen from outer space. So where did this stage light come from? Are we to understand that these lights are hanging from fixtures above the set? Then why can't Truman see them? Are we to understand that the "set" of Seahaven is illuminated by standard stage lighting in the first place? But then everyone would see the lights right away. So they must be hidden. But if they are hidden, they can't provide illumination... So there must be some other source of light... but then, why is there a stage light? Do audiences mind if their intelligence is insulted? Well, we don't know, so let's try some more. As Truman grows more and more suspicious, he changes his routines. He charges into a building and jumps into the elevator. Behind the elevator, which turns out to be fake, Truman accidentally sees some of the stage crew. Oops! Well, oops it is, because are we to understand that the town is a facade only? That they didn't build complete buildings? That the elevators are fake, and that Truman has lived there for 30 years without discovering these facts? Wouldn't it have been easier to just use real buildings? All the other buildings seem real. Here's another one: Truman watches the sunsets regularly. The skies change, of course. But when Truman sails off across the "ocean" at the end, he runs into a huge backdrop upon which the sky and clouds have been painted! These are not merely errors of fact. They are indicative of the attitude of the film-makers. They don't make any serious effort to get into the mind of Truman Burbank. Instead, they constantly present what they think will look cool to the audience, and what makes sense from the audience's point of view, for the presumed short attention span of the average audience. They don't care much about consistency, and they assume the audience doesn't. Thus, when Truman sees his long deceased father dressed as a bum, he doesn't think, "My father is back and he's a bum". Instead, he exclaims, "why is my father dressed as a bum?". But, given Truman's frame of reference, his father isn't dressed as a bum: he is one. It's the audience that is supposed to know it is the same actor who played his father now dressed as a bum. So, big deal. You are able to "suspend your disbelief" anyway. And the whole concept is somewhat tongue-in-cheek anyway, so it's still a good film, right? Nah. The point is, that these dumb scenes are not only inconsistent, they are simply not very clever, and The Truman Show is not a particularly clever film, the way, say "Time Bandits" was clever. Even "Back to the Future" handled many of these kinds of problems with more astuteness and imagination than Peter Weir does here. And it isn't just the factual material that is handled badly. The film doesn't wash very well psychologically either. One of the clues Forest... pardon me, Truman uncovers is a wedding picture in which his wife, Meryl, has her fingers crossed. I assume this is supposed to have suggested to him that his marriage was phoney, or that his wife was a fake, or the ceremony was not real, or whatever. It's hard to say because the thinking is obviously so muddled here. Consider that Meryl must obviously have had sex with Truman a few times, and is urging him to agree to a baby. Are we to understand that she thought that keeping her fingers crossed at the ceremony was a meaningful gesture, but the sex afterwards was just part of her job? I also find it hard to believe that Christof would have seriously risked allowing Truman to drown at the end, as the film suggests. Or that the ferry couldn't operate. But those are small sins compared to the much more significant sins of ommission. What is it that makes this concept so interesting? It is the fact that the entire world is spying on someone's life, from start to finish, during every moment of his life. So, unlike all of television as we know it, the Truman show is "real". The movie proclaims quite clearly that this live documentary is complete and uncensored. What is so intriguing about this idea? Surely not that Truman makes faces in front of the mirror? What a pathetically tame, gutless, unimaginative exercise! And Carrey doesn't even get going: he comes off as Don Knotts on Prozac. What about his first kiss? What about his first adolescent rebellion? His sexual development? His first experiment with booze? The movie raises a host of intriguing possibilities but fails to explore any of them. One particularly interesting aspect could have been the actors' relationships to Truman. Do they know what Truman is up to when he is away from the home or office? (Presumably they do; presumably they talk, chat, hear about the program from their friends, watch it themselves when they are not at "work".) How would Meryl have responded to Truman flirting with someone at the office? How would his best friend react if, behind his back, Truman bad-mouthed him? There could have been any number of interesting, compelling scenes. Instead, we get Truman riding the old cliche about seeking adventure in travel. He becomes a Huck Finn looking for a raft. There are important antecedents to this film. There was the famous PBS documentary on the Loud family from the early 1970's, in which a camera crew shared a home with a "typical" American family and followed them through their normal daily routines. The Louds eventually divorced and their children suffered emotionally from the exposure. Then there was Chauncey Gardiner, the wonderful lead character in Jerzy Kosinki's "Being There", who lived his whole life in a garden and a room with a TV set, and was then mistaken for a prophetic genius. And, of course, there was "Leave it to Beaver", which appears to have been the model for the culture of the town of Seahaven. And Disneyland, of course, which suggests, with its clockwork organization and suffocating antiseptic perfection, the rigid control Christof exercises over Truman's life. Again, we are disappointed that the movie doesn't pick up these threads, turn them over a little, and enrich our understanding of the the meaning of media and fantasy. Has Christof created a fantasy world that addresses all the inadequacies of his own frustrated life? We'll never know, because the director, Peter Weir, is more excited about Truman overcoming his fear of water. The greatest insult is saved for last, however. The audience is invited to become complicit with our perverse culture of fantasy-media-worship. The viewers applaud when Truman makes his escape even though it is their own shallow, prurient curiousity that enslaved him from the beginning. They cheer as he leaves his Disneyland fantasy to engage the real world, while they have worshipped-- as television audiences for the past thirty years have worshipped--the homogenized, emotionally empty vacuum of Hollywood's "Middle America", the land of Beaver Cleaver, Father Knows Best, Andy of Mayberry, the Brady Bunch, and so on and so on. It is here that the movie reaches for new heights of hypocrisy: it refuses to turn the spotlight on itself, and its own audience, to reveal to them that Truman-- like Diana and the Kennedys and Marilyn-- was enslaved, manipulated, and deceived by their own tabloid wishes.
