Donolog Reviews

Chicago (2002)

Lack of awareness of its strength and weaknesses kept it from being great

[6/10 · 26 May 2003]

I remember when I saw Fantasia 2000 at the IMAX, I was very impressed and really enjoyed the new material; however, there was one thing that seemed off. It took me a while to figure it out, but what I soon realized was that it was the music. Now the sound at an IMAX theatre is generally pretty damn good, but the problem was the nature of what I was listening to. Now in case you're not familiar with the Fantasia movies, they're Disney animation set against classical music. And so here I was in the movie theatre, listening to classical music, but the problem was that I was comparing it to sitting in the Orpheum listening to the Vancouver Symphony play classical music.

I remember being blown away the first time I experienced a live symphony orchestra. It was so much more alive than listening to a CD on my stereo, or hearing a live performance broadcast over a P.A. system. It wasn't until I was at the IMAX presentation of Fantasia that I realized just how spoiled I had become in listening to live classical music. It was also strange to be at an IMAX presentation, and be thinking about the technical limitations of the presentation.

When turning a live musical into a feature film, it is also important to remember the limitations and the strengths of both a film and a live musical. A musical has many limitations that are overcome with film, such as being able to move from set to set and location to location. When a musical is created, it is created bearing in mind the constraints and strengths of a live presentation. Obviously all the sets have to be on the stage, special effects are limited to what can be pulled off in front of a live audience, live music adds an element of electricity, and an audience applauding after every major number adds to the overall atmosphere. Furthermore, dance routines are created from a viewpoint that they are seen from a distance and a stationary position; as opposed to a film which allows for many camera angles, close-ups, etc.

And so one big question remains when turning a musical into a film: do you film a musical, or do you convert a musical into a film and film it as such. The producers of Chicago chose to do it half-way, by going from one scene that is filmed as a musical number (presented as a musical) to the next scene that is filmed as a film, where peformances are done on movie sets.

I believe the film would have been much better if it had gone all the way and treated the entire film as a film. If I think of all the great musicals I've seen on screen, they've all done this. Sure the odd number can step away from the world of film into the world of musical, such as the "Greased Lightning" and "Beauty School Dropout" scenes in Grease, but the majority of the film is staged and produced as a film and not a musical that happens to be filmed.

I did enjoy Chicago. It was quite entertaining, but I think it could have been much better had they remained true to the movie format. If I want to see a live musical, I'll go to a live musical.

All that aside, the actors were great, the music was great, the singing was great. I was actually pleasantly surprised by Richard Gere, he owned his role and somehow didn't annoy me in a way he often does.

Bottom line: 6/10

Red Dragon (2002)

Decent Lecter flick

[7/10 · 26 May 2003]

Red Dragon is the latest Hannibal Lecter movie. It was pretty good. The film takes place chronologically before Silence of the Lambs. I liked it better than Hannibal.

Red Dragon goes back to more of the Silence of the Lambs style, where it is the internal struggles, and suspense that create the tension, rather than the sheer gruesome nature of cannibalism and that gave Hannibal its tension.

Of course, Red Dragon is also playing with a stacked deck with a cast of: Anthony Hopkins, Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes, Harvey Keitel, Emily Watson and Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Bottom Line: 7/10

Igby Goes Down (2002)

Gritty coming-of-age movie makes the grade

[7/10 · 26 May 2003]

Overall I thought this was a good movie. It really wasn't much more than a gritty coming of age movie about a punk-ass teenager, but it did that very well, and not in a popcorn-teenage-movie kind of way. Kieran Culkin can act, and seems to be picking up where his older brother left off career-wise. Ryan Phillippe continues to disappoint me with yet another sterile performance -- it looks like we might have the next Christian Slater on our hands, but Phillippe's flaccid performance wasn't enough to drag the film down.

Bottom line: 7/10

The Hours (2002)

OK ... but not a masterpiece

[6/10 · 26 May 2003]

While I wouldn't necessarily categorize this film as a "chick-flick" (that I reserve for movies that have Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks and a happy ending), I do think it invariably will be a film that is better appreciated by women than men, particularly as a lot of it deals with the frustrations women face in relationships with men.

Now don't get me wrong, I didn't "not enjoy" the film, I thought it was "OK". I'm guessing there are going to be a lot of people who think this film is a masterpiece, and while I may hesitate to get into an argument with them on this, I certainly won't agree.

From a hetero-guy-point-of-view there was a couple of superficial disappointments off the start ... never has Nicole Kidman been so unsexy (not even when her hair was really frizzy), and never have lesbian kisses been so unsexy. Neither of those would be enough to turn me off a movie, but I had a hard time getting into this one.

The film ultimately had some thematic points to make about enjoying the happy moments in life for what they're worth while they're happening, which is something I find compelling, but in the end these points were watered down by the overall drab atmosphere of the film. Last year's Iris managed to deal with this by constantly juxtaposing the drabness of the current situation with the vivacious moments of an earlier time in life.

As the film progressed, I found myself caring less and less about the characters, and that runs contrary to what should have been the effect of a film like this. Claire Danes and Jeff Daniels did add some fresh air to the stuffiness towards the end of the film, but hardly enough to turn things around (not that the film should have been about fresh air).

