Frank Miller, the lord of graphic comic novels, has been given his just due in a sumptuously stylized film version of his Sin City. Lovingly brought to the screen by Robert Rodriguez with an assist by buddy Quentin Tarantino, this tale of vengeance and lust in a dark metropolis is unlike any movie in recent years in terms of consistent technique and visuals serving a group of interconnected stories in which the outcasts of civilization engage in urban survival while attempting to maintain a sense of honor and love. It is also an extremely violent film.
On a dark, rainy night, three major stories parallel each other. The first story has Detective John Hartigan (Bruce Willis) search for a missing girl before a serial killer strikes again. With his unsavory partner, Bob (Michael Madsen), he finally tracks down the killer in a bang-up finish, or is it? A separate story has a brutish exconvict, Marv (Mickey Rourke), who seeks revenge for the murder of a hooker. He is befriended by a parole officer, Lucille (Carla Gugino), a waitress, Shellie (Britanny Murphy), a stripper, Nancy (Jessica Alba), and a hooker, Gail (Rosario Dawson). His search for the killer pulls him into a grisly world of murder led by psychopaths, dirty cops, and corrupt, political leaders. Another story has a loner, Dwight (Clive Owen), protect his waitress girlfriend from a gang led by Jack (Benicio Del Toro) and a mob boss, Manute (Michael Clark Duncan). Things come full circle once events unfold, and surprises are unveiled with seemingly unrelated events and characters linked together.
To say more would spoil a smorgasbord of film noir and stylized action. There are some clever plot twists and surprises along the way. People’s loyalties are constantly in question, and the three male leads are surrogate avengers for justice, redemption and salvation. The film’s structure is reminiscent of Tarantino’s own Pulp Fiction and even P. T. Anderson’s Magnolia where various people meet in a series of vignettes and affect others who are seemingly unconnected. There are moments that seem influenced by past films. Certainly Sam Raimi’s (Spiderman) earlier Darkman was a direct precursor to Sin City. There is a scene with Clive Owen driving with a corpse that is a sort of homage to the 1945 horror classic The Body Snatchers. Rutger Hauer plays a religious leader in a scene not unlike the scene in Blade Runner where ironically Hauer reversed roles as an assassin in that film. A marvelous action piece with a female samurai warrior has all the earmarks of Tarantino who picks up where Kill Bill left off.
It is fascinating to watch what is essentially a pre-storyboarded film with the graphic novel serving as a blueprint for the film. ‘Shot and cut’ by Rodriguez himself, the film feels very consistent with a true auteur’s vision. Frank Miller imagined it, and Rodriguez made it happen. This is Rodriguez’ most assured film thus far, and it is a living, breathing comic book in the best sense. Despite the wide commercial appeal of successful comic adaptations of Spiderman and X-Men, Sin City is perhaps the most authentic and uncompromising transfer of such material. Much of what is depicted onscreen is predominantly a fabrication of computer generated special effects and trendsetting photography within which the actors interact. The black and white photography is at times gorgeous and downright nightmarish with the strategically accented color schemes similar to the best shots in Pleasantville and Schindler’s List. There is no doubt that the visuals of this film have been achieved with painstaking detail and success.
A dream cast features a wealth of actors and actresses, any two of whom could have front lined separate features on their own. Willis and Owen are quite effective as heroic, yet flawed personas, but it is Mickey Rourke who is a standout in what amounts to a comeback film. Even under his Frankenstein-like makeup, his humanity and toughness shine through. He makes the most of a potentially ridiculous role. In addition, while the males are mostly rugged, disheveled hulks, the females are beautiful and extremely sexy (sleazy?) to say the least. Jessica Alba, Brittany Murphy, Rosario Dawson, and Carla Gugino, (sorely missed from her brief Karen Sisko tv series) sizzle on the screen as they crossover different storylines. The performances are all fairly convincing once you excuse the occasional, awkward voice over narration.
Some things are left hanging plot wise. Many characters are almost caricatures; we have to accept them at face value without much depth. We never fully understand the psychopathic monster that is played by Elijah Wood. Where did he come from and why is he purely evil? Likewise, a partnership, betrayal, and reconciliation at the beginning of the film are never fully explored. The dialogue is a bit Jekyll and Hyde with some hokey lines followed by a series of sharp, humorous ones.
This is a film superficially filled with nudity, explicit language, taboo subject matter, and buckets of bloody violence. This is going to be offensive to many people who are put off by intense scenes of mayhem, but to those who thrive on the film noir of adult comic books, it is a dream come true.
If this adaptation is a one shot deal, the filmmakers gave it their best efforts. It is entirely plausible to have a sequel with an entirely different cast (even though a number of the principles survive this entry.) This movie is a splendid exercise in look and mood with emotional substance, no mean feat. It is definitely not for the faint of heart, but for those who are game, just hang on and enjoy the ride. Ironically, although Sin City is a graphic film in every sense of the word, this tale of haunted characters in an amoral world is ultimately a moral film.
***1/2 out of **** stars mainly for action comic fans
Vertigo
Vertigo
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Millions is a film of value
A small, lonely boy’s world is turned upside down in Millions, the latest from director Danny Boyle, whose striking visual style is not unlike his contemporaries, Tim Burton and Steven Soderbegh. While he has had his share of misses like The Beach, he has also struck gold with definitive genre films like Trainspotting and 28 Days Later. Here, he continues his success with this family oriented gem based on a fine screenplay by Frank Cottrell Boyce (Hilary and Jackie).
