failedscreenwriter Reviews

Annapolis (2006)

A 108-minute recruiting video. Clichés? Sir, Aye Aye SIR!

[5/10 · 17 January 2007]

I saw this on cable, expecting it to be terrible. Well, it wasn't exactly bad. It wasn't exactly good. In fact, Annapolis is what it is: a slick, technically well made infomercial. It was interesting to read comments from actual graduates, who seem to find this flick either funny or mildly insulting.

And does it have every cliché in the book? You're HOO-RAH it does!

Let's see. Jake Huard (Franco) is the Blue Collar Kid From the Wrong Side of the Bay. Most of his buddies work in a naval shipyard (how's THAT for dramatic irony?) For Jake, the Only Honorable Thing to Do is to go to Annapolis, where he meets a whole battleship load of clichés. There's the Fat Kid, the Rival, the Bully (in this movie, bullying is only good if it Helps Make You Better), and the Girl Our Hero Can't Have. And let's not forget the Wise Old Coach who teaches Jake that Boxing is Life. (Apparently, at Annapolis all you do is chat up your opposite-sex superiors and train for the Big Match). Oh, and let's not forget the Mentor from the Real World, a Marine (Gibson) who talks like a cross between Lee Ermey and Tony Robbins. His pep talks about how The Navy Wants Only Perfection and You Make It Happen, are clearly intended to be high points in the script, but come off sounding about as inspirational as Pat Robertson trying to rap. In his plebe year, Jake discovers that Integrity is All and the most important thing is: Never Quit. I won't spoil it for you, but gosh, there are just no surprises here. You'll figure it out before Plot Point Two.

Again, that doesn't make this a bad picture; just a clichéd and derivative one. If this kind of misfit-underdog-fits-in plot is your thing, then goodonya. It wasn't even as politically annoying as I had expected: the propaganda is only implied and Iraq gets only a subtle passing mention at the end, when our hero is challenged to Be Even Better.

Five and a half out of 10 for being better than "An Officer and a Gentleman." But if you want a good movie about the military experience, rent "Full Metal Jacket" instead.

Two Brothers (2004)

A Thinking Family's "Family" Movie

[8/10 · 4 July 2005]

I normally don't bother with "family" movies. I have found them trite at best and encouragers of social conformity at worst. Not this one! True, some of the tiger behaviors depicted aren't accurate. The picture of 1920's colonial life in Vietnam is largely sanitized. But if we suspend disbelief, Two Brothers is the classic animal story: two tiger littermates are separated by humans and of course, reunited as adults with lots of complications and cute animal scenes along the way. But the script is quite literate for this type of story. The photography is lovely and the animal scenes, while staged of course, do not appear to be. It's also refreshing to see very little obvious CGI in this movie! Guy Pearce elevates the script as an author-big game hunter-antiquities thief who learns to appreciate both nature and cultural diversity. The story is not overly violent or upsetting for children while not being too dumbed-down for parents. And there's a gentle plug at the end for tiger preservation.

As nature movies go it's not The Bear (same director) or Walkabout, but it is what it is. I'd recommend Two Brothers for families with children of almost any age. 8 out of 10 for this purpose and get the DVD, your kids will want to see this many times.

Uptown Girls (2003)

Predictable and Trite, Business as Usual

[4/10 · 1 July 2005]

My wife has this on Showtime (pretty p!$$ poor night for cable) and it annoyed me before the opening credits finished.

THE STORY IN 75 WORDS OR LESS: Sexy heiress to a rock star's fortune discovers she's broke and takes a job as nanny to an 8-year-old so precocious she must have been someone's evil DNA experiment. Nanny is a perpetual teen while her adorable little charge has enough OCD for a whole limo-load of Howard Hugheses. Now, don't you just know that by the end they will both smile and say: "You know, I learned something from this!"

