LeJoe Reviews

Under the Sand (2000)

A Lesson in Not Getting Real

[6/10 · 18 January 2002]

Probably the best thing about director Francois Ozon's Sous le Sable (Under the Sand) is the re-emergence of sultry British actress Charlotte Rampling in the film's lead role. Having started out in the mid-60s, Rampling was beginning to appear in some rather offbeat, kinky films by the early 70s, such as the incestuous "Tis Pity She's a Whore" and the sado-masochistic "Night Porter." And though she's worked steadily since that time in various film and television roles, to my knowledge, Rampling hasn't had a lead role in a film for quite a few years. And it's good to see her in such fine form. She has always been a competent, attractive actress with an air of intrigue about her. So, here she is as Marie Drillon, a deluded widow who takes living in denial to new heights. Overwhelming evidence suggests that Marie's husband has drowned while swimming, yet she continues to speak of him as if he were alive and has conversations with him when he frequently appears in her apartment. It's a moderately interesting premise, though the pace of the film is a bit slow. As the story progresses, figuring out whether Mr. Drillon committed suicide or died accidentally becomes the focus of the plot. And for a while, it keeps you guessing by revealing small pieces of the puzzle. But the real matter at hand is Marie herself and the outcome of her delusional condition. She seems to make progress at times, especially when she starts dating a gentleman whom her best friend has recommended; yet she continues to struggle emotionally and psychologically.

Ultimately, one is most likely left with an uneasy feeling about poor Marie, and the film would have been more positive and probably stronger if her character could have fostered or conveyed a greater sense of growth. Even so, the film is above average, and Rampling turns in an excellent performance. And if nothing else, one is reminded that not all things in life can be neatly resolved or easily accepted; we choose either to grow, overcome the blows and take responsibility for the quality of our lives or we suffer the consequences.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

An Innovative, Visual Feast

[18 January 2002]

There's nothing quite like director Baz Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge; it's in a class by itself...a reinvention of the Hollywood musical in an explosion of color, motion, music and surprises. For some, the frenetic pace of the first half hour or so may be overwhelming and a bit frustrating, as your eyes beg for the camera to slow down. Especially in the large-scale dance numbers, it seems every lightening-fast camera angle has so much going on, your appetite for more and a chance to linger are merely increased. Fortunately, the pace of the film does diminish a little as the story advances. Carrying the plot are Nicole Kidman as the seductive Satine, a courtesan of the highest caliber, and Ewan McGregor as Christian, a struggling writer who hopes to score a hit at the Moulin Rouge. Both actors have never been in better form. Kidman is nothing less than ravishing as Satine, and in spite of her visual impact, manages to bring an element of humanity to her character...an element that could easily have been lost in a haze of glamour and pretension. Likewise, McGregor rises above the clamor and brings a sense of genuineness to his portrayal of a lowly artist who is overpowered by his love for Satine and his dream of creating a mega-hit on stage.

One of the film's biggest surprises are the singing voices of both actors, especially McGregor's, and the fact that even though most of the film's songs are very familiar, they succeed...thanks to innovative arrangements and staging. Actor Jim Broadbent as Harold Zidler turns in an effective performance as the nightclub's oily proprietor, though John Liguizamo's shrill portrayal of Toulouse-Lautrec was a bit irritating and over the top. Perhaps best of all, the overall plot, which is based on a relatively simple love story, doesn't get overshadowed or become insignificant in spite of the film's highly sensorial, stylized nature. So we end up with a unique cinematic experience that is both visually and viscerally stunning, and emotionally moving. It's the best of all worlds and heralds a new chapter in musicals on film, maybe even a comeback.

The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001)

More of the Same

[24 August 2001]

Woody Allen's "Curse of the Jade Scorpion" is nothing more than another mediocre film from a director who continues to get in his own way. Not terribly funny and certainly not believeable enough to be taken seriously, the film exists somewhere in-between drama and comedy and suffers from Allen's presence in front of the camera. It's no secret that he's never been leading man material, at least not from the standpoint of screen presence. But in his past films, in the 70s and 80s, he was younger, fresher and funnier, which enabled him to pull it off. Now, he is much older and continues to play the neurotic, stone-faced buffoon, a caricature we know far too well, who is miraculously still the object of desire for the likes of attractive, much younger leading ladies like Charlize Theron and Helen Hunt. Both actresses turn in decent performances, given their two-dimensional roles. However, it's totally incredible and almost insulting that Allen seems to think we'd believe such women would go for a schmoe like him --- even in a comedy. Like many of us, I used to laugh to the point of tears at a Woody Allen film, but his material has become just too drab and recycled to elicit anything more than an occasional chuckle at best. Though production values are good, even his titles and scoring are beginning to look and sound like the rest of his films. To be honest, I'd like to think Allen hasn't completely dried up. I think he just needs to take more chances, make a concerted effort not to repeat the same techniques and permanently step away from the camera lens. Perhaps if he would just concentrate on directing and entrust others to do the performing, he would realize and regain his vision.

Memento (2000)

Confusion Reigns Supreme

[9 April 2001]

In director Christopher Nolan's Memento, cryptic filmmaking is taken to new heights as lead character Leonard Shelby (played by the talented and attractive Guy Pearce) grapples with a rare form of amnesia that causes almost instantaneous short-term memory loss on a continuous basis. The last thing he remembers is a brutal incident in which he suffered a head injury when his wife was raped and killed. Consequently, he thrives on taking revenge, desperately trying to find his assailant in a circuitous web of confusion and dead ends. Overall, critics seem to like this topsy-turvy exercise in reverse osmosis, so I expected to be impressed. One of the film's devices is the sequencing of its events, which seems to work backwards from the end to the beginning. We're not just talking about occasional flashbacks either. Instead, we're virtually watching a story in reverse...perhaps a novel, intriguing concept that made excellent fodder for shooting the breeze at Hollywood parties and brainstorming sessions, but which mostly produced confusion to the point of near exasperation when executed. Carrie-Anne Moss as Natalie and Joe Pantoliano as Teddy play low-lifes with ulterior motives whom our memory-challenged character gets involved with, adding sordid characters to the overall pandemonium. But ultimately, the film comes off more than anything as an excuse for a cinematic gimmick, an exercise in pointlessness to the level that one really doesn't care about the disjointed plot or the characters any longer. I and others leaving the theater seemed glad it was over but were haunted by some mysteries of our own: What was really happening in this movie? Should I even care? Why did I see this? Where did I park the car? Oh well, at least it was a bargain matinee. I might have gone on a vengeful rampage of my own had I paid full price.

Faithless (2000)

The Angst-Master Makes a Comeback

[7 March 2001]

Not to be an elitist, but no one I know is more familiar with the work and life of Ingmar Bergman than yours truly, so when his latest and long-awaited film, Faithless, was recently released, I was immediately eager to see it. And staying true to his promise never to direct another film after Fanny and Alexander, he couldn't have picked a better director for his script than his protege and long-time colleague Liv Ullman. So, what we end up with in Faithless, is a true-to-form Bergmanesque tale that runs a bit too long and has one too many tragedies.

For the most part, the film is pretty much saved by excellent performances, especially the portrayal of Marianne by Lena Endre. The plot is a tangled web of infidelity and its consequences, punctuated with as much heartbreak, pain and suffering as any Bergman opus, and certainly as much as the average viewer can imagine or tolerate. To be sure, Bergman isn't for everyone. But if you enjoy an occasional catharsis, immobilizing intensity and walking out of the theater thinking your life isn't as bad as you thought it was, this film's for you. For those of you familiar with and amenable to Bergman trademarks, you won't be disappointed. There are plenty of long facial close-ups, monologues, ghosts as figurative demons, and a character that represents Bergman himself. This last feature is one of the machinations I feel we could have done without. It adds a character who is not really part of the plot and does little more than listen. There's also a heaviness to the plot that kind of hits you over the head. Major drama is all right with me, and Bergman is one of the best in that genre, but it was dangerously close to the saturation point of redundance and pretension. Nevertheless, for all you Bergman fans, foreign film lovers and wanna-be celluloid asthetes, you really should add this title to your repetoire. Bergman is truly one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, and considering his very advanced age, this could be his last outing. Then again...

