MITCH! Reviews

Land of Confusion (2008)

Rare Firsthand Look at the Iraq War from Active Soldiers

[7/10 · 12 June 2008]

I saw a screening of Land of Confusion last night at Pittsburgh's Harris Theater, arranged by the Pittsburgh Filmmakers group. Director Jeremy Zerechak was on-hand for a lengthy Q&A after the film, which added even more insight to a film that offers a surprising amount to begin with.

This is the story of a Pennsylvania branch of the National Guard, sent to Iraq shortly after "major military actions" were over. The unit learns their actual mission only after they've arrived -- they'll be the security force protecting the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) as it searches for evidence of the weapons of mass destruction that provided the cause for this war in the first place. As history (and this documentary) reveal, there were no WMDs, which leads these soldiers to question the basis for the entire war -- a startling line of thought, considering these are active servicemen, whom we rarely get to hear from in the middle of a combat zone.

Zerechak sheds light on the mundane nature of life in a war zone, dispelling many myths and rumors -- including the concept that all Iraqis hate America and our soldiers. However, as Zerechak suggested during the Q&A, it's very likely that these people, who are being deprived of their livelihood and decent paying jobs (primarily by unscrupulous American contractors, like Halliburton-owned KBR), will only come to resent the American presence in Iraq increasingly the longer we're there.

In the end, one viewer asked Zerechak, based upon the ever-frustrated reactions of his fellow soldiers, whether his unit felt they'd wasted their time in Iraq. Zerechak's answer echoed that of the ISG's Charles Duelfer, who reminded Congress that the mission of the ISG was not to find the weapons, it was to find the truth. In that, Zerechak said, we succeeded, and therefore, no, they definitely do not feel they've wasted their time.

Punk's Not Dead (2007)

An Inside Look at How Punk Has Survived... and Evolved

[6/10 · 7 November 2007]

What makes punk "punk"? Why have so many bands stayed together for more than 20 years? Where did punk "go" before its mid-'90s resurgence? How do legends like The Sex Pistols and The Damned feel about pop-punk powerhouses like My Chemical Romance and Good Charlotte? These questions of identity and community are what fuels this somewhat long, somewhat unfocused but ultimately compelling and informative film.

Director Susan Dynner grew up in DC and caught her first Minor Threat show when she was 15. She's watched Redskins games with Ian MacKaye, helped hand-pack records at the Dischord offices, and even today provides a crash pad for the U.K. Subs and Subhuman during their lengthy US tours.

From Dynner's vantage point within the punk scene, she was able to interview dozens of bands, promoters and critics, tour with acts from The Addicts to Sum 41, and compile a litany of anecdotes and sound bites, all over the course of 3 years. The result is a multifaceted document of where punk has been and, perhaps most importantly, WHY it will keep going.

Underworld (1927)

A Lost Gem That Deserves to Be Seen (Especially with New Soundtrack!)

[9/10 · 4 November 2007]

I just saw a re-issue of this film tonight as part of the 26th annual Three Rivers Film Festival in Pittsburgh and I was highly satisfied. The Alloy Orchestra were on-hand to provide an all-new live score, which created a near-perfect match for this underrated classic.

The acting was spot-on (although admittedly a much different style than modern audiences are used to), the set design and lighting were pitch-perfect (check out the copious amounts of confetti at the Underworld Ball), and the complexities of the characters and plot line far exceeded anything I was expecting from an 80 year-old film. Suffice it to say that modern cinema has not cornered the market on engaging, surprising and provocative storytelling.

If you have a chance to see Underworld, particularly when accompanied by the Alloy Orchestra, take the opportunity. It's a rarefied experience that's well worth your 90 minutes.

Reno 911!: Miami (2007)

Funny and Satisfying, Even for Non-Fans of the TV Series

[7/10 · 22 February 2007]

I'd only seen part of one episode of the TV show before seeing the film, so my knowledge of the characters and the premise of the show was limited. No matter: the film does an excellent job of establishing its tone and the specifics of the characters right off the bat. No roadmap required.

