WriConsult Reviews

Leave the World Behind (2023)

Worst film I have seen in years. How does this have a 6.5 rating?

[2/10 · 24 December 2023]

I expected so much more from this cast, not to mention an adaptation of such a well-reviewed book. MILD SPOILER: this movie is about hackers causing power outages and then a meltdown of much of our technology.

The first half hour was reasonably engaging and I almost started to like the characters, but when things started to not make sense in the world of the characters', the movie itself started to not make sense either. By which I mean, the physical things that happened made no sense. How would an acute environmental disaster in the South cause a hundred deer to congregate in one place on Long Island, just hours later? Why would two planes crash into the same exact spot on a remote beach, and why aren't they consumed by fire or explosion? Why would all the crashing Teslas be white? They come in several other colors. Why is nature being so profoundly affected? Weather patterns and wildlife will be almost completely unaffected if our technology fries tomorrow. ANYONE who actually knows the slightest thing about science and nature will be repulsed by the absurdity of some of the events depicted here.

And I say this as someone who is quite concerned about the issues raised by this film. We are too dependent on technology and haven't built enough redundancy and resilience into it. Hackers or natural events could take a lot of it down, and heaven knows what new vulnerabilities genAI will create.

More specifically, some reviewers have mentioned the possibility of a massive solar flare, a repeat of the legendary Carrington Event, could fry our tech. This year's solar storms and Borealis events remind us that a repeat will occur someday. But that will not zap all your electronics, The greatest technical vulnerability to another Carrington is our transformers. They will explode from the great voltages collected by miles of transmission lines - likely, perhaps ironically, protecting most of the devices in your home. The problem is that we haven't stockpiled enough replacements to get particularly the East Coast grid back up until weeks - or months! - afterward. The Llloyd's of London report on this danger is VERY worth a read. The thought of being without electricity for a truly extended period is chilling.

But if it all falls apart, whether by solar flare, hacker or atomic blast, this movie isn't how things are going to go down. Once it gets going, it's just so unrealistic - and not just the physical events, but the dialogue, which gets worse and worse as the characters' situation worsens.

Unless your intent is to laugh at this joke of a movie, don't waste your time. Sorry I wasted even an hour watching the first half. Maybe I'll put myself in a comedy mode and come back to watch the rest.

No Time to Die (2021)

Best Bond movie so far! Not kidding!

[9/10 · 5 November 2022]

Sooo many one to three star reviews. I disagree. (Seriously, even if you didn't like it, you can't call it the worst Bond movie when Die Another Day exists). Craig has been the best Bond, and this may be his most exciting, entertaining outing yet. Can't wait to see who plays the next Bond, but he will be hard to top.

The criticisms seem to be that it's ponderous, with weak villains executing overly complex plots to take over and/or destroy the world. Uh-huh. Sounds like every James Bond movie ever made. Improbable escapes? Same deal. The theme is too dark? Uh, the man's an assassin; they've finally gotten the theme right; it ought to border on Noir. Sympathetic characters die or develop fatal flaws? Welcome to the franchise. The action sequences are overly long? Sorry you had to wait longer to go to the bathroom. Too many lavishly shot settings scattered about the globe? Too many characters with excellent actors portraying them? So the movie was just too good then. Got it. A dark Black woman inheriting the 007 handle after Bond retires? Boo-freakin'-hoo, as Dr. Evil said. Speaking of whom, why did they make three Austin Powers films? Because the Bond franchise IS overwrought and ripe for parody. The producers have run with it and had fun with it. Enjoy the ride! It's a thrilling one. Might be my favorite Bond movie. Not sorry.

In Transit (I) (2015)

In Transit(ion) indeed

[7/10 · 11 April 2016]

This slice-of-life documentary follows the cross-country journeys of a number of riders of Amtrak's Empire Builder train. This route connects Chicago to Seattle and Portland, also crossing Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana and northern Idaho along the way. I saw this at MSPIFF in Minneapolis, by the way.

The topic is near and dear to me, having lived my entire life in Minneapolis, Seattle and Portland - all cities served by the Empire Builder. I've taken the day-and-a-half trip between Minneapolis and the Northwest 25 or 30 times.