After the death of his mother, Damian and his family move to a new English suburb. There, he and older brother, Anthony, go to school and begin a new life with their father, Ronnie. As Damian struggles to fit into this new existence, he is also fascinated by historic saints. One day as he plays by the railroad tracks in his cardboard box of a playhouse, he is visited by a saint who foreshadows a gift. Suddenly a bag comes tumbling down and destroys his paper home. Within the bag is a very, very large sum of money. What to do with this windfall from the heavens? Damian begins to do the right thing, namely to help the poor as he is counseled by numerous saints while his brother is more interested in using the money to buy things and better his life. Damian’s charity giving begins to attract unwanted attention when he makes a rather hefty donation to a school sponsored charity event. The charity’s female representative, Dorothy, takes a liking to Damian and his father who takes a romantic interest in her. Meanwhile, a mysterious stranger appears by the railroad tracks looking for the money. It turns out that the money may not have been from the heavens but from a more, shall we say, illicit venture. The stranger becomes a viable threat as soon Ronnie and Dorothy learn of the boys’ loot. All of this occurs as England is ready to convert to the Euro dollar which means the money will become useless unless it circulates or gets exchanged. As the family decides how to properly dispense or dispose of the money, the stranger is ready to collect. Such is the stuff of good storytelling with a moral bent.
Alexander Nathan Etel is quite a find as Damian with his portrayal of the pure soul of a young boy who not only misses his mother, but wants to help the world. Lewis Owen McGibbon is equally good as the older but not necessarily wiser brother. A good supporting cast lends credence to the unusual proceedings. The various saints are all well depicted without seeming to be silly.
The film feels almost like a fairy tale with touches of fantasy and longing. It is intimately told from a child’s point of view. It is intriguing how the story could easily have focused on different threads such as the female charity rep who becomes involved with the father. But because this is Damian’s story, the film wisely stays on course. The saints who chat with Damien throughout the story serve as his advisers, mentors, and even protectors. Are they real or a figment of his imagination? It really doesn’t matter as the story does indeed move forward and the sense of urgency is never lost. There is an elaborate action scene told in flashback which could have been a film unto itself, but Boyle uses it as exposition without losing sight of his protagonists. In fact, the story never loses sight about the importance of love and family.
One sore point for American moviegoers will be trying to understand the dialogue. Once you get acclimated to the thick British accents, you can enjoy the film in earnest. The depiction and use of saints as part of the storytelling may draw some to accuse the film of a deliberate religious slant, but it really is a kind of fairy godmother or angel multiplied into several sainthoods. There is nary a preaching of theology or church when you come down to it. Although a child’s tale at its core, there is a threatening presence (by PG standards) from the stranger who lends a dark mood once he appears half way through the film.
Although it contains its share of drama and sentiment, it also has some genuinely funny moments without being cheap. There is also a climactic moment of connection and resolution that will resound in every viewer’s heart. It is interesting to note that Boyle’s thinly disguised altruism and politics are on display with his subplot on providing water relief for an African village. But that does not take away from the innocence and purity of a boy’s vision. This is a film that, despite its family themes, does not fall for easy sentiment. It earns its feelings and emotions. This special little film about a small boy and simple themes has a very large heart.
***1/2 of **** stars
After the death of his mother, Damian and his family move to a new English suburb. There, he and older brother, Anthony, go to school and begin a new life with their father, Ronnie. As Damian struggles to fit into this new existence, he is also fascinated by historic saints. One day as he plays by the railroad tracks in his cardboard box of a playhouse, he is visited by a saint who foreshadows a gift. Suddenly a bag comes tumbling down and destroys his paper home. Within the bag is a very, very large sum of money. What to do with this windfall from the heavens? Damian begins to do the right thing, namely to help the poor as he is counseled by numerous saints while his brother is more interested in using the money to buy things and better his life. Damian’s charity giving begins to attract unwanted attention when he makes a rather hefty donation to a school sponsored charity event. The charity’s female representative, Dorothy, takes a liking to Damian and his father who takes a romantic interest in her. Meanwhile, a mysterious stranger appears by the railroad tracks looking for the money. It turns out that the money may not have been from the heavens but from a more, shall we say, illicit venture. The stranger becomes a viable threat as soon Ronnie and Dorothy learn of the boys’ loot. All of this occurs as England is ready to convert to the Euro dollar which means the money will become useless unless it circulates or gets exchanged. As the family decides how to properly dispense or dispose of the money, the stranger is ready to collect. Such is the stuff of good storytelling with a moral bent.
Alexander Nathan Etel is quite a find as Damian with his portrayal of the pure soul of a young boy who not only misses his mother, but wants to help the world. Lewis Owen McGibbon is equally good as the older but not necessarily wiser brother. A good supporting cast lends credence to the unusual proceedings. The various saints are all well depicted without seeming to be silly.
The film feels almost like a fairy tale with touches of fantasy and longing. It is intimately told from a child’s point of view. It is intriguing how the story could easily have focused on different threads such as the female charity rep who becomes involved with the father. But because this is Damian’s story, the film wisely stays on course. The saints who chat with Damien throughout the story serve as his advisers, mentors, and even protectors. Are they real or a figment of his imagination? It really doesn’t matter as the story does indeed move forward and the sense of urgency is never lost. There is an elaborate action scene told in flashback which could have been a film unto itself, but Boyle uses it as exposition without losing sight of his protagonists. In fact, the story never loses sight about the importance of love and family.
One sore point for American moviegoers will be trying to understand the dialogue. Once you get acclimated to the thick British accents, you can enjoy the film in earnest. The depiction and use of saints as part of the storytelling may draw some to accuse the film of a deliberate religious slant, but it really is a kind of fairy godmother or angel multiplied into several sainthoods. There is nary a preaching of theology or church when you come down to it. Although a child’s tale at its core, there is a threatening presence (by PG standards) from the stranger who lends a dark mood once he appears half way through the film.