My biggest fear with seeing a theatrical version of a TV series is that the film tries to overinflate the stakes of the plot to justify the increased length and budget and fails. Reno 911!: Miami took that necessity to its logical next step by moving the small town incompetence to a much larger scale in Miami, but due to some clever (and minimalist) writing, the relocation works. And, since nearly all of the humor in the film is derived from the characters and their reactions to their situations -- all of which speed by at a brisk pace, so as to not overmilk a joke -- the relocation never felt forced or unwelcome.

Impressively, the film veers into cliché territory on numerous occasions but never delivers the expected punchline. The actors know their characters so well that their improvisations keep the audience and their costars on their toes at all times. Even the traditional "caper" plot, which is really just an excuse to tie all the vignettes together, is handled with more originality than I would have expected.

Perhaps I should start expecting more from this creative team, since they're capable of sustaining my interest (and my amusement) over the course of a full-length feature. In fact, perhaps I should start watching the series...

Amu (2005)

Imperfect but Compelling

[7/10 · 14 May 2006]

I had the pleasure of seeing "Amu" during the launch of the first annual Asian American Film Festival in Pittsburgh this past weekend. Perhaps a fitting testament to the reason festivals such as this need to exist in the first place, the film deals with a subject I hadn't even known existed beforehand: the Sikh massacres in India over a three-day period in 1984, and the complicity of a corrupt government in facilitating and masking the events.

Director Shonali Bose, one of the producers (her husband, Atiya, I believe) and star Konkona Sen Sharma were all on hand to answer questions from the audience, and the political nature of the film led to a spirited discussion (and occasional debate) that, unfortunately, could not be condensed into the time allowed. Thus, given the film's stature and the importance of its subject matter, it's a shame to point out the shortcomings of its actual artistry.

As another commenter has mentioned, the film is generally well-directed but is not perfect. I agree that certain elements of its narrative (particularly the pacing, as well as a few contrived interpersonal moments) felt tacked-on or inauthentic, and were perhaps invented to couch the story in a modern-day milieu that could appeal to audiences before "surprising" them with the political content of the film in its second half, as the mystery of the main character's history is unraveled.

It's entirely possible the film would have worked better without the "mystery" angle, especially since it seems to come from left field midway through the film and then becomes all-pervasive, in direct contrast to the semi-documentary "romantic comedy travelogue" feel of the first half. What struck me most awkwardly was the disjointed nature of the "suspense" surrounding the eventual divulging of repressed information. The purposely vague ways in which Kaju's family avoids discussion of her past or, when confronted with conflicting information, seek to simply change the subject or stare pensively at the floor felt falsely melodramatic.

But all of my criticisms become quibbles when faced with the undeniable power of the film's few flashback scenes, which depict certain controversial events in an unflinching light. In those moments, Bose finds her true voice, and the voice of the victims in these unjustified atrocities.

Incidentally, one area the films succeeds in artistically is the casting of Konkona Sen Sharma as Kaju. Her accent and body language were flawlessly American on screen, as they should have been (Kaju is an Indian girl raised in America), but Bose explained after the film that Konkona has lived her whole life in India and was only given two weeks to immerse herself in Los Angeles's culture to prepare for the role of Kaju. Those who see the film will certainly agree that she succeeded.

My Shakespeare (2004 TV Movie)

Uplifting Insight into the Creation of an Unlikely Stage Show

[8/10 · 1 January 2006]

I just happened upon this on our local PBS channel and was transfixed.

Baz Luhrmann acts as the omniscient adviser to directors everywhere hoping to create a meaningful stage experience, using an inner-city rendition of Romeo & Juliet as the case study. Juxtaposed with Luhrmann's insightful explanation of a director's craft is the making of the project itself -- a West End production of Romeo & Juliet, performed by actors with zero experience who've been chosen off the streets of an inner-city London neighborhood.

Clearly, director Paterson Joseph is biting off more than most folks would presume he could chew, but the documentary does a magnificent job of detailing his process, challenges and creative (and sometimes difficult) solutions to the evolving problems. Many of the cast are spotlighted individually, and their growth from curious pedestrians who answer Paterson's question, "Have you ever read any Shakespeare?" to confident would-be thespians is fascinating. Despite having never directed a performance before (!), Paterson rides the tumultuous wave of highs and lows through to an end that likely exceeded his own expectations as surely as it exceeds that of his cast.