JIM CARREY, LAURA LINNEY, NOAH EMMERICH, NATASCHA MCELHONE, HOLLAND TAYLOR, ED HARRIS
Hollywood, once in a while, makes films that it thinks are serious and momentous and important. These films are not usually as serious, momentous, or important as, say, "Olivier, Olivier", "Kegamusha", or "Karacter", but you can tell that the Hollywood establishment thinks they are. These are films like "Schindler's List", "Good Will Hunting", or even James Brooks other good film, "Broadcast News". "As Good as it Gets" is as good as it gets for Hollywood. Melvin Udall is a bitter, repressed, obsessive compulsive writer living in a New York apartment next to a gay artist named Simon Bishop. We are introduced to Melvin as he drops Simon's dog down a garbage chute. Udall hates just about everybody and openly disparages people by race, physical defect, or sexual preference. The only person he seems to like is his usual waitress, Carol Connelly, who gives as good as she gets. And here you have all the traditional elements of the usual Hollywood comedy /weeper, except that Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks are not around. But here you would be wrong. James Brooks (who also produces "The Simpsons" for TV) is a superb writer and he has an eye and ear for distinctive voices and traits, and he puts sufficient spin on the plot to keep it downright interesting, at least, for an hour and a half. Of course Melvin's heart softens, and he helps out Carol, and, after his neighbor is attacked by burglars, he takes care of the dog and likes it. And of course Carol is somewhat attracted to him. But Brooks keeps it hair-raising and, to his credit, there are moments when you really believe it's not going to happen: they're not going to get together. But then, you remember, this is a Hollywood film. If only John Sayles had finished it for Brooks, it might actually have deserved a few awards. Instead, as usual, the film sells itself out and goes for the weepy, semi-comic, touching finale. Is it worth seeing? Yeah, it is. The first half is very good, very tight, and there are moments of genuine epiphany. The only question in my mind is why does the film bother to start out that way? Who is reponsible for the genuine originality and spirit of the first hour? Where did that person go when the last half hour was filmed? Why, why, why?
HELEN HUNT, JACK NICHOLSON, GREG KINNEAR, CUBA GOODING, SKEET ULRICH, SHIRLEY KNIGHT, YEARDLY SMITH
Lightweight but charming comedy about a girl (Ginger Rogers) who has to choose between three suitors, a millionaire, a mechanic, and a car salesman. She dreams of marriage with each of the three. Well-written and acted: reminds you of the higher standards Hollywood had during an era in which films were thought to be more closely related to plays than to special effects or television.
GINGER ROGERS, BURGESS MEREDITH
Very strange, black and white, Swedish film about a brother and sister who live in New York as aristocrats by day, and vampires at night. Unusual camera effects and morbid scenarios, and sometimes compelling and allusive. Exploration of the dark side of human impulses. A film like this suggests that humans, beneath that thin veneer of civilization, are violent, craven animals, seeking gratification of their blood lusts at every opportunity.
ELINA LOWENSOHN, JARED HARRIS
Made for just $25,000 (almost unbelievably), this brilliant update of CARNAL KNOWLEDGE is about two aggressive businessmen, Chad and Howard, who decide to wreck revenge on one vulnerable woman, a deaf secretary named Christine, to avenge all the dissatisfying relationships they have had with women in the past. Chad is almost psychopathic in his devotion to this cause, while Howard, who is really more inept with the opposite sex, has mixed feelings. Indeed, he begins to fall for the girl, while she falls helplessly in love with Chad. This is an emotionally brutal film, extremely well-written and acted, and sure to provoke interesting discussion. It allows women a rare glimpse into how a great many men actually feel about women. On another level, it is about business in general, the "company of men": Chad is as eager to cheat and lie to his customers and co-workers as he is to women. Does he hate women? Or does he really hate the world? It is suggested that he is covertly doing to Howard what he suggested they both do to Christine, and he "dresses down" another employ whom he feels hasn't "balls" enough to succeed in the business world. An intriguing, amazing film. See also CARNAL KNOWLEDGE for an equally vivid, and equally depressing, look at male/female relations.
AARON ECKHART, STACEY EDWARDS, MATT MALLOY, EMILY CLINE
Bleak, searing remake of "The Dirk Diggler Story", about a seventeen-year-old boy who becomes a porn star because of his "special qualities", rises to the top of his field, then falls into drug abuse and prostitution as his career wanes. Boogie Nights is very much, however, an ensemble movie, about a group of people, who might well have been Hollywood types in the first place, but for their genre, and whose careers are destroyed by the transition from film to video in the early 1980's. The cast, led by Burt Reynolds and Julianne Moore, and including Bill Macy, Alfred Molina, and Mark Walhberg, is top-notch, and the script is excellent. But this is a cynical world, and viewers who are easily put-off by explicit language and the amoral milieu may find this a dark, depressing film. Each of the major characters has his or her own dreams, and his or her own flaws, and both are gradually revealled to us as the film progresses, through acerbic dialogue, rising tension, and, finally, graphic violence. In a sense, the characters seem to become more and more like us, yet, especially if we find their lifestyles and careers revolting, they also become more distant.
WILLIAM H. MACY, DON CHEADLE, HEATHER GRAHAM, LUIS GUZMAN, PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN, THOMAS JANE, RICKY JAY, ALRED MOLINA, JULIANNE MOORE, NICOLE PARKER, JOHN C. REILLY, BURT REYNOLDS, ROBERT RIDGELY, MARK WAHLBERG, NINA HARTLEY
Somewhat pedestrian story about a shy cop who is "given" a girl by a mobster whose life he saved in a convenience store hold-up. Some charming moments: Bill Murray singing "Knock Three Times" as he arrives to pick up "his" girl, and DeNiro getting into some music and dance while he analyzes a murder victim. The story steers clear of the most predictable cliche's, sometimes barely sustaining momentum while it does. The secondary characters are more interesting than usual, and Uma Thurman is luscious as ever. Writing is above average. The elements are all there: I just couldn't get excited about the thing.
Robert De Niro, DAVID CARUSO, BILL MURRAY, UMA THURMAN
Early Kurosawa film about a petty bureaucrat at a city department whose life has been a monotonous sequence of evasion and trivial diversion until he finds out that he has less than a year to live because of "gastric cancer". He suddenly, desparately tries to make something meaningful out of his life, first by living to excess, with the guidance of a worldy novelist, and then by assisting a group of women who wish to build a park in their neighborhood. Kanji Watanabe is not a bad man, in his previous life, nor is he any good. His wife died when his son was very young and he refused to remarry in order to ensure a proper upbringing for his boy, Mitsuo. Through flash-backs, Kurosawa shows you the important details of Watanabe's life, and then, in an unusual shift, follows his funeral with more flashbacks, as his co-workers and city politicians discuss his accomplishments during the last few months of his life. They argue over whether he was really responsible for the success of the park, and whether the change in his life was due to his cancer, and if he even knew that he had it. His co-workers pledge to honor his memory by working with greater diligence to bypass red tape and bureacratic delays, but Kurosawa is no Capra. Not as sumptuously filmed as Kurosawa's masterpieces, but a significant and illuminating story about a subject rarely treated in popular film: old age, dignity, and mortality.
