The Official Review Thread of 2005

[Penelope]

I do think so, Sonic. It's my interpretation that Cronenberg is juxtaposing the sex scenes (both of which are unconventional for a "mainstream" film) with the violence, to point out a disturbing aspect of American society (I'm assuming, though perhaps it's a universal--and contradictory--aspect of human nature): that the violence--the horrific killing of people--is celebrated, while human love and desire makes us uncomfortable--we'd rather see people get shot to death than see them make love. And, I didn't mention it initially, but when the movie ended, there were scattered groans and boos (but I think that is because the ending is deliberately ambiguous, something that the masses aren't use to, probably).

I have rarely experienced such a vocal audience; I have to admit, even I gasped once or twice. But perhaps that is indication of how engrossing the film is; the movie pulls the audience in so many different directions that your bearings--atuned to the traditions of the genre--are completely displaced.

[Sonic Youth]

I haven't seen a History of Violence yet - I haven't seen a new movie in a month! - so I'm only glancing at the reviews below. But Mister Tee, I think yours is the first detailed review that doesn't mention the audience reaction. I found it very intriguing that most people, both here and on other message boards, are doing so. And Jonathan Rosenbaum said in his (four star) review that experiencing the audience reactions, be they appropriate or inappropriate, is part of the overall concept of this film and perhaps Cronenburg intended it to be this way. Sort of an interactive experiment. So how did your audience take to the film? And do you think there's anything to this, Tee or BJ or Penelope? Me, I think it's a fascinating notion, but I've yet to put it to the test.

[Mister Tee]

It's hard to really discuss where A History of Violence goes wrong without committing spoilers, so, be warned: I will spoil something.

I wouldn't say the film falls apart in the last half-hour. It continues to hold interest, and more or less resolves itself. And the final scene I think is quite fine (and perfectly staged by Cronenberg). But from the whole time Mortensen set out to meet Wiliam Hurt, I was keenly aware that I would have preferred the film going in another direction -- spending alot more time showing the effect on the current family, rather than wrapping up the relationship with the former, abandoned family. It wasn't a bad ending; it just wasn't the best possible one.

It may be that the story inevitably loses some steam once the ambiguity goes out of it -- i.e., once Mortensen speaks his fateful setence to Ed Harris. Before that, we were in this wonderful world where we didn't know what to believe. Mortensen did a great job of answering questions in a way evasive enough we didn't quite trust him, but not so obviously hiding a guilty secret that we awaited its inevitable unmasking (like, say, Nolte in Prince of Tides). His fluttery way answering questions might just be a personality quirk. (And the specific question the sheriff asks does yield an honest "no") At the same time, the demands of the story don't make one or another outcome obvious -- I can imagine a story where Mortensen's facility with violence simply fools even professionals into thinking he has a background in killing, whereas it's simply something he accesses naturally when the situation calls out for it (as happens to his son at school). This is not something like Music Box, where, if the father isn't a crypto-Nazi, there's really no plot. A story where everyone believes Mortensen must be a career killer because he shows bravery in a key moment is another, maybe deeper story.

The other problem with the last half hour was, it made clear how wispy the story background was -- which may have something to do with it being based on a graphic novel. The graphic novel genre came around somewhat after my time, so I risk being labelled an old fart when I challenge its artistic bona fides. I'm sure good work can be done within its parameters, but the stuff I've seen adapted to screen (Road to Perdition, From Hell) has been rather thin at the core. God knows the history of cinema shows massive difficulty in translating the density of literary novels to the screen, but the best efforts have at least attempted to convey a full, wide-ranging world. Graphic novels, in my experience, begin with a bare-bones world, so there's no deep background to subtly draw on. I was aware during the first hour of Violence that alot of questions weren't being addressed that I'd have explored (when did the couple meet? how much did she know of his background?), but I accepted that as a less-is-more kind of presentation. When, however, I got to that pulpy encounter with Hurt and his men (which included a bad laugh or two, for me), I began to feel that less was less -- I was not having the story shaded in to my satisfaction, and I started to suspect that the source material was at fault.

After all that, I'll say this is the most satisfying American film I've seen so far this year -- but its chances of staying in that position are nil, unless we have the most disappointing Fall season in memory. I thought Cronenberg did a superb job throughout, and Mortensen, Bello and Holmes were quite excellent (I actually like Harris alot, too -- I just thought the part limited). I'm less sanguine about its Oscar prospects than I was going in, but could still see Cronenberg, Bello, and maybe Howard Shore scoring nominations.

