mew-4 Reviews

Thomas est amoureux (2000)

Well-done sci-fi short story

[7/10 · 13 July 2004]

I'm surprised by the quantity of gushing reviews of Thomas in Love, which IFC is now showing on cable TV in the US.

This movie feels like a sci-fi short story developed into a short film by a student. The characters aren't very well-developed and the plot is small. The setting is foreign enough to be futuristic, but still familiar. The camera work is unusual and that's half of its charm. It's an exploration of an idea. A one-line plot pitch sums up the whole movie in its entirety. So many other films manage to create a spell in the time allotted to them, or create amazing characters with a wealth of subtleties. This movie doesn't manage that. It doesn't even attempt it. This is not to say it's a bad movie, just that it's not really all that noteworthy either.

While Thomas in Love is thoroughly enjoyable, fun, cute, and stylish in a gently cyberpunk way, it's not a stand-out.

Naked (1993)

Amazing

[12 January 2003]

If you liked Pi or The Cruise then you should check out Naked. It's an amazing exploration of a man descended into nihilism, who leaves victims of his intellectual bullying (and misogyny) everywhere. No, it's not PC. Yes, it feels so real. Sorry to gush, but I loved this film.

I like American Existential Anti-Heroes. I wasn't really prepared to confront an English Existential Anti-Hero. Wow, what a different take on a similar stimulus.

This film is a monument to gritty realism, without being self-conscious about it. You can taste this movie. But you never feel like it was faked or forced. The camera work and the lighting never get in the way. I usually notice such things, and here it was invisible and completely immersive. David Thewlis throws every bit of his body into this movie. Even the great closing credit scene.

I would be remiss if I didn't point out the fantastic black humor, especially since some people said it wasn't funny! Sophie wails in the most sustained way I have ever seen in drama. And it's hysterical, even as you're hurting with her. The frantic Scottish kid made me rewind again and again. While I agree that the "landlord" character could have been over the top, his reaction to Johnny flailing on the floor made me laugh out loud. The two characters are really barely distinguishable but that one is a dandy and the other has a fondness for the gutter. As the poster-hanger beats the crap out of our anti-hero you can't help but laugh. And then you nod along as Louise tells him he had it coming in her terrific and constant deadpan (with an occasional suggestion of a smile).

As our protagonist points out, in the end, all the books, and all the learning, and all the discussion, still don't help you understand the point of the cruel joke of life. Yes, it's an old dorm-room discussion that freshman are still having for the 1st time. But that doesn't make the question and the questioning any less desperate. It is human to cry out in pain, even when it's self-inflicted. The references to making a choice for self-destruction are throughout the dialogue, but not so much so that they hit you in the head.

Naked is depressing and euphoric at the same time. Yes it's often "awful", but how can you not cheer for someone who loves life and is trying his hardest to fully engage it? And not one character (or question) gets a pat Hollywood ending or moral -- woo-hoo!

This movie is why people can call film a legitimate art form. It provokes thought, it is drama, and it is beautiful. It thrills me.

Someone asked if the dialogue was improvised. According to IFC, Mike Leigh rehearsed with the cast for 11 weeks before writing the script, which then came to only 25 pages.

Clockwatchers (1997)

Existential angst in a service based world

[6 January 2003]

This is a really provocative movie that is artfully filmed.

Good art often offers commentary on the times. When you're in the midst of an era, it's hard to see what characterizes it. I think Clockwatchers does a terrific job of capturing a facet of the temp world of the 80's/90's. I was a temp for a year in 1988. It's quite accurate.

But you don't have to be a temp to recognize these characters. Yes Dilbert, yes Office Space, and especially the beginning of Joe vs the Volcano have these same foils. But I think Clockwatchers' take was unique. The characters were well developed while still being archetypes. There was a subtlety and style that all the others listed chose against.

The direction and cinematography of this film is terrific. It takes guts to burn film doing a close-up of someone's glasses for 10 seconds. There is real art to this film. The writing, the directing, the pacing, editing, all right up at the top of the scale. The acting was fine, but I don't think it's the strong suit of this movie. Toni Collette is a standout. While I love Parker Posey, I think she was probably a bit over the top here. The Muzak, while as mood-setting as the buzz of florescent lighting, can grate at a viewer.

