joshkmapes Reviews

Capote (2005)

And the winner is . . .

[10/10 · 22 October 2005]

Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who gives the best performance so far this millennium as "capote." I'm usually not into the whole "awards" thing, as well as actors playing well-known figures as an imitation, or "transforming" into a new role, but what's remarkable about his performance, is that he's faced with such a specific and exaggerated character he needs to play (and he nails the stuttering lisp and squeaky voice), but it takes a back seat to how well he understands the role "capote" needs to play in this movie. The movie centers on capote as narcissistic and completely involved in himself, his own world, and his own work . . . and that's exactly how he comes across. But he's neither hero nor villain-- we see him for what he is, we neither like him or hate him . . . but we're fascinated with him and his research for "in cold blood" . . . and what's vital to the movie-- is that we're willing to follow him the entire time.Believe it or not, Hoffman, while faced with an extreme and flamboyant character, adds a subtle note under the imitation in every scene that leads it to become what the director wants. At the end, he has a breakdown and cries as the criminals face the death penalty. Hoffman makes it clear that-- he's crying because ANYBODY would cry while facing something like that-- but then we really have NO idea why he's affected beyond that . . . what is he thinking? it could be anything. This scene reminded me so much of the ambiguity of halle berry in the final scene of monster's ball.

I can't stand catherine keener, i think she's terrible in most things, but . . .she blew me away. What a great cast. And dan futterman's script is the best screenplay in ages.

This isn't the life story of truman capote, but instead an exploration of a great mind meeting a criminal mind. IT's a suspense story even though we know the end results. This is a credit to the writer, the crew, the astounding cast, and specifically . . . phillip seymour Hoffman.

Dogville (2003)

Not as wierd and Pretentious as one might expect

[10/10 · 28 March 2004]

I'm not a fan of Von Tier, but the way in which this film conducts itself is truly interesting. When i saw this film, many people left during the first hour due to boredom. I'm usually not drawn into movies that try really hard to set themselves apart and behave strangely. but the characters and the set up of this film make it unique and watchable.

Mr. Von Tier has never been to America, which i think makes me able to appreciate this film more for what it's trying to do. It testament to the abstractness of our ideas about things about which we haven't the slightest clue. He's never been to America, so he doesn't have a clue. but yet, he has the right idea on some things, others he's way off. And he's just a little bitter and close minded like the townspeople of dogville. And maybe that's ok. The film and it's set-up are stunning, and each scene is directed with a purpose. He draws upon many techniques of theatre and Brechtian principles of drama. The end credits did leave a bad taste in my mouth, though.

The actors really come into their own. IN each scene, i got a sense of their fear of screwing up or frustrations about conflicting with a difficult director. I find nicole kidman too frail, raspy voiced, and whispery. She's like this all of the time, and acting isn't really pretending to be week. but in this film, in the last hour, she's incredible. I'm a negative person and usually don't like movies and rip everything to shreds . . . but this is her best performance. By far. All the other actors are perfectly cast, and you can tell they fully embrace the set and the style of the film.

The set really is Beautiful, and it reinforoces the story. Stunning all around, and worth seeing. Even though its message is highly debatable, it's form is something new and fresh, while building upon the old and refusing to be another gimmicky art movie. See this movie. It actually dared to try something new.

The Hours (2002)

By far the Worst movie of the year, but something is still there.

[7 February 2003]

The book "the hours" is positively brilliant. It's written in the same way as Mrs. Dalloway and expands on the same themes. It's beautiful. I was nervous about the movie, because i was afraid it was going to use voice over to tell us what the characters were thinking and feeling. I was wrong. Voice over would have been better.

This is by far the most poorly written movie of the year. The characters are only seen as their ailments. We have no idea who they are. There's NOTHING there. Therefore, we see them as Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, and Meryl Streep.

Julianne Moore can't make a cake and her son has to help her. Then she kisses the neighbor woman. Then she drops her son off at a friends house. Then she checks into a hotel to kill herself. then she doesn't. then she's crying in a bathroom. Then she's back in bed.