[Penelope]

Hmm, well, what can I say. I do agree that, of course, I would love to see Cronenberg nominated, just as much as Hurt, even moreso, really, since Hurt already has an Oscar; and, yes, I'd love to see Ashton Holmes be recognized for his performance (I love the way his whole character is played, you wonder throughout, IS he really gay?).

But, again, I wasn't emotionally affected by the family scenes. BJ mentions Bello's crying scene, and sorry, but I thought it was the weakest scene in the entire film. It was frustrating, because I really like Bello, but here I thought her performance was a tad erratic, some scenes she beautifully nailed it, other scenes it seemed like she was trying too hard.

As much as I admire what the film was saying, and the way it was saying it, again, I just didn't have any emotional connection to what was going on in front of me, and I have to say that my mother said the same thing last night. It's a solid ***1/2 film, and should be seen, but, sorry, that's just how I felt.

[Big Magilla]

I found this to be Cronenberg's most accessible film since Dead Ringers or maybe The Fly. I have to agree with BJ. I found the first two thirds of the film riveting, the performances of Maira Bello and Ashton Holmes as Viggo Mortensen's wife and son to be the best in the film.

Mortensen, in his best performance since The Indian Runner, was good, but his Oscar chances are iffy in a crowded field. Ed Harris was just playing another variation on his patented loud angry man character. William Hurt was extremely cartoonish to me. The jokes in this section of the film fell flat.

Fortunately I saw the film with a more mature audience than BJ. No one laughed at the violence. In fact, quite the opposite, a woman behind me kept shouting "oh my God".

Oscar prospects overall are spotty. If the film's a huge success, Cronenberg may draw a wild card best director nod but I don't see the film getting the blanket support from the Academy to win a best picture slot. Mortensen could get in as the fifth best actor nominee behind Ledger (looking as impressive in the trailer for Casanova as he does in the one for Brokeback Mountain), Phoenix, Strathairn and Hoffman, but we'll have to see. Ironically his closest compettion seems to be an actor Croneneberg has previously direced, The Spider's Ralph Fiennes for either The Constant Gardener or The White Conuntess.

Maira Bello actually has a shot at supporting actress. Holmes, though better than Harris or Hurt, doesn't have the name recognition to win a nod over his more famous co-stars, though I hope if he doesn't get nominated that they don't either.

[The Original BJ]

Interesting, interesting . . .

I found much of History of Violence to be VERY moving. I remember one moment in particular when Bello's character breaks into tears and the entire emotional weight of her character's fear and confusion moved me to tears as well. And yes, Cronenberg's direction is superb and keeps you very off-balance throughout. If this film gets only one nomination, it should clearly be for Cronenberg as director. Not William Hurt.

But I agree I have no idea what the word of mouth will be. Many in my audience seemed to be with it, cheering with lots of applause and laughing throughout. But afterwards I saw a lot of puzzled faces and overheard many "so, what was that about?" comments. And the groans and laughter during the second sex scene and Bello's nude scene certainly came from an audience that didn't really know entirely what they were getting into.

I have no idea how the Academy will respond to this film. I could see it doing fairly well (director, supporting actress, screenplay, perhaps editing) nods, but I could also see it getting close to zippo. The audience response is going to be an important factor for this one, methinks.

[Penelope]

Hmm, ahem. I loved A History of Violence, but my take is somewhat the opposite of BJ's, and I can see why it might, indeed, have difficulty with the Academy. See, as much as I loved the film--the mad brilliance of the direction, which isn't just taut and exciting, but also, as with any Cronenberg venture, just a bit loopy, daring, original, shocking, unsettling (and there are absolutely marvelously composed scenes in this film, quite breathtaking, in fact), as well as the acting--nevertheless, I wasn't fully engaged in the movie on an emotional level, but purely on a cerebral plain--until, that is, William Hurt turns up in the final reel. Sorry, BJ, he wasn't a cartoon to me; as my mother said, as we walked out of the theater, he provided the audience with not only some comic relief from the mayhem (you're laughing at the same time that you're horrified), but he also etched the entire life of his character in less than 10 minutes. As far as I'm concerned, if the film receives only one nomination, it should be Hurt for Supporting Actor.

But will the Academy go for the whole, er, shebang? I'm not sure that the film will fully get the mainstream success that I had expected (or that it deserves). The movie is deliberately unsettling (in ways that are unexpected, and quite pointed) and unconventional--well, unconventional to the masses--the couple sitting next to me were clearly baffled by the film, the woman constantly mumbling "this is a weird movie" and the guy grumbling "enough" during the second sex scene. At the same time, there were plenty of us who were totally into the movie, entranced and appreciative. So, word of mouth will be difficult to gauge.

