The Official Review Thread of 2005

[dylanfan23]

I've been posting on and off on this site for about 8 years now, and i figured i'd start again....i saw 2 films this week and thought i'd tell you what i thought, in a few sentences.

Two for the Money

Nobody has even rated this film on this site, not that it deserves it. I see most films that are released and i have to say this one intrigued me. I don't care what anybody has to say, al pacino is one of if not the best working actors we have, and anything he does i have to look at. The guy keeps doing good things(merchent of venice, angels in america, insomnia) but this isn't really one of those. It's a pretty good film and the whole story is pretty good, i say pretty good because it kinda kept my attension. And i wanted to see where it went, and i enjoyed pacino's character, his is by far the most interesting. But in the end i give it 2 and a half stars out of five, it really falls short of what it could have been.

A History of Vilence

I give this film 4 and a half out of five stars. I was really engaged by this film from the first scene. I'm a sucker for films that make you think, and this one has you trying to figure things out from the beginning. That lets up eventually and ends up unravelling in your face, but thats ok too because the unravelling is pretty amazing. The story is a good one and a solid one, it's hard for your mind to drift away because the premise is a really interesting one. And there aren't any wasted scenes. It's unfair to go to into the plot because you should see this film blind. The performances were all really great, mr. lord of the rings was perfectly cast in the lead and did a fantasitc job in a not so easy role, he might find a way into my top five, probably not, likewise for the academy. Maria bello will almost definately find her way into my top five, her performance is pretty perfect and lives up to everything she did in the cooler, subtle beauty and full expression in every facial expression, a really wonderful performance. I've heard a lot of talk about william hurt, he has a crucial and entertaining part, not nearly enough to remember him for any award. Ed Harris's performance beats him by a mile, Harris nailed his performance to a t, not that there was much to nail. The performance i would remember is the one of the lead's son, ashton holmes, the first time i've ever seen him, he delivers a wonderful performance and a very interesting one at that, remember the scene with his girlfriend, the one in the locker room and then the one in school hallway, along with those with his father, a pretty darn good performance. All in all, a very good film, will probalby make my top 10.

[flipp525]

Hoffman's Capote was a deeply satisfying characterization, imho, one of the best biographical performances I've seen in a long time

I have to agree. Hoffman's entire committment to this role was evident in almost every single frame. With such a rich biographical background to draw from, Hoffman suffused his performance with as much dichotomy as existed in the real persona. And while Capote was such a deeply flawed person, the audience never for a second forgets that he did, in fact, accomplish exactly what he set out to do - to create an entirely new genre of literature: the nonfiction novel.

His chemistry with Clifton Collins, Jr as well as Catherine Keener also made for a great performance. I'm not exactly sure how Have You Heard? is going to be able to top this one (although, advanced word already says that Paltrow's 8-minute scene is nomination-worthy).

[Penelope]

But I didn't feel any rush of excitement/pleasure from watching his work, which I use as my gauge for whether a performance has approached great (and which I'd apply to Strathairn's work in Good Night more than to this).

Interesting, because I did have that reaction to Hoffman's performance which I didn't have with Strathairn's performance. While I thought Strathairn did do a fine job, I thought he was limited by the extraordinarily narrow focus of the script and the fact that he often was playing against, not another person, but a videotape. I still insist that using tapes of McCarthy is damaging to the effectiveness of the story because the senator comes across as no more threatening than Snidely Whiplash. And because we see only one side of Edward R. Murrow, I never felt I really got to know him, got to know what made him tick, what his flaws were.

Conversely, Dan Futterman's script and Hoffman's performance offers up a fully-rounded portrayal of Truman Capote--an immensely talented, insightful, but also manipulative and ego-centric individual--and having that contrasted with the equally richly portrayed Perry Smith--a deeply sorrowful, but also extremely manipulative individual--gives Capote (the film) a decidedly effective resonance. Hoffman's Capote was a deeply satisfying characterization, imho, one of the best biographical performances I've seen in a long time, even topping Liam Neeson's exemplary work in last year's Kinsey (which, nevertheless, is overall a better film than Capote).