Paterson's grace and wisdom should inspire anyone seeking to create in any art form. Truly recommended for artists of any persuasion, or anyone who doesn't believe in "impossible."

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)

Close to Impressive

[6/10 · 29 October 2005]

I should start by saying I don't know all that much about Edward R. Murrow or the McCarthy hearings in general, other than having seen some archival footage over the years. Thus, I was prepared to learn a lot more about the situation from this film. Unfortunately, despite being beautifully photographed, the film really didn't hook me emotionally in the way I was hoping. Here's why:

There's no dramatic tension in the film. The events depicted were fraught with tension, I'm sure, and the actors are asked to convey that fear and uncertainty, but the picture as a whole feels more like a cross between a history lesson and an homage to the 1950s than a living narrative. As result, while it's technically adept and certainly informative for anyone unfamiliar with the events themselves, it doesn't pack the punch I was hoping for from the dynamic trailer.

I suspect the fault here lies with Clooney's direction, which is a shame because he's shown a lot of potential both here and in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. This topic is clearly an incendiary one to tackle, especially during these similarly unnerving times in American politics, so kudos are in order for even being able to get the project off the ground. However, I don't think Clooney has developed the requisite subtlety and confidence in himself as a director to make his point without being obvious.

As a result, we're left with too many cases of telegraphed emotion, wordless ponderances and performances subverted by newsreel footage of the actual events themselves. Another example: the use of period jazz music during scene transitions whose lyrics (though, again, wonderfully performed) hit the emotion of the scene on the head, every time. How much of this is also due to Clooney directing a script he co-wrote is anyone's guess -- if it's a problem on paper, and you wrote it, do you recognize it on film? -- but I feel the material would have been better served by a less heavy hand. It's obvious that everyone involved in the project felt strongly about it, but I think the end result falls short of the galvanizing experience they (and I) hoped for.

*SIDE NOTE* I saw this film in a theater in a predominantly Jewish part of Pittsburgh, and the theater was half-full even during a Saturday matinée in a theater that's double-billing the film. It was an interesting crowd to experience the film with, considering how many Jews were implicated in the McCarthy hearings. The moment footage of McCarthy appeared on screen, I heard rumblings and hushed profanity from the audience behind me. When the lights went up, I sat through the first minute or so of credits and then started to make my exit. Not surprisingly, I was just about the youngest person in the theater. What did surprise me was the fact that most of the other patrons were still seated, contemplating the film as the credits rolled. As someone who's used to being the last person out of the theater during most films, it's obvious that this film packs a punch for a certain audience closer to the material than I am, which means my estimation is worth what it's worth -- one man's opinion.

Angela's Ashes (1999)

Tragedy without Empathy

[15 October 2003]

Dramas walk a thin line these days, especially ones based on best-loved books. I haven't read the book, but I can say that the film did nothing to endear me to Frank's troubles the way the book appears to have for its readers.

The photography and the performances were fine, if overwrought, but that's part of the balancing act of drama. Too much in any one direction and it becomes melodrama, farce or, as in this case, generic. Despite being based upon a book which seems to contain a lot of heart, the film is closer to a dispassionate documentary than it is a first-person account of someone we can identify with and care about. Without that, it just becomes "yet another story."

Foolproof (2003)

Nice try...

[3/10 · 8 October 2003]

I was in Toronto last weekend and caught this out of curiosity, and to support a Canadian film, since we don't get many in our theaters back in the States. I wanted to pull for the film, but I found it nearly impossible. The script is leaden, the actors are flat and the dialogue is horrible. It reminded me of someone's senior thesis from Filmmaking 101, but with a better budget. Every joke is telegraphed, no character has any original quality whatsoever and the suspense sequences are completely lifted from everything we've already seen in a hundred other films.

I can understand the need for Canadian cinema to compete with American cinema. Personally, I'm no big fan of American blockbusters either; I look for the small, personal, quirky films. "Fool Proof" feels hollow because there's no emotion invested, nothing innovative, no chemistry. It's apparent from the opening sequence that everyone involved in the production is trying to be cool, instead of actually being cool.

As a TV series pilot, this might not have been bad -- expectations are lowered, and the characters don't need to be as fleshed out yet as they should be on the big screen. As a multiplex contender, I don't think "Fool Proof" has enough authenticity or points of interest to generate a sincere audience. Perhaps next time the filmmakers should work from their gut, rather than with their eyes on the theatergoers' wallets -- the same goes for filmmakers around the world.

Adaptation. (2002)

Genius, Likely to be Forever Underrated

[8/10 · 15 January 2003]

Soooo many people are not going to "get" this movie. It's genius, it's intricate, it's so inside movies that anyone who doesn't work in or study them intricately will probably feel gypped and pandered to and completely miss the point, if they can even muster any interest in the subject matter. It will be lauded by "film people" and bashed by critics and Joe Blue Collar. This is the antithesis of "safe summer blockbusters." This is the kind of film Hollywood SHOULD be making, if only it was unaware that action films have the potential to make a billion dollars worldwide while Adaptation will be lucky to make $50 million total. Ever. Even in ancillary sales.

I won't explain the film. The act of seeing the film is an integral part of the process; this is almost a multimedia, virtual reality experiment. Suffice it to say that Charlie Kaufman's story of how he attempted to turn "The Orchid Thief" into a film is not only a near-perfect example of the creative process in all its unsexy glory, but also a mindbending, genre-bending deconstruction and analysis of film all at once. This should be shown in film classes for years to come. This film IS a film class.

And yes, those of you who see the end and think Charlie's sold out, or that you've been screwed? He has, and you have. That's the point, and the fact that Hollywood wouldn't have it any other way makes this film a scathing indictment of its own medium as well.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Overwhelming AND Underwhelming?

[8/10 · 15 January 2003]

Give a man a tower and he'll see across a kingdom; give a man two towers and he'll be blinded by special effects.

I'll admit I've never read the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which may render my commentary meaningless to diehard fans of the series. However, I'll give Peter Jackson loads of credit for his job on the first two adaptations. Thus far, I can't say I've seen any other film positing itself as an "epic" lately and actually FELT like I was seeing an epic. From the hordes of armies and the bombastic, poetic dialogue to the expanses of New Zealand that serve as the beautiful, majestic Middle Earth, Jackson and his dedicated creative team have done a superb job in recreating a world that I know many people love dearly.

Unfortunately for me, as a film, The Two Towers (and to some extent The Fellowship of the Ring before it) leaves me wanting for something. It's hard to believe because there's so much THERE -- drama, archetype, huge battle sequences, lush cinematography, incredible special effects -- but I came away from the film feeling empty, like I'd just seen a gorgeous work of art that didn't speak to me personally. Some might say this is because I haven't read the books; I claim the opposite. I think what I'm missing is a sense of inclusion, of characters, of personal moments. These are the things that make me "connect" with any film, and which I didn't see in The Two Towers. If I sense them lacking, and I haven't even read the books, I can only imagine how half-empty the serious fans of the story are, in that they probably come into the theater expecting every nuance of Tolkien's 1000-odd pages to come to life onscreen and leave wondering where all their favorite moments were.

The first film had the luxury of being based around interpersonal relationships among the Fellowship members, and Frodo's reluctance to be a hero, Bilbo's mixed feelings about the ring, Gandalf's weary wisdom, etc. All character traits, character moments -- building blocks of conflict and story. Here, the conflict is primarily external -- Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli must help the people of Rohan defend themselves from a swarm of orc soldiers as a show of force, good standing strong against the onslaught of evil. The character moments, particularly those between Aragorn and nearly anyone else, feel forced and artificial primarily because they occur opposite underdeveloped characters seemingly introduced solely to further the plot or embody elements of the theme (Rohan's king in particular) rather than being integral parts of the story. Why Rohan? Why not any other city, any other characters? Why would Aragorn be so easily swayed from his original love as to develop eyes for another? It seems like a plot device, not a natural occurrence.

Even the comedic moments, especially those between Legolas and Gimli, are unnatural. The elf and dwarf are reduced to comedic foils, buddy characters, recipients of exposition and mood-lightening one-liners. Surely the bravest representatives of their races can do more than play second fiddle to Aragorn, yet they're given no chance here. They fade into the background, except for gratuitous and suspiciously out-of-tone (and character) comments and actions (Legolas on a medieval snowboard?).

