Held Up

Jamie Foxx, Nia Long. Steve Rush, director. Trimark

Absolutely hilarious. But then, I almost always enjoy movies that have a primary single setting, such that they could be easily translated into a stage play. Set in the southwest, and Foxx is held up in a convenience store by your typical bungling theives, surrounded by bungling county sherriffs, but what's well done about the film is that none of the bunglers are overdone stereotypes: they are all well-drawn characters who happen to be having an off day.

Also, what's interesting is that even though the idea is that an African American is trapped in what would normally be a white situation, this is noted but not hammered home. It simply comes up as a few good lines.

Mentioning lines, the entire film contains great dialogue, which, for me, cements it as a "must see."

VG

Stephen King's The Langoliers

Patricia Wettig, Dean Stockwell
Teleplay and Director Tom Holland
1995 Republic Pictures

I think this is a made-for-TV venture that starred the two actors still hot off their thirtysomething and St Elsewhere shows. Also, this is one of King's mixing horror with Sci-Fi ventures.

Started off great - the mystery of how the people were left on the plane. Good characterization.

The airport scene excellent, but overdone. The tension of "what's making that noise" was great, unitl 10 minutes in, and 20 minutes, and by 30 minutes we no longer care. Also, the character of the man "facing his own demons" and taken over by the memory of his father was a bit pat - and contributed nothing, and in fact, detracted, from the story.

Completely hated the actual Langoliers - hairballs with giant teeth? Come on! Scary monsters had no place in a psychological thriller.

Liked the idea of having to be asleep to cross back through the portal - and the sci-fi aspect of time catching up to them - being out of time, everything being stale - very interesting and while science purists would rip apart the glaring errors, I still thought it was interesting.

VG

Las Lloronas

2005 Venevision International. Lorena Villareal, writer/director

Very strange little movie - but a little disappointing, because it felt as though the story was going to elucidate more upon the supposed "curse" upon these women, in that their male sons would die at a very early age . . . but instead it focused more upon their supposed transgressions and family secrets.

One memorable scene, when the young woman finally kills her husband - by accident, of course! (during a domestic dispute) - actually didn't really ring quite true, in that the story had not really set up his character to be as despotic as we are supposed to believe. In fact, most of the movie, she'd been sloozing around with an old boyfriend. So the audience, while we are "supposed" to be anti-husband, have not truly been shown WHY. So what we have is a scene in which he dies, and we're know we are supposed to feel some sort of relief, because she's away from this overbearing cadd, but really we're just left ambivalent.

Then the mother comes in, and at first we expect her to freak out, but instead she draws down deep and pulls out a level-headed practicality - this is actually quite interesting, character-wise, in that this is relatively unexpected, but then, when the chips are down, the strength of the mother comes to the fore - that was fairly well done.

However, the scene ends rather comically, what with clunking the dead guy's head on the stairs, etc. Almost like a bad Almodovar (who sometimes gets carried away with scenes like this himself.)

Other than that, it had some interesting cultural commentary about the self-repression of Mexican women, with the combination of folklore and Catholic ideology. But overall, the movie should have been more disturbing than it was, and it seemed as though it was reaching for something that it didn't quite attain.


VG

Dodge Ball: A True Underdog Story

Rawson MArshall Thurber, writer/director. Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller, Christine Taylor, Rip Torn. 2004

I did not expect this movie to be as funny as it was. I was expecting many sight gags, ubiquitous fart jokes, and occasionally one or two good lines. But what I got was a character-driven satire that had more good lines than I could count. I mean, they came at me from all directions!!

(like the "dodge ball" allusion? It was subtle, but took me awhile to come up with it!)

Seriously, though, this movie IS funny visually (read "sight gags") but when it can hit you with cerebral humour as well, then you've got something that's smart, funny, well-written, and surprisingly well-acted.

Plus, don't let Ben Stiller as a name fool you. You won't recognize Stiller in this one, because he's wonderfully cast against type, and even though he may seem like a caricature that's because it's obviously intentional - as part of the "health nut" satire.

Extremely well done.


VG

Im Juli (In July)

Fatih Akin, writer/director, in German. Bavarian Films, 2004. starring Moritz Bleibtrue and Christiane Paul.

Fantastic road movie, very lighthearted, not like any other German movies I've seen, which tend to be on the darker side, normally involving trains that move at night or detectives in future burned-out worlds and the common factor is that you never see any daylight at all. But this film, not that

Lots of daylight. Heck, if this movie had been in English you wouldn't have been able to tell that it wasn't an American movie - had all the elements: travel, adventure, mishaps, car crashes, enigmatic women, a geek who is transformed into a hero, and a happy ending with true love winning out in the end. That is my definition of Romantic Comedy.

Paul's sweet smile, both enigmatic and tender, was indeed the highlight of the movie - the only thing that couldn't be believed was why it took this doofus so long to realize that she was his true love, and that what he was chasing was only a dream! Oh well, suffice it to say that if he'd realized it before the Yugoslavian border then it only would have been a 30 minute film.

Other than that, I loved the travelling across Eastern Europe, especially trying out the panoply of languages wherever they went, finding themselves fortunate when someone spoke either German or English. Lots of fun with border guards as well - especially making them out to be stereotypical clods. Don't think you can have a movie set in Eastern Europe (or South America for that matter!) without bribing at least ONE border guard.

and don't forget the cute ex-Yugoslavian chick who takes him on a joyride! (both with chemical enhancement AND on an extreme car chase!)

Overall, the plot may have been a little choppy - with extremes in situations and some things glossed over, but that should only really tork the purists who demand everything to be completely balanced. For me, I really didn't mind if this was a quirky road movie one minute and then a fighting-for-his life the next. That actually was rather cool, but as I said: "tight-plot junkies" will be screaming.

Good movie, highly recommended, but only for those who like REAL romantic comedies: I'm not talking "chick flicks" I'm talking those who like their characters to go through real series of funny, yet challenging escapades, only to realize that their true love is the one who weathered the journey, right beside them, every step of the way.

VG

The Phantom of the Opera

the PHANNNNNNNNNN tomoftheopera-is- therrrrrrrrrrrreee.

in-SIDE,

your mind!!

And it still is! Dang! Joel Schumacher, dir. 2004. Based on the Andrew Lloyd Weber musical, based on the Gaston Leroux novel.

Maybe I should have read the back of the box better or maybe someone should have warned me, but this is an opera. See, I thought it was going to be a movie about an opera, but no . . . I got an opera.

I hate opera.

I hate opera because nobody sings while they die . . . not Madame Butterfly, not the damn Bohemians - they just don't! So . . . as an artistic format I simply cannot give that a proper "suspension of disbelief." (as I so often am able to bring to plays)

But OK - talk about it in the artistic setting, got it. The filmography was very elegant, and lighting used to great effect - I rather liked the "modern" (i.e. circa 1920's) being in black and white, while the fifty-some-odd years before being in colour. That was very subtly done, and had the effect of both letting the watcher know what "time" was the setting, and it also had the opposite disconcerting effect - that of the "past" being much more "real" than the current present. Or maybe it was just reflecting the common belief that youth has much more passion than old age. As I said, you can extrapolate many meaning from that little touch.

Also, the settings were very sumptous - you could almost feel as though you were in the opera house with the characters - but I have to admit that after seeing Moulin Rouge, the comparisons had to be made . . . I think Moulin Rouge might have done this film in, in my opinion, simply because the overblown spectacle of THAT other film left me wondering when the firecrackers were going to leap from the building.

As far as acting - hell, how can I tell through the singing?! But I have to say that Minnie Driver was surprising as the bitchy diva . . . cast against type, eh? (for me, Minnie will always be the girlfriend in Gross Pointe Blank . . . and yes, that's a shameless plug for THAT Cusak movie - one of my Top Ten!)

Lastly to note, and I think this pretty much sums it up for me and opera . . . and my theory that MUSIC GETS IN THE WAY OF THE STORY - basically is this: the characters are going to a masquerade ball. OK, fine. Then why do I have to put up with 10 minutes of excruciating singing "MASQ-er-Ade! MASSSS-quer-ade!"

Gee whiz! Just get on with the story! I was screaming by then. The story is everything! Get on with the story!!

Which, after you strip out all the neat sets and nice filmography and the rampant singing, you're pretty much left with about 10 minutes of real story. (Kinda like a football game, eh wot!)

Also! I really did like the contrast between Emma Rossum's view of the hallway leading to the Phantom's secret chamber, all lit with romantic mood candelabras (symbolising the "dreamlike" state that he put her in - or even just what she "wanted" to see) and then when her friend enters the same secret hallway, only to find it dank, dark, full of cobwebs and rats.

So . . . I'd say the movie isn't a total waste: a film student should probably watch it to study camera techniques - and to test his/her patience!!!

Last comment (I promise!) . . . the single red rose on the ground, hmmmmm . . . was it the Phantom . . .

or was it Tuxedo Mask from the Sailor Moon cartoon!!!! (har har har har!)

TTFM

VG

Fahrenheit 9/11

Michael Moore.

The problem with this guy is he reminds me of somebody else - a guy I know who frequents the Zen and Tao Acoustic Cafe - generally an all right person, albeit a little jaded - and extremely left-winged. Which is all right, I mean, we both generally agree on the same issues. The only problem is this guy eternally stinks of weed and is just generally obnoxious about his opinion. Very loud-mouthed, rude, and blatant about both his political beliefs. Problem is, any respectable stand he might try to make is completely undermined by his glassy-eyed stare and his pot stink. I mean, he's just not credible. He's not the guy I want as a spokesman for my cause.

That's exactly what Michael Moore is. I don't know if Mike stinks of pot or not, but I can safely say that his opinion is obnoxious and no matter if you lean left or right you can not deny that this film, like Bowling for Columbine, is

propaganda. Nothing more.

