http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Tue, 5 Aug 2003 02:01:08 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/05/020108.php Unfashionable Observationsxx/xy is a modern tragedy that thrills as it kills. I was amazed with how utterly provocative and honest this movie was to its subjects, its victims, and ultimately, its audience. This movie tells the story of three friends who experiment with each other in the ways of love and sex in college. Ten years later, they find that their experiences have not only haunted them, but have also bound them--tragically so. The more they try to escape their carefree lives of yesteryear, the more they are drawn to each other. Unfortunately, nothing in their present-day lives allows for them to exercise that spirit of destructive authentcity that first united them a decade before in college. As adults, they find themselves trapped by their circumstances in tragic lives of inauthentic formalities and unreasonable expectations. Austin Chick's movie stands for the almost-unbearable proposition that what once was found has now been lost. The relationship between Coles and Sam is the most heart-wrenching that I have seen since that of Ben and Sera in Mike Figgis' Leaving Las Vegas (1994). We sense a certain sado-masochism at play: When Sam finds out that Coles has slept with another girl, she goes and sleeps with another guy to get back at him. And yet the outcome of this sadistic power-play is a strengthening of their relationship--for they force each other to recognize the power each has over the other's heart. It is through pain that they show their love for each other. And certainly this is not absurd or nonsensical, for the people we love are also the people most capable of hurting us. In Coles' and Sam's logic of love, the one who can most hurt is also the one who is most loved. Mark Ruffalo delivers a breakthrough performance as the engimatic yet sensitive Coles, while Maya Stange is perfect as the sweet and emotional Sam. Together, they have a chemistry rarely seen on screen that just oozes with the rough kind of passion that the story demands. This dark movie was meant for these two bright lights. "There is no room for honesty in a healthy relationship," Coles laments at one pivotal point in the movie. Exactly so. Honesty isn't reserved for healthy relationships, but rather for full ones--those that encompass the pain as well as the pleasure, and the hate as well as the love; those that take life as it is, warts and all. For this reason, the end of the movie, tragic as it may be, could not have been any other way. It is precisely this sincerity of storytelling that makes this one of the best movies of the year. I'd give Austin Chick's xx/xy an A.[See this author's blog at Unfashionable Observations.] Video7403@blogcritics.org Tue, 5 Aug 2003 02:01:08 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/31/120123.php Unfashionable ObservationsSuper Troopers is a movie that has taken a life of its own since its release in 2001. Word of mouth has done wonders for this little comedy about the lives of state troopers on the Canadian border.The first thing to be said about this movie is that the very first scene is one of the funniest scenes I have seen in a while. It is so bizarre and hilarious that you don't know if it's supposed to be a drug-induced hallucination of one of the characters, or whether it's actually happening in the story. In either case, what makes it so fresh and enjoyable is the fact that you can envision it happening to you. Especially along the Canadian border! It is a brilliant practical joke, and we all know there are people crazy enough to do it. Unfortunately, the movie takes a deep nosedive after that initial scene, and is left with a hackneyed love story, one of the most unbearably annoying characters in all of cinema (Farva), and an infinitely predictable outcome. Of course, we shouldn't lose ourselves in the details: This is, after all, a comedy. But even if we just focus on the comedic aspects of the film, we find that there are very few instances of comic genius in the rest of the movie. Other instances that attempt to channel the first scene turn out to be rather uninspired (like how many times one of the troopers can say "meow" during the issuance of a speeding ticket).The rest of the movie drags on like a bad Police Academy movie, full of insipid shenanigans and churlish bickering. It's good for a few laughs, especially at first, but it ultimately leaves you pondering how a movie with such potential could turn into such a mediocre flick so quickly.I'd give Jay Chandrasekhar's Super Troopers a C.