Murphy is just as cute and funny as she's always been while young Fanning shows promise. The problem here is the script in all its formulated triteosity. Characters are one-dimensional and Fanning's character--yet another third-grade adult--requires us not only to suspend disbelief; we'd have to put it in traction. The writers must have their old college screen writing textbooks enshrined--you could set your watch by Plot Points One and Two.

Might be good weekend-rental fare for a preteen slumber party, but anyone beyond high school would do well to avoid this one.

Mr. B Natural (1957)

Scarier than "Showgirls!"

[1/10 · 11 August 2004]

Like everyone else, I saw this late one Friday night on MST3K. Essentially it's a really lame 1950s infomercial to help high schools recruit more band zombies. It was produced by Conn, a manufacturer of band instruments, and is (entertainingly) bad beyond belief.

The essential plot: Buzz, a shy (and apparently, seriously disturbed) teen, is visited by an extra-perky and sexually confused woman in a Peter Pan suit, calling herself "Mr. B Natural." She than takes him on a magical misery tour of the hip world that is High School Band. He's under her evil spell! Slinging his trumpet like Miles Davis, our Buzz is now one of the popular kids and quite the chick magnet. Gosh, when *I* was in band all it did was get me out of P.E.!

The shrill, artificial dialogue (complete with horrible puns about being natural) and "Mr. B Natural's" gyrations defy description. One IMDb reviewer compared this film to the darkest thing David Lynch ever imagined, and I must agree. All you'd need is a dwarf talking backwards and Kyle McLachlan brandishing a trombone, and I think David has his next dream sequence. Do NOT see this film while on acid; it could do your psyche serious damage. And if Buzz were in school today, he'd quite likely wander into the band room when everyone else is out selling candy, and shoot holes in the tubas with his Uzi. One of Crow's lines in response to the awesomely bad script was "Have you no shame?" No, they didn't.

Lean on Me (1989)

Portrait of a Cult Leader?

[5/10 · 2 August 2004]

Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

The problem isn't in Freeman's performance; his portrayal of bullhorn-toting principal Joe Clark is nuanced and powerful. In fact, it's not in the generally good performances by a good cast. It's not in the direction; it's clichéd but about what you'd expect in a Hollywood biopic. In fact, it's pretty much an average movie, 5 - 6 stars by IMDb's scale and two and a half by VideoHound's.

No, it must be this movie's viewpoint. As he often was in the media at the time, Clark is portrayed as a savior who vindicates his bullying (excuse me, that should read "Tough Love") by single-handedly turning around an inner-city high school. Fair enough. But the students are portrayed as bumbling inepts who finally turn their lives around by not asking questions and obeying Clark in all things. The teachers are a bunch of whining misfits, some of whom finally turn their lives around by putting their brains and mouths in neutral and obeying Clark in all things.

Starting to see the pattern? Only when you stop thinking and do as you're told can you be a real person. (Kind of interesting that most of writer Michael Schiffer's work has involved military themes). At one point, Clark upbraids then praises a music teacher in front of her students. Where I teach, that would get a division dean transferred to the Welding department. Then, we are supposed to cheer when he locks all the doors. Anyone remember what happened at that chicken plant down South? In essence, Clark is no better than the hoodlums he vanquishes.

It should be noted that in real life, Clark's techniques were not as well accepted as they are in this picture. That same technique was in style a few years ago as a form of discipline. Teens were being sent off to "boot camp" for just about any kind of behavior you could imagine. And, the technique fell into disrepute when the teens who returned didn't know how to say "No" or ask questions. If you had a teenage daughter, would you want her to be unable to say "No" to an authority figure?

Like many films of the 80s, "Lean On Me" presents a scary pop-culture endorsement of a larger social trend. We see it even today. We are encouraged to stop thinking and put our trust in authority figures, be it Dr. Phil, Landmark Seminars, the televangelist of your choice, or our political leaders. Our society feels that military-style training is good for everyone. Only then, we are told, do we "get it." Critical thinking is no longer taught in schools because it is "negative," maybe even unpatriotic! This is why Manson, Jonestown and Heaven's Gate happened. I teach college and I have seen too many students give up their studies to join some cult, because they want so desperately to "get it" and have never been taught how to question what they are told.

