SPUN

Director: Jonas Akerlund (no major film work)
Starring: Jason Schwartzman, Mickey Rourke, Brittany Murphy, John Leguizamo

Here's an idea for a movie: Let's take some hollow, pointless characters, give them no motivations and no story, and watch them do disgusting things. Oh, and there has to be a lot of drug-taking and sex. Alas, the film SPUN has taken my idea. In fact, the *only* notable addition that this film made to my list is that there was one interesting, if not particularly well-written character, portrayed by Mickey Rourke. He gave a good performance. This film is nominally about a methamphetamine (crank) scene in some small southwestern locale. As such, another way to describe this movie is to imagine Trainspotting, but without the story, or interesting characters, or dialogue. And there was less interesting design and camera work as well, although I do have to admit that most of the "drug-trip" animation and camera work was at least palatable. Blah, nonetheless.

Standouts: Mickey Rourke
Blowouts: I blame the director and writers.

Grade: C-

GOTHIKA

Director: Mathieu Kassovitz & Thom Oliphaunt (Kassovitz is one of France's best young directors - La Haine, more, Oliphaunt has no major film work)
Starring: Halle Barry, Robert Downey Jr., Charles Dutto

Here is some run-of-the-mill psychological thriller fare if ever there was. The plot: Halle Berry is a psychiatrist at a hospital for the criminally insane (gotta love it, right?). Without warning she becomes insane and is admitted to her own hospital. Eventually this leads, via a lot of ghostly encounters, to a deviant sex/murder ring involving a couple of the major characters. Okay, I'm not sure if I want to go into all of the silly plot points, but this said silliness really does add up to a mountain of absurdity. This movie, frankly, wasn't put together very well. There must have been a dozen places where I shook my head at the weird action choices that the characters were making. Despite this I can't claim this was a completely awful picture. I was in fact fooled by a twist or two, and there was some occassional creepy camera work mixed in with the standard thriller shots - some of which I recognized as taken directly from other recent movies (HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL for instance). No, this was not a good movie, but it was not quite as awful as the poorly constructed plot seemed to indicate.

Standouts: I can't think of anything.
Blowouts: Let's just say "plot" and leave it at that.

Grade: C

MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD

Director: Peter Weir (Witness, Dead Poet's Society, The Truman Show)
Starring: Russell Crowe, Paul Bettany, crew of a ship

First off, these gargantuan titles - please stop making them. Beyond that however, this extraordinary film may be the most intelligent major production Hollywood has crafted in years. I'll even go out on a limb and claim that this is one of the best Hollywood movies ever made. I would rate it as one of the 100 best ever. It has extraordinary intelligence, rousing adventure, a thoroughly evoked historical world (life on a ship of the line in the 19th century). This was a great, exciting, wonderful movie.

I'm delighted to say that director Peter Weir and star Russell Crowe have refused to treat the viewer as ignorant cattle in this film, and it's a pleasant, pleasant surprise. The movie is based on the book by Patric O'Brian, an historical action drama if you will. Set against the backdrop of the Napoleonic wars, a British frigate plays cat and mouse with a far more powerful French Dreadnaught. On this level the film is exciting and great. Much more accurately, though, this is the story of the trials of being a man in any age. The two main characters, Captain Jack Aubrey (Russell Crowe), a conservative, cultured, and yet aggresive man of action, and his close friend Dr. Stephen Maturin (Paul Bettany), scientific, intelligent and liberal, play off of each other showing the true conflicts a person must face in their decisions, in addition to the painful, absurd barbarisms that we all must face - like a war for instance.

Amazingly, the film worked on levels even other than this most contemplative study of man. It worked supremely as historical fiction - these characters and events were real and alive. It worked as a gripping action story - the battle between the ships was surprisingly engaging even though the action was never allowed to become excessive. A wonderful success of a film in all ways. Russell Crowe may very well receive another Oscar for his fantastic performance. Peter Weir may receive an Oscar for his splendid direction. Paul Bettany also deserves praise in addition to his possible Oscar nomination. I think this should be a classic, although I doubt it will get the attention immediately. One of the best films of the decade, if not of all time.

Standouts: Everything came together in this flick.
Blowouts: Nothing failed in any significant way.