Finally, there's the redundancy and disinterest of the alleged central plot, that of Frodo, Sam and Gollum transporting the ring to Mount Doom. Never before has the main conflict of a story taken a backseat to a subplot (Aragorn and the defense of Helm's Deep) and been so welcome. Every time the film cut back to Frodo I became increasingly bored. It may be because Elijah Wood is reduced to playing a primarily one-note character at this point, given that his rational thought and will are eroding throughout the tale. Or maybe it's the frustration I felt at seeing them so close to gates of Mordor, only to have them decide to go COMPLETELY AROUND the main entrance to approach from a "hidden entrance," which smacks of plot device. Call it theme; I call it flat story. And I'll say nothing of the rest of their end of the film, which features no conflicts we haven't already seen, paired with characters we're asked to care about prematurely, except that their final scene onscreen is a mirror image of the Frodo-Sam bonding moment at the end of Fellowship -- are there no fresh angles to this plotline?

The Merry and Pippin subplot exists solely to topple another subplot, the tower of Sauruman. I'm sure the themes involved were more clearly stated in the book; here, they feel tacked-on. The film could have existed without them and been perfectly engaging, if not moreso, since we'd have no momentum-killing cuts from Helm's Deep to the langorous Ents, talking (for comic relief).

The special effects are remarkable. The detail is commendable. The movie as a whole is impressive. But the attention to detail cannot overcome what for me is a lack of basic plot and character, deficiencies that hamper the aftertaste of the film. As everyone knows, special effects will never be able to replace a solid, coherent, emotionally engaging story, which the original trilogy likely is and which seems to be at least partially lost in the translation to the screen.

The Count of Monte Cristo (2002)

Miscast and misdirected

[2/10 · 4 November 2002]

Revenge and rebirth are great themes to work with, and doubtlessly helped make "The Count of Monte Cristo" a classic in written form. But the film version is a little trickier, in that the audience must empathize with Edmond in order to feel good about themselves while rooting him on throughout his mission of vengeance.

Unfortunately, Jim Caviezel is so doe-eyed innocent in the first act that he makes Edmond seem almost pitiful, the kind of luckless and witless character the audience roots against because we can't justify rooting for someone so thin and one-dimensional, not to mention clueless. And Guy Pearce as the villainous Fernand is actually just a caricature of pouts and and schemes, unworthy of formidable antagonist status and easily outwitted, though even poor Edmond has a hard time of it in the end despite his acquired knowledge and worldliness.

It's frustrating enough to cast a classic French novel with British and Australian actors, but to completely botch the two lead roles so completely as to destroy any credibility of character is a death blow for what could have been a modern classic, given the stylish cinematography and attention to detail in the art direction. It may be beautiful, but it certainly isn't remarkable.

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999)

Comedy? Philosophy? Gangster Trip?

[12 May 2000]

Forest Whitaker gives an almost effortless performance here, as he seems to do quite often, embodying Ghost Dog -- the inner-city samurai -- with such resolve and matter-of-factness that the film, which could easily have been taken as a parody otherwise, considering the numerous outstanding comedic situations that occur in this otherwise "dramatic film", allows you to believe its scenario from the get-go. I found myself given over to Ghost Dog's world from the opening scenes, and although Jarmusch never lets us know too much about our protagonist, I got the feeling I learned all I needed to know about him, all the important parts. The film dips from reality to comedy to flat-out surreality at points, but despite the bizarre changes in tone, the simple and effective plot propel us through scene after simple scene -- some oddly honest, some outright psychotic, but none of them ever overwhelming or "unreal." For some reason, this is a film that never asks you to believe that it's in any way real, and so we never think to question it. Simple, effective storytelling from a man who knows his subjects well enough to make us think we do, too.

The Four Days of Naples (1962)

A beautiful work of art, life and humanity

[9/10 · 9 February 2000]

This film was brought to my attention by a friend who suggested that, since I enjoyed Roberto Rosselini's Open City, I would enjoy this film, which he considered to be even better than Rosselini's. I was impressed, to say the least, and inclined to agree. The story seemed infinitely more real and affecting.