Many of the highlighted passengers are themselves in transition from one phase of their lives to another: one moving to a new city just in time to deliver a baby, another having just reunited with her child given up for adoption decades ago, a young man hoping to reunite with his high school sweetheart after years working in the North Dakota oilfields, and many more. Many are anxious, but hopeful, about what awaits them when they step off the train. Some of the stories are poignant, there are moments of warm humor, and I won't give away anything else about the good people who inhabit this film.

The scenery outside the train windows is grand, ably capturing the varied scenery along the route: Glacier National Park's mountains, lonely windblown train stations, eastern Montana's breaks and badlands, McDonald's arches gleaming in the nighttime distance, various snow-dusted plains, tidy neighborhoods of St. Paul and little rail towns, oil trains stretching off into the distance, glowering refineries, power lines hypnotically rising and falling as each pole passes by at 80 mph, and the tall cities at each end of the route.

What I found difficult is how the setting jumped around - one moment we're westbound in Idaho, then we're eastbound in Wisconsin, suddenly we're westbound in eastern Montana (isn't that before Idaho?), then we're seeing footage from Dickinson and we're not sure which direction the train is going this time. I get that that may have been the idea: the film starts by informing us that at any given moment, several Empire Builder trains are carrying hundreds of passengers across the country in both directions.

OK, fine. But the way the film is edited, it feels like it just bounces around from place to place. Jumping back and forth among multiple passengers, including changes in direction, would not be a problem. But it felt like it jumped back and forth along the route too, which didn't work as well. Maybe a little more editing, so we see westbound passengers' progress from east to west, and vice versa, is in order. Make it feel like one eastbound train and one westbound train are headed across the country simultaneously. This would contribute to a feeling of actually progressing across the landscape, and maybe even help drive the narrative (such as it is). I heard other theatergoers whispering things like "wait ... where are they?" so I don't think I was alone in this.

One more minor quibble is that at 76 minutes this film is barely feature-length. While they're editing, maybe the filmmakers could beef it up with a little more footage.

Overall, the visuals and the stories reminded me of how much I've enjoyed this trip over the years. I can certainly relate to the "in transition" theme, as several of my own Empire Builder journeys have been at pivotal moments of my life. I found this movie very enjoyable, but it would benefit from a bit more editing.

Independent Lens: Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2005) Season 8, Episode 22

Excellent, lucid documentary on a complex subject

[8/10 · 6 July 2005]

As is often the case, many of the greatest stories are truth, rather than fiction. If you made this up, no one would believe you -- yet it happened just the same. The history of Enron is traced from its beginnings though its eventual collapse, with lots of great footage of the main players in action.

I think this film's most telling observations were (1) that every quarter it appeared to the line-level employees as if they wouldn't make their numbers, yet at the end of the quarter somehow they always did, and (2) once they started fudging the numbers, Enron's financial wizards found they had to keep lying, and the lies had to keep getting bigger: if they stopped lying their change in outlook would be noticed, and all the previous lies would be exposed. This was also true of the banks and auditors involved, who once they approved the first lie had to keep going along with it or their complicity would be exposed.

As an economist and a Pacific Northwesterner, I was glued to the Western energy crisis as it unfolded. I'm going to discuss the content and context of the movie in some detail here.

Enron already had the ability to dramatically limit the supply of power, both at the generating and at the transmission level, but the winter of 2000-01 presented the perfect alignment of circumstances. First, Washington and Oregon had our worst drought in years, which cut way back on our power supply, which is mostly hydroelectric. Historically hydro power has been abundant, so electric heating is common here, and even in a normal winter we buy California's surplus to heat our homes, returning our surplus to them in the summer when they need it for A/C. Usually that's a good deal all around -- but thanks to Enron, California didn't have a surplus, exactly when we needed it most.

The second thing that happened was that an Enron-friendly administration was elected to power. Ken Lay was a good personal friend of GWB (and not just George Sr., as an earlier reviewer stated), frequently attended family picnics and was affectionately referred to as "Kenny Boy" by GWB. His company was the largest single contributor to Bush's election. At the height of the crisis, Dick Cheney (who had just met with Lay the previous day) testified against the imposition of price controls. This directly resulted in billions of additional profits to Enron and billions of additional costs to Westerners. It was only through later imposition of those very price controls that the crisis ever came to an end, because they removed Enron's incentive to limit supply.