[Mister Tee]

For me, watching Capote was a bit akin to watching Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead -- a familiar story told from a somewhat different angle. The In Cold Blood details remain gripping after all these years, and I think they give the story most of its motor (notwithstanding the interesting biographer-or-betrayer aspect of Capote's relationship with Perry Smith). I found the film perfectly decent and absorbing, but not special -- I would, like Penelope, waver between three and three and a half for a star rating.

As for the acting, Keener's fine, but the role doesn't have award potential. Collins, like Robert Blake in In Cold Blood, reaches his emotional peak during his narration of the murders. It's a good performance, but not a certain nominee. And I have difficulty deciding about Hoffman. I'm not leaning negative or anything -- to have surmounted the challenge of playing such a well-known and virtually cartoonish personality without seeming ridiculous is an unquestioned achievement. But I didn't feel any rush of excitement/pleasure from watching his work, which I use as my gauge for whether a performance has approached great (and which I'd apply to Strathairn's work in Good Night more than to this).

I agree, Futterman is a very likely screenwriting nominee...especially since adaptation screenplay is, unusually, looking like the weaker half of this year's race.

[Penelope]

Must honestly admit that I didn't notice any difference in the focus during these scenes, so I'm afraid I'm unable to offer an opinion.

[abcinyvr]

Just came back from seeing Capote, which I'm right now giving ***1/2, though upon further consideration I may drop to ***

Penelope...saw Capote yesterday and I also am removing Keener from my list.
What I want to ask is, what did you think about the camera focus in the later prison scenes? Perry being out of focus and Truman being sharp. I saw the film with a friend and he suggested that it was deliberate but I don't know.

[Penelope]

Just came back from seeing Capote, which I'm right now giving ***1/2, though upon further consideration I may drop to ***--it's a bit sluggish at times, the direction very good, but not very great, and the musical score rather annoying. But the acting and script are terrific. Hoffman--offering not just an imitation of Capote, but a genuinely complex characterization--is definitely in the Best Actor race, and I can certainly see Clifton Collins, Jr. in contention for Supporting Actor; while Catherine Keener is fine as Harper Lee, she really doesn't have much to do, so I'm tenatively removing her from my Supporting Actress prediction--I'll be really surprised if she makes the cut. And Dan Futterman's script is a sure-bet nominee.

Let me also add a comment about North Country, which I saw last week in a theater with only two other people in attendance. The first two thirds of the film are quite good, solid, effective--it's manipulative, but during this part of the film, Niki Caro manages to smooth over the script's excesses. The last third, however, is some of the most hopelessly cornball stuff I've seen in a movie in a long time. Charlize Theron will probably slip in with a nomination--and I did like her here much more than in Monster, though, of her recent performances, my favorite remains Head in the Clouds; that said, I'd rather see Joan Allen (Upside of Anger) or Gwyneth Paltrow (Proof) nominated instead.

[The Original BJ]

Re: North Country.

***? Maybe that's too generous. It IS solid entertainment, well done, if very predictable. It's aided by a strong cast, especially Charlize Theron, who I liked very much in Monster, but who certainly does something very different here. She's very moving in the film, particularly in a couple very award-baity scenes, but I think the key to her performance lies in the quiet moments, the way she cracks a smile when watching her daughter play, or joking with her teenage son in the car. There's a natural warmth to her performance that never feels forced; I thought her expressionistic turn in Monster worked very well for that film, but I'm delighted to see her (somewhat) more subtle turn here pay off so well. It's not the most innovative or original performance, but it's strong work, and she's tops in a cast that includes Frances McDormand and Sissy Spacek, something I never would have believed before this film.

The script is solid without ever being really that interesting. I wish it weren't so simplistic — are ALL the guys in the mine womanizing assholes? And could that woman lawyer BE any more of a shrew? That last courtroom scene is unforgivable in its corniness. But what can I say? Against my better judgment, I thought it worked for most of its running time. It doesn't deserve to be a huge awards magnet, but it's a nice film, nothing all too special, but not half bad either.

[Penelope]

It's ambiguous in the way that it is not a "traditional" movie ending--the knight has vanquished the demon, but instead of a celebratory mood, the family realizes that there is a scar, a wound that will hurt for the rest of their lives. It is not the "and they lived happily ever after" ending that mass audiences are used to.

[kaytodd]

It's one of the most easily predicted scenes of the whole film, the father confronts the family.

