Not only is she beautiful, she's got more talent than I ever imagined. Any fan of Ms. Griffiths must see this film. She carries the whole thing on her broad, sturdy shoulders and keeps us entertained throughout. The idea is a bit on the generic chick-flick side but with some smart writing and her spot on delivery, it rises way above the Lifetime Channel fare and keeps us off balance from beginning to end.
Reviews
12 Reviews
My Big Fat Greek Wedding
(2002)
Big fat waste of time.
11 March 2003
This film is nothing new and nothing special. The family could have been the same Jewish or Italian family that's been in THOUSANDS of other films. The dialogue was flat, the jokes were lame and all of this clashing cultures, old world vs. new world guilt is as old as film itself. Woody Allen has done the same thing numerous times and much better.
The Man Who Wasn't There
(2001)
Murder by non-sequitur
1 July 2002
I'm an ardent fan of the Coens and I love their fondness for quirk in their films. However, it would appear that since their success with Fargo, they've lost their ability to manage it effectively. While I totally dug O'Brother, The Big Lamebowski and TMWWT both suffer from their applied quirk becoming non-sequitur rather than comedic genius. The subplots around the young girl's sexuality and the widow's alien obsession came from nowhere and added nothing to further this already tedious tale but only served to further confuse it. The one bright spot was Tony Schalub who gave his best performance since Big Night.
I give due credit to the cinematography, mood and casting. All were fine. Unfortunately all too much has been made of the noir style. It's as if that alone justifies to many the non-sensical and directionless plot. I am afraid that the Coens vision may be blurred by the success of Fargo and that their creative output may be at it's end. I certainly hope it isn't so I pray for a redeemer film from them much like David Lynch redeemed himself with Mulholland Drive.
I give due credit to the cinematography, mood and casting. All were fine. Unfortunately all too much has been made of the noir style. It's as if that alone justifies to many the non-sensical and directionless plot. I am afraid that the Coens vision may be blurred by the success of Fargo and that their creative output may be at it's end. I certainly hope it isn't so I pray for a redeemer film from them much like David Lynch redeemed himself with Mulholland Drive.
My frist Fassbinder (minor spoiler)
27 June 2002
Warning: Spoilers
When I went to see this film I had no idea what to expect (probably the best way to see any film.) I was WOWed! The acting was tremendous. Margit Carstensen was amazing! The whole idea worked extremely well. Seduction by power and personality followed by a power shift then leading to a total breakdown. Basically the story of any torrid romance reduced to its essence. Margit Carstensen plays Petra as both masculine seducer and rejected femme in a seamless and believable fashion. And the set design projects a mood that is both foreboding and carnal.
Be sure to bring your brain to this one.
Be sure to bring your brain to this one.
Panic Room
(2002)
If you have a brain, leave it in the lobby.
31 March 2002
Was it the giant plot holes or the physically impossible scenarios or the overacting or the bad writing that made me hate this film? Can't decide. What I can decide is that if you think about this movie at all, you'll hate it. If you just watch it and accept all it's lapses in realism and reason, you might enjoy it.
But what bothers me the most is why does it seem so impossible to make a credible thriller anymore. Silence Of The Lambs was great. Seven was good (despite Brad Pitt). Fight Club was decent (despite the ending). But unless you've got a premise that allows your perception of reality to be suspended (as in The Matrix) you really can't get away with plot holes and defying the laws of physics without becoming ridiculous. Then you have to resort to bull**** like showing off the actress's bod.
Two stars for Jodie's rack and Dwight Yoakam.
But what bothers me the most is why does it seem so impossible to make a credible thriller anymore. Silence Of The Lambs was great. Seven was good (despite Brad Pitt). Fight Club was decent (despite the ending). But unless you've got a premise that allows your perception of reality to be suspended (as in The Matrix) you really can't get away with plot holes and defying the laws of physics without becoming ridiculous. Then you have to resort to bull**** like showing off the actress's bod.
Two stars for Jodie's rack and Dwight Yoakam.
Festival in Cannes
(2001)
A film looking for a story.
26 March 2002
An annoying experience. Improvised dialogue, handheld cameras for no effect, directionless plot, contrived romance, ick! to the whole mess. Ron Silver was the only real actor. Gretta Sacchi was TERRIBLE! Henry Jaglom did better with Eating which suited his style much more.
We Were Soldiers
(2002)
Flag waving drivel.
4 March 2002
Just about any war movie cliche you can think of was in this one. When Mel is having his heart to heart with the daughter, I knew this film was going to blow. Not even Spielberg would get this sappy and ridiculous. Sam Elliot was the only saving grace. However I did find it amusing that they painted Julia Roberts lips on Madeline Stowe. I guess Julia wanted too much money.
