C2FThom Reviews

Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003)

Waste of a terrific cast

[4/10 · 15 June 2005]

"Girl with a Pearl Earring" isn't your typical character drama or period piece (except for the fact that these Dutch people speak British English). Rather, it's quite simply a "slice of life" film, a voyeuristic endeavor that relies upon contextual clues and on the nuances of the actors' performances to succeed.

Unfortunately, this portrait of 17th century Holland is so restrained and conservative, the notable cast has very little opportunity to shine. In fact, the only thing I took from the film WAS the fact that this particular society was extremely conservative, and that it took very little at all to rock the proverbial boat--a married man, alone in a room with another woman, god forbid painting her, was practically considered adultery. Colin Firth was completely wasted here, and Scarlett Johansson gave a much better turn in 2003--a superbly "nuanced" performance--in Lost in Translation. Tom Wilkinson plays the scheming art patron/benefactor, the only enjoyable and unpredictable part in the bunch.

BTW, the film does *look* spectacular. Nearly any scene could be worthy of a masterful painting itself. But good cinematography, IMO, is merely icing on a cake--it doesn't count for much if cake itself is bland.

Nip/Tuck (2003–2010)

Riveting, Controversial, and... Terrible?

[24 April 2005]

I just caught the Season 2 marathon for this show last night. I've never watched the show before but it'd always seemed amusing from previews. Well, it's certainly amusing, but that's about the only good thing I can say about it.

Sure, the show finds some ridiculous way to be controversial, by incorporating subplots related to adultery, abortion, religion, pedophilia, or... doubling up on prostitutes. But it covers such topics for strictly exploitative and sensational purposes. It doesn't provide any hard-hitting commentary or food for thought.

Moreover, it only skips about from controversy to controversy to disguise the fact that Nip/Tuck is just poorly written and poorly acted. The tone of the show can oscillate between "Showtime" and "Lifetime" at any minute and usually does so on a per-scene basis. The zombies who think this is an example of great entertainment & great storytelling need to get out more, catch some movies in theatres (which tend to be at least better than this), or even turn the channel. I'm no fan of Desperate Housewives, but at least it's clever in dealing with its own fluff.

Amélie (2001)

Heartwarming and enchanting, but enlightening as well...

[10/10 · 28 September 2003]

It's easy to see why so many people like Amélie. The film is absolutely beautiful, and as has been noted time and again, it plays like a modern day fairy tale. It seems, though, that some people can't understand how it's made its place at #20 in the IMDb's top films list. So, rather than discuss the general merits of the film, as many have done, I'm going to try and address the reasons, in specific, it's reached this level of popularity.

One of the most common write-offs about Amélie is that this is a "romantic comedy," and romantic comedies must by their nature be inferior to other films. Granted, there is a lot of support for this mode of thought, particularly in the form of very cliché, fluffy romantic comedies, the type you see Meg Ryan in so much. They're fun and they're sweet, but ultimately forgettable. But Amélie does not fit this mold. It's about love, definitely, but it's not about the typical self-centered notions of finding that person who "completes" her. On the contrary, she really discovers love through doing good things for others, affecting their lives. She feels gratified for doing so, but for reasons she can't really understand, she's still left feeling empty. When she stumbles upon Nino, her actions are quite playful and curious, but even when she begins to realize he might be that "special someone", she refuses to act on her desires, because such self-serving acts are against her nature. The lovers' eventual union only occurs after her neighbors, those people whose lives she's touched, conspire to return her favors. Thus, in the end, everyone who's found love or made happy has done so thanks to the generosity of others.

One of the other major complaints is about the pacing of the film, particularly that it drags in its final act. This is understandable as it could've been packaged more neatly with a few cut scenes at the end, but I understand Jeunet's intentions and would rather keep the film as is than chop it up for salability. Amélie and Nino aren't delayed from getting together simply so that Dufayel can make his inspirational little speech via her VCR. No, Amélie is absolutely petrified about taking chances and especially doing so for herself, and with such an attitude, she would never find happiness. Jeunet really drives this point in with several repeated and failed attempts. Some people find it unnecessary and are inclined to say, "I get it already!" But for those who can most closely relate--who just find it so hard to work for their own benefit--the inclusions of these scenes really adds to the effect, and drives the points home that good deeds will eventually be reciprocated, and that you must be willing to make yourself happy.

There are so many reasons why I love this film and it'd be impossible to lift them all, but I beg you to give the film a chance. If you don't like it, I'm sorry and a bit saddened. There may just be a chance, though, you'll think like I that Amélie belongs higher on the list than #20.

White Oleander (2002)

Hey, it WOULD make a good 'Lifetime' movie...

[4/10 · 18 September 2003]

Just stumbled in here through Lohman's filmography... I was pretty bored by this movie. By the choice of subject matter and the quality of acting, you can tell they intended it to be one of those "realistic, touching" movies, but the cookie-cutter storyline ruins it. Let's see, hmm, girl goes in foster home, foster home totally screwed up in some way uniquely different than the last home. This happens four or five times at least? I can't remember. But it becomes bland, and that Pfeiffer plays her role with so damn much intensity (which might've worked if better written) pushes the film into the realm of silly.