SPOILERS BELOW
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
I would not call it a confrontation. The father had to leave the family for a while so he could finalize some important business. We have been aware for some time that the wife and teenage son are angry at the father for his long time deception regarding his true identity. The father returns while the family is having dinner. The young daughter, blissfully unaware of the true nature of the family's troubles, is very happy to see her daddy has returned. The wife and son cannot look at him. The father stands in the kitchen, unsure of what to do. The innocent daughter walks to the kitchen counter and grabs a dinner plate with a fork and knife sitting on it and places them where he normally sits. The plate was ready for him, but it was not sitting at the table itself. The wife is obviously only sort of ready for him to return. The father sits down and looks longingly at his wife and son obviously silently asking for their forgiveness. The son, still not looking at his father, hands him the meat loaf. The son still has issues, but we know from the meat loaf that he is willing to let his father back into his life. The father puts a slice of meat loaf on his plate and looks longingly at his wife. For the first time, she meets his glance. It is a look that, to me, said "I love you so much but you really pissed me off. I do not know right now what we are going to do with each other, but I still love you." And that is how the film ends.

How can that be at all ambiguous? It is flat out corny. Give the husband/father a drinking or gambling problem to hide, instead of a terrible past, make the husband Bruce Boxleitner or David Hasselhoff and make the wife Reba McIntyre or Valerie Bertinelli and you have the final scene of about a dozen Lifetime movies that have run in the past 20 years.

But since the actors are Viggo Mortenson and Maria Bello, it is a lot more effective. Again, while I do not see this as award winning material, I enjoyed it a lot. And so did the audience who saw it with me and the showing right before, based on the comments I overheard (it was the only film playing at that theatre). It is good entertainment, well done by talented artists behind and in front of the camera. And you cannot say that about a lot of films currently playing at your local multiplex.

[Seventh Samurai]

It's one of the most easily predicted scenes of the whole film, the father confronts the family.

[kaytodd]

"...the ending perhaps ambiguous."
?!

Audiences found the ending confusing and ambiguous? I liked the film but I found that final scene about as ambiguous as one of those Lifetime movies starring Reba Mcintyre that my mother-in-law loves to watch.

[Sonic Youth]

I finally caught A History of Violence on Sunday. I'm not going to discuss my opinion of its quality at any great length just yet, other than to say that I found it very engaging, yet if there was ever a movie that could be chosen for the "Art Film for Dummies" primer, it's this one - and before anyone gets offended, no offence intended. My meaning is that I can't think of many other movies that could better transition the average movie goer from mainstream to arthouse film. The gangster genre is easily accessible for most audiences, naturally, and the filmmaking is so straightforward and on-the-surface that the entryways to the numerous themes and subtexts laying beneath for all to analyze are as wide open as can be. Not that the film is obvious. Rather than spelling out the themes for us in all-caps, it just refuses to mask them behind subtleties or stylistic flourishes. It's the sort of film that could transform most moviegoers into analysts of the subtextual, as long as they were able to get hooked into its vibe.

Therein lies the rub. A History of Violence is as gripping a potboiler as any high-quality mainstream film, and yet so many in the audience are repelled by it. Why, exactly? Weeks ago, I was intrigued by a thread on Oscar Watch entitled something like "'Normal' audiences not liking AHOV", and all the posters recounted their film-going experiences - members of audience cheering at violence, other members appalled at violence level, audience impatient and/or embarrased at lengthy sex scenes, audience registering confusion at final scene. Film critics like Jonathan Rosenbaum also felt the need to report on the crowd reaction at their screenings, and I was under the impression that Croenenburg is stretching some bounderies with the gangster film drama and leaving audiences scratching their heads. Sounds great! Except, what are the bounderies? The violence is slightly more brutal, the sex scenes a bit longer, the ending perhaps ambiguous. This is what's throwing everyone off? Am I such a sadistic perv that I'm unable to see how anything - contentwise (as opposed to contextwise) - should have proven so daunting and off-putting to the average R-rated film theatergoer? Has society's sensiblities gone on a leave of absense? First of all, the sex scenes looked like standard-issue sex scenes to me. Oh, maybe they engage in one maneuver that you won't find in many general release films but which is likely also practiced in the privacy of many audience members bedroooms. Otherwise, neither the techniqe, presentation, nor running time of these scenes seemed excessive or out-of-the-ordinary to me. If anything, they're overdressed! Second, the movie wasn't even very violent, as the actual violent scenes were few and far between. It's true that the aftermath of the carnage tended to be quite graphic, but the camera always fleetingly cuts away after a second or so, and all that's causing the aftermath are bullets, not some torture implementation the camera forces us to linger on. What IS violent is the tension and the growing sense of dread that permeates the film, but audiences who've seen Silence of the Lambs should be familiar with this. (As for that 'ambiguous' ending, it seemed clear to me!) If someone genuinely does not like History of Violence, fair enough. That's their opinion. But if the sex scenes and violent set-pieces are the barriers that forbid audiences from appreciating this film, then I'm really at a loss for words.

