Change Your Image
losdzez
Reviews
Munich (2005)
Riveting and compelling
Normally not my genre at all, Munich was both thrilling and unflinching while thoughtful and balanced. Only now reading others' comments do I realize it was three hours long. (Although the guys climbing over the seats to use the restroom should have alerted me . . .) The great achievement of this film is its balanced, even-handed treatment of the issues. It doesn't attempt to lay blame or lay out a roadmap. There are no answers, only things to consider. What happens to us, what do we become, when we kill in the "name of righteousness". Is killing ever righteous? What happens when we look our enemy in the eye and hear his grievance? Can we kill him so easily then? Is vengeance worth the continuing cost in violence and mayhem? And what of our outrage being used by our government to make us instruments of their own unspoken agenda? Who wins when we set out, "eye for an eye", and how much of our humanity can we maintain while committing heinous acts in retribution? Note that none of these questions mentions Jews or Palestinians. These are human questions, questions of morality and of our souls and of our survival together on the planet.
Spielberg and Kushner present the facts in a gutwrenching way without trying to drag us to one camp or the other. They weave subtlety into what could at any moment become heavy-handed and belligerent, but doesn't. They force the two sides to look one another in the face, force us to look in the mirror, force us to see the excruciating nuance buried in the stark rubble of black and white thinking. We can continually blow up the other side, forever. And we have. And we probably will.
But we don't have to. And we can't continue without stopping to consider the consequences, the damage to our own souls, the perpetuation of the violence and death.
I'm hearing and reading of people refusing to see this film because they "heard" it was not balanced, or they don't like Spielberg, or they assume Jews can't write and direct a film that looks at the situation without tipping the scales towards Israel.
But the film is not about Israel and the Palestinians. It is about the human heart, the need for safety and identity that expresses itself in the desire for a homeland, desperation and the drive toward vengeance and the toll that they take.
The performances are excellent, especially Eric Bana. And watch for Ayelet Zurer, who was also wonderful in Nina's Tragedies.
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Deeply Affecting
Seeing there were so many comments I wasn't sure I should post, but here goes. It won't be your standard review, though - haven't you already read plenty that tell you the story? First, unless you are deeply homophobic it will be tough not to be moved by this story. It isn't about gay sex, it's about human love. It's about how love sometimes overpowers us, how we can't control who we fall in love with, how we as human beings need connection with one another, and about how empty our lives can be if we don't find that connection, nurture it, care for it, and allow it to grow and deepen.
It's about how the need for a particular person in your life can live in spite of time and distance, even beyond death.
And finally it's about how life is too short for us not to go after what we want, to try to be something we're not, to deny something strong and pure.
And Ang Lee managed to create a film about a gay relationship that has such a purity that we are not concerned about the logistics of their sex life. We only want them to be together, because if we loved someone that way, we would walk through mountains to be with that person.
Some have said they should have just made this about a heterosexual couple. But what makes this story work is the backdrop of fear and hatred, the danger that this couple faces for something lovely between the two of them that harms no one, and that's no one's business but their own. Hetero couples don't have to face what Jack and Ennis face.
The movie isn't perfect. Some of the secondary characters could have used a bit of fleshing out. I wasn't thrilled with the makeup meant to age Jack and Ennis.
But Heath and Jake were phenomenal, sweet and knowable, and we half fall in love with them ourselves, wanting to shove them together. The sweetness of their love touches us where we are the most vulnerable.
And as many have mentioned, the film will make you long for a love of your life.
Syriana (2005)
Excellent Film
I didn't find the movie confusing - it did make me think this was based on a very dense book. I found the screenplay to be tightly written and an excellent example of how to give us backstories and set up subplots without a lot of exposition.
Are the good guys clear cut from the bad guys? Well, in a word, no. Almost no one in the piece is purely evil, and almost no one purely good.
Yet the movie portrays the sacrifice in terms of human lives and dignity in the quest to control oil supplies and the political posturing and butt-covering that goes along with it.
Without beating us over the head with it.
As heavy as the activity is, the film is not heavy handed. We see the situation from all sides, from how oil can be the key to the self-determination of an emerging democracy - if it has the courage to defy the U.S. - to how shortsighted policies and the uneven distribution of wealth can leave a vacuum of poverty and despair within which fundamentalism - and terrorism - can take root. And we see how greed for money and power defy logic and cause governments to act against their own interests, and people to act against one another.
The acting is superb in this film. Jeffrey Wright is always amazing to watch and in this case he hides his character's cards throughout but keeps us looking into his eyes for answers.
Okay, I'll say it. Some people you expect to be fantastic and they don't disappoint: Christopher Plummer, William Hurt, Chris Cooper. Always superb.
But when was the last time someone gave a rave review of George Clooney for his acting? Well at least not until this year. He was considered a "star" or a celeb or a hunky, funny, charismatic guy, and the key to his success as an actor seemed to be his very "George-ness".
And then comes this year. Everything goes into the stratosphere for Mr. Clooney in 2005.
There is no George to be found in this film. "Bob" is a complex, layered guy, who walks away from exploding cars like he's just put a nickel in the meter and is headed to pick up his cleaning but can't hide how much it hurts him that he can't be straight with his son. You believe he's fully capable of carrying out the cold threats he makes but he's also weary, confused, betrayed, desperate, helpless.
Bob's face will haunt you after the film is over.
As I said: Excellent film. Very well done.
A History of Violence (2005)
I highly recommend this film.
I have to disagree with the assessment of another reviewer here that Viggo Mortensen "didn't fit the role". In fact, his being sort of an "everyman" with which we can easily identify makes him an excellent choice for this part. It is crucial that he be someone "like us".
In addition, there is an economy to the film that is echoed in Mortensen's subtle (what I will call) character "arc". It's not really an evolution of his character but a demarcation, a border he passes back and forth over, that he reveals with a deft and nuanced performance.
This film is about the way we as a culture view violence, how we find ways to justify it, how we even find satisfaction in violence despite protestations to the contrary. In some spots in the film the audience laughed or cheered, I felt, inappropriately - until I realized that was the point. We as audience, as culture, applaud violence and laugh at the concept of mediating differences instead of resorting to violence. Violence is so much more entertaining . . .
And so as we watch we want to find a way to forgive the violence, to justify the behavior, so we can get it all to go back to where it was. But something is unleashed, something that existed just under the surface all along, something terrible and frightening and exciting and for Tom's wife Edie, maybe even a little sexy . . .
My biggest critique of the film is that there are portions which were clichéd to the point where we find ourselves laughing but I found myself out of the film for a moment, as these moments felt jarring.
Ed Harris' character seems like it came out of a graphic novel rather than from somewhere in Tom and Edie's world. John Hurt is even further out there, taking us into some sort of campy mobster film that almost seems unrelated to the film we were just watching. The scenes just didn't fit with what the film up to that point told us was "the world".
Perhaps the point is that (a) that IS the same world, (b) violence (even as solution) only begets violence and (c) these characters' blasé attitude about violence reflects the way we as a culture seem to be able to view or even take part in the most horrendous violence and then move on to "what's for dinner?"
But the fact that this other world seems so foreign and jarring is also testament to the connection that Cronenberg masterfully builds between us and Tom Stall and his family. We'll forgive anything for the possibility of having that perfect, comforting little family back, even if it is illusion.
Cronenberg makes sure we see and understand the reality of the violence, the aftermath both physical and psychological. But he doesn't batter us with it. Even with a certain degree of mayhem, he still manages to sneak up on us and tap us on the shoulder, so he can remind us quietly that this is our world, our family, our patriarch, our violence. "Oh, crap," we say, "he's right."
And then, "what's for dinner?"
The Squid and the Whale (2005)
um, . . not so much
The acting in this film is hands down excellent, no question.
Maybe it's the fact that my divorce wasn't this weird and we managed not to destroy our son when we split, or maybe I just don't understand why we needed to see a pre-adolescent boy masturbate and wipe his semen on things . . .
But I really didn't enjoy this film as much as endure it with great hope that it would come alive at some point. It didn't.
The parents in this family are far too annoying and screwed up for me to care about anything but keeping them from messing up the kids, which, well, it's too late.
The first 2/3rds of this film we are watching the younger son slowly disintegrate into what seems like insanity while the older son just pisses us off with his inane bullcrap. When we start to feel something for this older boy, the movie becomes interesting, and then abruptly ends, leaving us unclear about the sadly screwed up younger boy. Or about anything else.
It's not clear what's happening with any of the characters, and we almost don't care at all, not even about the boys.
The film is gritty and uncomfortable and we don't find anyone very sympathetic. It's simply sad and disturbing, but not in a way that sparks intelligent conversation about the ravages of divorce or the intelligence of Pink Floyd lyrics -- more in a way that makes you wish you hadn't seen the film.
Little Fish (2005)
Tough and real
Little Fish is a tough little slice out of the lives of several people touched by drugs. But it's more about people wanting to be more than who they are, and where that gets us.
When we first see Lionel (Hugo Weaving, who is all but unrecognizable, deep into this role), we don't know what's wrong - but we know something is very wrong. It's not long before we see he's lost to heroin, and we want to hate him for it, but we can't. Such is the charisma of addicts. All that's left for him is to decide whether he still has enough fight in him to change things.
Cate Blanchett's Tracy is hiding a wave of emotion so huge that when she allows it to escape it overwhelms her. She explodes in anger, or her tears fling themselves from her eyes, her face softening with too much pain to bear. Love threatens to engulf her. We at once wonder why she can't just be happy that she's clean and has a job, because her need to be more is destroying her, and cross our fingers in the hope that she will get what she wants.
Tracy's mom Janelle (Noni Hazlehurst) is heartbreaking as a woman who's seen far too much destruction go on and still spends every waking moment waiting for the other shoe to drop. You can almost hear her heart decide not to break when Tracy comes home from what could have been a fresh descent into hell.
In the end, those who manage to portray themselves falsely fare far worse than those who eventually find the treasure, the nobility, in being little "nobodies". In the end it's about being who they are, broken and loving and there for each other.
Breakfast on Pluto (2005)
More like Earth than you'd expect
As the film began, my companion said "Are we going to see Cillian Murphy play someone normal for once?" I said "No, he's playing a transvestite". I immediately wanted to take back those words, for who am I to judge someone's sexuality and/or choice of apparel . . .
As an infant, Kitten Brady is abandoned on the doorstep of a priest. As it turns out - beside the women's clothing and all - he's pretty normal - like anyone, he wants to know who his parents are, and why his mom left him there. He wants to belong somewhere.
On the one hand he seems to be drifting through life clinging to whomever will have him - but don't we all have that need to be wanted? But rather than searching for himself, Kitten is more sure of who he is than most people - he wears who he is on the outside, every day, and goes through life being bashed because of it. Most of us aren't that brave.
Murphy's portrayal of Kitten is flawless. (He makes a beautiful woman, by the way). He communicates Kitten's seamless connection with femininity by himself revealing nothing false about his own transformation into this character. We cease to see Kitten as a "man" or to define his "gender" somewhere in the first third of the film and instead see Kitten's feelings and longings - which are exactly like our own. He becomes familiar, comfortable. We would not begrudge Kitten being happy, ever.
Kitten appears weak but he's strong enough to withstand anything in his quest for belonging.
I found myself wanting to read the novel this movie is based on, as the IRA terrorist portion, while interesting, was a bit difficult to connect to the rest of Kitten's experience.
Liam Neeson is, as always, excellent, although we don't get to know his character well before we are re-introduced - so has he changed or did we just not know him? There are some nice emotional moments and we care about Kitten, but the vignettes give us more of a series of snapshots of Kitten but not much plot until the last third of the film. It left one wondering a bit if Cillian Murphy's Kitten hasn't made a sweet feast for us out of not such a filling story.
Still, watching this film is like eating delicious cheesecake. Each delicious bite reminds you that the last one was delicious and the next one will be delicious.
Beowulf & Grendel (2005)
Lovely film
The first clue that this film is a different take on the story is the title. Rather than simply depicting Beowulf's killing of a one-note Grendel as metaphor for good triumphing over evil, it is the story of the intersection of two fully realized, complex characters. This retelling wants us to rethink the simplistic concept of good and evil. The first step is to give us a Grendel we can understand, and a Beowulf weary enough of war to try.
Beowulf is a man used to that simplistic concept of war as good versus evil he's cool and efficient at killing, and when Hrothgar calls he's ready to put Grendel's head on a pole. But he's thrown off balance when Grendel won't engage. He becomes a sort of detective, not the warrior of legend but the imperfect man behind it, simply trying to get his bearings. With Butler's presence and nuanced performance, Beowulf may not be the mythically embellished warrior but is nonetheless wholly compelling, and on a human scale, heroic.
Skarsgard is amazing as King Hrothgar, a man self-destructing as he helplessly watches Grendel killing his people, consumed with hiding the fact that the catalyst was his own reckless action. Words like "walks on water" come to mind when describing Skarsgard's work. (His performance in "Aberdeen" is not to be missed).
Grendel, in an inspired performance by Ingvar Sigurosson, is a physically frightening brute with the heart of a small boy who loves his father and hates the ones who killed him. And he's smart smart enough to make buffoons out of Hrothgar and Beowulf at turns. Even without dialogue, Sigurosson gives us that Grendel we can understand.
Selma, portrayed like the glassy calm surface of a deep river by Sarah Polley, is the conscience of the piece. Her gaze is wide open - holding no illusion about the goodness of human nature and rather discomfiting to Beowulf. She's delicate and powerful, and as cool and efficient at surviving as Beowulf is at being a warrior. Beowulf goes to her for answers, but not the ones he ends up getting.
Andrew Rai Berzins' script is crisp and wry, and short on exposition, relying instead in great measure on the collaboration of the actors to tell the story, and they deliver. Hrothgar tells us with one subtle look exactly what he thinks of the blathering, apoplectic priest. Instead of writing a line of dialogue, Berzins allows Hondscioh (Tony Curran) to speak to us silently, his expression slowly reflecting the dread he sees on the faces of his mates as they realize he's just earned Grendel's wrath. And Grendel doesn't play around - much.
This film is truly a team effort, and this is the kind of team we root for. With Berzins' thoughtful and humorous script reflecting the real camaraderie of the talented cast, and Gunnarsson's direction reflecting his obvious love both for the story and for Iceland, we get a moving and beautiful film.
Usually warrior epics end with the hero vanquishing his foe in some brave and spectacular way. For this team's Beowulf, the real foe is thoughtless intolerance something not even a hero can vanquish, except within himself.