TAKASHI SHIMURA, NOBUO KANEKO, KYOKO SEKI, NOBUO NAKAMURA, YATSUKO ITO, MIKI ODAGIRI
Intriguing and stylish for the most part. A tribute to film noire, and the pot-boilers of the 40's and 50's, performed with pizazz and spice by a sterling cast. The story centres on three policemen: Jack Vicennes, a slick, clever detective who involves himself with television productions, Bud White, an emotional, slow-thinking quick-with-his-fists cop who has a soft spot for abused wives, and Ed Exley, an ambitious "by the book" investigator. A series of murders leads to--guess what? A conspiracy. As the three uncover details, they evolve in their relationships to each other. The scenes in the restaurants and mansions of 1950's Hollywood are beautifully realized: tacky, baroque kitsch. The atmosphere of corruption and violence is also elegantly choreographed. Basinger won an Oscar for supporting actress, but where was Spacey's nomination? He gives a wonderful performance here-- I was actually sitting on the edge of my seat waiting to see how he would unroll the next line, how he would intone the slightest hint of ambiguity or wonder. In one delightful scene, he is called before a tribunal to account for a near riot in a city prison. He insists he will not fink on a fellow cop. The tribunal threatens to take away permission for him to be technical advisor for a tv series. He flickers his eyebrows for just a second, digests the situation, then, with ringing clarity, announces that he will fink after all. His performance is full of moments like this. The last third of the movie is largely gun battles and chase scenes, disappointing considering the promising first half. If this is a homage, why is the ending so uptodate, down to the ridiculously outnumbered heroes blasting their way through a platoon of goons? If it isn't a homage, then it's just plain tiresome.
KEVIN SPACEY, RUSSELL CROWE, GUY PEARCE, JAMES CROMWELL, KIM BASINGER, DANNY DEVITO
Story of Will Hunting, a rough and tumble youth from a poor section of Boston, who has a gift: he is a genius. He is recognized when a physics professor posts an almost insoluble physics problem on a blackboard in the hallway as a challenge to his brighter students. Will, a janitor in the building, solves it. The professor eventually tracks him down and tries to make him realize his talents, but Will just wants to continue his physically hard but emotionally safe life of working, drinking, and scoring. The professor recruits a psychiatrist, Robin Williams, who is obligingly lovable and a nonconformist, to help Will. And at this point, the movie falls into all the reliable old cliche's about psychiatry and childhood trauma and emotional problems. Not a thing rings true anymore: they are all merely references to cliches. There is the obligatory revelation, the obligatory transition scene, with the hero meditating about the revelations in front of picturesque settings, and the obligatory love relationship that crashes and burns, but is resurrected by the psychiatrist's salving grace. This is what Hollywood looks like when it thinks it's making a serious film.
ROBIN WILLIAMS
Documentary about people who sincerely believe in flying saucers and aliens, interspersed with clips from classic sci-fi movies (and the not-so-classic, including Plan 9 From Outer Space, widely regarded as the worst film ever made). Some of these "believers" have even formed churches, where they gather to chant and pray. The prayers are stored into some kind of battery which is then "released" at propitious times to have positive effects on areas of conflict and war. The film-maker obviously won these peoples' confidences: they talk calmly and confidently about their experiences and beliefs, some of which are so outlandish or bizarre they will make you laugh. But the film also cannot help but raise doubts in your mind... about the fundamental rationality of human beings. If these beliefs are so transparently false, as they seem to us, which of our beliefs might also be transparently false, to a rational observer? How do some of their beliefs differ from belief in miracles or the resurrection? The difference, some might say, is that our beliefs are true. But these people are just convinced that their beliefs are true.
Intriguing, off-beat, violent adventure about a hit man sent on assignment to his own town where, coincidentally, his former high school is holding their ten-year reunion. Martin Blank discovers that another hit man is waiting to take him out after his assignment, in order to cover the trail fo the assassins. In the meantime, he attempts to re-ignite a relationship with a radio hostess, who is charmingly ambivalent about the man who disappeared from her life on the night of the senior prom and who has not been heard from since. There's a lot of interesting things going on here, including a detached, ironic humour that is very reminiscent of Andy Warhol's "Bad" (about a housewife who runs a hit agency from her kitchen, and which is really, metaphorically, about the Viet Nam War), and Prizzi's Honor. Sometimes this is funny. Sometimes it is almost offensive. Yet it would be cheesy to whine about the "relativistic" moral stance of a film that is obviously a parody of the genre, and of morality in general (as Cusak shoots it out with rival hit men, he talks about domestic marital issues with his girlfriend). This is a fresh take on the subject, but, after all, what's the point? That if you are going to kill people, you ought to at least be professional about it? Or that love and domesticity are more important than a good job? Or that entertainment should be value-free?
JOHN CUSAK, JOAN CUSAK, DAN ACKROYD
Low-key but fascinating story about a family struggling to make life bearable for themselves and each other. There is Wendy, losing her looks a little as she ages, spirited and funny and a little smart-ass, and her husband, Andy, a dreamer, but a reliable provider. Their two daughters, Nicola and Natalie. Nicola has some serious problems of her own, but Natalie, who is apprenticed to be a plumber, and seems to have life firmly in her grip, is a ray of sunshine in the home. Their friend, Aubrey, occupies a sub-plot: he wants to open an exclusive French restaurant, with Wendy as his waitress. Leigh's films always feel like they are bound to earth, but there is always a moment of shocking revelation-- as when we get at look at Nicola's sexual preferences. You almost feel uncomfortable for a moment, but you realize that these quirks are not beyond the realm of possibility for the character.
ALISON STEADMAN, JIM BROADBENT, CLAIRE SKINNER, JANE HORROCKS, STEPHEN REA, TIMOTHY SPALL, DAVID THEWLIS, MOYA BRADY, DAVID NEILSON
Mike Leigh is beginning to accumulate a very impressive opus of distinctive, idiosyncratic films that defy Hollywood convention and illuminate the obscure little corners of quirky lives. Career Girls is about two women, tall, hyper-kinetic Hannah and, shy, spastic Annie, who share an apartment for four years at college. The narrative follows Annie on her way to visit Hannah six years after both have graduated, and the two days they spend together, smoothly switching from present to past to show us the events they shared. Perhaps "events" is too strong a word: this film is about their relationship, how they talk to each other, share with each other, and occasionally flail at each other when their lives become frustrated. Hannah is aggressive and outspoken, and starts a relationship with Adrian, only to lose him to Annie. The relationship doesn't last long and whatever bitterness Hannah may have felt has been subsumed by her friendship for Annie. Ricky makes a shy, tentative move towards Annie, but is rebuffed, and disappears. He provides the film with it's most poignant moment as the girls, genuinely caring for him, seek him out at his home. Neither of the two leads are classical "Hollywood" types, but that is part of the strength of many Mike Leigh films: they look like you and me. Hannah's nose is too big; Annie suffers from a skin disease. Ricky, their friend and temporary room-mate, is over-weight and stutters. But as they talk and as we are shown episodes of their lives together at college, we learn more and more about what makes them tick, how they felt about life, and how they learned to accommodate each other until they discovered they were best friends. The film succeeds in making this a rich journey of discovery. Perhaps Leigh isn't the most brilliant director in the world today, but his films are indispensible for the light they throw on everyday lives. And there are moments in them when you will catch your breath because they touch so close to the nerve.