Kudos to the movie for not sugar-coating these facts, because it's important to understand that IS how politics works. This kind of complicity happens on both sides of the aisle, but there's no escaping the fact that in this particular scandal it was Republican politicians who were complicit. This may make the movie appear biased to some, but the facts in this case are irrefutable. Here's another tidbit not covered in the movie: As chair of the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Wendy Gramm (wife of Texas Senator Phill Gramm, a major Enron recipient) ruled in 1992 to exempt Enron's energy-trading scheme from federal regulation -- and shortly afterward was appointed to Enron's board of directors.

In fairness to the other side, Gray Davis completely bungled Calfornia's response to the crisis, creating unnecessary additional debt for the state -- but still, his worst crime was incompetence, not complicity, since it was on Republican Pete Wilson's watch that California's so-called "deregulation" was signed into law. Two friends of mine who are energy economists (one of whom worked for PG&E, the other of whom is a Libertarian) looked closely at California's plan at the time and warned of the disaster to come. It was predictable. It was Wilson who should have borne the consequences.

The third thing that happened -- and was not mentioned in much detail in the film -- was that 2001 was a year when a particularly large number of long-term energy contracts were to be renegotiated. These contracts are typically for 7 year terms, so the wholesale price in effect at the time of contract renewal is the price that stays in effect for 7 years. So despite the fact that wholesale prices have returned to some semblance of normalcy, Enron managed to lock in a lot of its buyers at inflated prices for the next 7 years. Which means this is not just a historical crisis. Westerners (not just Californians) will be paying billions of dollars for inflated electricity for several more years to come.

All in all, I can forgive this movie its omissions (not emphasizing that it wasn't just California who got screwed, leaving out Wendy Gramm, etc.). Those are side notes that should be of interest to anyone with a deep interest in these events, but this movie is already crammed full of facts and there's no need to lengthen it. It's hard to miss the point, and hard to miss the irony that the company whose tagline was "Ask Why?" was brought down by someone who asked that very question. 8/10.

Closer (I) (2004)

Just a movie, people ... a pretty good one but not a great one

[7/10 · 6 July 2005]

Looking at the previous reviews and the message boards, it looked like some people were offended by the moral universe occupied by the characters in the movie. You'd think these people would recognize a morality play when they see one! This movie is clearly a cautionary tale, a fulfillment of the old proverb, "if you can't be an example, at least be a warning." The Greeks were writing stories like this over 2000 years ago, full of murder and mayhem and deceit, of people having sex with their mothers and poking their eyes out. Yet I haven't heard the "Christian" conservatives getting all worked up about THAT.

Of course these characters' behavior was offensive. That was the point of the movie. We watch as the brazen disregard of moral laws wreaks tragedy on stage or on screen, thinking to ourselves "boy, glad I'm not that screwed up" (or in some cases "boy, I'm really screwed up"), and then we walk out of the theater vowing to behave better than that. Didn't we all learn this in 10th grade literature class? Anyway, to me this movie was about trust, honesty and deception. This was most clearly played out in the strip club scene, but it was a central theme throughout. At times a character would show an incredible level of trust in one of the others, often in a completely amazing and charming way. Sometimes this trust was rewarded, and sometimes it was violated. At times one of the characters would break another's trust through deception in a completely vile way, sometimes over a long period of time. At times we in the audience would find that we ourselves had been deceived by one of the characters. This plays out especially well in a scene near the end that reverses several of our earlier notions of who was deceiving whom, and when.

The old adage, "what a tangled web we weave, when we endeavor to deceive" is illustrated vividly here. The clear message is: don't behave this way, folks. And don't get tangled up with someone who does). I know some have expressed amazement that anyone would live like this. Is it any more surprising than finding out there are people who rape or murder others, molest children, or start wars needlessly? Most people aren't like this, but there are those who act without conscience, either continuously or at convenient times. This story sets out to illustrate the damage they can cause.

