The Official Review Thread of 2005

[Big Magilla]

Penelope, I think your expectations may have been too high. Certainly your all day trek didn't help. Though I did like the film, I had many of the same reservations you did, which were offically brought out only in Andrew Sarris' review in The New York Observer.

There is a tiny, grainy snippet from Point of Order in the film. I recommend to anyone who thought Good Night, and Good Luck was a great film to see that documetnary of the Army-McCarthy hearings. Clooney's film pales by comparison. It comes out on DVD this Tuesday.

Although I thought Strathairn's impersonation of Murrow was spot on, most of his scenes were straight monologue or reaction to previously filmed scenes, e.g. the Liberace interview. You get Oscar nominations for that, but you don't win. In his scenes with other actors, it's the others, Clooney, Langella, Wise, who do the acting while he does the re-acting.

I also thought the cutesy sub-plot involving Robert Downey, Jr. and Patricia Clarkson was a filler that went nowhere. Why not spend time at home with Murrow to flesh him out instead of these boring secondary characters? On the whole, though, it is a brave film that goes where few films dare go with its obvious parallels to the current administration, and you're wrong about Langella. His performance is on a par with Alan Alda's in last year's Aviator. It is exactly the kind of small yet potent performance that does win Oscar nods.

[Penelope]

A frustrating day of moviegoing. I've been eagerly anticipating Good Night, and Good Luck, but like so many "limited release" films, it gets released first in Orlando before coming to Tampa weeks later. Usually, I can wait, but if I really, really want to see a movie, I'll make the trek up to Orlando--so that's what I did today.

Anyway, Good Night, and Good Luck...well, being an unashamed liberal and a historian, I would like to say that I loved this movie, but the truth is that as an unashamed liberal, a historian and a student of cinema, I was thoroughly underwhelmed. It does feature a terrific performance from David Strathairn, who captures the cadences of Edward R. Murrow, and hints at the man's complexities, and there are some nice supporting turns (but not nomination-worthy) from Frank Langella and Ray Wise.

But, beyond that, Good Night and Good Luck is, well, a huge disappointment. In fact, it's the kind of history film that I hate--dry, dull, shallow, pretentious, simplistic, totally lacking in nuance or subtlety. The script and direction are clumsy and disjointed, and the overall effect is distancing, unengaging. Worse, it's insulting: it takes this vital, fascinating, pivotal moment in American history and turns it into an tiresome, preachy, "very special episode" of E/R in a newsroom. For a movie that runs only 93 minutes, it's an excruciating experience.

[Big Magilla]

Saw North Country. Could be a major awards contender if it attains enough box office clout to build on its mostly strong reviews.

The screenplay, editing, cinematography by the great Chris Menges, direction by Niki Caro, and all the leading actors - Charlize Theron, Frances McDormand, Richard Jenkins, Sean Bean, Thomas Curtis, Woody Harrelson and Sissy Spacek, in about that order, are all worthy of awards consideration. Theron, who relied heavily on make-up and histrionics to win her Oscar for Monster, does none of that look at me posturing here, instead delivering a deeply moving, quiet yet gutsy, performance. Her scenes with diminutive 14 year old Thomas Curtis as her son are especailly warm and real. Curtis also brings out the best in Sean Bean, who has one scene with him near the end that is far and away the best thing I've ever seen him (Bean) do, even topping his moving scenes with Frances McDormand.

Caro proves Peter Jackson is not the only New Zealand director worthy of continuing international acclaim. She tops her direction of unknowns in Whale Rider with her strong handling of A list actors here.

The story itself is fairly predictable, with more in common with The Verdict than Norma Rae, but the action never lags in its over 2 hours running time. Another of the year's best films.

[Penelope]

The first new movie I've seen in well over a month was The Corpse Bride, and it was enough to make me want to give up watching movies altogether.

Then don't see Elizabethtown. Just came back from seeing it and I can now say that Bride & Prejudice is no longer the worst movie I've seen this year.

[Sonic Youth]

The first new movie I've seen in well over a month was The Corpse Bride, and it was enough to make me want to give up watching movies altogether.