LYNDA STEADMAN, KATRIN CARTLIDGE, MARK BENTON, KATE BYERS, JOE TUCKER
Sensitive, literate study of a Czech musician, Frantisek Louka, unmarried, leading a very active romantic life, who agrees to marry a Russian woman for a large sum of cash, in order to spare her from being returned to the Soviet Union. After the marriage, she disappears into West Germany, leaving her son with her aunt. When the "Babushka" is hospitalized with a stroke, the five-year-old, Kolya, is brought to him. Louka tries to unload the boy at first but gradually comes to be accommodated to him. The boy is Russian, and gets excited when he sees Russian soldiers driving by, though the Czechs, and especially Louka (who has been fired from his job in the state orchestra because of a minor indescretion) of course, can't stand them. Kolya avoids the usual cliche's and sentimentalities attached to this scenario by Hollywood films. The boy is cute, but he behaves like a boy, and Louka behaves like a frustrated Romeo, who nevertheless has a heart. You never lose the sense that these people all have real lives that don't centre around the problems of a little boy. In the end, the musician learns a little humanity, and the as political events over-take his personal problems, finds liberation on two levels. Sverak (Louka) is the father of the director.
ZDENEK SVERAK, ANDREJ CHALIMON, LIBUSE SAFRANCOVA
Japanese film consisting of four different stories involving the supernatural. (Kwaidan means "ghost story".) In "Black Hair", a Samurai leaves his faithful wife for a better position and new, socially prominent wife, in a distant city. Five years later, he returns, to find, he thinks, his faithful wife still waiting for him. In "Woman of the Snow", a woodcutter witnesses the murder of his elderly master by a mysterious, blue woman. She spares him on condition that he never reveal what he saw. In "Hoichi, the Earless", a young blind man is called by the spirits of dead Samarai to retell the story of their final defeat in battle. The priests fear this spiritual underground and paint the young man with sacred text to prevent the spirits from seeing him. Unfortunately, they forget his ears. "In a Cup of Tea" is about a guard who keeps seeing phantoms, and is the least effective of the four. The stories are pictorially wonderful, most filmed in studio sets. The music is haunting, and the acting inscrutable, as with most Japanese films. Absorbing and chilling at times. Very long, and very slow-moving. You get the sense that westerners are spoiled with Hollywood's excessive use of action to hold our attention. Japanese films are profoundly pictorial, rich in subtle effects, and leave a lasting impression, if one has the patience to adjust to the radically different rhythm of these films.
RENTARO MIKUNI, KEIKO KISHI, KATSUO NAKAMURA, KANEMON NAKAMURA
In summer 1968, three boys, Marty, Mark, and Marshall Stouffer, while running the gamut of repressive father/supportive mother cliches, decide to travel to various wilderness areas and film rare wildlife. They have various misadventures along the way, all of which are utterly preposterous and unbelievable, and then return in triumph with their first film. It would take a book to list all the fibs in this movie, but typical enough is the failure to show any of the boys recording sound during any of their expeditions, even though they have sound on the film at the end. Furthermore, Marty takes some covert shots of the two other boys skinning-dipping and we are given to understand that they never previewed, edited, or viewed the film prior to the first showing to the public. This is what Christian reviewer Michael Medved calls it "splendid! Thrilling!"
JONATHAN TAYLOR THOMAS, SCOTT BAIRSTOW, DEVON SAWA, FRANCES FISHER, JAMEY SHERIDAN
Classic Western with Wayne as outlaw son of Katie Elder, upsetting the equilibrium of a small town when he returns for her funeral, possibly ready to revenge various nefarious dealings by a corrupt local businessman. A lot of chase scenes and confrontations, with the traditional Western conceptions of individualism and personal integrity. Decent supporting cast-- even Dean Martin works somewhat-- though generally stock.
JOHN WAYNE, EARL HOLLIMAN, STROTHER MARTIN, DENNIS HOPPER, ARTHUR KENNEDY
On a bleak winter day in a small town in British Columbia, a school bus, carrying 22 children from a nearby community, swerves off the road, down an embankment, and into a river. Only one child and the driver are saved. Mitchell, a big city lawyer whose own daughter has serious addiction problems, soon arrives to start the lawsuits. Some of the parents are receptive, but some are not, and some are downright hostile. Mitchell believes that the driver was not at fault... because her insurance won't cover a large liability settlement. The town's insurance, however, will, as will the manufacturer of the bus (never named). As Mitchell tries to persuade various townspeople to join the suit, we view their grief, their varying responses to the tragedy. I went to see this film because of the glowing reviews from everywhere, and the possibility it would be nominated for an academy award. It's hard to reconcile the actual experience of the film with these great expectations. I liked the film and wanted to like it, but scene after scene after scene fell short. Mitchell doesn't sound like a lawyer when he interviews families, the driver, or Nicole, the one surviving child who appears to be paralyzed (the film doesn't tell us if it's permanent). He doesn't elicit the information even an average lawyer would be interested in. And when some parents are uncomfortable about pressing a lawsuit, he's not very eloquent about why it really isn't such a selfish thing to do--something that should be second nature to any lawyer nowadays. And a major subplot of the film--Mitchell's anguish about his own "lost" daughter--is fundamentally at odds with the evidence that Mitchell, after all, really is one of those crass ambulance-chasers we thought he was. If we're meant to believe that he really is concerned about the loss suffered by his clients because he can empathize with them, why does he insist that Nicole is lying when she reports the speed of the bus at an inquest? You could argue that the film plays against stereo-type by showing the lawyer as a real human being with feelings of his own. The trouble is, he really is reprehensible when he argues that the families are entitled to huge settlements to deter the same kind of criminal negligence from happening again. And if the film was more tightly organized I might believe it. But the film is inexcusably sloppy at many points, the actors are poorly directed, and sequences are poorly edited: a key revelation at the inquest is so low-key it almost escapes notice. Some critics credit Egoyan for boldly shifting time and place, but he doesn't do it very well. It was so confusing that my wife initially believed that Nicole really was lying at the inquest, and neither of us could figure out what the point was of showing us that the Dolores, the bus driver, has a new job in the big city. Did the town turn on her? Was this an oblique acknowledgement of guilt? Was this her way of putting the past behind her? Is there a suggestion that Mitchell's failure may cost other people their lives in the future? For all its faults--and there are a great many--I still recommend this film. There are moments when it is genuinely moving. And considering the mountains of slop that emerge every year from Hollywood, it is refreshing and more authentic study of grief than you are likely to see elsewhere soon.