That's literally all the audience gets of her character. No motivation. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. And the same goes for the other two. There's just nothing here. It never takes off and we never know who they are. It hides behind it's brilliance, but i think people are just afraid to dislike it. (I will say, the musical score is amazing)

I attend film school, and this semester, every one of my teachers has used this film in a discussion of "how not to approach a film" and "what's wrong in a screenplay."

Nicole Kidman is borderline horrible in this movie. She's wearing a prosthetic nose to play Virginia Woolf. Yet the way her arms move-- nicole kidman. The way she behaves-- nicole kidman. THe nose is the only thing that's not her, and she hides behind it. Did ben kingsley need a nose to play ghandi? joseph fiennes prosthetics to play shakespeare? no . . . they tried ACTING. And Nicole Kidman's strange attempt at an english accent is awkward and silly, especially since she shares scenes with miranda richardson and stephen dillane.

This movie does nothing with story or narrative, it does nothing but provide cheap moments that try to show power in acting and dialogue. But really, these moments and characters aren't grounded in anything. In other words, there is no reason for it. We don't have michael cunningham's text and skilled words to guide us through it. Julianne moore has so much skill and talent it gives me chills, and she excercises them here. And meryl streep is the most incredible living actress. But they don't have ANYTHING. except they know it's a high profile project and it's easy for people to just take the BADNESS and insanity of it as being "different" or "brilliant."

This movie isn't anything but trying to win oscars, and giving those involved the opportunity to say "look at us, aren't we good?????" in every moment of screen time. the answer is, no, you're not. it's just plain bad. And virginia woolf wasn't just a suicidal bisexual bitch. No one is. No one is only a stereotype, and no one is ONLY miserable. I think the writers, actors, and director should have read Mrs. Dalloway. Or any virginia woolf for that matter. They would have known these elements are delicate and don't embody a whole character. I think Michael Cunningham was the only one who bothered to read the book that inspired the whole thing.

Queer as Folk (2000–2005)

A little spark of something workable needing a MAJOR Revamp

[7 February 2003]

Queer as Folk toots its own horn a little much for my own personal taste. Yes, it is getting something out there that has never been seen before . . . but it's so sloppily written it makes me sick. The dialogue is cheesy and every character is so stereotypical it's like Sex and the City gone bad.

Showtime intends this to be "the gay version of Sex and the city," they even share the same night. Both shows contain characters that serve a different function for the show. But on Sex and the City, this all works and blends together perfectly. It's an absolutely brilliant show for many reasons. It's stylistic as all get out, and it's a sort of "fantasia" that's still grounded in the real world. And the characters are true to the role they play on the show, but it's done in an interesting way. Obstacles come around where they expand out of what they are supposed to be (aka Bitter Miranda having a baby growing into the situation slowly, still holding onto what makes her "miranda"). These characters all are growing. Whereas in Queer as Folk, nothing happens except Sex. Justin, the "lovable young sunshine" in the show is back peddaling into a stereotype that's dangerous. He now is having sex for sex and no longer wants love like he used to. What a great lesson to learn.

As a gay man, i have absolutely no connection with this show and the characters in it. And it's supposedly intended for me or "people like me" (this show is very bigoted). But I could rant on the social effects of a show like this and how it's politically the biggest trainwreck to ever hit the TV, but i digress. Everyone knows it's an altered perspective and stereotypical, but it's a guilty pleasure for most.

This show is really poorly constructed, and that's the main issue.

-- the setting is supposed to be "working class" and people who are "right next door" yet the gay neighborhood in queer as folk exists nowhere. if it did exist somewhere it wouldn't be in pittsburgh. Assimilate the characters into the rest of the world.

-- where are the straight people on the show??? NO ONE only hangs around other gay people. In fact, most gay men do'nt have a lot of close friends who are gay.