[Sinatra]

My huge problem with A History of Violence was mostly about predictability. I found this movie so predictable that you could almost tell every sequence. And when Ed Harris's character pays that visit to Mortensen's, (spoiler) and Harris points that gun at him for a brief moment, by the Hollywood cliche standards, it was a given fact that the son would save the father. The sequence was totally predicted. And the rest of the movie is just waiting to finish itself because you already come to imagine that the Oscar winning William Hurt will be the brother and that Mortensen will do a finishing shootout that will last five minutes. Curiously, I initially enjoyed the restaurant shootout which came off as an interesting plot twist, but everything falls later. When Ed Harris appears, you could be certain that all his claims were true.

[anonymous1980]

Ashley Scott had a brief walk-on role as Gigolo Jane in A.I. Artificial Intelligence, just so you know. Onto my review:

WALLACE & GROMIT: THE CURSE OF THE WERE-RABBIT
Cast: Peter Sallis, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham Carter, Peter Kay, Nicholas Smith, Liz Smith, Geraldine McEwan (voices)
Dir: Nick Park, Steve Box.

Although I didn't love it quite as much as my personal favorite Wallace & Gromit adventure, The Wrong Trousers, I still loved it and it's probably a very close second. The film is pure witty fun. I can't wait to see it again.

Oscar Prospects: Nick Park, say hello to Oscar # 3.

Grade: A

[Penelope]

I was absolutely bored last night, and I had a free movie pass, so I went to see Into the Blue. Not really worth your trouble, but there is an actress by the name of Ashley Scott that y'all should keep your eye on. She played the blonde girlfriend of Scott Caan; it's a throwaway part, but she invests it with so much personality and surprising depth that she was absolutely riveting--she makes the film's leading lady--Jessica Alba--simply bland by comparison (not too difficult, really, but worth noting). Without her, the movie would be a complete zero star bomb; with her, it manages to rise to ** level.

[Sabin]

Don't have much time.

The Squid and the Whale comes so close to being a great movie that I'm tempted to just overlook its shortcomings simply on the basis that so much of it is so terrific. But Noah Baumbach's compositions are pretty ungainly and his eagerness to eschew sentiment in favor of bitter reality goes a little too far in distancing the viewer from the turmoil in the end. These really are just quibbles though. It's a pretty wicked farce, especially in its treatment of Frank who teeters from one early stage of OCD to another which Baumbach recognizes is the unchecked beginning of probably a lifelong struggle and mines it for dark humor. And in a just world Jessie Eisenberg and Jeff Daniels would both be up for Best Actor this spring.

I wish I didn't leave the theater feeling so slightly cheated, but 80% of it is easily one of the best filmgoing experiences I've had in a long time.

[anonymous1980]

THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN
Cast: Steve Carell, Catherine Keener, Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen, Romany Malco, Elizabeth Banks, Jane Lynch, Gerry Bednob, Shelley Malil, Kat Dennings.
Dir: Judd Apatow

I liked it more than I thought it would. Lowbrow comedy works because of the film's inherent sweetness, humanity and intelligence. It also helps if you have a great cast. Carell is terrific as usual. The supporting cast is superb. Lynch stands out.

Oscar Prospects: Carell may be in for a Best Actor (Musical/Comedy) nod. I'd nominate it for Screenplay.

Grade: A-

[anonymous1980]

Two movies again today:

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
Cast: Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, William Hurt, Ashton Holmes, Stephen McHattie, Peter MacNeill.
Dir: David Cronenberg

The best film of the year so far, as far as I'm concerned. Masterful direction by Cronenberg keeps this film tense, emotional and even a tad darkly humorous with outstanding performances by the cast.

Oscar Prospects: Deserves Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Supporting Actor (Hurt), Best Adapted Screenplay.

Grade: A

TIM BURTON'S CORPSE BRIDE
Cast: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Emily Watson, Albert Finney, Joanna Lumley, Richard E. Grant, Christopher Lee, Tracey Ullman, Michael Gough, Jane Horrocks, Enn Reitel, Deep Roy (voices)
Dirs: Tim Burton, Mike Johnson.

Tim Burton's having a good year. This animated film has lots of things going for it. Depp here gives a better performance than in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The visuals are marvelous and the score delightful blending comedy, romance and the macabre,

Oscar Prospects: Deserves nods for Best Animated Feature, Best Original Score and Best Original Song.

Grade: A-

[Big Magilla]

I hope to see Good Night, and Good Luck and Capote within the week. For now, however, I had to settle for the sappy In Her Shoes, a chick flick so bland it might have been written for one of those women's TV movie channels.