Small stories of individual lives and relationships splintered apart by the actions of Germany in Naples after the Allies have declared victory in Europe in WWII isn't a subject many people will jump at the chance to see, but they should think again. We may never have the experience of being under occupation here in America, but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate and feel the bravery of a city that fights back against the tyranny of the weary German army. And if you have an aversion to war films, subtitled ones in particular, don't worry; the performances from the actors involved are strong enough to feed the emotions onto the screen without need of a translator.

This is a gem not many people know about. It's a shame. This is a film that needs a revolution in the minds of cineastes everywhere.

Zero Effect (1998)

Wit and style combine perfectly here.

[9/10 · 1 February 2000]

I had heard about this movie in MAXIM or Details when it was in preproduction, heard all about how young Mr. Kasdan was all set to follow in his father's footsteps as a Great Director, and then I remember the film being yanked from the theaters after about twelve minutes. Nobody I know saw it, and since then young Mr. Kasdan has, to my knowledge, dropped off the face of the moviemaking Earth (otherwise known as Hollywood). This is a shame, because "Zero Effect" is one of the best hidden treasures to come out in a long time.

My roommate stumbled across it at the video store and, thanks to his appreciation of Ben Stiller, the DVD made its way into our apartment for a few nights. Let me tell you, this movie beat out the Superbowl for some of our friends, who chose to lose themselves in the flawless storytelling and incredible wit displayed by the director and his wonderful cast. Bill Pullman gives the best performance I've ever seen him give, Ben Stiller reminds us that he can be effective even when he's taken seriously -- the most darkly talented genius of our time, forever misunderstood, shines nicely here -- and Kim Dickens give one of the most Real performances I've seen from an actress in years. You would almost think you were watching a Real Human Being instead of an actress -- and that's a compliment and a half, please believe me.

In all, I have to say that I consider myself fortunate to have seen this film, a movie I wouldn't have otherwise rented save for a piqued curiosity. Now my curiosity is piqued in another direction -- on the lookout for the next motion picture from the talented Mr. Kasdan.

Cradle Will Rock (1999)

History or art?

[26 January 2000]

I am not entirely certain what to make of this film, having seen it only a day ago, but it intrigues me. It is certainly thought-provoking, and Cherry Jones is infinitely watchable, as is Vanessa Redgrave; in fact, there isn't a Bad Performance in the film. However, I have to take issue with a handful of smallish issues that I couldn't avoid noticing.

First of all, I think it helps to know a bit about the art and politics of the 1930s before anyone even thinks of seeing this film, if only because of the little textures thrown in which Tim Robbins and his production crew so obviously labored over -- the relationship between Diego Rivera and Freida Kahlo, Nelson Rockefeller discussing the future of art with William Randolph Hearst while Orson Welles is throwing a play downtown -- and it is these details which help the film rise above itself. I have never seen Robbins' other directorial efforts (Bob Roberts and Dead Man Walking), but I will say that he has a bit of an obviousness to his style. Subtlety is forsaken in honor of Symbolism and Irony that are planted so as to be immutable to the audience -- possibly to balance the great historical detail that may be lost on the underinformed.

My greatest beef with the film comes from the fact that Angus McFadyen plays Orson Welles. Not that I have anything against McFadyen, who is normally a fine actor, but apparently someone thought it wise to play a good majority of the historical figures in this movie, Welles included, as cartoons of themselves, quite one-dimensional. Welles comes off as A Character, not a genius, which he is alleged to be in most accounts, and McFadyen seems to let a hint of an accent slip into some of his lines, which is probably unavoidable. What was avoidable is the fact that in 1936 Welles was 21, and McFadyen certainly doesn't pass for his 20s, period. It seems odd to me that Robbins would choose to overlook a large detail like that in favor of aestheticism.

Still, beyond all of its minor successes and flaws, Cradle Will Rock is an ultimately satisfying film if only because of its final twenty minutes. After all of the hardships fought to be able to put on the title play, the actors involved do a spectacular job of pulling it together, even if they will only ever get to do it once. Hank Azaria is wonderful as Marc Blitzstein, the playwright in question, and the scene as a whole is inspiring even to those who don't create art for a living. The film succeeds in its one goal: to make us as the modern society aware of the importance of art and freedom of expression, and reminds us just how far we've strayed from those ideals in this modern world.