After setting that record straight, I have to say that although the acting was fantastic all around, I thought the script and dialogue were a bit flat in places, and this film just didn't grip me as well as it should have. 7/10.

Dogville (2003)

Good, but not the best Dogme film I've seen

[7/10 · 9 March 2005]

Before reviewing a truly "theatrical" film, let me say that I love the theater, but also that I expect a higher standard in plot and script from the theater that I do from film. If a film is going to deliberately evoke the theater like this, it's going to be held to a theatrical standard.

As much as I like the idea of the super-simplistic sets and props used in this film -- at least as an intellectual exercise -- I found it to have been taken to such an extreme that it was distracting. Like most moviegoers I'm willing to suspend disbelief for a couple of hours, but this took it too far, much like some action movies that go beyond improbable stunts and effects to physically impossible stunts and effects. Even as I was engrossed in the plot and the predicament of Nicole Kidman's character I couldn't completely ignore all this.

Another flaw in this film is the excessive use of voice-over. Voice-over is used to convey information that for one reason or another is not conveyed through set and dialogue. Some of the voice-over in this movie is justified by the lack of information conveyed by the sets, but too much voice-over means there's something wrong with the sets (already discussed) or the script. I wasn't aware that Dogme allows the use of voice-over (an inherently unnatural and often obtrusive technique), but this film illustrates why a revisited Dogme (05?) should probably disallow it.

Having mentioned improbability, let's come back to that. I find it unlikely that an entire town of real people anywhere in America (or the world, for that matter) would behave in the coarse and cruel manner that these people did. I have no hesitation to criticize the coarseness, ignorance and insensitivity of American culture when I see it, but if this was indeed intended as a commentary specifically on America then it simply doesn't work. Does von Trier really think that people in Bangladesh or Slovenia -- or Denmark, for that matter -- are not equally capable of such cruel and insensitive behavior? I certainly hope that the hype about this movie's intent is wrong on this point.

The level on which this movie does work, however, is as a morality play about human nature in general. Despite the above criticisms, I really wanted to like this film, and found the story and acting compelling. It could have worked spectacularly if the set issues hadn't been so intrusive. 7/10.

So far I like the idea of Dogme, but this one's still too stagey and still too obviously an intellectual exercise. For a Dogme film in which the plot and characters are able to truly flourish within the confines of the genre (at least after the first 15 minutes) I heartily recommend "Italian for Beginners."

Thoroughly Modern Millie (1967)

Now why did I give this 4/10 stars again?

[4/10 · 29 November 2004]

As I write this and go over the details of the movie in my mind again, I'm starting to wonder if my 4/10 rating was too generous. Obviously the "camp" factor is inflating the ratings on this one. Nothing wrong with camp, mind you. But at least taken un-ironically, this thing is pretty bad overall.

It does have a few bright spots: Julie Andrews' singing and acting (at least aside from her horrible silent-movie-style asides to the camera), a few of the musical numbers, the dancing, and of course Carol Channing's outrageous character.

But while some of the songs shone, others were just awful. Mary Tyler Moore's character and acting were completely one-dimensional for me. And beyond the basic absurdity of Julie Andrews complaining of being too full figured, some elements of the plot were just completely ridiculous: the proprietress of a hotel (is she supposed to be Chinese or does she just dress that way?) kidnapping her attractive single female clients and selling them into (presumably sexual) slavery, with assistance from two evil "chinamen" (Jack Soo and Pat Morita, at the absolutely lowest points in their careers).

Again, maybe this film works on the camp level -- if a lot of alcohol is involved -- but it sure didn't work for me.

The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

Pretty bad

[3/10 · 14 June 2004]

Not a lot of good movies in the theaters on this blow-off afternoon, so I thought I'd go see something mindless. Mission accomplished!

*** A MASSIVE LIST OF SPOILERS FOLLOWS, AS IF YOU REALLY CARE ***

The premise is that the global melting of glaciers causes a sudden shift in ocean currents, shutting down the Gulf Stream and plunging the Northern Hemisphere into an Ice Age in a week. OK, fine. The premise of cinema itself involves willful suspension of disbelief at some point. Fair enough. I can accept this concept and watch the movie.