Grade: A+

THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS

Director: Andy & Larry Wachowski (Bound)
Starring: Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, Lawrence Fishburne, more

So it turns out … that I was watching a video game. I was watching one of the better video game ever made, but with its reams of dime-store philosophy and climactic shot after climactic shot (after climactic shot) there's no denying that this was a Playstation game. As such, I can't really rate it as an exceptional movie.

The story was about humans fighting machines, but everything was just so overdone that it simply doesn't resonate as being particularly relevant to humanity. I wasn't watching the battle for supremecy between fragile human dream traits against our cold mechanical reality (thematically like Star Wars), although obviously that's what the writers/directors were going for. Believe me, they missed their goal, significantly. However, and these are big caveats, this movie was quite well shot and visually interesting. The movie was also largely entertaining and enjoyable. Yes, this movie failed as anything like art, but I think it did succeed as big-budget Hollywood action entertainment. The legacy of Star Wars and Independence Day lives on, and, perhaps sadly, I gotta admit I kinda liked it.

Standouts: Fairly fun and entertaining.
Blowouts: Overdone and pompously self-referencial for a stupid action flick.

Grade: B

WHALE RIDER

Director: Niki Caro (no major film work)
Starring: Keisha-Castle Hughs, Rawiri Paratene, Vicky Haughton

A supremely sweet and reflective film about the conflicts between conservatism and advancement. It's the story of a young Maori girl battling her culture's (and family's) deep-rooted traditionalism. The film was wonderfully crafted as a contemporary legend, combining the Moari's struggles to rise from current economic and social stagnation with the powerful legendary history of her people. It was thoroughly a joy to watch and was well done in nearly every aspect. The little girl, teenager Keisha Castle-Hughes, gives one of the finer performances I've seen from a child. Most notable, however, was the excellently well-crafted story. This was a little film about a little girl challenging the traditions of a little culture, but it was much more than that. A delightful story, and a delightful film.

Standouts: Story construction. Well done throughout.
Blowouts: Not an awful lot, although the low budget seemingly affected supporting performances, etc.

Grade: A-

LOST IN TRANSLATION

Director: Sophia Coppolla (The Virgin Suicides, daughter of famous wine producer)
Starring: Bill Murray, Scarlett Johannson

This film, Sofia Coppola's second major motion picture, was simply a delight. Her debut, THE VIRGIN SUICIDES, showed glimpes of real talent, but as a whole (and especially the thematic material), it didn't quite come together. This film is a far more mature and successful effort. It's a simple and quiet love story between two regretfully married people lost in life and lost in a foreign culture.

The setting is Tokyo, probably one of the more foreign cultures from ours on earth. Most of the important scenes take place in bland hotel rooms and hotel bars. The remarkable achievment of this film is in its truth. Bill Murray gives the best performance of his career in a subdued role as a middle aged movie star, worn down by his marriage, spending a week alone in Japan to make some money doing product advertisments. Scarlett Johansson also gave a fine performance as a directionless college graduate who came along to Tokyo when her husband's work brought him there for a few weeks. These two find each other while in their marriages that don't seem to make sense, and in the isolating Japanese culture that does likewise. Wonderfully, there is no white-hot passion, just love, and it's a joy to see.

Technically, the movie was well made with a number of fine shots, including one I won't forget of a golf course in the shadow of an enormous Mount Fuji. A very, very well done film, with the choice of Bill Murray as the lead a stroke of genious. I don't know if he needed to act for this role, or not, but he was the character on the screen. The negative aspect of the film is that I tend to doubt that it will warrant much repeat viewing (usually what distinguishes the better movies from the chaff), the enjoyment of this movie may be more like a rainbow - wonderful, but fleeting. Nonetheless, I can't claim that the rainbow wasn't beautiful in the first place.

Standouts: Excellent across the board - writing, direction, acting, tone, atmosphere.
Blowouts: Unikely to live on as a great film. Not exciting enough to bear much repeat viewing.

Grade: A

MYSTIC RIVER

Director: Clint Eastwood (Unforgiven, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, Firefox)
Starring: Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon, Lawrence Fishburne, more

I could arouse real anger among some people if they read this, but I liked the previous Clint Eastwood film MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL quite a lot better than this movie. That really isn't to detract from this film, but I just don't rate it as highly as does some of the major criticism.

There's no doubt that his was a fine film, well done in many ways. Unfortunately, I came into it after hearing much truly extraordinary praise. The film simply didn't live up to the excessive hype for me. It was a standard detective story, albeit one done well. Despite the fact that I didn't like it as well as some others, I don't want to suggest that it's a bad movie. It probably just won't be a top ten film for me (unless the December releases really fall flat).

Of particular note in this film was the acting. It was quality all-around. My favorites were Tim Robbins, as the middle-aged mess of a man that is the result of his adolescent experience with sexual abuse and Lawrence Fishburn in a supporting role as one of the detectives. They both gave quite possibly the best performances I've ever seen from either of them. Sean Penn did a very good job in an emotionally powerful role (lots of crying and screaming and ... emoting), although frankly I think he'll get more praise than his performance deserves. It was a "showy" role, rather than a great one. Finally, Kevin Bacon did a fine job as Kevin Bacon playing a detective.

I think the plot was intended to be a twister, but it unfortunately, it was all rather well advertised. I should note the professional direction that Clint Eastwood gave to the affair. In contrast with Sean Penn's flamboyant acting, the direction was intentionally and obviously flat - to good effect. There was little camera movement and few effects. It allowed Penn and others to take over the story with their acting. Again, a well done movie, but perhaps not to the degree that most criticism seems to indicate.

Standouts: Powerful, emotion-filled, rant-filled acting.
Blowouts: Just not as compelling as I had hoped. I really didn't care that much about the characters.

Grade: B+

KILL BILL (VOLUME 1)

Director: Quenton Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Resevoir Dogs, Jackie Brown)
Starring: Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, Vivica A. Fox, Darryl Hannah, David Carradine

I'm pretty sure that I saw at least a few moments of sheer genius in Quenton Terrentino's 4th feature film. I'm under the impression that this film, as well as it's successor next spring, consists entirely of a series of homages to other movie styles. The plot, if you could call it that, is the story of a female samurai killing machine (Uma Thurman) gruesomely hunting down those who had wronged her. The genius lived in the moments, however, rather than in the arc of the story, or in thematic material. As I said, there really wasn't much of a story arc, and there definitely wasn't any thematic material. So this movie should have been awful, right? Well,no, not at all.

I will admit that there were parts of this movie (some of the early sequences) that did not impress me at all. However the latter half of the film (entirely set in Japan) was an immensely successful live-action anime (and yes, that is an oxymoron). Quenton simply took a very simple anime story and stylization and used actors instead of drawings - with the exception of one very impressive sequence in, of course, animation. The ways in which Quenton made this portion of the movie were astounding - the shots, and the styles and the colors. There were easily 10 shots where my inner voice gasped, and that's a rare feat for 10 movies, much less a single film. Despite the fact that this is a childish, nearly cartoonish story (intentionally, I'll add), it will still be one of the year's best simply for how incredibly well it was done. This was a visual spectacle that needs to be seen on the big screen.

Standouts: Visual and stylistic spectacle rarely matched.
Blowouts: Complete lack of anything resembling a story.

Grade: A

ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO

Director: Robert Rodriguez (El Mariachi, Spy Kids, Desperado)
Starring: Antonio Bandares, Johnny Depp, Salma Hyek, Mickey Rourke, Eva Mendes

El Mariachi, a low budget uber-action flick by Robert Rodriguez, has somehow spawned a trilogy culminating in this interesting, but flawed film. The problem is that the character of El Mariachi has no business having more than a single film made about him. He's a gun-slinging mariachi guitarist who shoots people in inventive ways. You know, shooting five bad guys while doing a pirouette, or launching rockets from the neck of your guitar. Really over-the-top and highly choreographed stunts.

It's all a bit disappointing since quite a lot of this film (the conclusion of the 'trilogy') is actually very interesting. None of that has to do with El Mariachi, however. Johnny Depp plays a a much more wonderfully absurd character than Antonio Banderas' El Mariachi. He's a CIA agent fomenting rebellion in a mythical Mexico - and loving every minute of the mayhem. There were probably a half dozen times in this movie where I thought this could have been a wonderful plot twister filled with joyously absurd characters (a la The Tailor of Panama). Instead, director Rodriguez seems to have trouble keeping the plot up with his overdone action sequences.

