WINTER 2000/2001 MOVIE REVIEWS

Dean's rating scale:  **** Exceptionally good, *** Quite good indeed, ** I  liked some things about it, but found it to be something closer to average, * Not recommended.

Films such as these make me feel that it's been a reasonably good year for cinema after all!
 

Cast Away	**1/2
House of Mirth	***
O Brother, Where Art Thou?	**1/2
Quills	***
State and Main	**1/2
Sweet November	*1/2
Thirteen Days	****
Traffic	****
You Can Count on Me	***

Cast Away -- This movie clocks in at two hours, plus 35 minutes of product placement advertising for Federal Express and Wilson-Spaulding Corporations.  Nearly half of the film has Tom Hanks talking to a soccer ball on a deserted island.  Director Robert Zemekis produced one of everybody's favorite films, Forrest Gump, using Tom Hanks as the lead, but this story doesn't lend the director much opportunity to capture magic from what is basically tragedy followed by predicament.  The airplane crash is utterly terrifying and, as you might suspect, it's unlikely that they will be showing this film on your next transoceanic flight, although the movie's shameless product placement advertising should more than compensate for the loss of revenue from the airlines.  The movie fails to let the audience be sufficiently touched by sentimentality between the Hanks character and any of his loved ones who give him up for dead after many months of being lost at sea.  The best they could capture was some touching moments, or perhaps pathetic moments, between Hanks an inanimate object ... a soccer ball with a painted face that becomes his only companion while stuck on the island.  This is not a must-see movie, but a reasonable passtime if you are short on alternative options.  (Kids -- yes, but the crash scene may be too frightening for some; teenagers -- likewise).  **1/2

House of Mirth -- This is an unusual reversal of a rags to riches story, set in the early 20th century, which  focuses on the minutia concerns of an incestuously small group of wealthy New Yorkers, particularly on the travails of a young woman, Lilly Bart (Gillian Anderson) who is torn between the option of marrying for love or marrying for yet more money.   Her unfortunate decisions and less than kind acquaintances and family result in her descent down the social ladder.  One wonders from the beginning whether Lilly is a likeable person, but she turns out to be the noblest of characters, albeit tragic.   What is it about the wealthy that intrigues us so much?   If it's our envy of them, then this film, like so many others, causes us to envy them less.  The brilliant dialogue from Edith Wharton's novel (named as one of the 100 best English-language novels of the century) illustrates the extremes to which it is possible to talk around something.    This is a film for romantics who marval at the nuances of language.   To some this may seem dull, but I loved listening to it.  The author and the director cue us ahead of time as to the ending, and we are left with no more than having cared for a character about whom at first we may have been leary.  (Kids -- over their heads; teens -- dull; adults -- yes, but depending on your taste for wordy romance and tolerance for the snooty rich) ***

O Brother, Where Art Thou? -- Find the silliest looking characters you can, equip them with the strangest mix of colloquial and psuedo-intellectual dialogue, "mixaphorically speaking", and burlesque them in the most absurd leap from classical literature to quasi-contemporary satire that I've ever seen, and what you'll have may look something like the Coen brother's latest outing, O Brother, Where Art Thou?.  To call the film "loosely based" on Homer's The Odyssey is to call a hula hoop around an anorexic loosely based.  Sure, the lead character, played by George Clooney, is named Ulysses, and the story is about a quest for hidden treasure during which we come across nymph sirens, cyclops and assorted other allusions to the original story;  but basically this is a good-buddy road trip script aspiring to be eclectic.    Though the film is often amusing, the audience with whom I sat could rarely be heard laughing.  Perhaps, it's because the film succeeded in being so often eclectic that the humor often ran past them, resulting in a delayed reaction that made it too late to laugh without missing something.   Set in the depression era South, we see a bumbling trio of convicts who've escaped from a chain gang and hope to get their hands on the hidden stolen money that Ulysses squirreled away before going to prison.  Part of the strength of Coen brothers films has been in their lampooning of regional culture.   They did it particularly well in their popular 1996 film, Fargo.  Minnesotans, I believe, particularly liked how they were ridiculed in that film, and found that looking at themselves could be quite amusing.  I'm not so sure Mississippians will feel so happy about how they are portrayed in this film. Although they are undoubtedly quite accustomed to it, they are probably tired of being told by arrogant northerners that they are ignorant, racist bumpkins.  That aside, perhaps the best thing about this film, more than its silly dialogue, is the fabulous soundtrack of southern traditional folk and bluegrass music, assembled by T-Bone Burnett.  I'm not often inspired to purchase soundtracks, but I may make an exception in this case.  (Kids -- perhaps okay for some, though they may not appreciate it as much as other options;  Young teens -- ditto;  Older teens -- yes).  **1/2