But I can only suspend so much disbelief. It only took about ten minutes before I found myself shaking my head. A partial list of stupidities follows: The galley cart careening down the aisle of the plane in heavy turbulence. Killer tornadoes ripping down half of downtown L.A. (and causing an earthquake at the same time) - oh, but only after hitting their first target, the Hollywood sign. Helicopters suddenly falling from the sky because it's too cold. NASA having to ask space station astronauts if the clouds are dissipating, even though we have dozens of weather satellites orbiting the earth. Cellphones still working when all of New York is underwater and without power. Our protagonist having enough time to run half a block, grab his prospective girlfriend from a cab and escape to safety while a 100 foot high wall of water bears down on him. Already-frozen objects icing up when a blast of -150 F air hits them. Our protagonist's father surviving a hike from Philly to New York in weather so cold "you freeze to death in seconds". A container ship gliding a mile or more up a New York avenue without hitting any buildings. Timber wolves chasing three kids around said ship when there must be hundreds of thousands of dead bodies around for them to eat. Seven people in the poorly insulated New York Public Library being the only survivors of the big storm, among two million. Said survivors debating whether to burn a Gutenberg Bible for heat when they've got literally tons of magazines and pulp novels to burn instead.

Once you get beyond the things that are physically unbelievable, you realize that to make this pseudo-scientific drama more human, the writers have incorporated more worn-out plot devices than you can preserve for eternity in the Bering Glacier: the budding teen romance, the more-confident kid who threatens it, the distant father, the conniving vice president. And what bad movie of this genre would be complete without a British-accented scientist at some point uttering, "My God!" At one point I found myself speculating whether this movie might have what it takes to become a campy cult classic.

What amuses me is that in Real Life, our president has ordered NASA and NOAA not to speak to the press about this movie. Presumably they are afraid to fuel the public's concerns about climate change. They have nothing to worry about. Any scientist who confirmed the theories in this movie would have to be even nuttier (or more "bought") than the rare few who deny the existence of climate change. It's really too bad this movie was so over the top, because climate change is a serious issue, rational discussion of which is undermined by the blatant unbelievability of this movie.

On the good side, the special effects are pretty spectacular and more realistic-looking than a lot of what I've seen the last couple of years. As a result, I have to give this one 3/10.

Phone Booth (2002)

Moving and gripping ...

[8/10 · 7 August 2003]

A few flaws, including the introductory voiceover and a couple of minor and fleeting lapses in plausibility that don't affect the overall premise or plotline. Biggest problem for me, though, was the use of fast motion (not time lapse, which can be OK) in a couple of instances. To me, fast motion is unacceptable in a quality film, but at least the sequences were short enough not to kill the buzz.

(Unlike others, I'm not bothered by the cops discussing the wiretaps though - c'mon guys, it's a standard plot device. Get over it.)

That aside, it's very well scripted and acted. I thought that for the most part Farrell played his character perfectly, including the obnoxious jerk at the beginning and the somewhat altered character later in the film. Powerful stuff. I was absolutely gripped and at the edge of my seat, which doesn't happen on my couch cushions very often. Not groundbreakingly original, but still quite fresh and no one is just going through the motions here. A good story, well told. What else do you want?

Ordinarily, I would not be able to rate this movie movie any higher than 7/10 due to the flaws mentioned above. But because of how exceptionally well it grabbed me personally (which is absolutely THE primary reason a movie in this genre should exist) I'm bumping my rating up to 8/10.

Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde (2003)

Very disappointing

[4/10 · 25 July 2003]

Yes, yes I know it's a sequel so what do I expect. Well, generally I do expect a lot from Reese Witherspoon. I enjoyed Legally Blonde a lot, and thought it was clever and very funny. In it, Elle backed up her perkiness and style with competence. Even the courtroom scene, if audacious, was reasonably believable. However improbable, it was at least possible for the plot to take the twists and turns that it did, and for Elle to achieve success - which ultimately Elle's success was due to her hard work and brilliant mind, not her looks.