What really lacks, again and again, is that the central character is just so ... silly. He's an enigma in the movie, a mythical question mark, but I'm simply not interested in finding out more about him. I wasn't in El Mariachi. I wasn't in Desperado. I'm not now. The difference between those films and this one is Johnny Depp. He lifts this movie a full grade. Great performance. Not to be unfair, the action sequences were spectacular and the visuals stunning, as well. Without Depp's character, however, they wouldn't be enough to pull this movie through. B-minus, as a grade, is often the territory of movies that could have been really good, but failed. Indeed, this is one of them films.

(P.s. Selma Hayek is hotter than anyone has a right to be in this movie.)

Standouts: Johnny Depp
Blowouts: The El Mariachi character.

Grade: B-

THIRTEEN

Director: Catherine Hardwicke (direction debut, notable career in production design)
Starring: Evan Rachel Wood, Nikkie Reed, Holly Hunter

Thirteen is a quite good, albeit disturbing, story about the wolves circling every household. It's about the inevitability that children desire to be dumb and wrong. Mostly it's about the importance of security and what we'll do for it.

Thirteen year old Tracy (Evan Rachel Wood) rapidly disintigrates from being a nice if unpopular little girl, to a drugged-out, sexed-out and pierced-out mess of a human being thanks in large part to her new, and popular, friend Evie. Evie simply knows too much about the worst in life and too little about the best, and Tracy eats it up. Why does this happen? Why are these teenagers so stupid? The movie luckily doesn't try to give the pat (and often poor) response of bad parenting. It goes a little deeper, showing inate desires, and dangerous environments, as well as the swirling confused lives of the parents of these children. There's really no way around this, but we all learn a lot on how to behave from those around us, and this is doubly true for children. Having a friend like Evie can go a long way in affecting how you turn out.

As a final note, Holly Hunter gave a wonderful performance as Mel, Tracy's divorced mother. It's no wonder she couldn't help as much as she could have while her child was imploding when she was struggling through AA meetings and money troubles and an Ex-husband and her coked-up boyfriend and her "goddamn $1.50 a square foot floor". She's trying, very hard, and Holly Hunter shows it.

Standouts: A well-written story, Holly Hunter
Blowouts: A few over the top-isms here and there.

Grade: A-

OPEN RANGE

Director: Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves, Waterworld, bit of an acting career as well)
Starring: Kevin Costner, Robert Duvall, Annette Benning, Michael Gambon

I found Open Range to be an interesting and beatiful western, although imperfect in many ways. It has an old-timey feel to it that makes it all the more fresh given the sorts of westerns that have been produced in the last thirty years - which is not to take away from those films, many of which are excellent. This tone to the film may have been the most intriguing quality, but there was much else that was quite good, especially the acting and cinematography. Robert Duvall is a standout as Boss, an open-range cow herder. Few actors give such consistently excellent performances. Kevin Costner, as Boss' employee and would-be disciple, and Annette Benning as Costner's poorly constructed love interest, are certainly acceptable in their roles. The surrounding performances of the other bit characters was also notably good. They were what really made this world come alive.

The faults in the movie lay in the story construction. Benning's character is understandably, if inadequately, forced into this story. The entire love aspect of the plot has its moments, but generally seems ackward. Other portions of the screenplay don't flow particularly well, but since so much else was very well done, it doesn't detract as much as it might from the film. All in all, this was a pretty darn good western with good guys and bad guys. There is a struggle between morality and necessity, as land owners seek to do away with Boss' free range cow herding lifestyle, and a rowsing gunfight in the end. This will never be a classic, but I found it to be a thoroughly enjoyable film to just sit back and let yourself be sucked into.

Standouts: Tone and atmosphere (director Costner) and Robert Duvall
Blowouts: Awkward script at times. It has the feel of corporate suits tacking on a love story.