-- THERE ARE TOO MANY CHARACTERS!!!! how are we ever supposed to know these people beyond stereotypes??? writing wise how will this show ever get better. Brian and debbie are the only interesting characters here. Condense, rewrite, add some more characters and get some better story lines. Also, explore deeper into each character. if samantha jones can say i love you, so can brian kinney . . . it's not "untrue to the character" it's life, and he's a real person. At least the goal of writing is to create people and themes that are real. If these people are fake, why have people act them out? why not just read the lines on a CD? Why would people watch week after week where nothing new is happening. I'm not saying brian HAS to say i love you to justin or be emotional . . . but people grow as time moves on. These characters all speak robotically and they are the exact same people who premiered on cable two years ago. This show needs new writers NOW. The acting is ok (i chalk up the BAD bits of acting to the writing). Poor, poor writing isn't groundbreaking for the gay community.

If this show were about straight people it would have been done by now because it's that bad. it would have been reworked and tried again and again until it worked. But this show was the first "show for gay people" so people took it. The minute the SECOND gay drama comes along, it'll be done. Because then it won't be able to toot its own horn anymore . ..

Friends (1994–2004)

Yank it off the air, and do it quickly.

[5 February 2003]

I was in the Sixth Grade when friends first aired. It wasn't as funny as seinfeld but it was close. The first three seasons of Friends were absolutely hilarious. But as I look back on the plot lines, they focused on the wrong things. The things that make me laugh like no other are pheobe being pregnant with her brothers twins and needing to eat meat, rachel dressing up like a cheerleader to get a guy, joey being on days of our lives etc. NOBODY CARES ABOUT ROSS AND RACHEL or CHANDLER AND MONICA.

Focusing on this well, . . . crap, has permanently made the reruns of this show unwatchable. 7 years after it started, ross and rachel are still a big question mark. How ridiculous. And when you watch reruns of the show, the center of the show is jockeying between which friend is dating who and who's freaked out about marriage at the time. Who wouldn't have guessed that chandler would "flip out" at his wedding, he'd been doing it for 7 years.

Also, i saw a recent episode that relied completely on jokes started in the first season. Everyone at chandler's work thought he was gay. "hahaha" make an episode about it. But then every episode after the same shtick starts. in the ninth season, ross still cries out, "if rachel wants to kiss other guys, then so will I!" to which chandler looks at him with a "?!?!??!?!?!?!?" expression. I rest my case. it's just not funny. the characters weren't that original to start off with. This show should have ended after the 5th season.

Friends is its own world. I live in new york, and i have never seen ANY sort of life like that of the friends crew. I've never sat in a an all caucasion coffee house or gotten an exec job at ralph lauren with "waitressing at central perk" as the main part of my resume. Sit coms all have their individual problems, but friends needs to quit while it's ahead. I'll still watch the older episodes and laugh myself silly. They should have been making one million an episode then when they were actually trying to produce something funny and worthwhile and not just letting the series play out with no work.

And as for the individual characters, recently, all of them except joey are SO irritating i can't even make it through a show. I miss the days of Rachel spraining her ankle and having no insurance and of monica trying to become a chef. What do they do now? well, that's a good question . . . i think they do nothing (rachel doesn't even take care of this baby that "resurrected the show," the nanny carts her around) apparently it's something so entertaining and important to society that NBC feels it should center a show around it for another year. Or maybe they know people are hanging on to friends until it ends. So they won't have followed it all this time and missed the last season.

Intimate Affairs (2001)

Film about sex tries to enlighten and fails

[1/10 · 16 June 2002]

Directors need to learn that audiences watch a film for the characters, and they need to understand the characters. "Investigating Sex" illustrates characters that are so narcississtic the audience is annoyed from first frame to last. I saw the film at a screening with Alan Rudolph with a discussion afterwards, and he didn't even really appear to know what the film was about either. He just used the phrase "sexually compelling" a bunch of times. I didn't care about the characters, I frankly didn't the film had any characters to offer. Just a lot of actors spreading paint on themselves and turning into donkeys and mules in order to say something profound about sexual relations and sexual attraction. Robin Tunney is great as usual, and the other actors do what they can. If you want to try to beat the meaning out of a movie and read into things that aren't there, this movie is for you. If you actually want to learn something or see a great film, don't watch "Investigating Sex." Because it certainly isn't entertaining. It's really pretty ridiculous.