The new movie has none of that. The scenes of committee hearings and Congressional sessions are completely unrealistic and not believable. The sad thing is it probably COULD be made believable, but it's just not done right. Even worse, her ultimate success comes in spite of her incompetence in the political arena, rather than due to her competence. And her marriage - which to Elle's character would be expected to be a VERY big deal - is a minor subplot. Overall the script feels half-done, and as a result the whole thing just doesn't work. At least there were a few good yuks, though not as many as in the original movie.

I've heard they're working on LB3, in which Reese runs for President. Let's hope Reese gets a little more "Type A" and gets that one done right again.

Laurel Canyon (2002)

Excellent acting, but for what?

[6/10 · 25 July 2003]

Wonderful performances - all dead-on, especially McDormand's, and great depiction of the milieu. But I could see the entire plot coming an hour away, and it just didn't grab me. Yes OK, uptight people explore letting their inhibitions go ... sure, that can make a great movie. I can absolutely see Beckinsdale's character doing that, but not that way in that setting. 6/10.

Punch-Drunk Love (2002)

Offbeat and wonderful!

[8/10 · 25 July 2003]

Once again, PT Anderson continues to amaze and delight. This is a different kind of film than his previous "big" dramas, and is likely to be remembered as one of his more minor works. But if anything, it is a powerful demonstration of his true range, and a hint at the great works that are yet in his future.

SNL actor Adam Sandler, meanwhile, really doesn't have that much range himself. He is quite good when he's within his element though, apparently enough to garner Anderson's attention. Having seen potential for greatness in Sandler, Anderson has taken the extraordinary risk of handcrafting a film specifically to showcase this unique talent, revolving it around a role that absolutely no one else could pull off. The risk has paid off marvelously. This film shows Sandler at his quirky and lovable finest, extracting the best performance of his career (as Anderson's films invariably do!) while drawing us in with an odd - and oddly touching - romance. A delight to watch. 8/10.

Full Frontal (2002)

Odd title, but good harmless fun

[6/10 · 24 April 2003]

I don't see why so many people are so negative about this movie. I thought it was a lot of fun, with well-acted and eccentric characters. Sure, Soderbergh has done better films (The Limey, Traffic, Brockovich), and he's made ones that are more fun (Ocean's 11) but it's still pretty good, and I enjoy seeing Soderbergh experiment with different variations on his unique style. 6/10.

Repo Man (1984)

And yet ... I blame society

[9/10 · 24 April 2003]

My experience of this movie is remarkably similar to that of many of the other reviewers. I saw it in the theater (as part of an English class assignment, no less!) when I was a college freshman in 1984. It blew me away.

Some of the negative reviewers have pointed out aspects of this movie that seem derivative to them - but the other items they claim it to reference (e.g., Tarentino's work) came AFTER this one. Who's derivative? Let me tell you, at the time this movie was something completely new. No, of course punk wasn't new anymore, but this movie and its style were completely out of left field. Having just escaped dreadful, brainless Reagan suburbia for the fertile grounds of college and the big city, it was a big gust in the fresh air I was suddenly breathing, and I loved it. Still do.

I loved the nihilistic punk sensibility, down to the generic food labels, even though I never completely figured out all the symbolism, if any was intended. Maybe the point, very precisely, WAS the futility of trying to find sense in a chaotic world in which there was no sense to be made. In any case, it absolutely defined the era in which I was living, and reigned as "my favorite movie" for several years.

So many classic jokes and catch phrases, regularly referenced by myself and my friends for years to come, came from Repo Man ... "BAD AREA", "You find one in every car ... you'll see", "Otto, what about our relationship? ... F*** that!", "Ordinary f***ing people, I hate 'em", "And yet ... I blame society", "Let's go do some crimes", "Looking for the joke with a microscope", "There's f***ing room to move as a fry cook", "Pablo Picasso was never called an a**hole", "A Repo Man spends his live getting into tense situations", the whole John Wayne exchange. And the soundtrack is one of the best in history.

Is my opinion tainted by the atmosphere in which I was exposed to it? Sure, but it's still a great movie.