Although it contains its share of drama and sentiment, it also has some genuinely funny moments without being cheap. There is also a climactic moment of connection and resolution that will resound in every viewer’s heart. It is interesting to note that Boyle’s thinly disguised altruism and politics are on display with his subplot on providing water relief for an African village. But that does not take away from the innocence and purity of a boy’s vision. This is a film that, despite its family themes, does not fall for easy sentiment. It earns its feelings and emotions. This special little film about a small boy and simple themes has a very large heart.
***1/2 of **** stars
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Be Cool is groovy, sort of
Elmore Leonard has been the source of Hollywood films for decades, but not until recently have filmmakers translated his prose into true success. With the triumvirate of Out of Sight, Jackie Brown, and Get Shorty, Leonard’s characters have had a new lease on life. The latter was particularly adept at mixing interesting people in a clever plot with just the right dash of humor and edginess. How to follow up that one? Take the star, John Travolta, from that film and remix with a new, supporting cast behind and in front of the camera. What you get is Be Cool, a spry, ‘wannabe’ sequel that has its moments but doesn’t feel quite as fresh as Get Shorty.
Chili Palmer (Travolta) is still out of the rackets and getting bored with the movie business. When a music producer buddy is murdered by Russian mobsters, Chili decides to take matters in his own hands and teams with widowed producer Edie Athens (Uma Thurman). His first project is Linda Moon, a talented singer wasting away in a retro club. Unfortunately Moon is under contract to sleazy producer Nick Carr (Harvey Keitel) whose right hand man Raji (Vince Vaughn) and bodyguard Elliot (The Rock) are trying to kill Chili. Add to this mix an angry rap producer (Cedric the Entertainer) with his gang of thugs and police detectives on surveillance, and you get a story that’s a might convoluted. Pretty soon double crosses abound as everyone begins to point fingers at one another in a way that reminds one of …..Oh yeah, Get Shorty. You just know that Chili will somehow find a way to save the day in an ingenious manner, and that justice will be meted out. How he gets to that point is the half the fun.
John Travolta is getting a tad old for his role (which along with Pulp Fiction rejuvenated his career), but he succeeds in rekindling that suave, ultra confident Chili. Uma Thurman is light years from her Kill Bill success and really has an uninteresting character here. Each supporting actor is given his or her chance to shine, and for the most part they do just that and perhaps go over the top. Cedric the Entertainer is effective as a sophisticated rap producer whose entourage of ‘gangstas’ are out for blood. Harvey Keitel (whose amusing cameo concluded Get Shorty) gets a meaty role as the unscrupulous producer. Robert Pastorelli passed away last year, but his turn as a hitman is a brief reminder of his versatility. Vince Vaughn is a hoot as Raji, who acts like he can walk the walk and talk the talk of a rapper. But it is The Rock (in a mere supporting part no less) who steals the film as the insecure bodyguard who yearns to be an actor performer. Just as Get Shorty boasted an assortment of cameos by movie industry stars, this film reveals the occasional cameo of musical names as well. Furthermore, featured player Danny DeVito (who also produced) has nothing more than what amounts to be a cameo and doesn’t figure in the major plot thread.
Of course you can’t have a Travolta film without a featured dance number which, in this case reunites him with Thurman in a cute but unimaginative number that won’t make you forget the rug-cutting moments in Saturday Night Fever, Urban Cowboy or Pulp Fiction. The soundtrack is thoroughly laced with a mixture of 1970’s pop tunes and current rap. Closing credits have an amusing sequence of the principals strutting their stuff to rap music.
There was always going to be a little breath holding to see if a new director (F. Gary Gray) and new screenwriter (Peter Steinfeld) could duplicate Get Shorty’s success by Barry Sonnenfeld and Scott Frank respectively. In fact, Be Cool was held back from release in summer, 2004, which is often an ominous sign. The film is hit and miss especially in the first half. The musical performances go on much too long including the Aerosmith concert. A little trimming here and there would have been in order. When it finally hits its stride in the last portion, it coasts to a cute ending. At times the dialogue is downright clever and the plot does become intriguing. The film is reasonably successful in its own right but suffers from the high expectations of the previous film. In fact, when the story is over, it is not too far fetched to imagine Chili and gang making a nostalgic return when he is ready to conquer another phase of entertainment business like sports perhaps? Although Be Cool is a harmless bit of fun, it makes you respect the charms of its predecessor even more.
**1/2 of **** stars mostly for The Rock
Chili Palmer (Travolta) is still out of the rackets and getting bored with the movie business. When a music producer buddy is murdered by Russian mobsters, Chili decides to take matters in his own hands and teams with widowed producer Edie Athens (Uma Thurman). His first project is Linda Moon, a talented singer wasting away in a retro club. Unfortunately Moon is under contract to sleazy producer Nick Carr (Harvey Keitel) whose right hand man Raji (Vince Vaughn) and bodyguard Elliot (The Rock) are trying to kill Chili. Add to this mix an angry rap producer (Cedric the Entertainer) with his gang of thugs and police detectives on surveillance, and you get a story that’s a might convoluted. Pretty soon double crosses abound as everyone begins to point fingers at one another in a way that reminds one of …..Oh yeah, Get Shorty. You just know that Chili will somehow find a way to save the day in an ingenious manner, and that justice will be meted out. How he gets to that point is the half the fun.