[Visit this author's blog at Unfashionable Observations.] Video7354@blogcritics.org Thu, 31 Jul 2003 12:01:23 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/30/122509.php Unfashionable ObservationsI was impressed by how unimpressive Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life really was. About the only movie that I've seen this summer that rivals Cradle of Life's redundant inanity is Legally Blonde 2. Cradle of Life is the second installment of the Tomb Raider series, starring the oh-so sexy Angelina Jolie. I'm not much of an action fan, but I am somewhat of an Angelina fan. Somewhat.I thought her stint as a psycho-bitch in Girl, Interrupted was well deserving of her Oscar. However, ever since then, Jolie's work has been less than spectacular (The Bone Collector, Gone in 60 Seconds, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider). One can understand Jolie's reluctance to be typecast as the druggie psychotic a la Gia and Girl, Interrupted, but she has now fallen in a sort of action-movie bad-girl mold that really isn't doing much for her. The problem with action movies is that they are rarely about individual characters. Usually, they are about deadly schemes, or gangs of wrongdoers, or people trying to save the world. They are always larger and more ambitious than they should be, and this hardly ever bodes well for their stars. Indeed, most of the scenes that people consider the "really good" scenes in an action movie probably don't involve the star of the movie at all, but rather a silly stunt double.Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that action movies are bad per se. I'm just saying that the focus of an action movie is usually not on the actors or the acting. Insofar as that is the case, perhaps people with huge acting potential should steer clear of these roles.In any case, Jolie embraces her role as Lara Croft once more, and does as mediocre a job as could be expected. However, I don't think this is a critique of Jolie's performance, but rather of the form of the action movie itself, which would not allow her to be anything but mediocre. Attempting to be anything more than that would be an exercise in futility. Alas. I'd give Jan De Bont's Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life a D+.[Visit this author's blog page at Unfashionable Observations.] Video7327@blogcritics.org Wed, 30 Jul 2003 12:25:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/28/112521.php Unfashionable ObservationsGary Ross' Seabiscuit is a predictable little movie about how the little guy wins. Literally.The movie is a kind of docu-drama, presenting a mini-history of the booming 1920s and the aftereffects of the Depression in the 1930s. While I'm all for learning about history, I thought this was misplaced in a movie about a boy and his horse. The unintended effect was that it removed the movie from its sentimental story about particular human beings, and placed it on a historical, objective, and impersonal footing from the very beginning.What added to the feeling of cold removedness was the fact that the director chose quick cuts to further the story line from the time of the booming 20s to the depression of the 30s. This kind of fast-forwarding certainly didn't help the audience establish any meaningful connection with the characters. As a result, when we finally get to the movie's present time, we may know an awful lot about the character's histories, but nothing about who they really are. I suppose the second half of the movie tries to acquaint us with who these characters really are. But it's an awfully roundabout way of doing so. Indeed, the movie as a whole seemed rather slow on account of this. Aside from these technical problems, Seabiscuit is like any other movie about the underdog (or underhorse, as the case may be) who wins in the end. However, the movie was probably a little better than the usual fare because of the solid performances by Tobey Maguire, and especially Chris Cooper. Coming off his Oscar-winning performance in Adaptation, Chris Cooper was remarkably restrained and self-disciplined as Tom Smith, the horse's trainer. Both he and Tobey Maguire showed true empathy for the horse, thereby turning Seabiscuit into a character with its own idiosyncratic personality that the audience could appreciate on a more human level.If this movie tells us anything, it's that Chris Cooper is the supporting actor par excellence. Given that this role was in stark contrast to his stint as a toothless orchid thief in Adaptation, one can only marvel at what this man is capable of.I'd give Gary Ross' Seabiscuit a B-.[Visit this author's blog at Unfashionable Observations.] Video7277@blogcritics.org Mon, 28 Jul 2003 11:25:21 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/26/200755.php Unfashionable ObservationsPeter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures (1994) is a movie about two teenage girls who have an "unhealthy" relationship with each other. The suggestion is that they are lesbians, but I think such a jump to conclusion is misgiven. After all, they're just 15. In any case, they're creative types who are bored and disgusted with the mundaneness of the everyday world. In order to escape their cages, they invent a world of their own, rife with kings, queens, knights, and royal scandals. They start out by making clay figurines in an attempt to give life to the world in their minds, and soon enough, the clay figures take on a reality of their own. Because the two girls are both integral parts of the world they have created (one imagines herself as the queen, the other imagines herself as the king), they become inseperable in the real world. Their imagined world manifests itself in the real world through this intense, "unhealthy" relationship.The ideas presented in this movie are genuine, interesting, and