Kudos goes to whomever cast Jack Rovello as Julianne Moore's child. He truly had a haunting look to him that brought his role out of the wallflower it could have been. I can only hope the M. Night Shyamalan casts him for a future film, as I think there is potential there for a great child role as always seem to be in Shyamalan's films.

Bottom line: 6/10.

Catch Me If You Can (2002)

Spielberg's Honky Tonk

[7/10 · 26 May 2003]

Catch Me If You Can is the latest Steven Spielberg film starring Tom Hanks and Leonardo DiCaprio. I quite enjoyed it. It was very entertaining, and I always am more satisfied with movies when they are based, at least in part, on something that really happened. In reviewing Soderbergh's Ocean's Eleven, Roger Ebert wrote:

Serious pianists sometimes pound out a little honky-tonk, just for fun. That's like what Steven Soderbergh is doing in "Ocean's Eleven."

I kind of feel like that's a bit of what Spielberg is doing here. I've found this the least thematically significant film he's directed since Jurassic Park, but that said it is very entertaining and the acting is excellent. Even DiCaprio, whom I don't normally like, was great. Even more so, I thought Christopher Walken's performance as DiCaprio's father was superb, and very much worthy of a supporting actor Oscar nomination he garnered for the role.

Bottom line: 7/10.

The Quiet American (2002)

Decent film that makes you think (a little).

[7/10 · 26 May 2003]

Disclaimer: Minor plot reveals

When I went to see The Hours, the trailer for The Quiet American preceded its screening. At the conclusion of the trailer, the lady sitting in front of me leaned over to her friend and in reference to the film's title said "Isn't that an oxymoron?".

It may very well be an oxymoron, and in fact in the movie "quiet" is used as an adjective to describe just how atypical an American the person in question is, but it is also a novel written by famous British writer (and possibly spy) Graham Greene (not to be confused with the Canadian Native actor).

The movie stars Michael Caine as a British journalist, stationed in Vietnam in the early 50s as the colonial French government is losing its grip on control of the country to the communist nationals. Caine has found a comfortable existence in Vietnam, enjoying the pleasures of his opium and his mistress when it is disrupted by an American aid worker played by Brendan Fraser -- don't worry, this is the `Gods and Monsters' Brendan Fraser, not the `Encino Man' Brendan Fraser.

Fraser's character quickly becomes enamoured with Caine's mistress, and sets out to rescue her from her circumstance as only an American can do. Somehow Caine and Fraser maintain this mutual camaraderie and respect for one another as they struggle within their love triangle, not unlike two poker players battling for the same big pot.

As things begin to heat up within the love triangle, they also heat up within the political landscape of the country, and the personal struggles of the individual relationships become metaphors for the political struggles of the country. While The Quiet American is a piece of fiction, it is set against a very real historical backdrop. Graham Greene was very critical of US foreign policy, and this becomes evident as the film reveals the beginning of the CIA's involvement in Vietnam, which would serve as the pre-cursor to its involvement in the Vietnam War that would follow in the 60s.

Anyone who has seen Bowling for Columbine will recall the long list of questionable support by the CIA of various political factions through the years in its effort to covertly affect foreign policy through third parties. The effects of this practice is brought to life in The Quiet American, and it's hard not to remember that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were also prior "associates" of the CIA in furthering these objectives.

But I digress ... even if you put the policital undertones of the film aside, The Quiet American stands up as a very good movie well worth seeing. Besides that it also has a Shar-pei in it. I gotta love any movie with a Shar-pei in it, even if it is out-of-place being owned by an American in Vietnam in the 1950s.

Bottom line: 8/10

The Pianist (2002)

Polanski delivers a personal masterpiece, and a masterpiece that is personal

[8/10 · 26 May 2003]

Disclaimer: Considerable discussion of the plot

There are not many of us who could have our spouse and a number of personal friends visiting murdered by a group of cult members and it not be the biggest personal tragedy of our lives.

Such was the case for Roman Polanski in 1969, when a group of those following cult-leader Charles Manson brutally murdered Polanski's wife Sharon Tate, who was eight months pregnant with the couple's first child, and a number of the couple's friends at Polanski's Hollywood home (Polanski was travelling at the time).

As tragic, and horrific as this was, it followed an even more troubled childhood. Polanski, and his Jewish parents were living in Poland at the outbreak of World War II. He would ultimately separate from his parents as he escaped the Ghetto to seek refuge with Catholic families in the countryside. Meanwhile, his parents transferred to concentration camps where his mother would meet her death in a gas chamber.

After a career of filmmaking that spans nearly fifty years, Polanski has arguably created his best work ever with The Pianist. The film, a true story, begins at the beginning of World War II as Germany has begun bombing Poland, and follows pianist Wladyslaw Szpilman, and his quest to survive his persecution as a Jew under Nazi rule.