Russian Ark (2002)

Stunning visuals and cinematic achievement, flawed presentation

[7/10 · 12 April 2003]

The interior shots of the Hermitage, and the period costumes and ballroom scene are spectacular and stunning. For that, the epic scale of history covered (largely successfully), and the achievement of doing this in a seamless 90-minute shot, this film deserves 7/10. It's that much of an accomplishment.

Unfortunately, the irritating "dialog" and "plot" nearly ruined an otherwise awe-inspiring experience. The ongoing bickering between the two main "characters" was completely annoying, and their occasional interactions with the Hermitage's inhabitants were alternately pretentious and absurd. It was never clear to me in which rooms/periods these two guys were visible and/or audible to those around them, and in which they were not. And c'mon, a guy dressed like that being welcomed as a guest at such an elegant ball? He'd have been lucky to have only been tossed back out on the street. Simply

This movie would have worked much better as a simple documentary. Basically unchanged, except for the replacement of these two annoying characters with a standard documentary voice-over explaining what's going on. Then I'd have given it 10/10.

Italiensk for begyndere (2000)

Charm that grows on you

[8/10 · 12 April 2003]

I have to admit, after the first few minutes I was wondering if I'd even manage to finish the whole thing. Also, as this was the first Dogme film I'd seen, I was also really questioning the whole concept. The opening scenes seemed amateurish in both filming and acting, with jerky editing and camera movements, and seemingly one-dimensional characters. But it really grew on me as I kept watching. The more the characters revealed themselves, the more sympathetic and complex they became. It actually became quite engrossing as the film progressed. There were just so many moments of geniune warmth and humor. In fact, what really struck me about this film after it was all over was its geniuneness. I haven't seen anything so heartwarming in a long time. 8/10.

Doing Time (2002)

A striking portrait

[8/10 · 25 February 2003]

This movie plays out as a series of vignettes, each a few minutes long, focusing on various aspects of the (Japanese) writer's time spent in a Japanese prison. There is virtually no violence or brutality as one might expect from prison life, rather incredibly arbitrary and strict rules and incredible boredom. Not fast moving, but not boring either. Vividly, and in a way beautifully, portrayed.

OT: Our Town (2002)

Great story, well-told

[9/10 · 25 February 2003]

A truly heartwarming story about the value of arts in schools. In troubled Compton, CA, a high school which has not staged a play in 20 years decides to put on a production of Our Town. It's fascinating to watch how the kids and culture of the school deal with the challenges of theater and the rather stark contrast between the play's setting and their own lives. Very well done.

Only criticism: without giving away too much, there are a couple of incidents of implied (not directly viewed) violence that are juxtaposed in a manner that leads the view to think they are the same incident, when in fact they are not. A little more time in the editing room could fix this.

The Deserted Station (2002)

Symbolism is well and good, but first the story has to work

[6/10 · 25 February 2003]

The story has to work on its surface first, and this barely does. The editing back and forth between the husband and the wife is not well timed and not tied together. The characters look like they should be very interesting, but somehow they aren't so much. The connections between people that show up aren't particulary gripping or engaging, and the scene at the end simply doesn't work, physically or emotionally. Also, this being filmed in the desert with rather light-colored scenery, it can be extremely hard to read the white subtitles at times.

Good points are stunning desert scenery (although it looks a lot less remote and deserted than plenty of places right here in Oregon), decent acting, and good metaphors about Iranian life.

Monday Morning (2002)

Yawn ...

[6/10 · 25 February 2003]

The cinematography is very nice, with vivid shots of Venice and the french countryside, and the characters have the potential to be quite interesting. But the characters are about 80% developed to the point where we'd really care about them, and the whole thing doesn't tie together very well. Plus the pace is maddeningly slow. Message to the director: We get the point! It's hard for me to hate this film, but I can't rave about it either.

Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002)

Absolutely stunning

[10/10 · 25 February 2003]

Admittedly, I'm biased because I have this fascination with Australia as the funhouse-mirror-image of the USA, and real Aussie movies are few and far between, but still ...

It is an absolutely incredible tale (aren't the most incredible tales the true ones?), the details of which have been covered in other reviews. Suffice to say it is told with an attention to detail of landscape and humanity which matches the story itself. Absolutely magnificent.