And I hate propoganda.

However much I might agree or disagree, I am still wise enough to spot blatant, pointless, and pandering propaganda. And that's what this movie is.

In fact, I don't see why it should have upset anybody at all. Because it's about as credible a political point of view as South Park.

And at least South Park is honest about being obnoxious. Michael Moore isn't even that: he's obnoxious and thinks he's being cute.

Well, enough said.

VG

No Te Mueres Sin Decirme Adónde Vas

Argentinian.

Man creates a machine to record dreams, and he begins to feel that he is the reincarnation of an inventor who died many years before.

Very odd movie, sometimes slow moving in parts, but generally redemptive, especially since he begins to see the ghost of his dead wife (or the wife from the other life) who begins to help him through his journey. Throughout all this, there are times when the watcher actually begins to wonder exactly what her role really is, because there is something that this ghost isn't telling him.

There's a wonderful scene in the movie in which the ghost of the wife is walking down the street with a robot created by the friend of this inventor (and yes, the robot can see the ghost as well) and the ghost is asking the robot how he feels about things. It's interesting, because the robot's responses clearly state that although he cannot "feel" as humans do, they imply that perhaps, just maybe, the robot would LIKE to feel as humans do.

This, of course, is raising the question of at what point does something have human consciousness. Rather interesting: coming from a tin can and a wraith.

Sidenote that I liked from the movie was the plant that our main character kept hauling around with him throughout the entire thing. Seems like the plant was his best friend: at one point it even seems like the plant has emotions.

Like I said, very strange movie.

VG

Garden State

Zach Branff

This was a very good freshman effort - I realize that he wrote it in the space of several months while had already gotten the role (which was his big break) on "Scrubs" and that he was basically killing time before pre-production began (I read this all on an interview), so he rather had the opportunity to write this screenplay undisturbed by other jobs.

Which was good. Actually, to me, this movie can really be described as this decades "The Graduate" There's no Mrs. Robinson . . . actually it's what The Graduate would have been withOUT Mrs. Robinson, but it has all of that "early-twentysomething what-am-I-going-to-do with my life" self-induced angst.

Boy comes back home for his mother's funeral, after being away for several years. All his friends are not really friends anymore, just strangers in the bodies of people he used to know. The deal between him and his dad is pretty strange, and there's always the haunting thought that his mother's accidental death in the bathtub was truly a husband-assisted suicide. Add this to the fact that Branff's character has never had a good relationship with his dad, because of the childhood accident (caused by the boy) which left his mother an invalid, caused his dad (a psychiatrist) to keep the boy on psychotropic meds throughout his formative years

- which explains the dreamlike quality and his inability to express any real emotion.

Put into the mix the girl - Natalie Portman - who is the typical "sprite" (which is what I call that particular archetype of the vibrant free-spirited, yet slightly off-the-wall character whose main purpose in the movie is to bring our anti-heroic "catcher-in-the-rye"-esque main character out of his shell).

However you describe it, Portman saves the film - not just her character but in the way she plays it.

All in all, this is the type of movie that would be written by a first-timer, and someone working out the doldrums of being young, but in all honesty it shows that he can pull off a good character or two (there are some minor characters who are extremely charming) and I hope that Branff actually has more movies in him. You can tell that the writer of this film could be great.

VG

Strange Things Happen at Sundown

Brain Damage Films (isn't that just the coolest name for a company?!), 2003.

I suppose this would be considered a B-movie, and I really wish that Joe Bob Briggs were still around to rate it (IS he still around, I wonder?)

It's a vampire flick, but like my favourite Vampire flicks, it's got a "slant" to it, this time, being that the vampires are minor Brooklyn mafiosos, and one bad hit man who lives on Long Island who wears a cloak, dressed in black from head to foot, except for brightly coloured argyle or rainbow socks.

Also, there's one angry chick vampire, curly haired, black lipped, who goes around killing her own kind out of a personal vendetta, dropping black roses on their dead corpses.

Then there's the two idiot young couple, who decide to steal some of the mafiosos money and thus are on the run, and along the way pick up a Bible-thumper, leading to some very hilarious conversations regarding Christianity and how it can save the vampire soul.

There are some minor plots, but for the most part these are the main points to the movie. The only other thing I should mention is the Reaper's wife, who is an obsessive neat freak and goes completely ballistic over one spoon in the sink and has a rampaging monologue about how she used to be a queen with attendants and virgins every night and now, four hundred years later, she's simply a housewife in NY, peppered with several colorful descriptions - makes it a monologue worthy of noting, I must say.

Basically, this is a movie whose good dialogue lifts it up from being simply a cheesy slasher flick. Good characters go a long way for me, and even if half the actors can't act and/or are simply hamming the whole thing up just augments the actual charm of the film.

All in all - this is a great movie. Bad acting, cheesy plot, buckets of blood, lots of screams . . . but great characters and cool dialogue - you can easily watch it either alone or with a group of friends - it doesn't matter . . . just WATCH IT!

VG