IAN HOLM, SARAH POLLEY, BRUCE GREENWOOD, GABRIELLE ROSE, MAURY CHAYKIN, BROOKE JOHNSON, CAERTHAN BANKS, ARSINEE KHANJIAN, EARL PASTKO
Most science fiction films get so wrapped up in special effects they neglect character development and story. Blade Runner is an exception. I'm still not sure how good exactly it is. It is a much-discussed film, and justly respected. Whether it's brilliant or not, I don't know. It is the year 2019. Mankind has created genetic duplicates called "replicants" who are used as slave labour on colonies on distant planets. Unfortunately, some of the replicants have become too human and rebelled against their masters. Harrison Ford plays one of the cops employed to track down and "retire" them. Here the movie takes an unusual twist. These replicants are no "terminators". They are very close to human and they begin to acquire emotions and even memories. These developments prevent the Blade Runner from carrying his tasks with model efficiency. In fact, he even falls a bit in love with a replicants, a new demonstrator of the Tyrrel Corporations cutting edge technologies. The point of the movie becomes blurred when this happens. You would think there would be very serious political, social, and moral consequences if the replicants were substantially like humans. By what right do we then enslave them? Because we created them? By that logic, our children could also be our slaves. It seems to me that a society capable of creating replicants like these would also be capable of ensuring that they did not correspond too closely to ourselves. In that sense, the movie seems glib. Yet the story also focuses on the problem created by the fact that these androids do become "human-like", and the Blade Runner's awareness of them changes. The sets are the star of this film: brilliantly atmospheric and spooky. Belongs to the "future disaster" genre of sci-fi, but this was one the first to create a comprehensive scenario of the disaster. If the replicants are close to being human, why aren't they protected? After watching a later edit, considerably revised my view of the film upwards: there is a scene near the end in which Roy Blatty, a replicant, grieves the loss of his experiences, the things he has seen (that "you wouldn't believe the things I've seen..."), and his life. It's an utterly transcendent. And at heart, the movie appears to be about the absolute and fierce instinct for life itself-- Blatty tells his "maker", the genius behind the Tyrrell Corporation, that he wants more life. Then commits a violent act that becomes emblematic of the human dilemma.
HARRISON FORD, SEAN YOUNG, RUTGER HAUER
Occasionally tense and scary, but the conclusion washes a lot of the tension away. About a young, beautiful, female lawyer who falls in with the wrong sorts. Similar to Bad Influence-- her new "friends" set out to destroy her life. The film falls apart when it becomes apparent that this young, smart, beautiful lawyer is incapable of bringing any personal resources to the battle other than those used by her enemies: cunning and violence.
HELEN BAXENDALE, JOHN HANNAH, SUSAN LYNCH, BEN DANIELS
Obscure French film --based on real events--about Alexina, a young school teacher in 19th century France, who falls in love with her female room-mate. A scandal brews and she is driven from the community, only to return as a male, with the intention of marrying her girl. It emerges that Alexina is a hermaphrodite, more male than female, and she persuades the church and government to recognize her as a male. This doesn't mollify the community, however. Her lover is forced to marry a doctor and Alexina-- now known as Camille-- is strongly urged to emigrate to America. The final results of these developments is tragic. The film is reminiscent of Therese, another austere, self-conflicted story about a young girl's "delusions". Simply filmed, but the performances are solid and story is intriguing. Subtitled.
Six men, all victims of down-sizing, have various reasons for needing some money quickly. They note the appearance in town of the Chippendales, a male strip act, and decide if the Chippendales can do it, why not they? They rehearse, suffer various set-backs and emotional turmoil, and decide to out-do the Chippendales by performing a "full monty", completely naked. This film is really about self-esteem and, ironically, self-respect. Yes, they are getting up there in a bar to strip in front of a crowd of ravenous women, but you realize that these men have lost their dignity due to the brutality of capitalism gone amok, and their determination to remake themselves is the most hopeful quality in their lives.
True story of Don Lope de Aguirre, a commander under Gonzalo Pizarro during the Spanish exploration of South America in the 15th century. Hopelessly lost while searching for El Dorado, the city of Gold, Pizarro sends Ursua out with 40 men, including Ursua's wife, and Aguirre, and Aguirre's daughter Inez, to search for food and help. After disaster strikes when a raft is caught in a whirlpool, Aguirre successfully leads a rebellion against Ursua. They continue downstream hoping to find and capture El Dorado all by themselves. Aguirre proclaims that he himself with be King of El Dorado, and he will bring Spain itself to its knees with his power and might. Unfortunately, the reality is that a bunch of brave but foolish European soldiers are trapped in the jungles of South America without the slightest idea of how to deal with the hazards of nature or the deadly attacks of the natives with blow guns. One by one, soldiers are picked off, become ill, or desert. Aguirre becomes delusional and pathetic, drifting down the river on a raft of death, all the while proclaiming his domination of the world. Aguirre is at once a fascinating story of misadventure and disaster, and a metaphor for Europe's relationship with the new world. The native peoples, even those who offer friendship, are enslaved or killed. Nature is defied, in vain. The priest offers anemic rationalizations for their behavior. Ursua's wife stalks off in the middle of the jungle to meet her fate with the natives, rather than endure another day with Aguirre. A powerful, haunting story, which must have been a horrific filming experience for cast and crew. You see, hear, almost feel the jungle and smell the sweat of the men as they slog through swamps, down impossible glades, carrying Ursua's wife in a sedan chair. The dialogue is more than occasionally stiff: bad translation or weak script? Herzog also directed Nosferatu, which was more stylish and affecting than Aguirre.