Rarely I have I seen a major movie with so many plot holes you could drive a truck through them, that it's hard to figure out who this movie is supposed to appeal to, homely young girls? mellowed out old people? Clearly it panders to both groups.

Among other things, the film asks you to believe that a s**t for brains tramp will suddenly find her niche in a warehouse for old people, that a sharp, materialistic lawyer will suddenly find happiness as a dog walker and that an embittered widower would keep the birthday cards he doesn't want his daughter to see from the mother-in-law he hates neatly tied up in a ribbon where the tramp daughter can suddenly find them after looting the same desk drawer for years.

Curtis Hanson keeps the pace up so that you don't really have time to question these and many other turns into incredulity, but you have to wonder why the director of usually edgy material would take on such a lame project.

Hanson has always been a good director of actors, and what little there is to recommend about the film lies in that direction. Cameron Diaz and Toni Collette are effective in their respective standard cute brainless chick and smart homely chick roles and 90 year old Norman Lloyd has his best non-Hitchcockian role as a retired professor, but the film's greatest asset is Shirley MacLaine moving quite effectively into the kind of quietly wise old lady role that was once the provence of Ethel Barrymore and Edith Evans.

[Sabin]

I give four stars to A History of Violence. The best way I can put this is that it's the Blue Velvet that Blue Velvet never was for me: a visceral, subversive, don't-know-when-to-laugh-or-cringe experience. I think much of this is due to the fact that I saw this one in the theater with not too terribly much advance knowledge aside from (it seems) what everybody knows, and I completely forgot William Hurt was involved.

Criticisms that David Cronenberg is above this material seem fairly unfounded if only because some of the best Hollywood productions were done by directors who were "above" their material. I mean, aren't the greatest, nastiest films of the fifties and sixties genre films still ripe with "contextual embarassments" when seen today? Little moments that stand out as hokey and flawed? Isn't that the fun of them? I've had no more fun going to the movies this year than in A History of Violence.

Let it be said that the screenplay is a platform for smart noir. Take the opening scene for instance where a Mortensen-looking young man parks his accomplice's car (in one multi-minute long take), is asked to go inside, and ends up commiting a horrifying act; after which, we cut to Mortensen's screaming toddler child at night as he rushes to comfort her. Now: whether or not these are one and the same person does not matter; the structure ties Mortensen and the man of violence and both children together in one cut. We need nothing else.

And Cronenberg's direction is just masterful. Every kind word I've read about William Hurt is due to where Cronenberg places the finnicky actor in the frame. It's a monumentally silly final act that upon a second viewing will no doubt feel a bit unsatisfying, but I couldn't help but laugh on the edge of me seat. There are scores of moments just like these in the film. I can't imagine another director this year deserving the Oscar more, and I can't imagine another film more likely to score one major nomination (say, for example, one for Cronenberg) and nothing else, which is a shame because it's my favorite film this year and deserves notices for Score, Cinematography, and especially Art Direction.

[Mister Tee]

Sorry it took me so long to get to this, Sonic.

I rarely mention audience reaction because 1) I can never be sure how to interpret it (I heard many people leaving throughout the last half-hour of the SAG screening of The Pianist; we all know how unindicative that was) and 2) I most often go to Friday afternoon showings where the crowd is thin enough it's not a factor.

It happens I ended up at an early Sunday afternoon show of Violence, more heavily populated than I'm used to but still 50% or less. I did note a few pockets of people who applauded, at both the diner confrontation and the high-school punchout -- but then, at least one of those groups also applauded at the end of the movie, so I'm not quite sure what to make of it.

To the general question, is audience reaction part of the movie?, my vote would be no, but I may have felt different before I had the leisure to watch movies in relative solitude.

[The Original BJ]

I'm not sure. Watching the television ads for this film reminded me of the ads for In the Bedroom that sold it as a thriller. And while Cronenberg's film is certainly more suspenseful than Bedroom, the ads don't really accurately portray how ambiguous, disturbing, and untraditional this film is. I know my audience expected something a lot more escapist and action-packed than what they ended up getting. It's obviously not a bad move to get seats into the house, but the audience reaction I think will parallel the response of those who, to reference another recent film ad campaign, felt confused after walking out of the "laugh out loud hilarious comedy" Lost in Translation. A LOT of people are going to feel like they missed something.