Chuck & Buck (2000)

Getting a Life the Hard Way

[17 January 2001]

For anyone who's ever wondered what happened to a childhood best friend or sweetheart, Miguel Arteta's Chuck and Buck is a must see. And to be honest, I think most adults have pondered such things. Chuck and Buck is really a low-budget, quirky little film. Compared to big-studio movies, it's production values are simple to say the least. But what it lacks in technical achievements it compensates for with insightful, believable performances in a story that's unusual yet strangely familiar. Buck is a modern-day simpleton who loses his mother at the beginning of the story. Among others, he invites Chuck, his best friend from childhood, to pay last respects. Obviously, Buck hasn't seen Chuck for many years, and when he shows up, Buck is immediately overwhelmed by his presence and the fond memories of their affectionate relationship as boyhood playmates and confidants. Chuck seems less captivated by seeing Buck again after so many years, especially since he's moved away to the big city (L.A.), has a hyped-up job in the music industry and is seriously courting a young lady. Even so, Buck is quite smitten by his reunion with Chuck and decides to move to L.A. in the hope of fully rekindling the intensity of their juvenile relationship. And, as one might expect, it's just the beginning of trouble for both of them. All of the performances in the film are quite good, especially Mike White as the pathetically determined Buck. Though his plight seems hopeless, his emotional needs remain untended and his desperate attempts to win Chuck over painfully futile and annoying, his performance never crosses the line into a realm so obnoxious that we no longer care what happens to him. Chris Weitz is also effective as the sought-after Chuck, whose character comes off as the kind of typical jerk trying to be somebody in the vast land of L.A. entertainment hopefuls. For me, the film conjured up many thoughts and feelings. I still occasionally think or have dreams about long-lost pals from my youth...enigmatic images of people stuck in a time warp of childhood memories. And in that respect, the film touched a nostalgic nerve. Chuck and Buck is also a fascinating study about how differently and at what paces people develop and mature. So often, I've noted how people I know or used to know seem fixated in a time, era or mindset...unable to grow. It's interesting to see how it all turns out; and for that, my movie-going friends, you'll have to see Chuck and Buck for yourself.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

Flying People, Disappointing Film

[12 January 2001]

I was very impressed with Ang Lee's 1997 film, The Ice Storm, but I'd been avoiding Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon since I first saw previews for it weeks before it opened. Then, because of unexpected circumstances and a slightly aroused curiosity, I recently found myself in line for a ticket with a couple of friends. As I predicted, in spite of some accolades from various critics and others, the film just didn't work for me. One of the things that bugs me about this movie is the fact that it utilizes very natural, realistic settings, characters and events with two glaring exceptions: people flying through the air and a lack of displayed passion between two of the main characters. As far as the flying thing is concerned, the film just isn't whimsical or fantastic enough to have characters breaking into Peter Pan gymnastics at the drop of a hat. Here is a very real and beautiful environment with people leading essentially believable lives punctuated with kung fu histrionics; yet every once in a while they fly around. Granted, the flying sequences are stupendously handled and somewhat fascinating, but they're just a bit too over-the-top for the overall tone of the material. Another important aspect of the film that deflates its potential impact is the alleged passion between two of the main characters. Action man Yun-Fat Chow plays Li Mu Bai, a warrior ready to retire his prized sword. His love interest is an equally agile Yu Shu Lien, played by Michelle Yeoh. Supposedly they love each other and always have. You know the drill...one of those long-standing, unrealized love affairs that seethes under the surface for decades. Yet their mutual chemistry and passion is not obvious enough to be engaging or captivating to the viewer. It's not until the very end that we finally get a strong sense of their mutual love. Perhaps it's better late than never, but in this case, one isn't quite sure. As much as anything, their late burst of passion almost underscores how much more they could have displayed in previous scenes. Complicating matters, it appears this tendency is caused by a combination of factors: the material, the actors' abilities, the direction and possibly even differences in perception from a cultural (East/West) standpoint. Another debilitating element of the film stems from a somewhat convoluted plot. Li Mu Bai's decision to retire his sword is an important step in his character's development. Especially important is the location of his sword's resting place, or in other words, who has possession or control of it. The problem with this premise is that the sword floats around quite a bit. One minute it's in one person's hands and the next minute it seems to belong to someone else. An important character in the film is Jen Yu, played by the small but mighty Ziyi Zhang. As a troublesome young aristocrat engaged to be married, her motivations are foggy or confusing at times. She seems to flip-flop from demure and sweet to deadly and nefarious, then back again. Even the man she eventually seems to fall in love with is subjected to her schizophrenic mood changes. As with most contemporary films, the cinematography is stunning, enhanced even more by the beautiful backdrop of China. In fact, someone said China is the real star of this film, and I'm tempted to agree. To be honest, I wanted to like Crouching Tiger a lot more than I did, and I admit I'm unfamiliar with Chinese mythology and literary works.

It could be that in its translation and because of cultural differences, it's the kind of film with a potentially uneven appeal and impact-level.

Shadow of the Vampire (2000)

A Creepy Opus that Doesn't Quite Work

[3 January 2001]

There have been a few raves about Willem Dafoe's performance as a vampire playing an actor named Max Schreck who portrays a vampire (a Victor/Victoria type of concept) in a depiction of the real-life 1920s classic, Nosferatu. Consequently, I was expecting a lot from director E. Elias Merhige's Shadow of the Vampire. What I got was a moody travesty that was preposterous and unexciting. I've always found the topic of German decadence in the 20s an alluring subject, and we do get a feeling of the period from that standpoint. John Malkovich plays the role of F.W.Murnau, the legendary German director of Nosferatu. As always, he is smugly effective. The rest of the cast, though unremarkable, works adequately with the limitations of the material and their roles. For the most part, the film mopes along to its rather predictable conclusion, with the ghoulish-looking Schreck popping in and out of scenes, doing a few gruesome vampire tricks, speaking in menacing tones and clicking his nails. All the while, Murnau pontificates and bosses everyone around like your average crazy director, while a few nefarious things happen. Murnau furiously admonishes Schreck from harming the cast and crew, but his warnings are unheeded. As a viewer, I was confused about the genuineness of his safety concerns for his coworkers, since at least one person disappears and elicits no reaction from Murnau or the other characters.

Admittedly, production values are quite good. Dafoe's makeup is flawlessly fiendish and the opening credits, though long, were eerie and fascinating to watch. Nevertheless, the film just wasn't good enough on most counts to compel me to suspend my belief system, which brings up an inherent problem with subject matter that fictionalizes events based on factual occurrences. It's one thing to build a story with such events, however unlikely, that are at least within the realm of possibility. But when these events are virtually impossible, as is frequently the case in this film, one's credibility can be strained to the breaking point. If that happens, as it did for me, there's a substantial risk the material will be greatly undermined or dismissed entirely. I suspect for the die-hard vampire fans, the film will be generally well received and there are worse horror films around. So with that in mind, Shadow of the Vampire is there if you're interested.

Quills (2000)

You Can't Keep a Bad Man Down

[2 January 2001]

In Quills, directed by Philip Kaufman, Geoffrey Rush proves to be an unstoppable force to be reckoned with as the salacious Marquis de Sade. Confined to his rather comfortable quarters in an 18th century mental institution, he amuses himself and infuriates others by cranking out volumes of erotic, depraved material. And it's no accident his controversial fantasies find their way to eagerly awaiting publishers. Kate Winslet, as a chambermaid-type by the name of Madeleine, not only befriends the Marquis, but also delights in reading his stories and promptly smuggling them to the outside world. As always, she is voluptuous, genuine and a pleasure to watch. Of course, there are those, not the least of which is Napoleon himself, who are determined to put an end to the Marquis' prolific tomes. Without a doubt, his greatest adversary is Michael Caine's very effective Dr. Royer-Collard. As the newly appointed and not-very-nice proprietor of the asylum, we soon learn he'll do practically anything to maintain order. As a pawn to Royer-Collard is Coulmier, an angst-ridden priest played by Joaquin Phoenix. Coulmier's intentions are virtuous, but his unrequited lust for Winslet and his soft spot for the Marquis are his potential downfalls. Rush is the star and driving force of the film. His amazing, relentless performance is forceful and eloquent. Right behind him, however, is Phoenix, also creating a memorable portrait of a tortured soul in the middle of appalling circumstances. Overall, the film is quite good on virtually every count, partially because director Kaufman doesn't get too caught up in a frenzy of excess and embellishment. Such indulgences would be tempting traps for this kind of subject matter and create the kind of deliberate, sensorial overload that can obscure or undermine good material. A minor criticism is that the film seemed a bit long at two hours and fifteen minutes. More than once, I expected it to end; yet it continued running to the crucial last scene. To date there have been few, if any, decent attempts on film to portray the life of the Marquis de Sade, undoubtedly one the literary world's most infamous writers. And this is all the more reason to see Quills. It stimulated my curiosity, and ever since seeing it, I've wondered how closely the film parallels the true facts and circumstance surrounding his life. Guess I have some research to do...

You Can Count on Me (2000)

A Slice of the Sibling Life

[29 December 2000]

With so many rave reviews to its credit, I was expecting just a little bit more from Director Ken Lonergan's You Can Count on Me. Even so, it's an impressive effort for a first-time director and a well made, engaging film that succeeds solely on the strengths of its narrative material and structure. Also to its credit are fine performances from Laura Linney and Mark Ruffalo. The entire setting for the story is a small town where Linney lives as a single mother, still inhabiting the house where she and her brother (Ruffalo) grew up. Early on, we understand her brother to be the rebellious wanderer type, having apparently spent most of his adult life in the big city. And just like all bad pennies, the time has come for him to return to his roots. Predictably, some cages are rattled after he shows up, most notably Linney's, as she copes with unsatisfying attempts at dating and angst over her son's total alienation from his "bad" father. Matthew Broderick does a nice turn as Linney's married, but sex-starved boss, with whom she has some very impulsive encounters. The whole thing moves along nicely, and Linney is always a pleasure to watch. In this and virtually every role I've seen her perform, she proves herself to be a very talented, natural and unpretentious actor. Opposite Linney, Ruffalo is also very believable as the problem child. He seems to embody the type of trouble-making misfit most of us have known or encountered at some time in our lives. So, with all these positive observations, why should I find anything lacking? To be honest, I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe the best way to sum it up would be a comment made by the person I was with when I saw the film. "It was like a really good TV movie," she said. And I immediately agreed with her. One thing's for certain: It's refreshing to see a film that's enjoyable on a number of levels without the need for special effects, exotic locations and the excesses of vulgarity that Hollywood so frequently uses.

Up at the Villa (2000)

A Moderate Dose of Romance and Intrigue

[29 December 2000]

Up at the Villa, directed by Philip Haas, definitely has enough romance and intrigue to hold one's interest for its two-hour running time. Set against the luscious but volitile backdrop of Florence, Italy in the late 30s when Facism was on the rise, it's a yarn with a hodgepodge of featured characters, most of whom are not Italian. Veteran English actor James Fox, who only occasionally appears in films, is fine in a small but important role as a British diplomat with the hots for the very available Kristin Scott Thomas. Another celluloid veteran, Anne Bancroft, is effective in a solid supporting role as a busybody American aristocrat with a little dirt on just about everyone. But it's Kristin Scott Thomas and Sean Penn who carry the film with their romantic chemistry, playing cat and mouse to the point of no return. Penn isn't quite as intense and hyperbolic as usual, and that approach works well for his character. He displays a Bogart-type of demeanor...strong, determined and slightly understated. Scott Thomas' role and the performance she renders requires a sultry, emotionally seething character who, though desperate, has to play her cards carefully and appear in control.

The film's production values are more than adequate, though it would be hard to make Florence look bad. I especially noticed Pino Donaggio's sinuous score. It seems to enhance the film's moods and reminds me of the 30s and 40s when music was used more extensively (sometimes to a fault)in individual scenes to maximize their impact. Another of the film's attributes is the fact that the plot is well organized and pretty easy to track. Too often, films of this genre are convoluted, difficult to follow and blatently implausible. It's not exactly a masterpiece, but if the combination of romance and intrigue float your boat, I think you'll get your money's worth.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

A Dark Journey Worth Taking

[28 December 2000]

Director Darren Aronofsky's previous film effort, known simply as Pi, didn't really impress me that much. It was an overly cryptic, gritty tale that seemed more tedious and frustrating than it was worth. Requiem for a Dream is his newest outing. It's definitely not a pretty picture either, but it's certainly better and more effective. During the course of its running time, it's guaranteed to produce a cringe or a wince in almost any viewer. It's the kind of film with the capacity to disturb and produce a sense of relief when it ends, even though one is glad to have seen it. Ellen Burstyn is at her frumpy and neurotic best as a television-enslaved, middle-aged woman who gets caught in a drug-addicted frenzy of compulsive behavior. Greatly adding to the intensity and momentum of the story is a similar downfall her son (played by Jared Leto) also experiences.

A lot of what makes Requiem work lies in the film's breakneck pacing, structure and cinematography as the two lead characters race toward simultaneous self destruction in different, but equally frightening ways. Depictions of old apartments, bad areas of the city and wasted lives from the ravages of abuse have rarely been more harrowing. In fact, as the film's climax of final scenes unraveled, I was really beginning to squirm; I even toyed with the idea of leaving the theater. Yet like the characters, I was compelled to go all the way. Requiem for a Dream may be many things, and you may not want to see it again very soon. But it is undoubtedly original, unforgettable and a noteworthy contribution to the annals of cutting-edge filmmaking.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)

A Visual Feast in a Vacuum

[27 December 2000]

I know I've lost a little childhood innocence over the years, and God knows how jaded I've become about my views regarding the lackluster, weak and poorly conceived material upon which so many big-studio productions are based. So it's no wonder that "How the Grinch Stole Christmas," as visually stunning and technically complex as it was, didn't quite knock my socks off. As usual, Jim Carrey was his over-the-top self, and I admit the film's premise and lead/title character pretty much beg for a zealous actor like Carrey. Nevertheless, the film wasn't whimsical or enchanting enough to suck me in, probably because in-between the Grinch's ranting and raving, my heartstrings couldn't penetrate the incredible makeup, costumes and set designs long enough to latch onto anything very real or genuine. In other words, the visual intensities almost worked against the film at times, obscuring reality and creating distractions that were just too effective. Of course, for the small fry and others seeking a purely visceral, sensorial experience, the film certainly succeeds. And I have to admit I fell in love at first sight with the adorable Taylor Momsen as Cindy Lou Who.

So, as always, we take the good with the questionable, and we'd give anything to ask the venerable Dr. Seuss himself for his considered opinion.

But I'm a Cheerleader (1999)

Gay Fluff with a Few Chuckles at Best

[6/10 · 2 August 2000]

But I'm a Cheerleader has a promising, clever premise but ends up as little more than a series of mildly amusing gags. Hopefully, most who view this film will have enough personal knowledge of gay men and women to chuckle at the stereotypical characters, while acknowledging their limitations as representatives of the gay community. Essentially, the film is a satire on conversion therapy, an alternative to being gay by which one is "converted" to heterosexuality. Not a bad premise for a satire, but in this instance, one that doesn't quite work. The subject matter is reduced to a series of silly gags that aren't outrageous or entertaining enough to make you belly laugh or overlook the total absurdity of it all. The cast is first rate and they do the best they can with the material. It's especially nice to see Mink Stole in a non-John Waters film, although ironically, he might have been able to do a better job at the helm. Another observation surfaced as I thought about the film later: perhaps it's time for a serious film about the pitfalls of conversion therapy. It's actually no laughing matter and a dubious treatment for a lifestyle that clinicians do not consider an illness.

The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999)

A Little Intrigue and some Nice Scenery

[18 January 2000]

When I think of director Anthony Minghella's The Talented Mr. Ripley, what I remember most is that breathtaking Italian scenery. It definitely solidified my long-standing desire to visit Italy. What it didn't do was knock my socks off. I admit it was moderately intriguing to watch the story of a psychopathic killer who aspires to the good life, while blackening his soul and complicating his life and the lives of everyone around him. And the performances were competent all the way around - Jude Law the quintessential, irresponsible playboy, Matt Damon the complex, dangerous problem child, and Gwyneth Paltrow the unfortunate victim of horrible circumstances. But it was a long film, well over two hours, that didn't quite seem to reach its potential. A perfect metaphor for this is the seething, homoerotic energy in some of Damon's scenes that always stops short of coming fully to life. It left me wanting something more.

One thing for sure, my next European vacation has to include Italy. Enchanting, steeped in history and wonderfully elegant, it has rarely looked so good. In fact, for that alone, Ripley is probably worth your money.

Magnolia (1999)

Skeletons in the Closet

[14 January 2000]

This remarkable film from Boogie Nights' director Paul Thomas Anderson confirms more than ever that he's a filmmaker to keep an eye on. Though both films take place in the San Fernando Valley, focusing on character studies of troubled souls, each is very much independent of the other. Right from the start, it becomes obvious we're in for a heavy dose of how the past is a force to be reckoned with. As the musical score constantly fades in and out, changes and intensifies, so do the tangled webs of the characters...a dying man, a drug-addicted woman, a self-proclaimed leader of mean-spirited chauvinist seminars, a neurotic gay man who was once a quiz-show child prodigy, to name a few. The performances are top notch and the plot turns original and unexpected. The messages and frequently tortured experiences of the players join in a crescendo of turmoil that builds to a boiling point - a perfect example being actress Julianne Moore, who once again proves to be one of the best performers in contemporary film. As I did, you just might walk out of Magnolia thinking that your personal problems aren't really all that bad. In fact, I felt like Pollyanna compared to some of these people. And I didn't really feel manipulated, because the film felt real, even in spite of its surrealism. Deep down inside, I knew that there were probably a lot of people out there going through a lot of stuff just like the film's characters. Words really can't do Magnolia justice. It has to be seen and experienced. You wanna laugh? You wanna cry? You wanna gasp? Just see it.

Happiness (1998)

Original, Disturbing and Funny...All at Once

[14 January 2000]

In Happiness, an intense character study of life in these modern, complex times, director Todd Solondz and his excellent cast of characters take you to a place that is at once both humorous and disturbing. In fact, you may find yourself in a quandary of not knowing whether to laugh or cry, which is what makes this film so unforgetably powerful. Though the characters' predicaments create humor and amazement by being slightly over the top at times, there's a deeply haunting ring of truth in all their experiences. In fact, as I chuckled to myself while viewing the film, I would frequently wonder if I should be laughing at all. These things happen to people; they happen in our society. And the emotional pain they create is no laughing matter. There has been controversy regarding one of the characters who has a disdainful, even repugnant sexual proclivity. But Solondz doesn't judge his players. He presents them as they are, for better or worse, and lets the viewer wrestle with judgmental conclusions. In my opinion, Happiness is certainly one of the best films of the 90s, and one that no serious filmgoer should miss.

Images (1972)

Images: an engrossing, unforgettable journey into the depths of the psyche.

[8/10 · 8 September 1999]

Images is a fascinating, and at times, disturbing opus about a woman's struggle with mental illness. It is certainly one of Altman's most unique and haunting films, and one that almost demands to be seen more than once because of its many nuances. Susannah York, an actress who rarely, if ever, turns in anything but an accomplished performance, is at the height of her abilities in the lead role. Taking the psychological journey with her is a roller coaster ride of bizarre sights and sounds that will challenge even the most savvy of film viewers. What's more, it is beautifully photographed in Ireland by veteran cinematographer Vilmos Sigmond. Good luck trying to catch it, however, because it's not on video and, to my knowledge, is never exhibited.