Birth New Line Cinema
Starring Nicole Kidman, Cameron Bright Danny Huston and Lauren Bacall.
Directed by Jonathan Glazer
Rated: R
Theatrical release: early 2005
(For Nicole's Mia Farrow wig)
Reviewed by Shel Desormeaux
Controversy swirled around this movie long before it hit the film festival circuit. Directed by Jonathan Glazer, this bewildering little picture, a drastic departure from his previous, more enjoyable release Sexy Beast, has been both lauded and reviled for various reasons, most commonly the intimate scenes between Anna (Nicole Kidman) and her ten year old would-be paramour (Cameron Bright).
The young boy shows up in Anna’s apartment during the flurry of activity of her mother’s (a wryly gentle Lauren Bacall) birthday party and claims that he is the reincarnation of her first husband, dead for ten years. Anna, her fiancé and the rest of her family (all present) are unnerved by the claims, but attempt to shrug it off as preteen infatuation. But the young Sean is persistent, and in her still-present grief, Anna begins to believe the boy is indeed her Sean. She becomes adamant, worrying her family and alienating her fiancé, and is almost desperate to prove that her husband has indeed returned to be with her.
What was supposed to be controversial were the much balked about scenes of Anna and Sean in a bathtub, and of the two sharing a kiss. Frankly, they could have been a mother and son, but I guess in the context of the situation, most people thought it was, well, icky. And, rest assured, it is. Nicole Kidman is a more than capable actress, and she’s too good for the script she has to work with, which turned her into a frantic, flaky specter of a grieving woman. The entire atmosphere of the movie was jittery, not helped at all by the jingly tune stuck into awkward moments, reminiscent of Christmas commercials for a department store.
None of the characters were particularly solid, not even the stalwart, patient fiancé, played by Danny Huston, or Anna’s pregnant and slightly shrill sister (Alison Elliott). Yes, there is an air of desperation throughout the film, loss hanging over the head of every single person on the screen, and it’s sad and troubling and artsy. But it’s also unstable, and not in a way that moves one to sympathy for a woman who doesn’t know where she is or what she wants, but in a way that makes you want to slap her.
Comments? Click here to let nus know what you think.
Back to the top
I 
Huckabees Fox Searchlight Pictures
Starring Jason Schwartzman, Isabelle Huppert, Dustin Hoffman, Lily Tomlin, Jude Law, Mark Wahlberg, and Naomi Watts
Directed by David O. Russell
Rated: R
Reviewed by kid spill
Rarely does a film explicitly about existential crisis make it to a mainstream audience. Nothing says “heavy-handed” as much as a film explicitly about existential crisis, actually. Which is why it is such a big fucking deal that a film explicitly about existential crisis got written, made, and distributed, and is actually, shockingly, pretty good.
In terms of immediate effect, the film is fantastic - the pace is frenetic, likely a purposeful attempt to avoid the many possible problems of pedantry in such a movie. The dialogue takes shape kind of how it might in a Kevin Smith movie, more theatrical than day-to-day conversational. The rapid-fire exposition glosses over any kind of character development, but that’s not exactly the objective here. The actors serve only to impart a fairly basic sort of philosophical discussion, one that is more engaging and succinct than in the mess that was Waking Life, but nowhere near as interesting as some less overt attempts to explore philosophy on film.
While the film itself is definitely good, it is marred by a horrible choice of actors. The casting is completely disjointed - Jude Law plays a smarmy businessman, but he’s too fey and pretty to embody evil. Naomi Watts, as his wife, is supposedly the piece of ass who questions the meaning of beauty and her role in the world, but while Watts is certainly beautiful she’s not the sexy T&A queen she’s written as, and seems hugely uncomfortable in the part. Likewise, Mark Wahlberg, as a newly-converted philosopher who eschews fossil fuels and sweatshop shoes, clumsily chews through the big hard words he has to say. He’s saved by the moments in the script that cause him to hilariously knock out whoever is disagreeing with him. That part, I believe.
Saving the human mess are Jason Schwartzman and Isabelle Huppert, who are both on-target in their characterizations of a messed-up-mid-20s-crisis-stress-bag and a brilliant sexpot, respectively. They even succeed in making their id-inspired “sex” scenes (replete with mud puddles) kind of cool instead of just bizarre. Also, Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman, who carry the storyline, play well off each other as an infatuated married couple/ professional existential detectives, hired to sort out the varying mental states of Schwartzman, Wahlberg, Law and Watts.
I Heart Huckabees is quirky without being cheesy, a hard balance to strike. While it touches on a multitude of philosophical positionings, and sort of pokes at ideas around global economics and personal relationships, it mostly comments on our nature to wonder about the world and how striking a balance of competing philosophical ideas is the only real answer.