KLAUS KINSKI, PETER BERLING, CECILIA RIVERA, HELENA ROJO, EDWARD ROLAND, DAN ADES, DEL NEGRO, RUY GUERRA
Stark, black & white film about a thug in New York and the strange girl he attracts, and the disaster brought on by his pirated tapes of a rough punk band's performances. Unusual and interesting, and sometimes arresting. You can spot the seams in this one, but almost don't mind.
Well-made, well-acted docudrama on Oscar Wilde's life and loves, and the disaster he brought upon himself when he sued the Marquess of Queensbury (yes, he of the famous rules) for libel for claiming that he (Oscar) was a sodomite. Wilde's lawsuit seemed to break an unspoken acceptance of his "eccentricities" by the British public and he was subsequently charged with homosexual activity and sent to prison where he did hard labour for several years. The prison term broke him, and destroyed his career. Beautifully filmed-- you expect no less nowadays from British films-- in the lush countryside, and in the stately period mansions, and exceptionally well-acted. Wilde's famous wit emerges with enough spontaneity to seem thoughtful, and his speeches are rarely glib.
The computer effects keep getting more and more amazing. Why can't we work on writing for a change? Pleasantville starts out with an interesting concept: two teenagers are magically transported into a 1950's "Father Knows Best" type of situation comedy, a black-and-white world. They are forced to live there and adapt until Bud finds a way back, by contacting the strange television repair-man who supplied them with the magical remote. But the town is also affected by them, and as people are awoken from their stultifying, conformist existences, colour begins to enter their lives. At first, it seems that it's Jennifer's sexual promiscuity that is awakening everyone's passion. But Jennifer herself stays a pallid grey, while her friends take on rosey cheeks. She can't figure it out, until she realizes that it isn't the sex: it's the broadmindedness, the acceptance of adventure, the desire to break the hold of confomity-- that's what's liberating everyone! So she starts reading D.H. Lawrence. Which is, about sex. I suppose there is some muddled idea in all of this that a desire to experience sex with different people goes hand in hand with inquiring minds. Maybe. Bud is happy, at first, with the cheerful vacuity of Pleasantville. One of the more annoying traits of this film, though, is the way he seems to immediately know all the rules. Bud and Jennifer don't sort of stagger around and figure things out-- the director seems to have told Bud a few things. It's like Star Trek, when they go into the past, and they all seem to instantly know that if they change anything, the future will alter (chaos) theory and they might go pfffttt. At least Star Trek offered an explanation. Pleasantville merely offers shortcuts. So, it's a Truman Show, a Back to the Future, with enhanced graphics. But the same old Hollywood writers. You watch the first half-hour and you ache for something original and interesting to happen... but it never does. So I'll repeat what I've been saying a lot of lately (Titanic, What Dreams May Come, Truman Show): see it. You'll probably enjoy the computer effects. But if you only see one movie a month, there are better films around.
TOBEY MAGUIRE, JEFF DANIELS, JOAN ALLEN, WILLIAM H. MACY, J.T. WALSH, REECE WITHERSPOON, DON KNOTTS, PAUL WALKER
Sometimes intriguing but generally over-rated comedy about a "girrrrl" (Christina Ricci) who runs away from home to live with her brother, a gay teacher, seduces his boyfriend, runs off with $10,000, links up with an abusive fundamentalist former boyfriend (by whom she is pregnant), and eventually learns that life is serrrrious. The story line actually sounds more intriguing than the execution, because the script is the very definition of sophomoric. At times, the film even sounds like a college freshman discussion group on relationships. Which is disappointing, after Ricci's initial voice-over in which she promises that those who expect this story to fall into the predictable "what I learned that summer" or "bad girl with a golden heart" pattern will be sharply disappointed. This is the second alternative film I've seen in a few weeks that starts out very promising (Henry Fool) but ends up losing itself into lost and depleted Hollywood conventions. Even Lisa Kudrow doesn't know whether to preplay her "Friends" schtick or adopt a new character. As I watched her struggle, I wondered if the director wasn't giving her any help. Worth seeing? Yeeaaah. What's the point? That the opposite of sex is commitment? True love? That when you have sex because it's the opposite of what your parents want you to do, that doing the opposite of sex will finally let you be yourself? I'm not sure the movie wasn't so muddled that these issues don't really emerge clearly.
CHRISTINA RICCI, LISA KUDROW, MARTIN DONOVAN, LYLE LOVETT, JOHNNY GALECKI, IVAN SERGEI
I am not a Steve Spielberg fan. Sure, Spielberg is an acknowledged master of the technical side of filming. You need special effects? A spaceship? An invasion of Europe? Steve's your man. But I tend to retch inside whenever Spielberg tries to do some DRAMA. The music rises, the camera zooms in, and the actor does his best to emote. And I feel ready to puke. That said, I must admit that there are moments in "Saving Private Ryan" that look like the best movie ever made. The thirty minutes of combat, the landing on Omaha beach, are awe-inspiring. The fuscillade that enters the landing craft when the gate opens is viscerally shocking, compelling, and absolutely believable. It's powerful stuff. Then we get into the plot, and dialogue, and drama. Tom Hanks leads a detachment into enemy territory to search for a Private Ryan so his mother can be spared the possibility that all of her three sons will die in action (two of them have just died). Spielberg wants us to believe that the military genuinely cares about this family-- the general who makes the decision is presented as utterly noble and compassionate and not a hint of the pr value is expressed with any cynicism-- and you can tell he thinks he is dealing with a substantive theme here: what makes a man's life worth saving. What is the answer? I don't know, and Spielberg certainly doesn't. The platoon finds Ryan and then battles to save a bridge somewhere, and I guess we're supposed to think that when the cowardly corporal finally shoots a German prisoner in cold blood, that something profound has happened and we can go home with deep feelings. What is the point? That we are justified in committing war crimes because, hey, those are our friends getting hurt out there? The American Legion loves this film, and well it should. In spite of some rumblings about this being "against" war, in fact, we get the same old patriotic shmaultz, with a faded flag (to symbolize the sacrafices called for) and teary nostalgia in the face of the self-same Ryan as he visits a graveyard in France fifty years later. The most bizarre part of the film is the impression it leaves that America liberated France all by it's lonely self. Can you remember any film or documentary about D-Day that left out the French, the British, the Canadians, the Belgians, the Dutch, the Poles, and all the other components of the invasion force? I know some will argue that this film is intended only to focus on the American contribution. But that is exactly what is wrong with it. In this case, the ommission is a sin, because it plays up to some of the more uniformed American attitudes towards Europe and the war, and Spielberg knows that this plays well with his bread and butter, the average American movie-goer. Yeah, go see it, because you will never have an experience closer to the actual invasion of Europe. But, please, let's not toss around phrases like "significant" and "intelligent". They don't belong here. By the way, there are "deep", "significant" war films: try "Paths of Glory" or "All Quiet on the Western Front", or even "Apocalypse Now".