The other thing to affect the Academy is, as I say, the fact that the movie is more engaging on a cerebral level than it is on an emotional level. The movie is deliberately ambiguous, pulling you in so many different directions, keeping you off balance, engaging your mind...but not quite your heart. See, for comparison, The Fly, which, to me, isn't just a great horror film (with the usual subversive comedy) but also a devastating romantic tearjerker--that final scene with Ronnie and the Brundle-fly had me in tears--and Dead Ringers is, essentially, a tragedy. A History of Violence is a tragedy, but you think about it more than you feel it. And since the Academy tends to feel more than think, it may, indeed, but a tough sell for them.

[The Original BJ]

Wish I'd posted this last weekend but I've only just had the time . . .

A History of Violence - ***1/2

I wanted to love it so much, not only because of the superb reviews but also because the first two thirds are near masterpiece level, I think. The way Cronenberg turns even the most mundane scenes into rivetingly suspenseful set pieces, along with maintaining a rather hefty dose of heart throughout, creates a fascinating and very complex portrait of the crumbling of an American family

Viggo Mortensen underplays very nicely, but it's Maria Bello who's the firecracker here. Like fellow Oscar buzzee Rachel Weisz, I've always thought Bello was one of the most underused actresses in Hollywood, and she's just electric in this film. As for lead/supporting debates, she could go either way. Her role most reminds me of Spacek in In the Bedroom, where she gets much of the film's emotional scenes but then disappears for nearly all of the third act.

And that's the problem, the third act.

(SLIGHT SPOILERS FOLLOW)

The dynamic of Mortensen's family (wife and two kids) is so fascinating, so powerful, and so true that when the film's last act all but leaves them behind to focus instead on a finale out of any routine action thriller it feels like such a cop-out, such a disappointment. Plus, when William Hurt arrives playing an absolute cartoon it lessens the impact of the first two act's raw honesty. And the ending feels less appropriately ambiguous than an abrupt conclusion to a terrific premise all dressed up with nowhere to go.

(END OF SPOILERS)

I don't want to undersell the film, because for a little over an hour I was absolutely dazzled, but that end is too problematic for me to really love.

Also, I had the misfortune of viewing the film in a packed preview house (in the second row, no less), but with an audience that couldn't stop laughing and/or applauding at many of the film's more violent moments. Do people no longer understand the difference between a shlocky B-level action thriller and one of the more disturbing and unsettling films of the year?

[anonymous1980]

I saw two very good films today which are surprisingly, not all that different from one another. Evil corporations both took a beating in them.

LAND OF THE DEAD
Cast: Simon Baker, John Leguizamo, Dennis Hopper, Asia Argento, Robert Joy, Eugene Clark, Joanne Boland.
Dir: George A. Romero

Though 28 Days Later and the remake of Dawn of the Dead both provide well-crafted (and wonderfully disgusting) scares, no one quite makes zombie films better than George A. Romero. Scares are combined with a pointed attack on greedy capitalism. It's a good ride.

Oscar Prospects: Deserves a mention in Makeup.

Grade: A-

THE CONSTANT GARDENER
Cast: Ralph Fiennes, Rachel Weisz, Danny Huston, Bill Nighy, Pete Poslethwaite, Richard McCabe, Hubert Kounde.
Dir: Fernando Meirelles

Meirelles's sophomore effort after City of God is more mature piece of work. Narrative problems aside, the film's still gripping thanks to great performances by Fiennes and Weisz. Great score and cinematography.

Oscar Prospects: Deserves nods for Original Score, Best Supporting Actress (Weisz) and Best Cinematography. May get in Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Fiennes) and Best Adapted Screenplay in a slow year.

Grade: B+

[Precious Doll]

I was surprised just how good Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit was. It's one of those rare commerical films that I didn't want to end. Very charming and a huge step up from the rather stale Chicken Run.

[rudeboy]

I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for the Wallace and Gromit movie to take the cake this year.

Oh, I hope not. The trailer looks dreadful. They just about worked as shorts, but there's something supremely irritating about the cosy, cheese-obsessed view of rural northern England in those movies - and about Nick Park and his stupid oversized bow ties.

Miyazaki all the way!

[The Original BJ]

Saw two more **1/2 films . . .