worthy of one's contemplation. That much is undisputed. However, I thought that Peter Jackson showed remarkably little restraint in the making of this film. The scenes where the clay figures come to life are rather silly and awkward, and the first few scenes involving the two girls just running and laughing, and running and laughing, and running and laughing, were just too much for me to handle. The two girls are played by Kate Winslet and Melanie Lynskey. Neither of their performances are noteworthy. I always felt like they were acting, and not living, the roles. I didn't find that the chemistry that their roles required was present in their portrayals. Also, the inflections in Kate Winslet's voice were rather disconcerting. Her voice sometimes reminded me of the voice of Linda Blair while possessed by Satan in The Exorcist.This movie is worth watching only for the ideas that it attempts to present, but not for the actual presentation of those ideas. There's a sense that these girls have such a creative spirit about them that they transcend the morality of the everyday world. They are akin to Nietzschean overmen in that sense. Indeed, the girls' final, harrowing act together confirms this. However, there can be no such claim to greatness for the film itself. The greatness lies only the story.I'd give Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures a C+.[Visit this author's blog page at Unfashionable Observations.] Video7231@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2003 20:07:55 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/20/001126.php Unfashionable ObservationsSwimming Pool is a sexy psychological thriller that is at all times grounded in the mundaneness of the everyday. And I say this because this was unmistakeably intentional on the part of director Francois Ozon. He uses the banality of the first half of the movie as a contrast and foil to the second half of the movie, which is full of odd mind games. This movie proceeds at a snail's pace, and the plot doesn't really kick in until about the last half hour. Needless to say, this movie has a very specific target audience in mind: patient brainiacs. For example, during one beautifully subtle scene in the beginning, we find the protagonist, a writer of crime novels, taking out her computer from her suitcase and proceeding to plug in the power source. That's all of the scene. It's something we have all done, and can all identify with. And it's also something rarely seen in film. Most films don't have the time or the patience for such minor detail.But life is about minor details. I for one enjoyed the first half of this movie quite a bit. That is, the half of the movie that had no plot. Go figure.The second half is where Ozon tricks us in order to convert this movie into a "psychological thriller." Personally, I didn't think his trick worked that well. It has been done much more artfully in the past by other directors of note (Clouzot, Hitchcock, Shyamalan, Amenabar). So I didn't much care for the second half.The cinematography throughout the film was excellent. Lots of pastels contrasting with dark and bright reds, so as to suggest a dissonance in a place of seeming harmony. Shot in the South of France, the views and set designs are quaint yet distinctive, giving the movie a very intimate feel.Finally, Charlotte Rampling is convincing and comfortable as Sarah Morton, and the lucious Ludivine Sagnier is simply brilliant as the sexually tenacious Julie. Their interactions, especially in the first half of the movie, are sincere and utterly engaging. Sagnier's performance will not easily be forgotten.I'd give the first half of Francois Ozon's Swimming Pool an A, but the second half a C. Hence, the movie as a whole gets a B.[View this author's blog at Unfashionable Observations.] Video7060@blogcritics.org Sun, 20 Jul 2003 00:11:26 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/15/122345.php Unfashionable ObservationsWhale Rider is a neat little movie about cultural revival, and the personal sacrifices that people have to make to account for it. The movie presents us with a paradox: sometimes, the revival of history and tradition requires a jolt from new, unpopular, progressive, and even dangerous ideas. It was this dichotomy of looking towards the future in order to preserve the past that held me captive thoughout the film. The story is quite simple. The Maori tribe of New Zealand expects their leader's grandson to lead them out of their time of cultural crisis according to legend. However, the boy dies at childbirth, but his twin sister survives. The movie details the girl's struggle to prove herself to a very conservative, aging leader (her grandfather!) who holds her personally responsible for her brother's death and the tribe's demise.It sounds a little cheesy, but the performances are quite commendable. Keisha Castle-Hughes, who plays the little girl, is surprisingly sincere and versatile as an actress. (She's like 10 years old!) Plus, the woman who plays the grandmother in the film is perfect as the grandfather-leader's foil. She is emotionally and spiritually healthy as the loving woman behind the scenes, while he is (ironically enough) the bitter unbeliever who has lost control over his tribe, his culture, and his own identity. Indeed, sometimes strength comes from the lowest ranks.This movie has been described as a "crowd pleaser" by many critics, and surely it is that. However, it is also something more. It is a testament to the power of people to redeem themselves through sheer will. And what is will if not the most fundamental aspect of faith?I'd give Niki Caro's Whale Rider a B+.[Visit this author's blog page at Unfashionable Observations.] Video6959@blogcritics.org Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:23:45 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/13/170448.php Unfashionable ObservationsI just saw Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde. Wow. What a disaster. This movie showed absolutely no restraint at all. Everything was over the top, excessive to the point of torture, and not very funny at all, to boot. This is, without a doubt, Reese Witherspoon's worst movie to date. And I'm a Reese Witherspoon fan! (She was absolutely brilliant in Election, a real gem of movie.) The first Legally Blonde movie was like a burst of fresh air. Perhaps I was taken by it because I was in the midst of applying to law schools when I first encountered it. The movie was a commentary on the American dream, but unlike American Beauty, it was not as bent on declaring it a sham. But neither was it intent on shamelessly fawning over its possibilities. There was always a sense of sacrifice and loss attached to Elle Woods' success. (She lost her love, her place in the world in L.A., her blissful ignorance, her innocent outlook, etc. And what higher price is there to pay than one's innocence?) Therefore, we never felt cheated by her success, as if it were too good to be true. So many movies focusing on the American dream fall to this cliche of insincerity. Legally Blonde 2 is not about the American dream. It is about gay dogs. And purile politics. And of course, stuffy office-mates who lighten up in the end. There is nothing original, nothing to be learned, nothing to talk about. Eminently predictable, this movie trudges along tiresomely, as if going through the motions of a movie simply because the producers knew that any sequel to Legally Blonde, no matter how awful, would make some money at the box office. And they were right. This is an excellent example of form over substance. Unfortunately, the form is so unavailing and unredeeming that I question whether it can hold itself to be "over" anything at all.I'd give Charles Herman-Wurmfeld's Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde a D.[Visit this author's blog page at Unfashionable Observations.] Video6914@blogcritics.org Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:04:48 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/13/145635.php Unfashionable ObservationsWhimsically playful. Gracefully self-aware. Sentimentally lighthearted at its core. What movie am I talking about? No, not Legally Blonde 2 (although I have yet to see it). I'm talking about T3. That's right--the third Terminator movie.This movie is full of one-liners and self-referential puns, at all times self-conscious of its past. It's a kind of Scream for the action genre. And it works. I was afraid of watching T3 for several reasons. James Cameron's T2, its masterful predecessor, is a hard act to follow. Plus, the Terminator movies have become such an ingrained part of our popular culture, that making another one is risking an unintentional distortion of that image that we have of the other two movies, and thereby jeopardizing our respect for them. And most importantly, I was afraid to watch because Arnold is approaching senior-citizen-discount status.But T3 manages to pull it off for one very simple reason: it is conscious of these concerns, and hence adapts itself to them. Instead of being an overtly serious movie a la T1 and T2, it pokes fun at itself and its predecessors. Indeed, T1 and T2 are decidedly darker, more "adult" films. While the original two films sought to establish an impending sense of doom with a tension-laden atmosphere, T3 concerns itself much more with character development and interaction. A lot of it focuses on the friendship between John Connor (Nick Stahl) and the Terminator, and the budding romantic relationship between Kate (Claire Danes) and John Connor. This was a welcome change in style, for there was a danger of simply repeating what the first two movies had already accomplished quite successfully. I think that was the problem with The Matrix: Reloaded. It took itself way too seriously after having established an iconoclastic style that just didn't seem very iconoclastic the second time around.One of my favorite scenes is when Kate reveals to John that his was her first kiss. It's a very touching moment, and it is cleverly interrupted by a very dry and sardonic comment by the Terminator. These little, subtle interactions that are so full of heart make the movie a worthwhile follow-up to what is perhaps the best action movie of the 1990s.I'd give Jonathan Mostow's Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines a B+.[See more reviews by this author at Unfashionable Observations.] Video6913@blogcritics.org Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:56:35 EDT