TOM HANKS
Why is it that just because someone says a film is "just entertainment" or that a director knowingly uses cliches and stereo-types that we are supposed to suspend all judgement and nod and wink and pronounced the film highly entertaining and fun. The Mask of Zorro is not "highly entertaining" and not very much fun. Who says you can re-use hackneyed Hollywood conventions and still be entertaining? What is entertaining about seeing the villain escape certain death time after time because you know he can't be truly vanquished until the last act? What is so much fun about seeing one man take on dozens of opponents over and over again without being defeated? Are we supposed to be amused that no two of them have the brains to attack at the same time? Zorro is lushly filmed, competently acted, and nicely staged. Other than that, it's boring and predictable, and the occasional nudge-nudge wink-wink doesn't excuse the overwhelming conventionality of its premise and conclusion. Boring.
ANTHONY HOPKINS, ANTONIO BANDERIS
What is unique about John Sayles' films, above everything else, is the robust humanity at the heart of his narratives. Yes, Sayles has some strong beliefs, about violence, and justice, and society, but he never loses sight of the fact that at the heart of every issue is a human being trying to live his or her life with dignity. Men With Guns is about a doctor-- his name is Fuentes, but no one in this film really goes by a name--who, facing retirement alone, decides to seek out some of the young idealists he trained for a special project, to provide medical care to the poor indigenous people of the mountains, far away from his comfortable city. He hears many rumours about what happened to them. A police Captain tells him that the guerrillas have killed or kidnapped them, and that the peasants make up stories about army atrocities to server their own purposes. His son-in-law laughs about the very idea of helping people who don't want help, and wouldn't be thankful for it in any case. He decides that he has to see for himself. His voyage of discovery is a painful eye-opener. Many of the villages he sent his charges to have been eradicated by the army. Villagers are intimidated or fearful. They tell him they never liked the doctor-- he wasn't "one of us". The army and police threaten him. He links up with a young orphan named Conejo, and a renegade priest, and an army deserter named Domingo. They introduce him to the real world, of brutality and ruthlessness, where power is held by "men with guns" who terrorize and exploit the people. While Sayles absolves no one, it is clear he has more sympathy for the guerrilla's than for the army. This could be any Latin American country in the 70's or 80's, where peasants are forced to grow coffee instead of food, and where the descendents of the Spanish have seized the land and driven the native population into the infertile mountainous regions. The doctor's quest, to find his "legacy" is frustrated in one sense, but Sayles never gives up on humanity. There are signs of hope at the end, especially in the redemptive act of the deserter, who learns something about the people he used to oppress. As in many of Sayle's films--particularly Mattewan--most of the actors are amateurs, selected primarily for their authenticity and honesty. There is little to be dissastisfied with. Sayle's never sells his stories short, or compromises his vision. He is clearly one of the most important directors in America today, yet he does his thing without Hollywood money and, generally, without big-name Hollywood talent. Some notes: Sayles is audacious-- this film is in Spanish (filmed in Mexico) with English subtitles, but don't let that put you off. The subtitles are very readable and the film tells most of its story in powerful visuals.
FREDERICO LUPPI, DAMIAN DELGADO, DAN RIVERA GONZALEZ, TANIA CRUZ, DAMIAN ALCAZAR, MANDY PATINKIN, KATHRYN GRODY
While staying at a motel in Orangeville, Ontario several months ago (don't ask), I was flipping channels on the cheap colour tv when I came upon some rather striking black and white images. Two men in dark suits were sitting and talking on the ruins of an arch in modern day Berlin. There was something unusual and stately in the following sequence of shots-- in a library, at a circus, at a construction site. I kept watching and watching, and it turned out to be one of the most compelling movies I have seen in a long, long time. It was called "Wings of Desire" and it was directed by German Wim Wenders. I know I missed the beginning, so I checked with a couple of video stores about its availability. But the film was partly in German and partly in English, black and white, and didn't feature a single major Hollywood star, unless you class Peter Falk as a "major Hollywood star". Will you ever see this film in a video store? Sure. Right between Demi Moore's "Ghost" and "Michael". Let me know if you do. When I read that Hollywood was doing a remake of it, I thought, yeah, right. We know what Hollywood does with good European films. Think "Cousin, Cousine", "Three Men and a Baby", "Breathless", and so on. It didn't help when I heard that Meg Ryan had been signed to play a heart surgeon in the remake. Right. A perky heart surgeon. But "Angels Over Berlin" was so good, that when the Hollywood version, "City of Angels" appeared, I went to go see it anyway. Guess what? Well, no, Hollywood didn't finally make an adult film, but they came pretty close. Pretty close. Nicholas Cage plays an "angel" named Seth. Though the film makes a few oblique allusions to the Biblical idea of angels (Seth's sidekick says "people don't believe in us anymore"), it wisely refrains from providing unnecessary detail. As a result, these angels are mysterious, dark, brooding characters, haunting the streets of L.A.. Often they merely observe, from perches high above the city, or they gather at the beach to hear music with the sunrise. Their job is to receive the dead, from car accidents, heart attacks, murders, and escort them to some unspecified afterlife. The angels feel neither joy nor sorrow for their work. But they observe humanity and are curious about human sensations-- touch, taste, fear... Their favorite hangout, as in the Wender's version, is the public library, where they can overhear the ideas and feelings of hundreds of quiet, thoughtful people. You may never see a library the same way again. Scenes like this lend the film an atmosphere, at times, of almost unbearable melancholy. You observe through Seth's eyes, the futile longings and desperate wishes of lonely, inadequate people. You may also realize just how sad, interesting, and beautiful humans are. Seth grows particularly curious about a young woman, a heart surgeon, named Maggie Rice. He observes her desperate attempts to resuscitate a heart patient. He begins to fall in love with her, and makes himself visible to her. These passages are among the film's best: the way she responds to his childlike questions, and the way he puzzles her with his self-assurance and insight. Seth begins to fall in love with Maggie, but, as an angel, cannot feel her touch or respond to her desires. The plot thickens when Dennis Franz appears, as another of Maggie's heart patients named Messenger. Seth is stunned when Messenger tells him that he knows he's there. He finds out that angels