Grade: B+

MATCHSTICK MEN

Director: Ridley Scott (Alien, Thelma and Louise, Gladiator, many more)
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Sam Rockwell, Alison Lohman

I felt really awful after watching this movie, but since that is what it was trying for, I guess that's probably a good thing. This film shows us an extremely likable and interesting confidence man, gives him hope and a new daughter and a chance to overcome his phobias, and snatches it all away from him in one fell swoop. The story was an emotional roller coaster as we attach to the con-man, watch him grow and then have to suffer through the final twist as he, himself, gets conned, losing all he gained. The fact that the film has so much power over this particular viewer says a lot about its quality. I was surprised at just how good of film this was. Yes, I've destroyed the surprise twist for you at the end, but I don't care. I don't think I can talk about the story without noting it.

Nicholas Cage, Sam Rockwell, and Alison Lohman all gave excellent performances as the phobia-ridden con-man, his sleazy partner and the lovable daughter, with both Cage and Rockwell being especially notable. The story and direction were professionally well done, although they were quite purposefully not showy. Ridley Scott is a quality director and he correctly surmised that this film lived in its actors. It is not an artistic masterpiece. There is no serious theme to be found. It's just an extremely well done crime caper, of sorts. Although the important parts lay entirely with the relationships of the characters.

I will also add that I initially found the final twist to be awkwardly tacked on to this film, but in retrospect I believe I found it so, simply because I cared so much for Nicholas Cage's character and didn't want to see him hurt. I don't know if it really added to the quality of the movie, but I don't think it really hurt it either. Regardless, this is an excellent movie.

Standouts: Acting - Cage, Rockwell and Lohman were all extraordinarily good.
Blowouts: Me, since I ruined the twist for you. I suck.

Grade: A

THE MAGDALENE SISTERS

Director: Peter Mullan (consistently working actor, director, writer, no major film direction)
Starring: Anne-Marie Duff, Dorothy Duffy, Geraldine McEwan, Nora-Jane Noone

The Magdalene Sisters is an excellent example of what independent film can really do. It's a low budget story of the Magdalene laundries, of which I was unfamiliar before seeing the film, but which I've researched since. This movie brings to light a form of sanctioned slavery perpetrated by the Catholic church in Ireland for 150 years. Nearly 30,000 young women that Ireland's puritanical society had deemed "immoral" were tossed out by their families to become wards of these sweatshops. They were near slaves to the Church, if not completely so.

The movie focuses on three real-life individuals: one a rape victim, one an unwed mother and one simply a bit of a dirty flirt who were shunted away to toil in the awful conditions of these laundries. The list of penances the girls were forced to perform for their "sins" ranged from enforced silence, to beatings, to even more awful sexual and emotional abuse. All the while the girls were forced to work all day in laundries profitting only the church. The power of this little film really stikes the viewer with the final piece of simple white text on a black screen letting us know that the last of these slave-factories closed only in 1996. It's a powerfully stunning and shameful situation that this fine little film brings to light.

This is a very good film in itself, but as a commentary on a real situation it is quite important.

Standouts: Peter Mullan for writing and directing this important statement.
Blowouts: Not too much too pick on for a low budget independent film.

Grade: A-

AMERICAN SPLENDOR

Director: Shari Springer Berman & Robert Pulcini (no major film work)
Starring: Paul Giamatti, Hope Davis, Harey Pekar, Judah Friedlander

When reviewing film there is only one thing I know for certain, and that is the fact that I might get it all wrong. I do go back occassionally, okay rarely, and see if I've changed my mind over time. It turns out that it's actually a fairly rare event for me to mess up too badly. Even if I change my mind on a film, it usually only affects the grade by a step. This surprises me, because there's so much that goes into a film experience. If you feel like crap on a certain day, you may not be in the mood for a comedy. Or conversely, that may be just what you need. Certainly our opinons can change on second viewings. Such was American Splendor.

Now originally I gave this film an A- saying that it didn't live up to the post modern masterpiece title that much criticism lade upon it. I was wrong. This really is a post modern masterpiece. It's that good. Paul Giamatti gave an incredible performance. Hope Davis and others were also extraordinary, but the real star of this film was the script and visual construction by the directors.

The film intercuts interviews and voice-overs of the real life Harvey Pekar with actors portraying his life. Harvey Pekar is a bit of a slacker pseudo intellectual in Cleveland who made a comic book about his dreary slacker life. It turns out that a dreary slacker comic autobiography appealed to a whole lot of dreary psuedo intellectual slackers in our great land. Perhaps I should go pick up a copy? Nonetheless, I hope that this film about a dreary slacking autobiographer appeals to even more folks.