Dirty Pretty Things (2002)

Sad but hopeful

[9/10 · 15 September 2003]

I'll be honest. The Friday when Dirty Pretty Things opened at the local theatre, there was only one reason I sat waiting for it: Audrey Tautou. Yes, the French actress famous for her starring role in Amélie. She compelled me to see this film, because, for the first time, I would see her as someone other than the wide-eyed angel of Montmartre. More than that... I would see her speak English! (The aspiring filmmaker in me swoons at the thought of getting her to cameo in a future film.) That's why I saw Dirty Pretty Things Friday.

The next day I saw it again, for a different reason. Saturday, I was confident I'd seen a pretty damn good film the night before, and I wanted to make sure.

Dirty Pretty Things is the brainchild of director Stephen Frears (High Fidelity) and freshman screenwriter Steve Knight (Co-creator of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", of all things). But this film is nothing like your typical John Cusack or Jack Black comedy, and you won't find any cheesy Regis Philbin one-liners. Instead, you'll find a compelling tale of two immigrants, a Nigerian exile named Okwe (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and a dreamy-eyed Turkish girl named Senay (Audrey Tautou). Okwe rents space in Senay's apartment, which is against her terms of asylum, and both work at The Baltic, a seedy hotel run by immigrants from top to bottom. At the top: Señor Juan, a sneaky spaniard who uses his employees' illigal immigrant status to his full advantage.

As Okwe begins to uncover some of his boss's misdeeds, Frears presents us with a fresh & intriguing thriller, though perhaps it moves at a slower pace than Clancy-savvy American audiences are familiar with. The truth of Juan's conspiracy is quite extreme--in fact, it might almost be unbelievable, except by that time, something else has happened.

By then, Frears has brought the audience quite close to Okwe and Senay. We feel how real and extreme, how sad and damning their existences seem to be, so how could Juan's schemes be any less real?

As the end approaches, it's once again easy to guess what American audiences might expect: either a wholly tragic ending courtesy of Shakespeare or Darren Arronofsky; or the miraculously cheery Sandra Bullock happy ending, lined with rose petals. Nope; try none of the above. Frears and Knight surprise us once again with an ending that is both happy and sad and heartbreakingly believable. (And I spoil nothing, as you will never guess it!)

Making this film all the more tanglible are the performances by the entire cast. I would love to brag about Audrey--and believe me, I will--but I must honestly give highest praise to Chiwetel Ejiofor. Whether they are his natural qualities or traits he adopted for the role, his combination of sad eyes, his modestly proud mouth, and his soft, wise voice make him irreplaceable in this role. His performance remind me of some of our country's own actors. Denzel Washington, or Levar Burton, when either of their characters were strapped to a wagon and lashed bloody with a whip, and your heart sank for them. Ejiofor's performance of Okwe is much like that, but better. It's better because he doesn't need to be strapped to a wagon. He doesn't need a whip cracking behind him, forcing him to wince. Okwe is simply a man without a home, without any security, and yet Ejiofor makes us sadder for him then for the others. History repeats itself--I can't wait to see this actor in another film.

Ah, yes, and then there's Audrey. It's verifiable now, folks: she's enchanting. Not long ago, I read an interview with Audrey Tautou in anticipation of this film. With all the innocence of her most famous role, and with a modesty that makes her even more admirable, Audrey admitted that she is very unfamiliar with English, let alone English with Turkish accent. She said she hopes audiences will be forgiving of her performance, as it is her first English role. Well, Miss Tautou, you need not be forgiven. Her English wasn't just passable... Her English--and her roughly Turkish accent, convincing enough for me--allow her performance to shine through. We're presented with a quirky, believable young muslim girl, with no trace of Amélie but those gorgeous eyes. Thingy Blah Blah 3 certainly isn't the film for Audrey Tautou, but if she so desired, she could take Hollywood by storm as Napoleon took Europe.

The supporting cast does just as it implies, from the sharpwitted morgue worker Guo Yi, to the equally dimwitted Russian doorman Ivan, from the sleazy cab company boss to... well, the nightly hotel frequenter named Juliette. Together with Okwe and Senay, they solidify an image of the immigrant underground of London that makes us think, "Hey! I thought we were 'the melting pot!'"

Dirty Pretty Things is a fitting title. Made for $10 million, a modest cost compared to summer blockbusters in the states, it's not the shiniest film ever made. The film quality is, in fact, quite grainy in places, and the color spectrum is a fraction of what you'd find in a single scene of Spider-Man or Charlie's Angels or even Amélie. To boot, there's no score, no music but what the characters hear as they cross the street or enter a market. But for all that this "dirty" film lacks, it makes up for with a beautifully crafted story and some of the most compelling characters seen on screen in years.