John Travolta is getting a tad old for his role (which along with Pulp Fiction rejuvenated his career), but he succeeds in rekindling that suave, ultra confident Chili. Uma Thurman is light years from her Kill Bill success and really has an uninteresting character here. Each supporting actor is given his or her chance to shine, and for the most part they do just that and perhaps go over the top. Cedric the Entertainer is effective as a sophisticated rap producer whose entourage of ‘gangstas’ are out for blood. Harvey Keitel (whose amusing cameo concluded Get Shorty) gets a meaty role as the unscrupulous producer. Robert Pastorelli passed away last year, but his turn as a hitman is a brief reminder of his versatility. Vince Vaughn is a hoot as Raji, who acts like he can walk the walk and talk the talk of a rapper. But it is The Rock (in a mere supporting part no less) who steals the film as the insecure bodyguard who yearns to be an actor performer. Just as Get Shorty boasted an assortment of cameos by movie industry stars, this film reveals the occasional cameo of musical names as well. Furthermore, featured player Danny DeVito (who also produced) has nothing more than what amounts to be a cameo and doesn’t figure in the major plot thread.
Of course you can’t have a Travolta film without a featured dance number which, in this case reunites him with Thurman in a cute but unimaginative number that won’t make you forget the rug-cutting moments in Saturday Night Fever, Urban Cowboy or Pulp Fiction. The soundtrack is thoroughly laced with a mixture of 1970’s pop tunes and current rap. Closing credits have an amusing sequence of the principals strutting their stuff to rap music.
There was always going to be a little breath holding to see if a new director (F. Gary Gray) and new screenwriter (Peter Steinfeld) could duplicate Get Shorty’s success by Barry Sonnenfeld and Scott Frank respectively. In fact, Be Cool was held back from release in summer, 2004, which is often an ominous sign. The film is hit and miss especially in the first half. The musical performances go on much too long including the Aerosmith concert. A little trimming here and there would have been in order. When it finally hits its stride in the last portion, it coasts to a cute ending. At times the dialogue is downright clever and the plot does become intriguing. The film is reasonably successful in its own right but suffers from the high expectations of the previous film. In fact, when the story is over, it is not too far fetched to imagine Chili and gang making a nostalgic return when he is ready to conquer another phase of entertainment business like sports perhaps? Although Be Cool is a harmless bit of fun, it makes you respect the charms of its predecessor even more.
**1/2 of **** stars mostly for The Rock
Monday, February 21, 2005
OSCAR PREDICTIONS 2004
Here is my annual Oscar picks (2004) and they are earlier than usual because I am going from the gut and seeing how I fare. I have not had the pleasure of seeing some of the acting and writing and tech categories. Apologies for missing out on Vera Drake, Lemony Snicket, Being Julia, Closer, and a couple others. I did see what I think will cop most of the major awards. Here are my picks in BOLD for the major categories. Enjoy the show on Sunday!
PICTURE-MILLION DOLLAR BABY is my heartfelt pick. The Aviator is the prestige pick but I feel momentum swing emotionally.
DIRECTOR-CLINT EASTWOOD should win for moving our souls. Martin Scorsese is deserving for The Aviator but I don' t think this will be his year.
ACTRESS-HILLARY SWANK in Million Dollar Baby proves she is no fluke. I understand Annette Bening for Being Julia and Imelda Staunton for Vera Drake are great but they get edged out.
ACTOR-JAMIE FOXX for Ray, period.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS- CATE BLANCHETT in The Aviator was a key factor in that movie. Virginia Madsen in Sideways was also crucial for that film. There could be a surprise category winner.
SUPPORTING ACTOR-MORGAN FREEMAN gets his due. Thomas Haden Church in Sideways doesn't quite make it.
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND was bold and daring. Hotel Rwanda and The Aviator are strong contenders too.
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-SIDEWAYS was a model of excellence. No competition here.
FOREIGN -THE SEA INSIDE should beat out The Chorus. Where the heck is House of Flying Daggers and Bad Education?
ANIMATED-THE INCREDIBLES, period.
CINEMATOGRAPHY-A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT was breath taking although The Aviator has a good shot.
EDITING-AVIATOR may nudge Million Dollar Baby out.
COSTUME DESIGN-LEMONY SNICKET could win but The Aviator is a distinct possibility.
VISUAL EFFECTS-SPIDERMAN 2 was so good, it ought to win.
ORIGINAL SCORE-FINDING NEVERLAND may get its only award here.
DOCUMENTARY-BORN INTO BROTHELS has been getting kudos but Super Size Me could be the popular upset.
(MOST AWARDS COULD BE MILLION DOLLAR BABY WITH FOUR OSCARS with The Aviator trialing or tying with one major award and the rest technical ones.)
PICTURE-MILLION DOLLAR BABY is my heartfelt pick. The Aviator is the prestige pick but I feel momentum swing emotionally.
DIRECTOR-CLINT EASTWOOD should win for moving our souls. Martin Scorsese is deserving for The Aviator but I don' t think this will be his year.
ACTRESS-HILLARY SWANK in Million Dollar Baby proves she is no fluke. I understand Annette Bening for Being Julia and Imelda Staunton for Vera Drake are great but they get edged out.
ACTOR-JAMIE FOXX for Ray, period.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS- CATE BLANCHETT in The Aviator was a key factor in that movie. Virginia Madsen in Sideways was also crucial for that film. There could be a surprise category winner.
SUPPORTING ACTOR-MORGAN FREEMAN gets his due. Thomas Haden Church in Sideways doesn't quite make it.
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND was bold and daring. Hotel Rwanda and The Aviator are strong contenders too.
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-SIDEWAYS was a model of excellence. No competition here.
FOREIGN -THE SEA INSIDE should beat out The Chorus. Where the heck is House of Flying Daggers and Bad Education?
ANIMATED-THE INCREDIBLES, period.
CINEMATOGRAPHY-A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT was breath taking although The Aviator has a good shot.