I will say I find it vaguely interesting that Mr. Pekar lives only a few blocks from me, and that Toby Radloff worked with an ex-girlfriend. That adds nothing to the review, but what's more fun than name dropping. Even if they've never met you.

Standouts: Smart, original and well constructed script. Excellent acting.
Blowouts. A little too dreary to enjoy at times. I'm sorry your life sucks quite that badly, Senor Pekar.

Grade: A+

BEND IT LIKE BECKHAM

Director: Gurinder Chadha (What's Cooking, smaller films, UK TV work)
Starring: Parminder Nagra, Keira Knightley, Jonathan Rys-Meyers

This is 2003's BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING - a fun, low-budget, independent film that ran forever, garnering good reviews and better box-office. I liked Greek Wedding, but I like this movie better. It's the story of an ABCD girl (American-Born Confused Desi) in greater London (so I guess that would be an English-Born Confused Desi in this case) struggling to fulfill her dream to play soccer in the face of her family's traditional Indian conservatism. It's a light story that manages to touch issues like gender expectations in western and eastern societies, as well as more standard fare like young love. It does all of this with a delightful and fun touch and was generally a pleasure to watch. I don't have a lot more than this to add. It's entertaining, enjoyable, enlightening in a sweet, simple sort of way - a good picture that's hard to complain about.
Standouts: Light, fun tone, solid acting, solid story.
Blowouts: Not much. It's a very enjoyable picture.

Grade: A-

THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS

Director: Alan Rudolph (long list of films with Hollywood talent, none of which did particularly well ...)
Starring: Campbell Scott, Hope Davis, Dennis Leary

The Secret Lives of Dentists is a pretty darn good film about the day to day struggles of your average American everyman. He happens to be a dentist. I mean, what could be more mundane than a dentist? This particular dentist is solid, structured basically good guy who's boring as hell. He's struggling with a flighty, self-involved wife who I imagine thinks of herself as passionate rather than flighty. Eventually his solid, stable little life begins to crash down around him. Helping him along through all of this is a voice in his head (Dennis Leary), sort of a 21st century Walter Mitty fantasy.

There's a lot that I liked in this movie. I liked that they pointed a camera at a simple man's struggles. I liked the Dennis Leary character. I liked that even though this film is about maintaining passion in life, and the dentist was the most boring human on earth, it wasn't dumb enough to treat the cuckholding wife as the victim. The problem is that I didn't love much of anything in this film. I liked a lot, but I'll probably soon forget much of it. I think that this is a story that could have been wonderful, but didn't quite pan out.

Standouts: Not much really stood out. Most everything was solid, but little exceptional.
Blowouts: See Standouts.

Grade: B

SPELLBOUND

Director: JeffreyBlitz (no major film work)
Starring: documentary on National Spelling Bee

This documentary about 200 world-class dweebs spelling words I'd never heard of before should not have been as enjoyable as it was. It couldn't be, right? However, when I was watching some of these sweet, absurd, lonely, and uplifting children's stories, it was impossible to wipe the smile of my face.

The documentary really only focused on some of the more interesting of the National Spelling Bee participants: The daughter of a poor, illegally immigrated Mexican family in Amarillo, the flaky and endlessly upbeat Jewish kid from New York City, the depressed and lonely kid from some nowhere in the flat middle of America. The downside was that the winner of the Bee was, of course, some absurdly inhuman home-schooled Indian child from Conneticut. The movie didn't dwell on him for good reason. In the end, there wasn't much of a story in this documentary. Far too much time was spent at the actual competition rather than on the more interesting interviews with families and children. Since these kids were such a joy to watch, though, there's no way that I can give this movie a poor grade.

Standouts: A few quirky and enjoyable children spelling their hearts out.
Blowouts: The winners (and I predict most of the rest of the contestants) didn't have much of a story to tell.

Grade: B-

DIRTY PRETTY THINGS

Director: Stephen Frears (Dangerous Liasons, High Fidelity, The Grifters)
Starring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Audrey Tautou, Sophie Okonedo, Sergi Lo

Dirty Pretty Things is the story of the struggle to survive for illegal immigrants in western nations. It's about the dirty little secret lives they're forced to lead and the second society that exists just below our own. It's about how we rich westerners appreciate that we can get cheap cab rides and hotel service from them, yet don't want to legitimize their existence.

This particular story is set in London with two main characters: a Nigerian physician reduced to cab driving and concierge work, and a chaste Turkish girl (Audrey Tatou) who ran away from her ultra-conservative Muslim upbringing. These two fall in love, but never really get to experience it, for as the movie tells us: They cannot afford to love, they can only survive. That bit may be a tad sappy, but it actually worked quite succesfully. This may sound strange, but the film was pleasingly overdone in it's melodrama. Unfortunately, some other odd elements in the movie did take away from the story. As an example, try this on for size: The climax of the movie, which jerkily shifted gears into a thriller midway through, involved a clean and neat and sterile kidney surgery. This was not a weepy Lifetime movie for women either, where the surgery was an emotional challange. This was a thriller where the *climax* was a kidney surgery!?! Odd? Yes.

Despite some of the strange plot choices, and xcepting some unworthy dialogue peppered here and there, this movie was generally quite enjoyable. This is especially true of the early scenes where we're getting to know these immigrants lives in London. That was actually quite engrossing. Unfortunately, the thriller kidney caper wasn't quite so much so.

Standouts: Some unique plotting and story tone.
Blowouts: Some of those unique plot choices didn't entirely work.

Grade: B-

SEABISCUIT

Director: Gary Ross (Pleasantville, produced Big, other writing credits)
Starring: Toby McGuire, Jeff Bridges, Chris Cooper, A horse

This film was an almost saccharin-sweet story of the underdog rising up to the occasion. Although the story is titled "Seabiscuit", the ugly, undersized racehorse of the economically depressed 1930s, this was really the story of the horse's equally underdog owner, trainer and jockey learning to help each other to survive. On another level it's the story of the underdog American people learning to help each other during the depression.

The owner (Jeff Bridges) had pulled himself up by his bootstraps to become a millionnaire and had a real love for the American everyman. The trainer (Chris Cooper) was an absolute nobody that happened to pique the owner's curiousity. The jockey (Tobey Mcguire) was an angry, oversized fellow that quoted shakespeare despite his empty pockets. Apparently, America fell in love with this horse like no horse before, or since. Seabiscuit became a symbol of every American down on his luck. They movie was a plea for us to help each other.

The flaws in the movie were evident, but by no means overwhelming. The movie didn't really find its sense of itself until the horse made an appearence. The early scenes showing the backstory of the 3 main characters were only average. Additionally, David McCollough a very recognizable voice of narration in documentary television, provided his narration to this movie. I really didn't enjoy this cross-over. It implied that we were watching a documentary, which we most definitely weren't. This was a fictionalized account if ever there was one. Finally, this movie was very, very, very sweet. Almost (but not quite in my reckoning) too sweet. Some may view this as a problem, but I do not. It worked in spite of the sticky flavor.

In the end, this movie was quite enjoyable. Jeff Bridges provided another wonderful character, this one remarkably similar to his TUCKER role some years ago. Chris Cooper was astounding in a quiet role of a quiet man. I predict another Oscar nomination for him. Tobey Mcguire was quite good as the fiery jockey. All told I think we need more movies this sweet. We need the affirmation. Yes, it's not real life, but it's still good to see for those of us who have to live a real life.

Standouts: A very 'watchable', sweet and affirming tale. Fine acting throughout.
Blowouts: It might just be a bit too sweet for the ironic crowd.

Grade: B+

GIGANTIC (A TALE OF TWO JOHNS)

Director: AJ Schnack (no major film work)
Starring: documentary about the band They Might be Giants

Here is documentary film-making at its most inconsequential. Here is documentary film-making as one giant suck-up. I love you They Might be Giants! I love you! (There's the movie in two sentences.)

I'm a bit of a They Might be Giants fan though, so I still enjoyed it on some level … somewhat. Eh, at least this flick *was* funny at parts. That's good.
That's all I really have to say.


Standouts: Uhhhhh ...
Blowouts: I can think of no compelling reason that this film should have been made except for the directors strange love affair with Flansburgh and Linnell. Yes, they're quirky and talented. No, they're not a cultural phenomenon.

Grade: C-