can become human, at an extremely high price. Seth flirts with the thought, and continues his relationship with Maggie, who is both tantalized and frustrated by this ethereal being. It was at this point that I honestly thought that this was going to be the best Hollywood movie of the past ten, maybe twenty years. It was beautifully filmed and well-acted and written. Better yet, it was full of subtle wonders, about the mysteries of life and love and human consciousness and despair. It made "Schindler's List" look callow and trivial by comparison. And then... and then... the Hollywood ethic kicked in. The music, which would not have been out of place on the soundtrack of "Ghost"-- that awful-- kicked in with a vengeance, and the delicate interlace of ideas and emotions gave way to obvious sentimentality. The first part of "City of Angels" is so good, you could almost forgive the ending. Or you could just pull your hair out and wail uncontrollably about the fact that America in 1998 still seems incapable of producing adult films (I mean "adult" in the positive sense: a serious film about mature subject matter). And you realize that the sophisticated, intelligent tone of the first half are probably almost entirely due to the inspiration of Wim Wenders, not Brad Silberling. Some fragmentary thoughts after the movie. * Why, in heaven's name, didn't anyone think of putting some Leonard Cohen on the soundtrack. His music was made for this film. * What are we all doing running around, chasing our tails, slaving away trying to accumulate more and more meaningless possessions, while the truly rich and valuable things around us die from neglect? Yes, we already knew that, but this film honestly raises the question again in a very powerful way. At a convenience store robbery, as two angels wait for sudden departures, the store clerk and the terrified customers cower on the floor and we hear their thoughts, about seeing their grandchildren again, about missed opportunities, about the things they will miss about life. Not one of them wishes he could rush back to his office and finish that budget he was working on. We know this. We've been taught this piece of wisdom time and time again by great writers and artists-- why are we so incapable of doing something about it? I think every church should schedule a Sunday service that begins with this movie, and ends with a giant party, with everyone encouraged to find someone in the room who would be blessed by a loving word or some encouragement. * Nicholas Cage is very good. Meg Ryan is okay. She is more than a little out of her depth, but she's okay, until the film asks her to do some stupid things in the closing scenes. What does Meg Ryan do better than anyone else? She does a wonderful, heart-melting, double-take. This works pretty well when Seth mystifies her, but she can't handle the scenes where she is required to cope with really conflicting emotions. * The cinematography is excellent. The scenes of the angels, sitting on unfinished office towers in the center of Los Angeles, are utterly compelling. Those scenes, incidentally, are lifted intact from Wim Wender's version. * The first bad sign in this film is when Seth rushes down the street to be with Maggie right after his transformation. Okay, Meg Ryan is pretty cute, but in the original, the angel rushes to a kiosk to have a cup of coffee, because his years of observing human behavior have caused him to think that coffee must be one hell of a great drink. * Messenger is enjoyable. As a transformed angel, you might have expected him to a little like Michael Landon, but instead he acts like...well, Lieutenant Bunz, from Hill St. Blues.
MEG RYAN, NICHOLAS CAGE, DENNIS FRANZ
Is this supposed to be funny? As I watched Mike Myers try to make something funny out of anachronisms and bodily functions, I felt like I used to when I watched Jerry Lewis movies: what exactly is supposed to be funny about this? Myers plays top British secret agent, Austin Powers, cryogenicly frozen in 1967 so he could reappear to deal with his "arch-nemesis" Dr. Evil when the time came. Elizabeth Hurley is his lovely assistant, who, of course, becomes smitten. There is something particularly offensive about this device. I mean, you could understand why women would fall for Charlie Chaplin or Peter Sellers or Dudley Moore, or, heavens!, even Zero Mostel... but Mike Myers, with those awful teeth and the smarmy jokes? If there are any bright spots, it is the rather sparse use of 60's music like Johnny Rivers' classic "Secret Agent Man" and Strawberry Alarm Clock, and the brief dance "interludes" between acts, which do have a kind of campy appeal, but the rest of this movie is sloppy, unfunny, and unimaginative. When they did have a good idea-- like having a Soviet Attache as part of the debriefing team after Powers is revived-- they executed poorly. It would have been much funnier, for example, if Powers had come across the Soviet by accident and, assuming he was still a mortal enemy, strangled him, or something. If you do enjoy the low-brow humour but don't find AUSTIN POWERS all that funny, try THE NAKED GUN. Also similar but much funnier: CASINO ROYALE, with Peter Sellers; BACK TO THE FUTURE, with Michael Fox and Christopher Lloyd.
MIKE MYERS, ELIZABETH HURLEY, ROBERT WAGNER, PETER YORK
Neil Jordan's study of adolescent rage, the Butcher Boy follows the sequence of personal disasters that befall Francie, a young, poor boy in a small Irish town. His father is an alcoholic and his mother is a depressive neurotic. The only bright spot in Francie's life is his friend Joe, with whom he fantasizes scenarios from American movies and television. Francie aims his rage at the local snob, Mrs. Nugent, and her prissy son, Phillip. He is caught vandalizing her home and is sent to reform school. While he is away, a letter from Joe raises doubts in his mind about his best friend's loyalty. He returns home only to find himself more disaffected than before, and he plots his ultimate revenge. Is this a film about how disaffected boys grow up to become violent men? Or just a character study? I'm not sure it's satisfying as either. It is well acted and filmed, but without subtlety, and without those moments of acute observation that enrich similar films like "400 Blows" and "If..." Francie externalizes so much of his rage that it is difficult, in the end, to grasp what really drives the boy. And what is the point of the appearances of the Virgin Mary (Sinead O'Conner)? Jordan doesn't want us to believe that she has any real miracles to offer, but it's hard to see the connection between Francie's family's casual Catholicism, and her bad advice to Francie. Neil Jordan also directed Mona Lisa and The Crying Game, both of which were more satisfying. Interview With the Vampire, starring Tom Cruise, was an unmitigated disaster. Mike Leigh's Naked, which is far more depressing because it is far more powerful, is a much better film than Butcher Boy, and reveals more about the destructive urges of the central character.
STEPHEN REA, FIONA SHAW, EAMONN OWENS, ALAN BOYLE, AISLING O'SULLIVAN, PAT MCCABE, SINEAD O'CONNER
Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/hystucrw/public_html/movies/reports/report1998.php on line 102
All Contents Copyright © Bill Van Dyk 1998 All Rights Reserved
This is from \dev\moviespdo\reports\reports1998.php.