Mulholland Drive
(2001)
Dense? Yes. Confusing? Maybe. Impenetrable? Not at all! (possible spoiler)
15 October 2001
Warning: Spoilers
After reading numerous reviews both good and bad, I went to see this film and it totally knocked me out! From start to finish it just had me spellbound. But what amazes me now is that after having seen it, I'm puzzled as to why some of these "sophisticated" movie critics missed the boat so badly on the story of this film.
Matt Groening, the creator of The Simpsons, said that his show was designed so that the viewer would be rewarded for paying attention. Mulholland Drive requires exactly that: complete attention ALL THE WAY TO THE END! (spoiler approaching) A lot of these critics should take the time to watch Pulp Fiction again to get a sense of what directors can do with narrative time lines. In fact, Lynch gives more than adequate clues as to what he's up to with total corn-ball dialogue in the beginning, the soft focus for the first two thirds and the little "cracks in the veneer" such as the dog turd in the court yard (contrasting the family-like apartment home), the bitchy casting agent (contrasting the overly nice producer). But what's most important is understanding the nature or dreams and fantasy verses reality. Lynch demonstrates this beautifully!
But what I admire the most about this film is that Lynch has the audacity and nerve to challenge the viewer and to require him/her to interpret and ponder and THINK! Such an achievement can only come from an uncompromising dedication to a personal vision which is the source of nearly all great art. So like all great art, it needs to be studied, thought about and talked about(!) to be really appreciated.
Mulholland Drive and Memento are probably the ONLY thought provoking films released this year and I'm grateful that a guy like David Lynch had the balls to make it.
Matt Groening, the creator of The Simpsons, said that his show was designed so that the viewer would be rewarded for paying attention. Mulholland Drive requires exactly that: complete attention ALL THE WAY TO THE END! (spoiler approaching) A lot of these critics should take the time to watch Pulp Fiction again to get a sense of what directors can do with narrative time lines. In fact, Lynch gives more than adequate clues as to what he's up to with total corn-ball dialogue in the beginning, the soft focus for the first two thirds and the little "cracks in the veneer" such as the dog turd in the court yard (contrasting the family-like apartment home), the bitchy casting agent (contrasting the overly nice producer). But what's most important is understanding the nature or dreams and fantasy verses reality. Lynch demonstrates this beautifully!
But what I admire the most about this film is that Lynch has the audacity and nerve to challenge the viewer and to require him/her to interpret and ponder and THINK! Such an achievement can only come from an uncompromising dedication to a personal vision which is the source of nearly all great art. So like all great art, it needs to be studied, thought about and talked about(!) to be really appreciated.
Mulholland Drive and Memento are probably the ONLY thought provoking films released this year and I'm grateful that a guy like David Lynch had the balls to make it.
Meet the Parents
(2000)
I can't believe that DeNiro was actually in this turkey!
6 December 2000
Basically a bad ripoff of another bad film (There's Something About Mary). It should be retitled "There's Something About The Father of the Bride." Every joke is telegraphed and every scene is just as contrived as can be. Stiller's performance as the unlucky suitor is ok but we've seen it before and it's getting old. Unless you're a Police Academy fan or REALLY liked that Mary movie, avoid this one at all costs.
The Big Kahuna
(1999)
Not great but definitely good.
25 May 2000
We all know how great Kevin Spacey is but what really impressed me was that I saw Danny Devito act like an adult for the first time. He always plays these marginal/shady characters but in this film he actually plays a part with a hint of realism and does it well.
This was a fine film in the talking head genre. The treatment of religion was very evenhanded and palatable even to an atheist such as myself.
This was a fine film in the talking head genre. The treatment of religion was very evenhanded and palatable even to an atheist such as myself.
Casablanca
(1942)
Too saccharine for me.
25 May 2000
I admit that most films before 1960 usually leave me cold since the acting is almost always stagy but I though I'd give this and The Maltese Falcon a chance. Oh well. VERY stagy acting, with an awful, pretentious soundtrack. It all came off as rather silly. I just couldn't buy any of it. I get the same impression from any film by Kazan.
Dog Years
(1997)
Terrible acting yet a great, fun film
8 November 1998
This film starts out playing like a bad B film. Much of the acting is rather stiff and the editing a little choppy. However, the writing is first rate and the sound track out of this world! From the mesmerising, chaotic banjo strains of the opening to the boppin' ska beats and better later on, the music puts the story on a goofy, breakneck pace that never lets up. The wooden acting actually helps the comic appeal and the quality writing delivers a complex character of the skin-head protagonist. "Dog Years" was an unexpected pleasure, possibly the "Repo Man" of its time.
Tell Your Friends