• Dan

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

Funny, but movie-length is a stretch

[6/10 · 11 June 2002]

I'm a big Kevin Smith fan, and Dogma and Chasing Amy are among my favorite movies. I love the Jay and Silent Bob characters in Smith's other films, but I just don't think they're developed enough to really fill out this full-length movie, and sometimes they get a little too one-tracky. Also, the story itself is was pretty thin. The movie is saved by its humor, with numerous laugh-out-loud moments. Overall, 6 of 10 stars. Skip it in the theater, but worth the rental if you're a Smith fan.

The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)

Pure Coens, with a hidden "agenda" (**SPOILERS**)

[8/10 · 11 June 2002]

OK, so I'm a Coen fan. These guys can take a genre and reduce it to its purest form in a single finely-crafted movie. "The Man Who Wasn't There" definitely follows the pattern, with its sense of foreboding, plodding pace, painstaking filming and editing, and more Noir "hooks" than you can shake a lit cigarette at. It's absolutely beautiful to watch, and a loving homage to a genre that is referenced more often than it is experienced these days. And while I'm not a big Billy Bob fan, his performance in this role was impeccable and riveting.

Yet for all the craftsmanship, its pace was slow and it seemed a little empty, like something was missing. The missing element is found in the answer to the movie's central question: "What kind of man are you?"

*** SPOILER FOLLOWS ***

So what kind of man is he? A gay man. Yes, I believe Billy Bob's character is a closeted homosexual. Think about it. He hasn't slept with his wife in years, and doesn't seem too bothered by her ongoing affair: his interest in it is primarily in how he can use it for blackmail. The salesman tries to make a move on him in his hotel room, and the situation is made all the more embarrassing by just how SURE the salesman was that he'd be into it. And of course most upstanding citizens would be distressed to have their friend's teenage daughter making sexual advances on them, but the way Billy Bob reacts to Birdy is different than you would expect out of most other men.

He lives the very safe, straight barber life because given his orientation, and the straightjacket of the times, it is very important that he appear that way. And why stick his neck out and be adventurous, when society won't allow him to be what he really wants to be anyway? As far as society's expectations were concerned, he truly Wasn't There.

One of the wonderful things about Noir is the way in which it provides a photo-negative mirror image of the times in which it was made. Paradoxically, its very darkness illuminates the unacknowledged anxieties and misfits overshadowed by happy, optimistic glow of the times. Yet despite Noir's insights into the postwar world's dark underbelly, some things were off-limits even to this genre. "The Man Who Wasn't There" hits on an issue that, while topical today, was too deep and dark even for Noir at the time. The Coen brothers have not only distilled this form down and perfected its essence, they have extended it. A great cinematic achievement.

Novocaine (2001)

Unusual but highly entertaining thriller

[7/10 · 11 June 2002]

I must say that about halfway through this movie I thought about bailing out on it. Steve Martin's character kept making SUCH bad decisions that it was painful to watch and you could easily see where it was going.

But I'm glad I stuck with it. Martin did a marvelous job of playing a terribly upstanding character who does things even he thinks himself incapable of, when he meets someone who finds his buttons and keeps on pushing them. *** SPOILER FOLLOWS *** You'd expect him to end up wishing he'd never met her, yet ultimately their meeting is the one thing that saves him. Sure some of the plot twists are a little implausible, but it's well-acted, told from an unusual point of view and a lot of fun. 7 out of 10.

Magnolia (1999)

Almost too big, but pure genius

[10/10 · 7 June 2002]

This has quickly become one of my favorite movies of all time. Love, sex, drugs, death, prophecy, fate, treachery, abuse, regret, despair, hope, redemption, forgiveness ... it's all there. When I first saw it in the theater, I just sat in my seat, stunned by what I had just witnessed: a modern parable of LIFE. Sometimes you think P.T. Anderson has bitten off more than he can chew with this movie, but somehow he pulls it off. Brilliant story, stunning acting by a spectacular cast, hauntingly poignant music, perfect editing. Sure it's long, but you couldn't tell this story in less than three hours. I don't say this often:

A masterpiece.