Rushmore

Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray. Touchstone Pictures, 1999.

Wonderfully written, but you have to be in the mood for this type of movie. This is from the same writers that brought you the Royal Tennenbaums, and it actually "feels" like the same movie, only the focus upon the distant cousin of the Tennenbaums. And while the Royal Tennenbaums actually is a much more compact and somehow more "satisfying" movie, this one certainly has its charm.

Can't avoid the obligatory comparison to the anti-hero in Harold and Maude, though - and with that said, I would say that a young Bud Cort is actually probably what this movie needed. Schwartzmann is good, but seemed a little too smug, for my taste. Not that I'm a good judge of thespianism (is that a word?) because I'm not - it's just that the script seemed to call for a boy who, while a complete adept in the world of social gatherings and school events, was a complete novice in the ways of teenage emotional attraction. Schwartzmann played the former wonderfully well, but just didn't seem (for lack of a better word) "virginal" enough for the latter.

Oh well, still a good movie. - Just as long as you like long slow shots and to have all your action couched in the dialogue. Which I do. I just know others don't, so I thought I'd warn you.

Mo' later!

VG

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Jim Carey, Kate Winslett, Kirsten Dunst. Focus Features/Anonymous Content, 2004

Someone told me years ago that I would like this movie, but somehow I never got around to watching it. Finally did. Blown away.

Yes, I was.

I wish I had written this movie. This is the movie that I would like to write. This has all the elements that I love in movies: the line between what is real and what is not being constantly blurred, and through all that, you have people - people facing real emotions about who they are and what they really want out of life, and above all, simply trying to be decent and doing the right thing.

As far as the movie goes, this is not really a movie that I can appropriately describe with words. This is something that you simply must see. You have to watch this movie. However, it could possibly be a fantastic novel as well - yes, I can see it lending itself to that genre, definitely, but only at the hands of a novelist who had a strong sense of colour, and the absense of colour, and an author who is also a poet.

I know these are vagaries and don't really get to the heart of the film, but as I said, you simply have to see it.

Basic plot: Carey finds out that girlfriend wiped him from her memory so he does the same thing - but as the memories begin to fade he realizes that he truly loves her, and tries to fight it.

Plot sounds hokey. But the movie's not. Simply put - it is beautiful. This is a beautiful movie in an era when movies either TRY to be "beautiful" or just "over the top."

But this one is:

Simply.

Beautiful.



Watch it.


VG

3000 Miles to Graceland

Kurt Russell, Kevin Costner. Morgan Creek Productions, 2001.

Started off like a Tarantino flick, only done better. The Elvis impersonators casino heist is excellently done. Wonderful story and freaking intense gunfight. Pretty much on the bloody side and leaves you a little dizzy, so be prepared.

Then, the crooks turn on each other, which is an interesting plot twist, but seems to be a vehicle simply to pave the way for the two stars to duke it out for the second half of the flick, which turns from the crime into a road movie. OK - so we're on the road and we have the obligitory clownish cops on their trail, which is fairly decent, with your stereotypical banter.

Howoever, we've got Courtney Cox and the kid befriending Russell and thus humanizing him, pitting him against the insidiously evil Costner. The story tends to get a little weak here, with the "dad figure" that Russell becomes for the kid. But it's interesitng how Cox turns out to be a double-crossing crook in her own right. And the kid offers some comic appeal as well.

Basically, the movie's a little uneven, and the climactic scene is a little over the top. Perhaps should have toned down the Russell-kid to emphasize the Coster "am I really Elvis's son?" bit to heighten the tension. Don't know.

But all in all, it's not a wasted evening. Give it a look-see.

"Thankyuhverahmuch!"

(sorry, couldn't resist it!)

VG

The Ring Two

Naomi Watts. Dreamworks, 2003

Sequels fall into two categories: those that expand upon the story, and make it greater, and those that TRY to expand upon the story and simply ruin it. This movie is the latter.

Completely. The first Ring was great in that it was totally unexpected ending and a shift in the mystery that totally threw the viewer off-kilter.

This one simply tries to "add to the history" but winds up taking the "hook" (the girl coming out of the TV) and repeats it over and over again until it ceases to be anything frightening at all and simply becomes pat - almost as though it's spoofing itself.

The only horrifying part is when Samara takes over the kid - and then you basically just have the "creepy kid" movie, which always freaks me out.

Oh yeah, and how Samara makes Elizabeth Perkins whack herself - that was pretty creepy.

But other than that, fairly tame.


VG

Zombiez

Jenicia Garcia, Jakeem Sellers. Integration Entertainment, 2004

Starts with a z and ends with a z and is nothing but zzzzzzzzzzzzzz's in between.

Independent film - could have been great! But it's nothing but plotless with the woman running back and forth and back and forth between warehouse and woods. what a snoozer.

Could have been great: could have been both frightening AND satirical - funny AND scary, but instead it was simply nothing.

ugh!

VG

The Return of the Pink Panther

Peter Sellers, Christopher Plummer. Blake Edwards, dir. 1975

To be honest, I didn't think the kids would like this movie as much as they did - it being the 21st Century and them having been raised on a blathering of unstoppable 1 second images, but as it turns out they really were intrigued by the movie.

What was truly surprising to me is that I, myself, found it fairly slow. It wasn't really as funny as it was when I saw it originally in '75. Probably because I don't like "physical" humour any more. Bungling just isn't funny.

Oh well, all in all - had a few good lines, but overall I found it somewhat in poor taste. Maybe I'm just getting staid.

VG

Dreamcatcher

Morgan Freeman, Thomas Jane, Jason Lee. Lawrence Kasdan, dir. William Goldman/Lawrance Kasdan - screenplay. Castle Rock Entertainment, 2003


Fairly interesting story, but it does show the "mid-90's" Stephen King style in which he gives up on pure horror and mixes it with equal measure sci-fi and magic. The theme was actually handled with complete adroitness and expertise in the novel "It" and yes, I am breaking my own rule by comparing a book to a movie (and different ones at that!) byt he comparisons are unmistakable, especially with the flashbacks to their 1950's childhood.

However, if you haven't read "IT" or other King books, then basically I summed up the entire plot for you in the first sentence.

Even the bad guy is a stock character from other King stories - i.e. "Storm of the Century."

Lastly . . . Morgan Freeman is absolutely fantastic. As freaking always! Even as a drop-dead bad guy he is still one of the best characters in this movie.

Not a bad film. It's just simply been done better, by all three guys (King, Kasdan, Goldman) elsewhere in their careers.

VG

Soul Survivors: The Killer Cut

Melissa Sagemiller, Casey Affleck, Eliza Dushku. Artisan Entertainment, 2002.

Pretty standard fare, but tried to be a Mind-F movie, what with the "is this all a dream?" scenarios and the flashbacks to the operating table. However, all movies that strive for this while using such techniques invariably are compared to (in my mind at least) the pinnacle of that style, Jacob's Ladder.

And, of course, this movie falls short of that - so I should base it on its own merits and not compare it to something else. So I will . . .

college students. Car wreck. Nightmarish dreams . . . or are they real? Friend dead, guilt-ridden blonde. Crazy ravers jumping out of shadows.

Like I said. Pretty standard stuff.


VG

Total Recall

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rachel Ticotin, Sharon Stone, Michael Ironside. Paul Verhoeven, dir. 1990.

Strange, I thought it came out mid-80's . . . but oh well, this is a sci-fi story wherein the story actually holds up through time, even though the outfits are definitely 80's fare. Which actually gives current viewing a somewhat nostalgic feel. For all you special effects junkies out there, while it doesn't have any CG animation, the SE will be sufficient enough to keep your interest. That is, if you have any feel for story or plot.

That's actually the best part of Total Recall - it's well-written, and well-executed. It's a spy/action/adventure/revolution story set on Mars. The only complaint I would have is that there is not enough development of the mutant characters, but oh well, we can't have everything, now can we?

Definitely a must-see.

VG

Evil's City

Brandon Largent, Laura Mazur. Lazarus Film Partners, 2004. Written, produced, directed by Tom Lewis.

What I like about B-movies is that they're usually free of many conceits, and sometimes can lead to creative takes on old genres. However, sometimes they can be ponderous in their own way, and it's evident in this film that Tom Lewis (and since he wears three hats in this one, this is HIS baby!) really needed an editor, both in writing and editing.

But let's keep with the good - The good elements of this movie are:

The idea of the town, Acheron, being itself an evil force.
The guy with the Australian accent as a Charon-figure.
and, the ending, which I will have to spoil for you in the following paragraph, so stop reading if you don't want it spoiled . . .

the twist ending, in which several of the characters fighting the undead townsfolk for their lives had, in fact, been dead themselves for most of the movie. It's the same twist that hit me in Sixth Sense, and to be truthful, I hadn't anticipated that at all in this movie. With the revelation came some flashblacks which were very well done, edited very well, which belied a talent that had not been evident in the rest of the film.

VG

Metropolis (2002)

Alternately titled "Osamu Tezuka's Metropolis"

But is not an adaptation or remake of the 20's movie of the same title, yet it shares a common theme: The rise of the city to the detriment of humanity.

Basically, in this anime world, robots live freely among humans, working a variety of jobs, from menial to life-saving. However, their mobility is strictly regimented, and they are, in fact, slave labour.

A Japanese detective and his nephew come to town to track down a scientist wanted for crimes in Japan. Unbeknownst to them, the scientist is working for a military leader who both has created a vehemently anti-robot political party AND is staging a military coup.

Oh yeah, the twisted aspect is this: Duke Red (the aforementioned militar), while being anti-robot, is using the scientist to create the ultimate robot (in the form of a blond little girl) to help him rule the world.

OK, so we have the grand themes: When does consciousness (self-awareness) begin? What makes us "truly" human? and the well-known theme that the lust for power brings out the worst in humanity, and eventually leads to its own destruction.

The best parts of the movie are the little boy talking to the little girl, trying to teach her basic ideas and forms of linguistic structure. That, and the destruction scenes, which are simply visually stunning. That was nice.

Parts of the setting at times reminded me of the cartoon Anastasia, for some reason. Maybe giant steps covered in snow just looks like Russia to me, who knows?

That, and one last question: Why is it that when people want to create the mood of "festive decadence," they use Dixieland Jazz music?

That could be an essay in and of itself: different musical styles and what they inherently symbolize.

Until then . . .

VG

Taking Lives

Angelina Jolie, Ethan Hawke. Warner Bros, 2004

Had the makings of a truly edgy psychological thriller, but fell somewhat short. Great idea though: a serial killer who assumes his victim's identities and lives their lives for a few extra years until he moves on to someone else - that is a great premise. Unfortunately, THAT story is subordinated to this Jolie-vehicle, which does nothing but cash in on her star-power. Not that it unnecessarily exploits her fame, but let's just say her character really does nothing for the story and even the scene where she reveals her angst, her raison-d'etre, for this job, we're left wondering "Is this movie about tracking down a serial killer or about watching Angelina's watery eyes and big lips for two hours?"

That said, the setting was great: Montreal - and it was nice to have a detective story that isn't set in one of the great US cities. That brings a nice, almost European flavour, to the tale.

And I must say, Ethan Hawke played his part fairly well . . . but only IF the director and writer KNEW that this audience would figure out that he was the killer from the beginning and just wanted to see how long his character was willing to put up with this charade. Now, if these makers really truly believed that we'd be duped into one instant thinking that Keifer Sutherland was the killer, then the movie is guilty of insulting our intelligence and Hawke's interpretation of the role becomes cartoonish.

To wrap up: great premise - but this should have been a movie that focused on the killer, and not on Angelina's lips.

VG