Stigmata (1999)

One Angry Catholic Film by Angry Ex-Catholics?

[5/10 · 1 October 1999]

Gabriel Byrne as a priest? How could I not see this movie? I'd pay eight-fifty just to watch Gabriel Byrne watch another movie, so anything in which he actually gets to deliver halfway decent dialogue must be worth my money.

So I and one of my fellow ex-catholic friends decided to take in an evening of anti-Catholicism because we knew we'd get all the jokes. Turns out this film is actually a thought-provoking little riff on The Word of God, which is interesting since you'd think the Catholic church would have stopped this film from ever seeing the light of day. But hey, it's the new millennium, so who believes what they see these days anyway?

Patricia Arquette and Gabriel Byrne actually work well together in "Stigmata", a pairing I never would have bet money on but which pleasantly surprised me. Unfortunately the art direction, which was pretty and MTV-cinematic all around, definitely could have used a bit of realism. As an ex-Pittsburgh resident, I would have suggested that someone on this crew of a film allegedly set in Pittsburgh actually VISIT THE CITY to improve upon the realistic atmosphere, which was pretty unreal. It rains a lot in the Steel City, but it doesn't rain THAT MUCH. And or the record, where is the beauty parlor that these girls work at? If there was such a place in Pittsburgh I'd be more than happy to fork over a cool twenty just to get a haircut from the blonde with the nose ring.

All in all, a compelling look at Catholicism in specific and religion in general, made all the more palatable by the ever-watchable Gabriel Byrne. Long live intelligent theological commentary delivered by attractive agnostics!

The Usual Suspects (1995)

Why'd They Have to Make Me Think?

[8/10 · 1 October 1999]

I watched this film the first time with two of my friends on a dare. One of our classmates had challenged us to guess the ending before it was revealed -- a premise which has doubtlessly accompanied many people's reccomendations of this film. So we bit, we rented and we settled in.

About halfway through, one of us had fallen asleep (not me, by the way). It seems the plot hadn't been enough to keep him going, so he politely excused himself and drove home after being woken by a few onscreen gunshots and not knowing or caring where they had come from. My remaining cohort and I were a little more interested in the goings-on, but not by much. The thriller, as it was billed, wasn't that thrilling after all.

Then the twists started twisting. As the plot thickened, I noticed my friend was inching off the sofa and toward the television. Then I noticed I was, too. Suddenly this collection of seemingly unrelated incidents got pretty darn related, and we were outguessing each other for the final ten minutes of the film, in silence, motioning as friends do with that invisible sign language, "It's him! No, it's him!"

Needless to say, the ending paid off, and we popped the rewound video exhilarated. Sure, we'd lost out on the bet, but at least we'd had the fortitude to make it through what turned out to be one of the most compelling films of the nineties. It didn't start out that way, and my primary qualm with the film is that it does take awhile to build up a head of steam, but what a head it ends up with.

The Medusa Touch (1978)

Who Knew Richard Burton Could Stoop So Low and Make It Work?

[7/10 · 20 September 1999]

Every once in awhile an actor slums into a part that he or she never would have touched with a ten foot pole in their heyday. Frequently, these roles amount to a lot of fallen grace and pity from those of us who once respected the matinee idols who have stooped to absurd and badly written roles in absurd and badly written films.

And yet, just once in awhile -- or else it would cease to be remarkable -- you wind up with an actor who takes the garbled trash he's been handed and he makes it ALMOST worth watching. I'll have you know I delayed a dinner date for an hour and a half just to watch the end of this film, and I was hungry! That is the power, the talent, the ham of The Medusa Touch, which smacks of The Pink Panther meets The French Connection -- it never knows how seriously it should take itself, it doesn't know if it's a drama or a parody, and the cheap thrills take so long to unfold that they end up costing quite a lot in terms of time and plot credibility. But the final unavoidable sequence, in which Richard Burton does what his career could never do after this and fights to stave off death, makes the film worth the cold chicken and warm beer I found waiting for me -- and if that isn't the mark of a gloriously average movie, what is?