Of course, I'm not blaming movies. I love movies. And I love free speech, and believe that any movie has the right to be seen (even "New York Minute" :) All I'm saying is, that when you consume movies and other entertainment, watch to see what it's really telling you. You could be surprised.

Master of the World (1961)

A Pretty Good Action Sleeper

[6/10 · 15 November 2002]

I caught this one on cable recently, seeing it for the first time as an adult. I must admit to a slight bias toward this film: when I was growing up in the dreaded BC (before cable) days, it was standard Saturday afternoon TV fare on our local indie channels. I was surprised at how well it's held up after all this time.

Master of the World is actually based on two little-remembered Jules Verne novels. Price is his usual hammy self as the standard Verne not-quite-villain, Robur (read: Nemo in the air) who, like Nemo, seeks to end war through technology. The young Bronson, as a sympathizer who then rebels against Robur's violent methods, is far less wooden than in his later years. But the real star of this movie is its production design. The rendering of what an aircraft might have looked like in Victorian days (had such a thing been possible) is dead-on, and the special effects are pretty impressive for 1961. The script, by Richard Matheson, is a little overwrought, but true to Verne's spirit while eliminating the blatant racism of the original stories. This time around though, I found the sweeping, melodramatic score to be a bit overpowering.

In short, not a perfect film or even a great film, but Master of the World remains a well made, entertaining action fantasy. I'm surprised it isn't better remembered by fans of the genre.

The Dragon Dies Hard (1975)

Kung Schmaltz

[13 November 2002]

I recall seeing a film in the late 70s called "The Dragon Dies Hard." Now, what with all the title-switching on martial arts movies of that day, this may or may not be the one I saw, but it sounds close enough. The one I saw rose to new heights of bad-osity. From that day to this, I remember it with a shudder.

In my town anyway, this gobbler was touted as a "biography" of the recently-dead Bruce Lee. Now, I can forgive a "biopic" for being fictional; most are. But this one first centered around a racist "turf war" between Lee and some Japanese martial artists, with a finish implying that Lee was murdered by the mob. Fair enough, but the actor playing Lee not only resembled him about as much as I resemble Russell Crowe, but didn't even fight in Lee's style. And to say that this crap-socky piece of yak doody had none of Lee's melodramatic flair as well as none of Jackie Chan's slapstick fun, is an understatement. Between the strong anti-Japanese sentiment, a script too weak even for a kung fu movie, and martial arts scenes played with all the excitement of a T-ball squad on Ritalin, it's no wonder this kung bomb remains in the murky past.

The Others (2001)

Gothic thriller in every sense of the term

[1 July 2002]

"The Others" delivers on the promise of its trailer: a well-directed and well-acted Gothic with plenty of frights. All the elements are there: an old mansion inhabited by mysterious people, strange, possibly supernatural events, and tons of red herrings and camera tricks.

On the other hand, it's also a Gothic in that it's thoroughly predictable.

Nicole Kidman is excellent as Grace, a reclusive war widow (or is she?) who seems to be walking the edge between sanity and madness. She is extremely protective of her children, who suffer from a rare skin condition (or do they?) that condemns them to life at home in the dark. Just days after the servants "disappeared," along come three mysterious new servants, who dress in the clothing of another century. Then, unexplainable things start to happen.

Sounds great, right? All except the predictability bit. I'm not going to reveal the much-hyped "big twist ending," but I will say that if you are a fan of "Twilight Zone" reruns it will be no twist to you. In fact, you'll have it figured out in the first twenty minutes. Not that director Alejandro Amenábar hasn't created a wonderfully moody picture. Many of his camera tricks are right out of "Halloween" (the first one), but they are still effective. Kidman is alternately likable, sexy and creepy, and it's always refreshing to see child actors who can "really" act. But if you rent this, expect a great buildup with a disappointing final half hour.