The film follows as his rights are stripped away from him and his family. First the family loses its sense of security, then their possessions, then they're forced to move to a ghetto where they live in poverty and terror; ultimately his family and friends are shipped off to concentration camps where we all know they will meet their death. Szpilman however manages to find ways to avoid this, first by staying on to perform slave labour in the dismantling of the newly vacated ghetto, and later by going into hiding in the underground supported by a network of Polish nationals. There is nothing heroic about what he does, he just does what he can to survive, and every step of the way there are many who don't survive.

Polanski's direction of the film is excellent, yet subtle to the end. Messages are not spoon fed to the audience. The pace is borderline slow, yet captivating nonetheless. Because Szpilman manages to escape before being sent to a concentration camp, the film ends up being less about the Holocaust, and more about what happened to its victims before the camps.

The Pianist is the first of two films (The Quiet American being the second) I've seen recently that in their timeliness have added texture to how I view the World and how it deals with Iraq. Early in the film, Szpilman's family take consolation in the fact that Britain and France have declared war against Germany in response to its invasion of Poland. They assume that it will be a matter of weeks before they are emancipated from their newly found oppression. I don't want to get particularly political in a movie review, but the film does do an excellent job of portraying just how much damage can be done by a dictator once he gets going, and that while these may end up as faceless newscasts in on our end, there are real victims on the other end that rely on the rest of the world to oppose the tyranny that affects them.

Unfaithful (2002)

About as original as that penny sitting in your pocket

[4/10 · 26 May 2003]

Disclaimer: Major plot spoiler.

To be to the point ... Unfaithful wasn't very good. Spoiler about to follow. Here is the plot: happily married woman accidently runs into a guy on the street (literally), he seduces her, they have an affair, the woman's husband gets suspicious, he hires a private eye, he confronts his wife's lover, he accidently kills him, the wife finds out, they reconcile their issues and decide it's best if they all run off and live in Mexico, roll the credits.

About as original as that penny sitting in your pocket.

If you like Richard Gere, or have a thing for Diane Lane, or melt at the sight of a mysterious french guy -- go nuts, rent it, make some popcorn. Otherwise, you're not missing anything.

After watching Unfaithful, I wondered how Diane Lane got the nomination -- it was hardly a stellar performance. But to be fair I tried to come up with other potential candidates from 2002 films I saw ... the only thing I could come up with was Nia Vardalos for My Big Fat Greek Wedding -- she got the writing nomination; that's probably enough for her. I guess Lane's nomination is more of a comment of the lack of great lead roles for women this last year.

Bottom line: 4/10.

Adaptation. (2002)

Half of this Review is About Me

[9/10 · 4 April 2003]

Every once in a while you see a film and it just happens to resonate with you in a way that it wouldn't have had you seen it another time. Adaptation is this way for me. I saw it just as I was re-discovering my love for writing. This newly re-discovered love came back to me as I started blogging.

After I first started blogging, a few well-meaning relatives said I should be writing professionally for newspapers or something. While I would never consider this, as I don't think my writing is good enough, and I've got other things I'd rather do, it did force me to think about it for a minute or two, and after that minute or two I realized why I wouldn't want to write professionally ... deadlines.

That said, there are two other aspects of writing that go in the `pro' column with the first being the process of exorcising thoughts in one's head into words on a piece of paper (or computer screen). There is something almost therapeutic about articulating something you really believe in, into written words. While, this process is wonderful unto itself, even if no one else ever reads it, it is also extremely validating to have others read and appreciate your work (that being the second pro).

So with all that bobbling around in my head, I came to see Adaptation.

The film confronts the difficulties a writer faces with balancing what the writer wants to write, versus what the audience wants to read (or view). The conflict a writer faces of wanting to be true to one's ideals while also seeking the acceptance and validation from the audience embracing his work. And of course there's the aspect of dealing with the `real-world' of deadlines, bills to pay, finding love, etc.

The film is directed by Spike Jonze and written by Charlie (& Donald) Kaufman, the same director/writer team that brought us Being John Malkovich. BJM had to be one of the most original, absurd, and entertaining films I've seen in recent memory. Adaptation achieves a similar standing, but in a very different way. The film is a wonderful mix of autobiographical non-fiction, with a quirky piece of fiction, mixed in with an adaptation of a real non-fiction book. Confused? Well it is confusing, but somehow Kaufman (& Kaufman) make it work, in a way that could have just as easily flopped big time -- but it didn't; it paid off -- big time.

I'm tempted to describe the film in detail, but it really needs to be experienced first hand. To sum it up, it portrays the struggle of Charlie Kaufman in his struggle to adapt the book "The Orchid Thief" into a screenplay. He ends up making the script as much about his attempt to adapt the screenplay, as it is about the story of the book, and we soon realize that the script he is writing, is the film we're watching. It works on so many levels one could write a Masters Thesis about it, but all of these levels leave the audience captured, waiting in baited anticipation of how they are going to resolve themselves. It truly is a symphony of a screenplay with all of these themes working beside one another, and ultimately resolving themselves when they come together in the finale at the end. In many ways (that are hard to describe without giving it away), the film is like a combination of Fight Club and Get Shorty. Though Charlie would disapprove of such a movie-industry-pitch type of description.

The cast is fantastic, and while I have never been a big Nicolas Cage fan, he demonstrates the brilliance of his craft here.

Bottom line: 9/10