This film touched on too may things to list them all. Here's a sample... What are you doing with your life if you're waiting for it to burn off? Isn't it exhausting and poisoning to pretend to look busy all day? If you are a cog in a machine, and accomplishing nothing at that too, did you really even exist? Are the "troublemakers" in life getting us in trouble, or offering us freedom (note there are two people here stirring up the pot)? What is theft (and theft of services)? Where is the dividing line between unethical play and immorality? At what point do you give up on the dream of personal growth? Are some people "better" than others? What does beauty (and grooming) have to do with it? Does the corporate hierarchy define our worth to others or our self-worth? What is loyalty and betrayal, to whom do you owe how much, and how do you give consent to those obligations/ownership? Work/friends/family are all portrayed as villains and allies wielding this loyalty Sword of Damocles.

One IMDB reviewer said this film was a good way to kill time after work. That's terrific irony. :)

Undone (2001)

BMW films style "action" short

[19 December 2002]

The production values of this movie are very high. The web site claims that's because "they made it the old-fashioned way, they stole everything." Apparently that mostly refers to "stealing" the talent of movie pros that volunteered their time. But who knows if they also stole the Kodak 800 film too!

Kandeyce Jorden seems to be working on a style in the mold of BMW Films directors -- gritty, sexy short action films with fantastic style. If you can find her short "The Layover" on the Skyy Vodka site it's pretty cool too. Her stuff is consistently sophisticated with a flirtation with danger. Add in typically appropriate and exciting music and you can see why she's getting noticed.

Undone is a fun short. It's not terribly artsy. It mostly achieves the look and the sound that this new genre (action short?) is known for. Unfortunately the acting is sub-par. It's often stilted and breaks the spell that is critical for maintaining mood. The final scene is so badly done that the film would be improved tremendously if it were completely deleted. What the hell happened there? Did all the talented people leave for the day?

The trailer for Undone is fantastic, and would draw huge audiences if the film were a full-length release. Kandeyce Jorden is working on a full-length film now. I'm hopeful that she can realize more when she's not rushed. Maybe Kandeyce Jorden will be the next Guy Ritchie.

Star Maps (1997)

Too much like a made-for TV movie

[19 December 2002]

This movie wants to be great. It's got a really fresh, original script. Sometimes the directing is just as fresh and original. But every time you think it's going to immerse you, it turns into a TV movie. The "look" of the movie often (but not always) screams TV and not film. The acting is usually "art house" good. But

then some scene is so poorly acted you have to wonder why the director didn't make another take. The pacing is rushed and then not. It's like two different directors worked on two films from the same script and some inexperienced

editor had to make it into one movie.

The sex scenes are quite hot, but then the pacing is clipped. It plays like a very late-night TV movie where they want to include sex, but they don't want it to be quite soft-porn, so they pan or edit it more tightly.

The movie is worth seeing, if nothing else for the great original story and

"moments" where it achieves filmness. In between you just have to sit through some scenes and wonder if the director or the art director went on break and the rest of the crew started shooting without them.

The music is often excellent, but also inconsistently tossed in without creating any overall synthesis or mood. Sometimes music can bring together a disjointed film. Here it's another missed opportunity.

Annette Murphy is a stand-out as "a whore and your father's girlfriend." Douglas Spain is so beautiful in this that he smolders -- completely convincing as a

young prostitute. Lysa Flores (who was also the musical director) is one of the actors that makes the movie not suck -- terrific! Kandeyce Jorden is distractingly beautiful as a Cindy Crawford look-alike. Unfortunately she's miscast. Her

monotone voice, while alluring, doesn't fit the style of the film. It comes off as bored or disinterested, which doesn't match her character's motivation. Her sex scenes are very nice, however. Kandeyce Jorden has since been writing and

directing short films. You can see Undone and Layover on the web at iFilm.com and Skyy.com.

Director/writer Miguel Arteta has directed and written "The Good Girl" since this. You can see some similarity in style and in flaws. I think Mr. Arteta needs to work with a mentor to achieve his potential. It's obviously there, it's just unrealized.

This is a sexy and interesting film. It's well worth seeing, even for the flaws.