Godspell (1973)

Out of Its Time

[30 May 2002]

When it comes to filming hit plays, Hollywood isn't known for its timeliness. After all, "Hair" was at last filmed fully a decade after it had stopped being controversial. "Glengarry Glen Ross," a play about the unrestrained greed of the Reagan era, was filmed at the height of the recession-hangover from that era. "Godspell" was produced in 1973: well, technically it *was* still a hit, but the off-Broadway charm had long faded, and the Jesus hippies who inspired the show had mostly donned crewcuts and brown suits the year before.

Not that there isn't *some* charm to "Godspell." It's almost worth a look on late-night cable to see a deserted New York (and this 30 years before "Vanilla Sky")! Haskell is suitably dignified and menacing as Judas, whom he plays as the perennial outsider who just doesn't seem to get it. The cast of mostly unknowns is quite appealing, but eventually the combination of 1930s-vintage comedy with 60s improv wears thin, and the antics that may be endearing on the intimacy of a stage become silly and cartoonish on the expanse that is film. The usually-good Garber is disappointing as Victor/Jesus, in a performance that can best be described as "Big Bird Meets Gandhi."

In short, if Hollywood is going to attempt to film hit plays, the Powers That Be should remember two things: 1) Just because it's a good play doesn't make it a good movie, and 2) Many plays are very topical--do it while the topic is still relevant. I only hope the planned filming of "Cats" never happens.

Rose Red (2002)

Thorny Plot Points; Needs Pruning

[1 February 2002]

It seems many of King's stories don't translate to the screen so well. This one was written for TV and is no exception. After a good start and great setup, the plot meanders through six hours toward a muddled resolution. A couple of characters simply stop being there (*not* the disappearances that are part of the plot; they just stop being in the script) and entire plot points aren't discussed or merely wander off. One character seems to have two names, one of them being used only by one other character. We're never told why. Viewing this miniseries, it seems that several key events were cut out and a lot of fluff left in.

In short, Rose Red would have made a great *four-hour* miniseries—with a different editor.

Who's That Knocking at My Door (1967)

"Love Story" Meets "Heart of Darkness"

[2 January 2002]

I am an unabashed admirer of Martin Scorsese's work, and his first feature did not disappoint. Filmed on practically no budget, this movie uses a nonlinear approach to storytelling that predates "Pulp Fiction" by some 25 years. One can also see a precursor of Scorsese's later cinematic technique, and just a hint of his nightmare-world view of New York that is so apparent in his later works "Taxi Driver," "After Hours" and "Bringing Out the Dead." Scorsese's trademark—finding the perfect piece of contemporary music for each scene—is also quite apparent here.

As the traditionally-minded J.R., the young Keitel turns in a riveting performance in his first film appearance, as a working-class New Yorker torn between his cultural norms and his love for an intelligent, independent woman. Bethune is today better known as a dancer and humanitarian, but as "The Girl" she is utterly convincing and nothing short of ravishing, with a presence both ethereal and self-assuredly erotic. The meeting of the two characters is really a meeting of the traditional with the modern--something much on people's minds in 1968 when this film was made. It's interesting that in some places this movie was retitled "I Call First"—the gist of the conflict between the lovers. J.R. receives a piece of information about The Girl's past, one that he cannot put into perspective given his macho set of social norms. Scorsese throws in a dash of the Catholic morality and male-centeredness current at the time, and we have a memorable exploration of the place of culture and religion in determining who and how much we love.

If you're a Scorsese fan, this film is a must-rent. If you're uninitiated, see a couple of his later films first, then go back to this one for a look at two future giants—Scorsese and Keitel—on their first project, as well as an excellent performance by Bethune, who should certainly have had more featured roles following this one.