The film is shot with a palate of primarily black and white, the starkness allowing the focus to be on the often fabulous script, penned in part by David O. Russell. Russell, who helmed two fabulously quirky movies pre-Huckabees (Flirting With Disaster, with Tea Leoni and Ben Stiller in his “good” days, and Three Kings with George Clooney, someone else, and Spike Jonze), reigned in a fairly cerebral film and, in a pretty accomplished move, made it not only unboring but totally funny and entertaining.
Comments? Click here to let nus know what you think.
Back to the top
Kinsey Fox Searchlight Pictures
Starring Liam Neeson, Laura Linney, Chris O’Donnell, Peter Sarsgaard, Timothy Hutton, and John Lithgow
Written & Directed by Bill Condon
Rated: R
Reviewed by Cari Crosby
I’m surprised it took as long as it did to make this film. Alfred Kinsey is a man who has been of great interest among sociological, psychological, and sexual studies, and has been, up until recently, discussed surprisingly little in public discourse since the 1950s. This is a man who in 1948 published a book about the sexuality of the human male – a plain and “scientific” study regarding male sexual behavior, including an extensive look at homosexuality. Kinsey was certainly not the first man in history to discuss sex in a frank and open manner, but was certainly the first to conduct such an extensive study and discuss exactly what it is that people do behind closed doors. In 1948! What followed, besides the obvious media attention and public criticism, was a follow up publication on female sexuality. This guy had balls! He bluntly asked people about their sexual behavior – and the most surprising thing of all is that they told him.
Kinsey begins with Alfred Kinsey’s childhood – portraying his coming of age in a very rigid household in a very conservative time. Going against his father’s (A well-played John Lithgow) wishes, he becomes a biologist and is well respected in his field. However, it isn’t until he begins to study a more… interesting topic that he becomes famous. This film portrays a seemingly accurate portrayal of the reactions he gets from his students as he teaches a course on marriage, including a basic sex ed portion so his students know the basics and mechanics of sex before their wedding night.
The acting in the film is what carries it the most. Neeson’s Kinsey is clearly an emotional man who does his best to suppress every feeling in the name of science. While I’ve heard Neeson’s name in Oscar scuttlebutt already, it is Laura Linney, who plays his wife Clara, who steals the show. A beautifully emotional character, she is the most realistic character in the entire film, even if a few of her choices are a bit odd.
Kinsey is a very good film that manages to take a somewhat moral stance about the importance of sexual education, along with a very open view on homosexuality. It’s a funny thing really; The film tells the story of a time in which homosexuality was never discussed, never allowed, and never acceptable. Kinsey’s studies were a humble attempt for one man to bring light to the reality of the issue, and even now, well over 50 years after his first publication, we still find 11 states banning gay marriage, and homosexuality being pushed aside as if it doesn’t really exist. Maybe Alfred Kinsey’s work still has a lot to teach us.
Comments? Click here to let nus know what you think.
Back to the top
Ray Universal
Starring Jamie Foxx, Kerry Washington, Sharon Robinson, etc.
Directed by Taylor Hackford
Rated: PG-13
Reviewed by Amy Miller
The commercial had me hooked. There was something about the mellowness of that voice singing “Georgia On My Mind” and the uncanny resemblance to Ray Charles that Jamie Foxx had managed that had me willing to battle the line up on opening night. For those of you, like me, who tend not to follow the personal lives of recording artists, the story of the man born Ray Robinson was all too surprising. The movie takes us through many flashbacks of Ray’s poverty stricken childhood, where his much adored mother is forced to deal with the tragic death of Ray’s younger brother as Ray looks on, and her unrelenting drive to encourage Ray’s independence so as not to let his blindness be an obstacle in his life. On the contrary, while Ray does deal with the challenges of being blind, it is no obstacle. He smooth talks women, he ensures he is not financially screwed by business managers and colleagues, he takes a stand on segregation, and he negotiates incredible contracts, some of which are record breaking. And yet, Ray is forced to deal with demons from his childhood and sinks into a terrible heroin addiction, which he eventually overcomes in 1966, towards the end of the period on which the film focuses.
At 152 minutes, the movie is long. Not painstakingly long, but one questions the need for all the flashbacks, the heroin scenes, the details of some of his affairs while ignoring that fact that many a movie goer was born after 1966 and might like to get to know the Ray Charles of the past 40 years. Hey, I’d just like to know whether his wife eventually dumped him for all his philandering.
But the music… oh, the incredible music! Taking us through how he got his unique voice, the inspiration for some of his songs, the brilliance of his not being stuck in one musical genre (going from blues to gospel to pop and back again), and the loyalty of his band members through many years, shows us what a true genius Ray Charles was. The movie provides a wonderful balance between storyline and music and I suspect many a soundtrack has already been sold.