Proof - Don't know why Paltrow is enjoying the good notices, because I thought she was the film's biggest problem. She completely misses the humor Mary-Louise Parker found in the role and thus, her character seems so unlikable and the entire proceedings so dull and overdramatic. The attempts to move the film out of the claustrophobic, single setting of the play similarly fall flat; most of these scenes are pointless at best and out of character at worst. Hopkins and Gyllenhaal are fine, adequate, but the real star here is Hope Davis. I don't think her snobbish sister here is anywhere near her one-two punch of American Splendor and The Secret Lives of Dentists in 2003, but she livens up the film considerably whenever she's onscreen. But that score! One of the most poorly used in a recent film, never allowing the characters time to speak in silence, and stealing center stage during every important scene. (The end of first act revelation feels almost like a toss-off!) No Oscar noms, I think. Paltrow's buzz reminds me of her buzz for Sylvia a few years back: it will fade fast once stronger contenders arrive.

Tim Burton's Corpse Bride - This one should be a definite contender for Damien's Dramamine Award. Stuffed to the brim with loud noises, in-your-face animation, and a frantic desire to overwhelm at EVERY moment, the film ultimately plays like Nightmare Before Xmas Lite. The look is similar, but far less detailed, and the musical numbers are both completely forgettable and extremely unnecessary. It's over in a quick 70 minutes, but it's as predictable and pointless as they come. There aren't as many postmodern references as in other recent animated films, but there still are too many. (Please let no animated character ever use the line, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give again" complete with "Tara's Theme" playing over the soundtrack EVER again.) A likely Animated Feature nominee but it's no Howl's Moving Castle and I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for the Wallace and Gromit movie to take the cake this year.

[anonymous1980]

CINDERELLA MAN
Cast: Russell Crowe, Renee Zellweger, Paul Giamatti, Craig Bierko, Paddy Considine, Bruce McGill, Ron Canada, Nicholas Campbell, Rosemarie DeWitt.
Dir: Ron Howard

They should've titled this one Seaboxer or A Beautiful Glove since it pretty much follows the exact same formula. Solidly made but cinematically dull like a sanitized Raging Bull. The cast is good but Zellweger is awful, a grotesque amalgamation of Ruby from Cold Mountain, Roxie from Chicago and Mrs. John Nash from A Beautiful Mind.

Oscar Prospects: Giamatti may get a Best Supporting Actor nod but it's gonna be solely as a consolation for snubbing him for Sideways.

Grade: C+

[anonymous1980]

Saw two movies today.

RED EYE:
Cast: Rachel McAdams, Cillian Murphy, Brian Cox, Jack Scalia, Angela Paton, Jayma Mays, Max Kasch, Laura Johnson, Brittany Oaks.
Dir: Wes Craven

Yes, it's a formula thriller but it works quite well thanks largely to the appeal of the two leads. Well-crafted and reminiscent of Hitchcock, the film's gripping and holds your attention throughout most of its running time. Not a bad way to spend 90 minutes.

Oscar Prospects: None.

Grade: B

THE BROTHERS GRIMM
Cast: Matt Damon, Heath Ledger, Peter Stormare, Lena Headey, Jonathan Pryce, Monica Bellucci, Mackenzie Crook, Richard Ridings, Tomas Hanak, Laura Greenwood.
Dir: Terry Gilliam

I can't believe this flick got bad reviews. Granted, it's not Gilliam's best work and it IS a bit of a mess, it is a very fun mess to see. Largely effective blending of laughs, scares and the fantastic. Deserved better than what it got.

Oscar Prospects: The score is good. So is the art direction.

Grade: B

[criddic3]

As for me, I don't know.

Irvin, I wonder if this is one of those cases where the middle-of-the-road, benefit-of-the-doubt sentiments doesn't work. I haven't seen Manderlay yet, but on the basis of Lars Von Trier's awful Dogville, I'm not expecting too much. Considering the talent involved in that film, it should have at least been better researched. It's like the director has one political view of this country, based on bits of history and then applies that sentiment to these overblown movies.

Granted, the topic of slavery is an easier target, since there is no denying that it took place here. That was a definitely dark period in American history. Yet, I bet that he tries to tie in modern-day American sensibilities to the history of slavery and, probably, Indian-moving policies of our past government adminstrations of the 17 and 1800's.

I will see the movie and make a fair judgment, but this guy is too content to use generalizations and speculation to make his points about how bad America is.

I am glad to hear that Bryce Dallas Howard does well here. She showed great promise in The Village.