Budo (1979)

An Artful Documentary

[14 November 2001]

This movie should demonstrate that all documentaries don't have to be stuffy cinema-verite stuff. Very informative for anyone interested in Japanese martial arts, the various arts are profiled with the artistry of a Kurosawa film. Particularly interesting is the entry on Aikido, an art seldom glimpsed in the States except by the initiated. I have been trying to acquire this movie ever since I saw it in my Aikido class nearly 15 years ago.

How to Make an American Quilt (1995)

The Usual Sexist Propaganda (Spoiler)

[21 September 2001]

This review contains the usual vitriol that I reserve for the most traditionally-biased films. Let me preface this by saying that it isn't that this film doesn't have a high powered cast of fine actresses. It does. It's not that the direction isn't completely competent and appropriate for this sort of sentimental subject matter. It is. My complaint about HTMAAQ is its total embrasure of traditional gender roles and the message it sends to young women.

Basically, smart and sexy but confused young Finn (the always-appealing Ryder) has a decision to make: Does she finish her Ph.D and enter the world of academia, or marry her nice-but-slightly-chauvinistic longtime boyfriend, who is VERY anxious for the baby action to begin? Well, this is a Hollywood picture made during one of our most conservative decades, so don't you just know what that decision will be?

Finn spends the summer listening to the narratives of her grandmother's little coffee klatch. These stories mostly involve how their lives were made better by men (even the really nasty ones), marriage (even the unhappy ones), and of course childbirth. These yentas manipulate our Finn something fierce, and when a huge wind from nowhere (or is it God?) blows the pages of her dissertation all over town, Finn sets out and finds...her devoted man just a-waitin' for her. At movie's end, Finn presumably decides it's time to fergit all about that there professorin', settle down and have some babies.

The problem with this film is obvious. It sends the strong message that women depend on men for their personal growth and very self-definition, and hints strongly at that oldest of lies, the inherent superiority of full-time-wife-and-mommyhood. In all, HTMAAQ is romantically filmed, well acted and doesn't require a lot of critical thinking. Pat Robertson couldn't have come up with a better infomercial for our culture's "barefoot and pregnant" ideal for women. I give it my Golden Barbie Award for gender stereotypes and utter vapidity. Avoid this one unless you're doing a term paper on sexism in popular culture.

Red Dwarf (1988– )

A Smegging Classic—Ninth Season Please!

[2 September 2001]

I discovered this gem only recently when I got BBC America. If you think Red Dwarf is just another sci-fi spoof, think again. The show revolves around likable slacker Dave Lister, lowest-ranking crewman on the starship Red Dwarf. Due to a convoluted set of circumstances, Lister is the sole survivor of a shipboard disaster. Revived three million years later by ship's computer Holly (a hilarious sendup of HAL 9000), Lister is now the last human alive. To preserve Lister's sanity Holly also brings back a hologrammatic copy of Lister's annoying roommate/boss, Arnold Rimmer. Rimmer's idea of a smegging good evening is devising a new salute, while for Lister the meaning of life can be found in a woman, a beer and a curry. They soon meet a descendant of Lister's cat, who has evolved into a sentient (sort of) species. Cat is the sharpest dresser in the universe and believes Lister to be God. A few shows later, they are joined by Kryten, an emotionally needy robot. Together our intrepid crew explores such compelling cosmic questions as the origins of life; the nature of time, reality and gazpacho; the ability of a cyborg to feel love; and: Where can you go in uncharted space to get really good Indian food? Any more would be telling...

I am normally not a person who can abide endless reruns—even good ones! Some Red Dwarf scripts approach genius; many do not. But I sit as cheerfully as Lister's gerbil-like grin for each cycle of Red Dwarf, as if it were my first viewing. I must agree with Sci-Fi Channel's Encyclopedia of Sci-Fi: Red Dwarf is character comedy first. Its setting may be a starship rather than a MASH unit in Korea or Jerry's apartment in New York; but what gives Red Dwarf a place with these giants is the same thing: Ultimately we love the show because we love the characters.

Mr. Mom (1983)

A Product of Its Time (SPOILER)

[5/10 · 19 August 2001]

I am an unrepentant child of the 60s. My formative years were during this time of new roles, questioning authority and more freedom. My dear wife, on the other hand, is Gen X to the bone. One of our few regular areas of disagreement? The films of the 80s.

A case in point: Mr. Mom. Despite the appealing performances of Keaton and Garr, and two admirably sleazy villains (the always-good Mull and Tambor), this film comes across as a feature-length infomercial for traditional gender roles. Keaton is a true fish out of water as a fired exec now raising the kids, while bored housewife Garr returns to work and encounters sexual harrassment, overtime and mandatory travel. <SPOILER>Though both eventually succeed at the role reversal, in the end the marriage is threatened and Garr decides she is happier as a full time mommy, leaving the better-adjusted Keaton to the big, bad world of business.</SPOILER>

The year that this film was made (1983) is instructive. The new freedom of the 60s and early 70s was ancient history. The Reagan years and their resultant Social Darwinism were in high gear; women who could afford it were being advised to leave the high-powered jobs to the "more fit" men, go home and have babies. Mr. Mom represented an exaggerated depiction of this return to traditional, socially defined roles for men and women. Whether the media became more conservative in response to Reaganism, or whether entertainment led the way to more conservative views, is a moot point. The end result—a noticeable rightward shift in our entertainment—was the same. Mr. Mom was one of the first Hollywood films to reflect the nation's conservative mood...there would be many others. These films are largely laughable today, and remain worthwhile mainly as an exercise in sociology, illustrating how movies both reflect and change the culture that produces them.

An Officer and a Gentleman (1982)

Reagan-era Sensibilities in a Slick Package (SPOILER)

[19 August 2001]

In my Mr. Mom review (q.v.), I mentioned that my wife and I disagree on the value of most popular 80s movies. They are the entertainment of her childhood; I see in them the manifestations of a culture I cordially disliked. When this one's on late night cable, I have to leave the room.

AOAAG was probably the first Hollywood movie to reinforce so blatantly the white, male, conservative values of the Reagan era. A traditional, simplistic outlook on life is everywhere. A never-quite-believable Gere is the square peg whose entire existence is saved through tough military training and conformity resulting therefrom. Winger plays a sexy, intelligent yet poor woman. Is she seeking a career? Education? Self realization? Not in that decade, Bonzo! Her only ambition is to nab a Navy officer and go AWOL from her factory job to bake cookies. Her entire life is defined by the attention of a man. <SPOILER>At movie's end, she can't even walk out of her job under her own power!</SPOILER>

All this morality is fed us via a baby spoon, by means of slick packaging and the occasional very un-family values-like sex scene. To complicate matters, the romantic dialogue suggests a chronic stutterer who has listened to too much adult-contemporary radio (another 80s phenomenon), the military scenes are those we have seen before, and the direction is competent but unimaginative. Character-wise, we have every stereotype in the book here: the bad girl who gets hers; the tough-but-fair DI who wants the best of the best of the best SIR; the weak willed best friend; and of course our heroes who reap the benefits of losing themselves to fit society's idea of normal. Sure makes me want to go to boot camp!

The jingoism and conservatism of AOAAG might have been somewhat forgivable had it been a period piece; but then you would have a war film. As it is, if you want to see a really good movie about love and personal change in the 80s, this isn't it. See "Children of a Lesser God," "The Big Chill," or even "Roxanne" instead.

Unbreakable (2000)

The Reality of Unreality

[29 June 2001]

In a decade of movies created by the marketing department and featuring vapid romances and action for action's sake, M. Night Shyamalan is an uncompromising director. He settles for nothing less than exploring the nature of reality, yet makes his films enjoyable for those who might usually avoid such heavy discussion.

While unrelated to "Sixth Sense," Shyamalan's latest effort, "Unbreakable," continues the theme begun in that earlier film. Shyamalan is asking "How are we really living our lives?" I can't reveal much about the plot, so let it suffice that it involves a spectacular event that brings together two unspectacular people. One is revealed to be something extraordinary, resulting in the ruin of one person and the redemption of the other. This is done in typical Shyamalan fashion. A surrealness permeates the picture, even in its depiction of mundane events; and the twist ending, while you may see it coming, is no less of a surprise.

The film is driven by fine performances from Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson, as the two people whose lives are entwined whether they wish it or not. Despite complaints of one-noteness, their low-key performances do much to convey another Shyamalan theme: the alienation that he believes a person feels before discovering meaning in life. Both characters are alienated for this very reason and both find meaning, but not in any expected way.

Supporting performances are generally good, though one misses the powerful presence of Haley Joel Osment. Shyamalan's direction is not as tight as in "Sixth Sense," but his use of single-camera shots and colors that change with the characters adds both to the reality and unreality of this picture.

In "Unbreakable," Shyamalan is asking questions that many directors in this postindustrial society seem to be asking. Films such as "Dark City," "The Matrix" and Shyamalan's work are really exploring the place of humanity in an increasingly electronic world. As I say, I can't reveal much of what actually happens in this picture, but it's well worth the rental.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Not Your Grandfather's Erotic Thriller (SPOILERS)

[15 August 2000]

In my review of "Phantom Menace" I wrote that perhaps a director is allowed only one cultural icon per lifetime. I had forgotten Stanley Kubrick. He produced them in spades.

Actually, to call "Eyes Wide Shut" an erotic thriller is to miss the point. True, sex and sexuality dominate its themes and it's structured like a thriller, but Kubrick's final film is far more. On the one hand it's pure Kubrick, replete with mind-shattering images. It also continues Kubrick's fascination with journeys. From the journey to destruction in "Dr. Strangelove" to journeys through social madness in "Clockwork Orange" and the nature of reality in "The Shining," and culminating in humanity's search for enlightenment in "2001," Kubrick's work has been concerned with such journeys. This time, a New York society doctor ventures into a socially constructed reality that few of us have seen or will admit.

Then again, "Eyes Wide Shut" is one of those wonderful films that's more interesting for what it doesn't say than for what it says.

Through a bizarre series of coincidences, Dr. Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) discovers a hazy, ill-defined sexual underworld, one which may include murder. He meets a series of sleazy characters, all of whom seem to be involved with whatever it is. Sinister plot points and themes lurk just off camera but are not seen. This is Kubrick's genius: the ability to draw us into the mystery even as he tells us there is no solution.

The much-hyped cult-orgy scene occupies only a few minutes of screen time. Kubrick's imagery is stunning and Fellini-esquire, draped in an evocative chant using a sound technique borrowed from David Lynch. But again, what is interesting is what is not said. What do the strange rituals mean? Is it a religious cult? A secret society? Or just a sex club, by and for the very bored very rich? We aren't told. Can we believe the version he gets from a friend-member? The mask Harford wore--and later hid--appears beside his sleeping wife. Did she find it, or was it placed there? Does she know more than she says? Again, no information. Always there is the tantalizing hint of an answer just out of his (and our) reach. Though only a minute was cut out, Kubrick often leaves small markers in odd places within his films. One would wish that the version seen in more grown-up nations were available, rather than the eviscerated print allowed in the States.

Following this scene, the film's direction changes completely. The score becomes atmospheric and menacing; reality becomes distorted. As he struggles to learn the truth, Harford is told by one friend that he is "out of his depth." Indeed. He is found out because though he is part of the upper class, those he pursues turn out to be the unbelievably rich and powerful. Their reality is not his. Kubrick is telling us that ultimately, our social world builds our reality.

Perhaps this is the theme of "Eyes Wide Shut"--that there exist social realities that are as unknowable to us as the incomprehensible events witnessed by Dr. Harford. As others have pointed out, his journey is much like the one that unfolds in Scorsese's "After Hours"--we are never really told the whole story but we (and the characters) are left with the distinct feeling that Something Is Going On. "After Hours" can be hard to find, but try to see them both. Better yet, rent them the same night.

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

Equal Opportunity Offensiveness--Amen!

[10/10 · 22 May 2000]

For the first 20 minutes of this film, I cound not contain my laughter. The genius of "South Park" is that it dishes up satiric vitriol in a cheerful musical that fires direct broadsides at D*sn*y films, yet manages to do so affectionately.

The satire is not so affectionate--it's effective and surgically accurate. I think what bothers people about "South Park" is that it hits so close to certain truths about our culture. Sexual stereotypes, the media, politicians and censorship in the name of "family values" are fair game. As always, Matt and Trey manage to offend everybody, most of all those who would decide for us what sort of entertainment we are allowed.

Very Bad Things (1998)

Very Bad Movie

[2/10 · 22 May 2000]

After a promising start, this movie quickly became unpleasant and unbelievable. The characters were unsympathetic and the plot tedious after the first 20 minutes. A suspense film without suspense, a Hitchcock-esque black comedy without Hitch's humor or finesse...what was Cameron Diaz thinking?

The Truman Show (1998)

Which Reality?

[9/10 · 22 May 2000]

A really good movie can be just as interesting for what it does not say. "The Truman Show" seems to be in the not-too-distant future. Nothing is said about the way people live, but we get the impression it's not pretty. Maybe there is a restrictive government, or total corporate control. In any case, people's lives are pointless and Truman's life becomes an idealized substitute for their own.

Unfairly trashed by the Academy, "The Truman Show" is both a well-acted and compelling story, and a brilliant satire with something to say. Jim Carrey plays a man whose entire life is defined by outside forces--but is it so different for any of us? We all tend to become those labels that society has given us. Furthermore, it is a very straightforward jab at our current tendency toward voyeurism. When celebrity gossip passes for "news," when we live vicariously through the wanna-be exhibitionists on "Real World," when viewers treat a televised police chase as if it were a thermonuclear war, "The Truman Show" can't be far away.

Walkabout (1971)

The Elegance of Ambiguity

[8/10 · 22 May 2000]

I *finally* got to see this film all the way through. The photography is beautiful and the story can be enjoyed on a most basic level, but what struck me about Walkabout was what it *didn't* say. Roeg wisely pulls his camera back and avoids graphic "suffering in the desert" details or the separate story of the search. The subtlety emphasizes that this film is an extended allegory. My favorite plot device: the children's only link to "civilization," a portable radio, is first heard playing the things a middle class English girl in Australia might listen to--music, lessons, etc. As isolation sets in, it degenerates to a meaningless babble about economics, philosophy and civilization (the same announcer? a different one? is she imagining her father's voice? We don't know). The film is about non-communication throughout. The family is isolated before the fact. The young tribesman can't comprehend the girl's non-understanding of his culture. And the rather depressing ending shows us that the social and cultural isolation we all live in does not easily change.

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

Lightning doesn't strike twice

[7/10 · 15 July 1999]

To produce a cultural icon requires a unique combination of talent, drive and resources. I feel that even when someone possesses these, that person may only be entitiled to one cultural icon per lifetime. Phantom Menace helps prove this point. It simply does not have the enduring qualities of the first three films. Characters are not developed, dialog is strained and while the CGI effects are striking, you're left with the impression that George was trying just a little too hard to compensate for the lack of story. Where is the amusing banter between C3PO and R2D2, or the Han-Leia sexual tension, or even Luke's laughable whining?

Still, Phantom Menace is enjoyable and I intend to see all three in this cycle, mostly due to the larger-than-life status of the first trilogy, which I will continue to view many many times