Speaking of genius - Jamie Foxx deserves an Oscar. One cannot argue that his performance is mesmerizing. From the imitation of Charles’ distinctive spoken voice, the nuances, the great lip synching and piano performances (incidentally, Foxx does play piano), the viewer seems to be watching Ray Charles on the screen, not Jamie Foxx. A performance I am sure Ray Charles himself was proud of. Other performances of note are Sharon Warren who plays Ray’s mother and C.J. Sanders, who plays Ray as a child. Sharon Warren reflects every mother’s torment in losing a child and having to let another one go at a young age, while C.J. Sanders’s face alone can capture anyone’s heart, parent or not.
Keep an eye out; this one will not be overlooked during the Oscar nominations. While not a family movie, anyone at all interested in music must see Ray.
Comments? Click here to let nus know what you think.
Back to the top
Starring Leight Whannell, Cary Elwes, and Danny Glover.
Directed by James Wan
Rated: R
Reviewed by Shel Desormeaux
People have been comparing this movie to 7even, the thrilled which, of course, starred Kevin Spacey, Brad Pitt and the doomed Gwyneth Paltrow. Man, I wish. It all starts, as you may well know, like this: two men (Cary Elwes and Leigh Whannell, also a co-writer of the film) ‘come to’ in a dark, dirty room. The lights come on, the men are chained to a filthy, crumbling wall on opposite sides of the room, and lying on the floor between them is a dead man in a pool of congealing blood. Panic ensues, for obvious reasons.
Whannell and James Wan (the director) had a limited budget for this film, but it really isn’t what’s responsible for the whole project falling short. The premise (that of a killer who never actually kills anyone but provides gruesome, nerve wracking and mind snapping ways for victims to free themselves… or else) is a little familiar, but still sick and great, and each twitchy scenario is genuinely creepy. The script isn’t horrible: the two main characters get some good lines, and while the movie does bear some similarities to 7even, it wasn’t enough, to me, to be considered a blatant rip-off. It didn’t have the budget for that. The ending’s twist was quite good. There were no shades of The Village. It came out of nowhere when I thought I had it figured out, and I was very pleased with that.
No, the problem was far more serious than that and more devastating for a film of this sort. It is what turns a potentially great movie into a piece of crap, and there’s no flippin’ way you can polish a turd.
When the movie started, my sister turned to me and said, “Hey! It’s Robin Hood! Men in Tights!” True enough, and I hadn’t really seen Cary Elwes in years. So it was kinda cool, getting all Princess Bride nostalgic n’ stuff. But I’m thinkin’ he should stick to fairy tales, because doubling over with laughter just before the final, nut busting scene was not only disappointing, but it negated almost every thing that had preceded the second last scene. If you see it, or if you have seen it, you’ll know exactly what I mean. It wasn’t the script, it wasn’t what was going on, it was strictly delivery - and it sucked. And man, was I pissed.
Comments? Click here to let us know what you think.
Back to the top
The Incredibles Buena Vista Pictures
Starring the voices of Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Samuel L. Jackson, Jason Lee, etc.
Written & Directed by Brad Bird
Rated: PG
Reviewed by Cari Crosby
Pixar has done it again. Over the past decade they have delivered nothing but visually remarkable and immensely entertaining computer animated features. This all begain with Toy Story in 1995 and their next film (Cars) is already in the works for 2005. The Incredibles shines with a wonderful story, laugh-out-loud moments for all ages, and amazing animation, combined with morals about family togetherness and the importance of individuality - all packaged in a neat little family friendly film. It’s not Pixar’s best film to date (I’m a sucker for Monsters Inc., personally), but it definitely ranks up there with Toy Story and Finding Nemo.
Elasticagirl (Holly Hunter) and Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) are the parents of three children who are forced to hide their super-human abilities along with their parents. Disguised with the name Parr and forced to act as a typical old fashioned American nuclear family, they find themselves in some sticky situations against the world’s newest bad guy, Syndrome (Jason Lee). The family teams together in an attempt to save the world from his evil plot.
While seemingly a very kid-oriented film, The Incredibles, more than any other Pixar film, is geared much more for the parents in the crowd. With jokes about how to handle domestic spars, and innuendoes regarding Elastagirl’s elasticity, this movie has more than few jokes that will easily pass right over the kiddies’ heads while providing an extra little giggle for Mom & Dad.
Overall, the film had the audience laughing constantly with only a few dry moments here and there. A few moments seemed to drag, filling space with unnecessary scenery shots and drawn-out scenes, but in general the film left all in attendance feeling good and smiling on their way out. The ending, though somewhat predictable, was just about perfect providing one of the loudest bursts of laughter I’ve heard from a theater in quite some time, along with setting up lots of room for a (straight to video?) sequel.
Comments? Click here to let nus know what you think.
Back to the top
Or, click below:
Visitors from the US:
Visitors from Canada:
