Change Your Image
kayobee
Reviews
Beyond the Sea (2004)
Far better than reviews led me to believe
Could it be that many movie reviewers are as sick of Kevin Spacey as I am of Kirsten Dunst (with far less reason, I maintain)? I'm not sure just how else to account for the mediocre-to-bad reviews I recall for this film, and the dreadful ones for K-PAX before it. I'm reasonably picky and loathe sentiment, and I thought the film was pretty darn good. Its central conceit -- that it's not a film about Bobby Darin but a film about the making, by Bobby Darin, of an autobiographical film -- was much maligned in the reviews I read, but I felt it worked.
Actually, I thought most of the scenes and devices used worked. I gave the film 9 stars instead of 10 only because I'm not sure what its aim was. In the end, it seemed to me it was more of a film about Spacey's fascination with and admiration for Darin than it was about Darin himself. It's not merely that liberties are taken with the facts of Darin's life (standard in movies), that the narrative itself is hardly straightforward, or even that the film is almost all-Spacey, all the time (he sings! he dances! he acts! but after the first shock, that actually seemed part of the natural flow to me). There's nothing inherently wrong with a tribute film, but that didn't seem to be the whole of it either. Somehow, Spacey managed to convey to me that more was meant here than just a tribute to Darin, but I was never really sure what. What's odd is that it certainly partially succeeds -- I saw the film last night and have been thinking of it since, and that not-knowing is like an itch.
I do recommend it for anyone who likes Spacey, Darin, music of the era, and/or inventive narratives. And if you're one of the critics who disliked it so, I do recommend you take a hot shower, get a massage and a cold drink, and take another look at it: you might surprise yourself.
Le violon rouge (1998)
Maybe it's me
I saw this film with my in-laws and my husband; the in-laws loved it, my husband thought it was okay, and I found it downright annoying -- not to mention trite, pretentious, and melodramatic. I was particularly peeved by how utterly unbelievable the central tenet of the violin's beauty and perfection was. Am I the only person aware that blood doesn't dry red? Am I the only one who knows that burial in damp ground warps wood?
In fairness, I should note that (1) I very much dislike the romantic artist-as-other motif and (2) I'm not fond of violins, finding them too often shrill. Maybe if the film had been *The Golden Oboe*...
Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (2004)
Cool except for the chicks
Like some others, I agree that this film was not just funny, but displayed real wit. (I even loved the promos in which the actors are referred to as "the Indian guy from" movie X and "the Asian guy from" movie Y.) The leads are solid actors and they both have strong comedy skills. And yes, like some others, I've had the Ivy League experience and do know folks very like the ones portrayed.
But.... My friends and I have a saying about movies or books in which women are people, not eye candy or plot devices -- we call them "cool on chicks". H&KG2WC definitely ain't cool on chicks; they exist as -- well, as plot devices. I found it particularly disappointing because I thought the film handled the issues of ethnic stereotyping/immigrant acculturation/ethnic identity and all the rest quite well, with genuine wit and believable shading (for example, when Kumar acknowledges there are worse ethnic stereotypes than being assumed a medical prodigy). Then again, there are darn few films that are cool on chicks, and it's even harder where the female roles are all small, as they are in this film.
But if you can ignore this failing, or just don't care about it, I think you'll have an unreservedly good time watching this film.
Blow (2001)
Excellent
I'm no fan of drama, always wary of the false note, the upside-the-head didacticism, the sodden sentimentality. But Blow was excellent, until the tearful final 15 minutes. I'm astonished that some people have called it bland: I found it fast-paced and crisply, often strikingly, shot. Johnny Depp is wonderful, as are Ray Liotta and Paul Ruebens, and as for Penelope Cruz -- this is the movie that made me reconsider her talents.
Even keeping in mind that this is Jung's version of his story, and therefore likely to be self-serving, the final scenes are too sticky for me. But that was the only flaw I found. Otherwise, it was well-written, well-shot, well-acted; entertaining and compelling as the devil.
Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius (2001)
Less than the sum of its parts
I like animation, like kids movies, like sf, like goofiness, and I expected to like this film. But though it looked good, it just never came together. It's not horrible, it's just not anything I'd ever want to see again.
The greatest flaw was that I found all the characters except Goddard merely annoying, leaving me with no one to root for. But I also felt that the plot didn't make sense in its own terms. The final confrontation with the aliens, for example -- why didn't Jimmy just use the same gizmo when rescuing the parents? why didn't the aliens just blast him into smithereens anyway? However big he may be, surely that doesn't make him impervious to harm.
Still the plotting was the least of the problems I had with this film. Overall, it just lacked charm.
JFK (1991)
Logically and historically ludicrous ... and damn compelling
My review for what it's worth....
I wish I could explain my attraction to this film. I'm not an Oliver Stone fan and I avoid Kevin Costner. I'm no conspiracy buff, but even if I were, I believe the one rather shakily outlined here would still be too absurd for me: it seems to be an agglomeration of most of the various conspiracy theories associated with the assassination of JFK, finished off with some shiny new rococo bits dug from Stone's subconscious, and all of it pretty much requiring the participation or knowledge of something like 30% of the western hemisphere. I'm frankly annoyed by Stone's portrayal of Kennedy as revolutionary cut down before he could perform the great acts he was destined for -- Kennedy was a shallow, self-serving little fellow who had few scruples and way too many issues.
As if all that weren't enough, I don't like its portrayal of gay men, it has what must be filmdom's longest monologue, and at something like 3 hours, it's way over my usual tolerance.
So I should hate it, yes? But somehow, despite all of the above, the damn film **works**.
The acting is tremendous (Donald Sutherland plus Kevin Bacon *plus* Joe Pesci PLUS Tommy Lee Jones ... need I go on?). Even Costner, who normally leaves me lukewarm, is great. Intentionally or not, there's a perfect creepy undercurrent to his "hero's" obsessive pursuit (somehow quietly emphasized by those damn upright, uptight hornrimmed glasses of his).
Yes, the plot is ludicrous, but Stone's passionate insistence that *something* was going on leaks through every frame, compelling the viewer to follow the plot's leaps and twists with the drugged sense of inevitability usually experience in dream logic.
That monologue? Done by an actor I don't care for, expounding a theory I don't buy -- and I was flipping spellbound. The film is just... excellent. Annoyingly excellent, because it's just damn wrong -- but excellent cinema, anyway.
Cats Don't Dance (1997)
Uneven, but worth seeing
The plot is thin, the music is wildly uneven (sometimes near-perfect, sometimes painful), Scott Bakula is beyond bland as the hero -- but the villains are fabulous (both acting and art), and almost compensate for the triteness of the good guys.
What makes the film worth seeing are the sections where the animation cuts loose: at its best it has the amphetamine-rush energy, deadpan self-mockery, and delicious visual wit of Chuck Jones's work. If you like animation and aren't a slave to anime, you'll enjoy the film (especially once you encounter the villainy).
The very factors that make the film worth seeing by adult animation fans work against it as a kids' movie, though -- there are many visual references to classic Warner Brothers work (not just Chuck Jones), and these may seem tedious or irrelevant to kids who don't know the classic WB stuff.
Something's Gotta Give (2003)
Unrealistic wish fulfillment
Yes, the writing's nice, the acting's good, and Keaton's terrific. But altogether, it's just a bit too much to take. By the end of the film I found myself weighing which of the many contrivances were the least likely: the "no hospital, no travel" ruling, Keaton's sudden deluge of suitors, Nicholson's near 180-degree turn in his definition of attractiveness, the doctor's saintliness, the final "twist"? A smaller movie that didn't try so hard to position Keaton as The Attractive Older Woman in Our Culture might have worked better; removing the subplot with the younger man would have allowed the film to actually show Keaton as charming (instead of assuring the viewer that she is through other characters' claims for her) and to develop the Keaton-Nicholson relationship more convincingly.
Overall, it's clever, amusing, and certainly a nice change to see women -- women who haven't been botoxed into Stepford Wife lookalikes! -- as central characters, but the writer has more to say than can convincingly be crammed into a single film.