Quills -- Naughty yet literate, this untypical film is one you are unlikely to forget anytime soon.  The Marquis de Sade (Geoffrey Rush), an 18th century aristocrat and a well-known author of pornographic slease, is brilliant yet deeply demented and locked up in an asylum run by a tolerant and benevolent priest (Joaquin Phoenix) and a cruel and tortuous doctor (Michael Caine).  The Marquis lusts after a teenage laundress (Kate Winslet), while sneaking his manuscripts to the public with her assistance.   The film is another in a long list of in-your-face blasts against censorship, mocking the righteous and the prude of our era with the purplest innuendo of that earlier era along with some not so softcore allusions to masterbation, molestation, homosexuality, necrophila, sado-masachism, torture, and worst of all for the righteous, their own hypocracy.  The film sustains a level of intensity that rarely relaxes.  It is alternatingly amusing and terrifying.  There's no attempt to transform you in any way, as the film doesn't take itself all that seriously, although you may walk out wondering what just hit you.  (Kids -- no way!  Young teens -- probably not;  Older teens -- perhaps; Open minded adults -- absolutely, although scenes of torture may be difficult for some to watch)  ***

State and Main -- I'm not sure why, but it took me awhile to feel comfortable with this satire about moviemaking in small town America.  Perhaps it's because I felt it would end up being just another look down the nose at small town folk by arrogant big city types.  Sure it had that, but on balance I think the movie skewers both sides about equally.  For the most part, the humor is niether laugh-out-loud funny nor without significant pauses for seriousness and story development.  Although the film seems a bit pokey at times, the smartly delivered deadpan remarks, particularly as wielded by the story's movie director (played by William C. Macy), and the often brilliant, but warped nuances added to the triteness spoken by the townspeople probably tips the hat in favor of your attendance.  There are interesting plot twists by which the audience should feel rewarded as well.  This is ensemble acting by people who seem to be having fun doing it, and it shows.  Other well knowns who appear include Alec Baldwin, Sarah Jessica Parker and Phillip Seymour Hoffman.  (Children -- no; young teens -- maybe, maybe not; older teens -- depending upon how sharp they are). **1/2

Sweet November -- Alternatingly predictable and implausible, charming and uncharming, trite but occasionally witty, this script is basically old hat, but with perhaps enough variations on the familiar to at least sufficiently distract you from your normal cares for two hours.  Although I heard a couple people in the audience get choked up over a couple of the movie's more sentimental moments, the romance between the Charlize Theron and Keanu Reeves characters generally didn't work for the three women who accompanied me to the film.  Neither character was a person to whom any of us could relate in any significant way.  Still, although the romance seemed implausible to us all,  I pondered that implausibility is one of the things I seek in any romantic story -- including in my own life.   If you have exhausted your film viewing options, feel uncreative in your own right and just want to be spoon fed some distraction -- any distraction -- then I'd say that the film may be sufficiently redeeming to hold you to its end.  Although I went into the film with quite low expectations, it did all I expected of it, and occasionally more.  (Children -- no; young teens -- with caution; older teens -- probably okay, but they may not be edified by it). *1/2