[kaytodd]

A History Of Violence
*** out of ****

I expected I would have chosen something much lighter for my first post-Katrina film (the last film I saw was Broken Flowers the weekend before the storm) but I made a good choice.

Very well-written; I would be very surprised if it is not nominated for adapted screenplay.

The acting is first rate across the board, though I do not see any Oscar noms. This looks like it will be a strong year for male leads so Viggo, while he has the best chance among the cast, will probably not make the top five. But I hope there is a lot of buzz for him. His character is completely credible in all of his "incarnations" (those of you who have seen the film know what I mean). Some have criticized his character as being "colorless" and "dull" but when you think of the nature of his character, he has to be somewhat low key. Viggo and Cronenberg do a great job and make all good decisions with this character.

I have seen Viggo in a lot of films but never where he was the "star." He is a good actor but I never thought he had the charisma or presence to be the star of a film. I was wrong. You understand why Maria Bello fell in love with him and her continued passion for him, despite what he puts her through.

I have read some supporting actor buzz for Ed Harris, Maria Bello and especially for William Hurt. Excellent and entertaining performances all, I would just be surprised if five better performances were not nominated. Hurt gives a surprisingly humorous performance that, to me, added a lot of entertainment value. He and Cronenberg made some good decisions with Hurt's character.

Speaking of entertainment value, Cronenberg did a great job with the choreography and editing of the fight scenes and shootout scenes. Does anyone think this films has an outside shot at an editing nom? Besides the action scenes, I think the film is well paced, it does not drag anywhere, and it seems just right at a brisk 96 minutes (brisk for such a multi-layered story). Not likely, but I hope there is some buzz.

I thought the heart of the film was the relationship between Bello and Viggo. I'll bet some people will be surprised about the graphic sex scenes between those characters. But the passion she feels for him is to me an impoprtant element of the story and affects a lot of what happens. The nudity and sex were not at all gratuitous.

But when all is said and done, this is a very well done genre picture. I strongly encourage all of you to see it but it is not Oscar material, IMO.

Oscar prospects: adapted screenplay and Viggo Mortenson for Lead Actor.

[Penelope]

Ya know, I've been looking at some of the reviews and I keep seeing the same phrases repeated over and over--"intelligent," "brave," etc. I disagree with that entirely.

There's no depth of character in the film whatsoever. I mentioned that it is like an episode of E/R, and I didn't mean that simply as a reference to Clooney's resumé; instead, the movie plays like the pilot for a television program about a newsroom in the 1950s, just like so many of the procedural dramas currently littering the TV landscape (such as CSI, Law & Order, etc.). It's all talk and procedure, but no character, no drama. You learn a lot about how TV news programs were made in the early days of television, but little about the people actually involved. This is fine in a continuing drama, where the characters can be enhanced week after week, but is fatal in a stand-alone film--it leaves the viewer begging for something more to hang onto.

And what's so brave about a movie that stacks the deck so heavily in favor of its heroes? Much is made of the fact that McCarthy is seen only in film/video footage from the era, but I think this was a mistake. McCarthy is one of the great American villains, but the movie makes him appear to be an ineffectual dunderhead, and not particularly threatening. And there's no sense of real history in the film--for all of the efforts to recreate the CBS newsroom in the '50s, and for all the portrayal of backhanded nostalgia (the cigarette smoking, the interview with Liberace) there's no acknowledgement of all that was happening in the wider world of the era. Because the movie is so isolated in the world of the newsroom, filled with anonymous people, I never had a sense of how great was the danger, of how vitally important was the crusade.

It's more than just the frustration of having to drive across the state to see the movie; the movie is simply a massively missed opportunity.