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.
| Along Came A Spider | ** |
| Chocolat | ***1/2 |
| Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon | *1/2 |
| Memento | ***1/2 |
| Tailor of Panama | * |
Along Came a Spider-- Implausible though they may be, there are enough plot twists in this drama about the kidnapping of Senator's daughter to satisfy the average T.V. viewer, and it seems to me that the small screen, and it's average audience, is for what this film was better designed. Morgan Freeman now seems typecast for roles of this sort, but this film is no Seven, the impressive 1996 psycho-thiller in which he played a similar no-nonsense crime-solving role. After a couple of far-fetched plot twists, I was beginning to think that the kidnappee herself was going to end up implicated in the crime. Don't worry, it doesn't go quite that far. (kids -- hey, these days, they see this kind of violence, though intense and bloody, on the television; teens -- ditto) **
Chocolat-- Chocolatiers will love this movie, as did I, and as I hope will you. This is probably my favorite movie of the season, but I don't want to overstate it, because it's not a grand film with big ideas ... just pleasant, delightful entertainment, with mostly gentle notions we've heard before. Nominated for five Academy Awards including best picture, it won none. What an injustice! It's a fantasy of a totally different sort than Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. One of Hollywood's favorite themes, the struggle of free spiritedness against orthodoxy, is repackaged into a charming and tasty morsel. Director Lasse Halstrom liked the theme last year as well with his Cider House Rules; but Chocolat has far more humor, spirit, romance, and is an all around better film, though I liked the former as well. Set in a beautiful French village in 1960, a wayfaring chocolatier (Juliette Binoche) and her daughter bring new life into a stayed, stifled, regimented community, managed gently but firmly by its repressive, moralist mayor. It's chocolate against the church, and we know which is going to win. As an agnostic myself, I could cheer on the side of the chocolate. As a vegan who doesn't allow myself to eat chocolate unless it's non-dairy, I could empathize with the moralists. We are given enough time to feel humanity for each of the members of the ensemble cast. A liberal's movie. Of course, I WOULD like it. I'm SO predictable. You may not buy some of the film's improbable moments, but generally, they do not seriously detract, and you're bound to come out feeling sufficiently satisfied, but still ready for some dessert. (Chocolate lovers of all ages -- yes absolutely ... unless you are trying to bring discipline to yourself or your kids) ***1/2
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon -- (In Chinese, with English subtitles) -- Choreographically stunning and visually spectacular, I nonetheless didn't like this movie much, and that puts me in strong disagreement with most movie critics, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Screen Actors Guild, the Golden Globes, and most friends and acquaintances who have seen it. I have seriously begun to wonder what planet I'm on. I've tried to figure out why the Academy chose to recognize this type of film with so many award nominations (10). Granted, Ang Lee once again exhibits his amazing breadth of virtuosity as a director, and I reckon that Hollywood considers his recognition to be overdo. Yes, choreography. Yes, cinematography. And indeed the film displays many highly inventive techniques, breaks some social barriers, and attempts to put forth some thoughtful philosophic notions; but, setting aside my revulsion for gratuitous violence, the movie is often grossly misedited, pointlessly scripted, redundant and uncaptivating, for me at least, even as a fantasy. It certainly isn't worthy of Best Picture status. There certainly are some gee-whiz how-in-the-hell-did-they-do-THAT aspects to the film, as one might expect these days from any highly acclaimed action film. Perhaps I myself have become anachronistic, but if this is the direction that the Academy and movie critics want to go with their recognition of movies, then they've lost credibility with me. As with the highly acclaimed blockbuster The Matrix, I don't buy the argument that the philosophical concepts put forward were in any way central to the film's agenda, and likewise, this film's more ponderous moments seemed to be window dressing for the bedazzling action. Although I can be stunned by the skill and artistry of such high-paced movements, I also find myself feeling bored and unstimulated by them. I don't relate to them at all. I don't relate to the overly simplistic justifications for initiating the conflicts in the first place, conflicts that seem to materialize on a hair-trigger emotion. Outside of James Bond flicks, which strike me as being rather tongue in cheek or nearly satirical, most action movies have never been a draw for me. As for Star Wars, Rambo, The Terminator, and most other action-based good-verses-evil morality plays, all I can think of is that this is dullsville, and get me out of here! To the degree that they imbed anything resembling something of substance, they seem insincere to me. Come on, be honest! Those brief pseudo-intellectual moments are nothing more than adrenaline relief. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon has more substance than some of the others I mentioned, and certainly there is a cultural curiosity as to how the Chinese think (if indeed Chinese thought is any way reflected in this film), but I find it interesting that the movie has been a relative flop in China. Perhaps, this is largely due to video pirating, but maybe the things that westerners find interesting or possibly deep, the Chinese find old hat, off base, silly or boring. It takes 15 minutes at the beginning before getting into the action, a little too slow off the mark for the film's principle audience -- teenagers. I do have to applaud the fact that the film has introduced a lot of younger Americans to English subtitles for the first time, so if the rock-em sock-em action drew them in, then it had a very useful side benefit. Whatever I say, don't listen to me. Go decide for yourself if you want, and then help me figure out what planet I am on. (Children -- excessive violence and boring periods of subtitle reading; teens of all ages -- made to order for them, but apply the same qualifiers as I did for children; Adults -- whatever!) *1/2
Memento -- A thoroughly brilliant script walks a tightrope of plausibility and somehow manages not to fall to it's death, but perhaps stumbles slightly and finds itself hanging by a thin thread at moments. I'll be surprised if this film, about a man with no short term memory, is not remembered come Oscar time. This is one of those stories that uses flashback editing and various devices reminicent of Alfred Hitchcock or Rod Serling's Twilight Zone series, but does so superbly that I suspect people will be looking back upon it decades from now with similar respect as is now held for those earlier innovators. The film has also been compared to Ground Hog Day, but with little sense of humor. "Okay, what's going on here? I guess I'm chasing this guy. No, wait! He's chasing me." While the flashbacks start to feel annoying at some point, one can't kick the movie for that. There's no way to tell a story about an annoying condition -- short term memory loss -- without making the audience also feel annoyed. The most annoying thing though is that the ending leaves one feeling unsatisfied. The puzzle is taken apart and reassembled, but even at the end, one isn't sure of what they have. The answers given are not complete or even clear, but again, that is what one should expect from a disturbing condition that doesn't go away. In general, however, the script is extraordinarily tightly written and the editing is phenomenal. The frequently seen tatooed chest of pretty boy Guy Pierce (a Brad Pitt clone) is the extent of the sex in this movie, and thankfully the vengence and manipulation, though critical to the plot, doesn't turn out to be the central theme, or the show otherwise might have lost me. You may not like the retribution aspects -- I didn't. It's definitely not a feel good movie, and is quite disturbing, so you need to be in the mood for a little challenge and to have things not turn out as you might hope. Given those qualifiers -- go! (Kids -- not recommended unless they are quite mature; teens -- okay, but at times violent and difficult for some to follow; adults -- absolutely) ***1/2
Tailor of Panama -- A satirodrama (don't look it up) in the tradition of 1960s spy films ranging from Our Man Flint to Dr. Strangelove, this film, by comparison to those great classics, fails miserably as it bounces erratically between extremes of absurdity and taking itself far too seriously. Pierce Brosnan is appropriately cheeky as a corrupt variation on his James Bond persona, but Geoffrey Rush, who's normally a brilliant actor, and Jamie Lee Curtis play their roles far too earnestly. Worse yet, one quickly gets the feeling that no one in the film can believe they are being asked to speak such lame dialog. You can almost hear the voices inside their heads screaming what a bad career move it was to sign on with this film. It's the kind of dialog where the director expects the audience will be tolerant of gobbledeegook explanations masquerading as logical plotline. Of course, since we mainly come to relax and to be entertained, we generally are tolerant as long as an attempt is made to amuse us occasionally. Most of the laughter I heard came at moments when the audience was caught off guard by how inappropriate something was, usually based on oscillations of overacting (exaggeration of the minor) or underacting (nonchalance about the noteworthy) in sort of a Feliniesque style, though I wouldn't give this film that much credit. The film would probably have been more convincing if the director didn't ask the actors to play it so straight. Early on, he lets us in on the joke, but spends too much time denying that he's pulling our leg while pretending that this is something serious. Nice try, but more often than not, it doesn't quite work. (kids -- no; teens -- okay, but they often won't get it) *
Return to other movies | Dean's Home Page.