Thirteen Days -- Even though you know the outcome of this docudrama about the Cuban Missle Crisis -- that the world isn't blown to smithereens by nuclear weapons -- most people, particularly the young, may not realize just how close we came to that occurring.  Therein lies sure fire suspense.  The most creative of fiction writers could not have devised a more compelling story than what actually happened.  Some who have read my movie reviews recognize my bias in favor of films that make serious efforts at documenting history.  The criticisms of the historical accuracy of this film have been mild, mainly focused on alledgely undue attention paid to the role played by the principle character, President Kennedy's confidant Kenneth O'Donnell, played by Kevin Costner.  Most of the actual participants who are still around to comment have been highly complementary of the film, much of which has been taken from actual transcripts.   Remarkable performances are given by Bruce Greenwood as John Kennedy and Steven Culp as Robert Kennedy.   If the film fails in any respect, it may be in the insufficient attention paid to the fear and concern felt by the American public and particularly by the principle characters themselves and their families.  True, nobody really knew what to expect, nor could they believe that the worst would happen, and perhaps the men involved in the crisis were too professional and too busy to permit their stoicism to give way to displays of fear or other emotions.  That aside, this is just about the best film of the season, although it was released too late to be up for awards this year, and may be forgotten by next year.  (Kids -- it would be good education for them, but generally over their heads;  teens -- absolutely) ****

Traffic -- This is by far the best film I've seen, at least of the fictional variety, covering the complexities, the dilemmas and the human toll of America's war on drugs. Traffic focuses on the movement of drugs and cash across the U.S. - Mexican border.   As expected, we see the typical cast of characters -- drug runners, kingpins, drug enforcement agents, prosecuters, etcetera -- but the film also takes a somewhat more expansive view of the political and moral implications, particularly as seen through the eyes of America's so-called Drug Czar (played by Michael Douglas), who is horrified to learn of his own daughter's drug use.   I suspect there are few attending this film who have not known of someone impacted, directly or indirectly, by the costs of the ongoing war.   I've awarded the film four stars because I believe it is important for people to see, but it is not without imperfection.   A noteable example of this is the implausible conversion of the Catherine Zeta Jones character from relative innocent into one who is scheming and evil.  The film might have given a fuller picture of the drug wars if it included some of the other beneficiaries of the drug trade -- not just the violent bad guys, but for example the farmers and menial laborers at the production end of the drug chain who might otherwise be in abject poverty, but instead manage to eek out a living because of the drug trade.  The film might have included a look at how much effort and expense is put into enforcing laws regarding less hazardous recreational drugs and into incarcerating non-violent drug users.   Although drug users are likely to feel that the film is wholeheartedly biased against them, celebrating DEA agent heroism and generally showing drug use for its worst results, drug users might also be heartened that the film leaves one feeling that the drug wars are futile, and perhaps we should consider giving up, legalizing them and focusing instead on drug treatment.  (Kids -- absolutely not;  young teens -- forget it;  older teens -- if you are able to closely monitor their activities 24 hours a day).  ****

You Can Count on Me -- Most of us would like to think of ourselves as being "nice" and to be considered by others that way.  On the other hand, most of us would like to be given the latitude to mess up occasionally and still be cut some slack when we do mess up.  Meanwhile, heaven forbid we should be obliged to read some cosmic meaning into what we do and what we fail to do.  Don't try to make sense of it all.    This is a small film that doesn't aspire to much beyond simple story telling, but ends up excelling beyond its own seemingly limited expectations.  When Americans want reality, even if that reality is actually only fiction, they still want it wholesale.    Hardly anything that occurs in this film seems the least bit implausible, and other than some terrific acting (though perhaps not especially challenging acting), that is probably the movie's strongest suit and its most saleable quality.  The moralizing is gentle and forgiving, the way most of us prefer it to be.  It is a slice of small town life, pieces of which a broad spectrum of people are likely to relate to their own lives, even if they have never experienced any of the events that take place in the story.  Although it attempts a bit of philosophy, there is not a powerful message or meaning to be derived ... and yet, it's not hard to feel at times that some part of ourselves are being mirrored by the film.  What we see of ourselves, though at times messed up, may not be so bad.   (Kids -- maybe, but there are some nonexplicit scenes of sexual intercourse, and a bloody fist fight;   teenagers -- yes, but a bit slow paced and sentimental for the jaded hyperbolic types). ***

Return to other movies | Dean's Home Page.