EDITING-AVIATOR may nudge Million Dollar Baby out.
COSTUME DESIGN-LEMONY SNICKET could win but The Aviator is a distinct possibility.
VISUAL EFFECTS-SPIDERMAN 2 was so good, it ought to win.
ORIGINAL SCORE-FINDING NEVERLAND may get its only award here.
DOCUMENTARY-BORN INTO BROTHELS has been getting kudos but Super Size Me could be the popular upset.
(MOST AWARDS COULD BE MILLION DOLLAR BABY WITH FOUR OSCARS with The Aviator trialing or tying with one major award and the rest technical ones.)
Thursday, February 17, 2005
The Sea Inside explores humanity
Ramon Sampedro (Javier Bardem) was a man who had his whole life in front of him until a freak accident transformed him into a bed ridden quadriplegic whose lasting wish is to die with dignity. So begins a true story of an exceptional individual whose mission in life is thwarted and aided at various turns in The Sea Inside.
After nearly three decades of living as a physically inept victim of a diving accident, Ramon meets a lawyer who he hopes will help him win a court judgment to allow him death. His only stipulation is that the lawyer be afflicted with a degenerative condition if only to understand his similar plight. The lawyer, Julia (Belen Rueda), is physically crippled, but that does not prevent her from trying to help Ramon. In fact, the married lawyer comes to know her client as an intelligent, witty soul whose only misfortune is his lame body. She grows to love him through conversation and his poetry which will figure prominently as time progresses. At the same time, a local, single mother, Rosa (Lola Duenas), is attracted to Ramon from watching his television interviews. The two women have their own affections for Ramon, and through him, they are enlightened and rediscover their own purpose and feelings. This is a man who wishes to die, but he is clearly in full control of his mental faculties. Ramon has been nursed for years by his brother, sister-in law, and nephew. This is a family that loves and cares for their helpless kin and is torn by the notion that he wants to end his life. As court battles are appealed to the highest level, Ramon must decide if he is to take matters in his own hands and with the help of loved ones.
Director Alejandro Amenabar (The Others) has tackled a story that could have been utterly depressing and claustrophobic in its setting, but, instead, has depicted a compassionate study in dignity and truth. The difficulties in dealing with a controversial subject like euthanasia are dealt with in a well written script by Amenabar and Mateo Gil. In fact, the screenplay addresses the subject by contrasting Ramon’s choice as being his individual right even though he does not begrudge others in similar conditions who wish to live. He does not judge them just as they should not judge him. He even has his own means of escaping his empty existence by living out fantasies that carry him by flight to the beach where his life changed forever. It is the sea that begins and ends the film appropriately enough. The sea took away his life, and it is the sea into which he retreats. In these dreams of fancy, he can walk and even romance an unafflicted Julia. Reality and fantasy meld in ethereal imagery. It is fascinating throughout the film to observe the contrast of his middle aged form with his former, strikingly handsome, younger man. The film utilizes flashback cuts to great effect as it connects these moments. One instant, he is dreaming and the next he is drowning.
Javier Bardem (Before Night Falls, Collateral) is proving to be a chameleon of an actor as he is utterly convincing in his portrayal even in mimicking the warped physical state of Ramon’s body and its gnarled limbs. In any other year, he would rate an Oscar nomination. In fact a case could easily be made in a year deep with great male lead performances that an alternate list of nominees could have included Bardem, Kevin Spacey, Kevin Bacon, Paul Giamatti, and Liam Neeson. As his two female admirers, actresses Rueda and Duenas are quite good.
Although the film can never quite escape the limited theatrical nature of the plot, it does a good job of opening up the scenery and allowing its characters to grow. One may wish to learn more about Julia’s relationship with her husband, and perhaps a little more background on Ramon’s brother would have filled out the story better. There is also the feeling of inevitability given the story’s premise.
Audiences may not agree with the movie’s themes, but the film certainly earns a good deal of respect for its point of view. While some may be turned off, those who are curious about the subject matter or want to understand more about this real life person will find this to be a good character study about a man of conviction and the love that surrounded him. The Sea Inside is in Spanish with English subtitles.
*** of **** stars
After nearly three decades of living as a physically inept victim of a diving accident, Ramon meets a lawyer who he hopes will help him win a court judgment to allow him death. His only stipulation is that the lawyer be afflicted with a degenerative condition if only to understand his similar plight. The lawyer, Julia (Belen Rueda), is physically crippled, but that does not prevent her from trying to help Ramon. In fact, the married lawyer comes to know her client as an intelligent, witty soul whose only misfortune is his lame body. She grows to love him through conversation and his poetry which will figure prominently as time progresses. At the same time, a local, single mother, Rosa (Lola Duenas), is attracted to Ramon from watching his television interviews. The two women have their own affections for Ramon, and through him, they are enlightened and rediscover their own purpose and feelings. This is a man who wishes to die, but he is clearly in full control of his mental faculties. Ramon has been nursed for years by his brother, sister-in law, and nephew. This is a family that loves and cares for their helpless kin and is torn by the notion that he wants to end his life. As court battles are appealed to the highest level, Ramon must decide if he is to take matters in his own hands and with the help of loved ones.
Director Alejandro Amenabar (The Others) has tackled a story that could have been utterly depressing and claustrophobic in its setting, but, instead, has depicted a compassionate study in dignity and truth. The difficulties in dealing with a controversial subject like euthanasia are dealt with in a well written script by Amenabar and Mateo Gil. In fact, the screenplay addresses the subject by contrasting Ramon’s choice as being his individual right even though he does not begrudge others in similar conditions who wish to live. He does not judge them just as they should not judge him. He even has his own means of escaping his empty existence by living out fantasies that carry him by flight to the beach where his life changed forever. It is the sea that begins and ends the film appropriately enough. The sea took away his life, and it is the sea into which he retreats. In these dreams of fancy, he can walk and even romance an unafflicted Julia. Reality and fantasy meld in ethereal imagery. It is fascinating throughout the film to observe the contrast of his middle aged form with his former, strikingly handsome, younger man. The film utilizes flashback cuts to great effect as it connects these moments. One instant, he is dreaming and the next he is drowning.
Javier Bardem (Before Night Falls, Collateral) is proving to be a chameleon of an actor as he is utterly convincing in his portrayal even in mimicking the warped physical state of Ramon’s body and its gnarled limbs. In any other year, he would rate an Oscar nomination. In fact a case could easily be made in a year deep with great male lead performances that an alternate list of nominees could have included Bardem, Kevin Spacey, Kevin Bacon, Paul Giamatti, and Liam Neeson. As his two female admirers, actresses Rueda and Duenas are quite good.
Although the film can never quite escape the limited theatrical nature of the plot, it does a good job of opening up the scenery and allowing its characters to grow. One may wish to learn more about Julia’s relationship with her husband, and perhaps a little more background on Ramon’s brother would have filled out the story better. There is also the feeling of inevitability given the story’s premise.
Audiences may not agree with the movie’s themes, but the film certainly earns a good deal of respect for its point of view. While some may be turned off, those who are curious about the subject matter or want to understand more about this real life person will find this to be a good character study about a man of conviction and the love that surrounded him. The Sea Inside is in Spanish with English subtitles.
*** of **** stars
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
House of Flying Daggers is a colorful adventure
Love is the basis for the visually stunning epic, House of Flying Daggers. This beautifully shot tale of warriors and lovers is the latest from Chinese director, Yimou Zhang (Hero).
Set in 7th Century China as the Tang Dynasty was fading and the leadership was weak, a rebel alliance, House of Flying Daggers, is battling the deputies of the government. Jin, one of those deputies, is sent by his fellow deputy, Leo, to investigate a local brothel for a connection to the traitors. There, he finds Mei, a blind songstress who has a remarkable talent with athleticism and even martial arts acumen. Mei is not who she appears to be, and upon her arrest, she escapes with Jin’s help. It seems that Jin is rebelling too and wants to help the House rebels. Pursued relentlessly by government troops, the pair fight side by side and begin to form a bond and even affection for each other. Mei displays an incredible ability to trade blows and swordplay with the enemy. It’s a pretty amazing feat for a blind woman. As the two are cornered in a bamboo forest by dozens of troops and certain death is about to be dealt, fate intervenes and the truth is revealed setting up a new set of plot dynamics.
Is Mei really the blind daughter of the former leader of the Flying Daggers? Then again, is Jin the real deal or merely pretending to be her ally? And does Mei have a former love whose identity is a secret? If this all sounds like a soap opera, then the storyline belies Zhang’s theatrical background and his penchant for dramas. The film plays like a Greek tragedy. In fact, much of the film has a staged feel to it which is not bad since this is keeping with the style of previous sword epics. The film’s strength lies in strong characters that are in constant emotional and physical conflict. Loyalty and honor are concurrent themes amid a time of turmoil and change.
Zhang paints such a vivid tapestry of cinematic dazzle with his deliberate color schemes; the colors take on a character unto themselves. In fact, the rich visuals seduce the audience into the story. The set design and costumes are brilliant while the camera work is gorgeous. It may be the most beautiful film of the year.
Ziyi Zhang (Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon) is very good as the blind girl, a role which requires good acting skills and athleticism. She is very credible in her performance, but it is her martial arts prowess that is phenomenal. Takeshi Kaneshiro as Jin lends a very magnetic male presence. He combines just the right mix of humor, angst and physical work to make his roguish warrior believable. Finally, veteran Andy Lau as the troubled Leo shows more acting range and just enough fighting technique. It is of note that veteran actress Anita Mui was to have a supporting role but died before she could start filming.
It is the action scenes that are the best part of this ambitious story. The highlight is certainly the bamboo forest sequence which melds expert fighting with stunt work, editing, and special effects. Don’t forget the film’s namesake, ‘daggers’, which figure at key junctures in the story with deadly accuracy. Just think of the daggers as a cross between knives and boomerangs and you get the idea.
Although the story falters toward the end, and some hokey acting seems out of place at the conclusion, the only glaring problem with the story is the lack of an overall perspective as to what happened when the House of Flying Daggers clashed with the government troops.
While not quite the perfect love story/action flick one would have hoped for, House of Flying Daggers is a distinct improvement on Zhang’s previous action film, Hero. It is a major accomplishment in telling a classical story with jaw-dropping spectacle.
***1/2 of **** stars
Set in 7th Century China as the Tang Dynasty was fading and the leadership was weak, a rebel alliance, House of Flying Daggers, is battling the deputies of the government. Jin, one of those deputies, is sent by his fellow deputy, Leo, to investigate a local brothel for a connection to the traitors. There, he finds Mei, a blind songstress who has a remarkable talent with athleticism and even martial arts acumen. Mei is not who she appears to be, and upon her arrest, she escapes with Jin’s help. It seems that Jin is rebelling too and wants to help the House rebels. Pursued relentlessly by government troops, the pair fight side by side and begin to form a bond and even affection for each other. Mei displays an incredible ability to trade blows and swordplay with the enemy. It’s a pretty amazing feat for a blind woman. As the two are cornered in a bamboo forest by dozens of troops and certain death is about to be dealt, fate intervenes and the truth is revealed setting up a new set of plot dynamics.
Is Mei really the blind daughter of the former leader of the Flying Daggers? Then again, is Jin the real deal or merely pretending to be her ally? And does Mei have a former love whose identity is a secret? If this all sounds like a soap opera, then the storyline belies Zhang’s theatrical background and his penchant for dramas. The film plays like a Greek tragedy. In fact, much of the film has a staged feel to it which is not bad since this is keeping with the style of previous sword epics. The film’s strength lies in strong characters that are in constant emotional and physical conflict. Loyalty and honor are concurrent themes amid a time of turmoil and change.
Zhang paints such a vivid tapestry of cinematic dazzle with his deliberate color schemes; the colors take on a character unto themselves. In fact, the rich visuals seduce the audience into the story. The set design and costumes are brilliant while the camera work is gorgeous. It may be the most beautiful film of the year.
Ziyi Zhang (Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon) is very good as the blind girl, a role which requires good acting skills and athleticism. She is very credible in her performance, but it is her martial arts prowess that is phenomenal. Takeshi Kaneshiro as Jin lends a very magnetic male presence. He combines just the right mix of humor, angst and physical work to make his roguish warrior believable. Finally, veteran Andy Lau as the troubled Leo shows more acting range and just enough fighting technique. It is of note that veteran actress Anita Mui was to have a supporting role but died before she could start filming.
It is the action scenes that are the best part of this ambitious story. The highlight is certainly the bamboo forest sequence which melds expert fighting with stunt work, editing, and special effects. Don’t forget the film’s namesake, ‘daggers’, which figure at key junctures in the story with deadly accuracy. Just think of the daggers as a cross between knives and boomerangs and you get the idea.
Although the story falters toward the end, and some hokey acting seems out of place at the conclusion, the only glaring problem with the story is the lack of an overall perspective as to what happened when the House of Flying Daggers clashed with the government troops.
While not quite the perfect love story/action flick one would have hoped for, House of Flying Daggers is a distinct improvement on Zhang’s previous action film, Hero. It is a major accomplishment in telling a classical story with jaw-dropping spectacle.
***1/2 of **** stars
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Million Dollar Baby is rich in emotion
20 January 2005
Clint Eastwood's latest directorial effort, Million Dollar Baby, is a drama that starts in the boxing ring and ends in the heart. It is a poignant tale about hope, failure, and old ghosts. It is also the best film Eastwood has ever made.Frankie Dunn is an aging owner of a boxing gym who trains a boxer to the brink of a title fight only to miss a timely opportunity. When an aspiring female boxer, Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank), approaches him for training, he rebuffs her as just a girl boxer and too old at 31 years. Maggie is a waitress whose desire to fight is her ultimate dream as she attempts to make something of her life that has been a rural, backwoods existence. Dunn's best friend, Eddie Dupris (Morgan Freeman), takes a liking to the boxer's heart and work ethic, and eventually the two win Frankie over. Frankie's rules are to never question him in training and to always protect oneself in the ring. A slow but gradual learning curve ensues as Maggie becomes a polished boxer who displays a stunning record of wins, mostly by knockouts. Meanwhile, Frankie takes a liking to his protégé and begins to become attached to her. Their relationship is a contrast to his personal demons. His soul struggles with doubt and guilt as he attends church with constant regularity and the letters he sends to his estranged daughter are always returned unopened.Maggie becomes the focal point of Frankie's world as she attracts boxing matches from top competition which leads to a possible championship in Las Vegas. It is at this point that the story takes a path that is unexpected and startling. It is here that two lives are changed forever and boxing seems trivial in light of subsequent events. And it is here that hard choices and decisions are made.Based on a group of stories by the late F. X. Toole, Paul Haggis's screenplay is a beauty, filled with memorable dialogue and a story arc that takes its audience on a journey of humanity. The leading cast makes the most of the material. The scenes between Eastwood and Freeman ring true and validate two characters that go way back. Most actors pale in comparison to these two consummate pros at the height of their powers. Morgan Freeman, whose character narrates the story much as he did in Shawshank Redemption, lends strong support. Hilary Swank, who won an Oscar in Boys Don't Cry, is outstanding in a role which required rigorous training while etching a vivid character whose life takes a dramatic shift. Eastwood has always been a solid director and producer. While his early films took advantage of his tough guy image and did not require much thespian range, he filled those roles quite successfully. In recent years, he has grown as director and as a performer by allowing himself some choice dramatic projects (Unforgiven and Bridges of Madison County). But this is without a doubt his greatest piece of acting. He has allowed himself to let go and get to his inner self, and the results are touching and impressive.As a director, Eastwood has proved with films like Unforgiven and Mystic River that he has a strong, disciplined vision. His work here is most assured and it is very evident that he has matched if not surpassed his previous highs. He is patient and methodical in how he adds layers upon layers of dialogue and scenes to develop his characters into full blooded people. When Maggie approaches Frankie at first, he has no interest in training her, but you know these two will somehow end up working together. Eastwood does not go for easy clichés as she tries to win him over with help from Eddie. Even when he uses tried and true formulas, he does them well. And when Frankie decides to give her a chance, the journey is earned believably. Eastwood's direction is economic and lean. In fact, the pacing is deliberate and there is really no extraneous material (as in earlier good efforts like The Outlaw Josie Wales) to cut or trim. It may be the best job of directing this past year.Technical categories are strong particularly in cinematography with the darkly lit scenes that add so much to the mood and texture of the moment, and the editing which lends much urgency to the fights and offers unique transitions in the dramatic scenes. (It is interesting that as Maggie ascends to bigger fight venues, the crowds are more affluent and better dressed by the costume department.) Eastwood does a pretty good job of composing some eloquent music. What a multitalented threat he is becoming! There is not much to quibble with this film. Sure, Maggie's white trash family is a bit too stereotypical and one dimensional. We don't get to the bottom of Frankie's family background as much as we'd like. Some of the fights are bloody and violent but not particularly gratuitous or self serving as in Raging Bull.What ostensibly starts out as a pretty darn good boxing story becomes transformed into a powerful human drama that eschews even its fighting pedigree. Boxing is just a pretext for a much larger canvas. There is the drama of individual struggle and achievement, yet the story aims much higher and raises the ante in tone and direction in ways the audience can't quite anticipate. Eastwood challenges himself and the audience with a story that is not easy and pat. It is a movie that dares to go to areas that are controversial and gut wrenching. While audiences may have a tough time sitting through Million Dollar Baby a second or third time, they sure as hell will be grateful they did just once.**** out of ****
Clint Eastwood's latest directorial effort, Million Dollar Baby, is a drama that starts in the boxing ring and ends in the heart. It is a poignant tale about hope, failure, and old ghosts. It is also the best film Eastwood has ever made.Frankie Dunn is an aging owner of a boxing gym who trains a boxer to the brink of a title fight only to miss a timely opportunity. When an aspiring female boxer, Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank), approaches him for training, he rebuffs her as just a girl boxer and too old at 31 years. Maggie is a waitress whose desire to fight is her ultimate dream as she attempts to make something of her life that has been a rural, backwoods existence. Dunn's best friend, Eddie Dupris (Morgan Freeman), takes a liking to the boxer's heart and work ethic, and eventually the two win Frankie over. Frankie's rules are to never question him in training and to always protect oneself in the ring. A slow but gradual learning curve ensues as Maggie becomes a polished boxer who displays a stunning record of wins, mostly by knockouts. Meanwhile, Frankie takes a liking to his protégé and begins to become attached to her. Their relationship is a contrast to his personal demons. His soul struggles with doubt and guilt as he attends church with constant regularity and the letters he sends to his estranged daughter are always returned unopened.Maggie becomes the focal point of Frankie's world as she attracts boxing matches from top competition which leads to a possible championship in Las Vegas. It is at this point that the story takes a path that is unexpected and startling. It is here that two lives are changed forever and boxing seems trivial in light of subsequent events. And it is here that hard choices and decisions are made.Based on a group of stories by the late F. X. Toole, Paul Haggis's screenplay is a beauty, filled with memorable dialogue and a story arc that takes its audience on a journey of humanity. The leading cast makes the most of the material. The scenes between Eastwood and Freeman ring true and validate two characters that go way back. Most actors pale in comparison to these two consummate pros at the height of their powers. Morgan Freeman, whose character narrates the story much as he did in Shawshank Redemption, lends strong support. Hilary Swank, who won an Oscar in Boys Don't Cry, is outstanding in a role which required rigorous training while etching a vivid character whose life takes a dramatic shift. Eastwood has always been a solid director and producer. While his early films took advantage of his tough guy image and did not require much thespian range, he filled those roles quite successfully. In recent years, he has grown as director and as a performer by allowing himself some choice dramatic projects (Unforgiven and Bridges of Madison County). But this is without a doubt his greatest piece of acting. He has allowed himself to let go and get to his inner self, and the results are touching and impressive.As a director, Eastwood has proved with films like Unforgiven and Mystic River that he has a strong, disciplined vision. His work here is most assured and it is very evident that he has matched if not surpassed his previous highs. He is patient and methodical in how he adds layers upon layers of dialogue and scenes to develop his characters into full blooded people. When Maggie approaches Frankie at first, he has no interest in training her, but you know these two will somehow end up working together. Eastwood does not go for easy clichés as she tries to win him over with help from Eddie. Even when he uses tried and true formulas, he does them well. And when Frankie decides to give her a chance, the journey is earned believably. Eastwood's direction is economic and lean. In fact, the pacing is deliberate and there is really no extraneous material (as in earlier good efforts like The Outlaw Josie Wales) to cut or trim. It may be the best job of directing this past year.Technical categories are strong particularly in cinematography with the darkly lit scenes that add so much to the mood and texture of the moment, and the editing which lends much urgency to the fights and offers unique transitions in the dramatic scenes. (It is interesting that as Maggie ascends to bigger fight venues, the crowds are more affluent and better dressed by the costume department.) Eastwood does a pretty good job of composing some eloquent music. What a multitalented threat he is becoming! There is not much to quibble with this film. Sure, Maggie's white trash family is a bit too stereotypical and one dimensional. We don't get to the bottom of Frankie's family background as much as we'd like. Some of the fights are bloody and violent but not particularly gratuitous or self serving as in Raging Bull.What ostensibly starts out as a pretty darn good boxing story becomes transformed into a powerful human drama that eschews even its fighting pedigree. Boxing is just a pretext for a much larger canvas. There is the drama of individual struggle and achievement, yet the story aims much higher and raises the ante in tone and direction in ways the audience can't quite anticipate. Eastwood challenges himself and the audience with a story that is not easy and pat. It is a movie that dares to go to areas that are controversial and gut wrenching. While audiences may have a tough time sitting through Million Dollar Baby a second or third time, they sure as hell will be grateful they did just once.**** out of ****
Saturday, January 29, 2005
the beginning of my first blog!!
Welcome to my first blog as the hand is ready to strike midnight on Saturday night at the end of January 2005. I hope you find these entries to be useful in guiding you to films and shows that are high quality entertainment. My reviews will never be totally one sided but hopefully have pros and cons even in the smallest degree. Since this is a work in progress, please bear with me as I work to improve the look and quality of this site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)