Magnolia (1999)

A film with a great beginning and middle, then no point

[6/10 · 12 January 2000]

This film starts out with an explicit premise: that there are some things too extraordinarily coincidental to be coincidence. But then never follows up on that premise. There are many wonderful things to be said about it. The pacing is fantastic. There is a palatable crescendo that builds the tension in your whole body. The pacing of the cuts is relentless. By the time the 2/3 point comes you are ready for an amazing collision of the well-crafted multiple plotlines. And it never comes. All I can think is that Paul Thomas Anderson couldn't figure out an ending. This film is like a Phil Collins song or an SNL bit. It's absolutely amazing and then nothing comes of it. I keep thinking of Hearts of Darkness. Coppola didn't have an ending for Apocalypse Now, so he just kept filming, hoping one would come to him. While the individual plotlines are all addressed, there is no bang. No congress between them. No coincidence. The intro is a lie. And the biblical plague of frogs finds no place in the plot. How could such an amazing start go so wrong? Performances by a huge number of actors from Boogie Nights are individually fantastic. Each of them threw themselves into their roles. As usual Julianne Moore is captivating. Worth seeing just for the 1st 2 hours of fantastic filmmaking. Just don't expect a payoff at the end. There are some nice comments about the fragility and sanctity of childhood as well.

The Bliss of Mrs. Blossom (1968)

A charming period film that asks some timeless questions

[8/10 · 5 January 2000]

This movie is completely charming. I've never seen a more wonderful Shirley MacLaine. I fell in love with her. If you liked the Austin Powers films, then you will especially enjoy the costumes and decor of this movie. The artworks that Mrs. Blossom creates are terrific. With the recent public appearance of the polyamory community, it's apparent that the idea of being in love and devoted to two people, and being "faithful" to them both, is still relevant. As a small, funny movie, it still asks some good questions about the nature of relationships and fidelity. Bravo.

Fantasia 2000 (1999)

Not nearly as boring as the original

[3/10 · 3 January 2000]

I've seen the original Fantasia about three times. I've never managed to stay awake yet. I like classical music, but the music here is just too flat, excerpted and overproduced. The animation is fine, but at what point could you call it stunning? Firebird Suite would have been better if the animators hadn't gone so out of their way to hide the idea of a woman having breasts. Self-censorship at its worst. The components would be much better as pre-film shorts (like Pixar's). That would be the perfect venue for them -- sprinkled enough to make people look forward to them, but not so concentrated that they bore you.

The Reader (1988)

An exceptionally charming little French film

[10/10 · 3 January 2000]

Our protagonist, played by Miou-Miou, is a mischievous, whimsical and smart young woman who is looking for an occupation that will engage her. The adventures she has during her fantasies of what the job as a travelling reader would be, are charming little trips that we take with her. This is a smart and engaging little film. I dare you to not fall in love with her or this film.

The Enemy Below (1957)

Fun if you enjoy sub movies

[6/10 · 30 August 1999]

Excellent for its time, this now looks like a watered down (no pun intended) version of Das Boot.

As a big fan of Destroyer Escorts I was thrilled to see one in action. The DE used in the film is perfect, something you could still do in 1957, no need for sets or computer effects. The underwater scenes are usually good, only once in a while looking like models. The stock footage of depth-charge attacks are impressive.

Unfortunately the wishy-washy 1950's movie-making style just doesn't appeal to a modern audience. The compartment spaces on both ships are also too roomy. It hardly conveys the oily claustrophobia and tension of Das Boot and other more modern sub films.

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

The movie is great, but the backlash may be terrible

[9/10 · 1 July 1999]

You know how when you're getting away with something really cool, but then one kid takes it waaay too far, and you know he's going to get you in trouble and WRECK it ALL for everyone, cause they're going to make a rule against what you're getting away with?

South Park is that kid.

The movie is pretty dense. If you like the TV show, then you'll love the movie. As usual there's references from an amazing number of places, as well as all sorts of stuff that flashes in the background that make you want to rewind to be able to see. There are a lot of cool songs (I'm definitely getting the soundtrack before it's banned), celebrities, and your favorite repeating characters. They didn't wreck the animation by making it "better" and the humor is down to earth and tight. It might be a little too long for the feint, but not so much so that you get bored. I wish there had been more Chef.

Since the poster and trailers make it clear that there's a war with Canada, I don't think it's a "spoiler" to mention that, and the fact that it's funny that they released it on the eve of Canada Day (a major Canadian holiday with a really blah name). I hope stores start selling the anti-Canada tee-shirts.

But here's the important part: South Park pushes the envelope of acceptable free speech, it knows that, and it makes sure that you know it knows that. And it makes fun of that. Which is cool. The problem is that there really are a LOT of little kids that are going to see this. And to get around the "R" rating they're going to have to bring their parents. And their parents are going to be really bothered. I went to see it during the day, playing hooky from work. There were a really large percentage of kids in the 10-year-old (and younger) range. It won't be long before all the "grown-ups" (I'm 34) get all in a huff about it, and people start passing laws against free speech and wreck the whole 21st Century for the rest of us. S***!

MEW