Please, don't go waste your money on My Boss's Daughter or whatever other end-of-summer trash Hollywood managed to muster a good commercial for. This film is certainly not for kids, but if you're looking for a school's-in trip amongst adults, check to see what local theatre is showing Dirty Pretty Things and see it instead.

My Boss's Daughter (2003)

Waste of time, money, celluloid...

[1/10 · 15 September 2003]

This is the only movie I can recall ever having walked out of. It's bad enough that no intelligent effort was made on the plot--After Ashton Kutcher's character is duped into housesitting, inexplicably, every oddball in the western hemisphere starts showing up--but it seems the filmmakers instead spent effort making the movie as insulting and degrading as possible. I'm not one stuck on political correctness by any means, but this film pokes fun of Jews, "retards", and disabled people without any signs of restraint.

"Gigli", this summer's infamous bomb, might've had a contrived plot, a silly mismatch of characters, and one of the dumbest endings ever, but at least there can be traces of effort found within. "My Boss's Daughter" has none. It is the worst film of the summer (barring perhaps Marci X, which I didn't see), and one of the worst films ever made. It's depressing to walk into a packed theatre for this movie, while a good film like "Dirty Pretty Things" plays nearly empty.

He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not (2002)

Good potential left untapped

[5/10 · 14 September 2003]

*NOTE: This review contains spoilers.*

Films that can successfully implement plot twists can quickly jump onto lists of people's favorite movies. David Fincher (Fight Club, The Game, Seven) has made a career out of it, and M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense) got off to a good start thanks to a well-implemented twist.

"He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not" could have joined such elite company with a little work. With some intelligent navigation, it could've found its way to greatness, but instead it takes a winding road to mediocrity.

Unfortunately, most of the complaints originate from the first ten minutes of film, perhaps the most crucial ten minutes for any film. From the very beginning, Angelique comes off as clingy and foolish--quite simply, an adulterous young girl and a housebreaker. Thus the character never really generates any sympathy with the audience. By the time the "switch" comes, it's hardly unexpected. Not all of the problems are found in the introduction--some explanations seem too coincidental, and the ending tapers off sluggishly--but the film would've played much better with an improved beginning.

This fault may be attributed to expectations of modern French cinema, which stresses realism in its films. (You'd think they'd get the hint with the surrealistic Amélie's success!) Because the film's subject is quite psychological in nature, it could have benefitted from the luxury of delusional/hallucinated scenes to augment Angelique's point of view.

A few suggestions as to how it could've been improved:

1) Begin the film with romantic scenes between the pair, and reveal at the end (during Angelique's "there is a world in my head" speech) that the romance was entirely imagined. 2) Rewrite the beginning of the film, including the pair's initial contact. Perhaps Loic could've had a drunken rendezvous with Angelique or something, and while Angelique blew it out of proportion, Loic simply forgot about it. 3) Eliminate the POV shift. Show the film entirely from Loic's point of view, playing it almost as a "whodunnit".

Of course, eliminating the POV shift would make the film play like a rather standard thriller, and Angelique would've been even less sympathetic than she was. The second suggestion would've changed the movie significantly, especially removing one of the most unique attributes: Loic's complete innocence from any wrongdoing. So I believe a hallucinated romance to open would've been the best way to improve the film without changing it thematically.

All that said, it's not a terrible film. You do sympathize a great deal with Loic durring the second act, and the revelations you learn are shocking even if you were disappointed by the beginning. It's also well-acted around the board... It's tempting to suggest Audrey Tautou play the part more creepily to make up for the rather unconvincing setup, but to do so would actually be counterproductive and drive the film even further into mediocrity.

Last words: Fine as a rental if you're looking for another Audrey Tautou performance, as I was... It doesn't demand very great acting, but she gives a solid job. If you're looking for a good thriller, there's probably something equally pleasing on the new release rack--and one that won't require reading subtitles.

Happenstance (2000)

The Butterfly Effect

[14 September 2003]

Do you know about the Butterfly Effect? Sure you do. Jeff Goldblum explained it in Jurassic Park: "A butterfly can flap its wings in Peking, and in Central Park you get rain instead of sunshine." As one might guess from the title itself, Happenstance is all about randomness and chance. It details how the tiniest of events can lead to a particular outcome--in this case, the uniting of two soulmates.

Happenstance adheres strictly to its philosophy, perhaps to a fault. The film skips from person to person in what is quite a large ensemble cast, itemizing how each of them contributes to the system. Due to the intricacies of details involved, in order to bring the audience to the "main" characters' resolution, it fails to follow up on supporting players, many of whom shared as much screen time as the leads. As a result, audiences might be left with more questions than what answers the ending provides. This might be solved by extending the length of the film to follow the other characters, but Happenstance borders on sluggishness at 90 minutes.

Still, because of the film's constant reverence to its notions of chance and fate, it leaves us with a sense of faith that "happenstance" will come to everyone in their own turn.

With such a large cast, it's surprising that there seem to be no weak links among them.

We get to see a different side of Audrey Tautou's spectrum than the naive, wide-eyed dreamer we're familiar with... Here, she's a bit cynical, certainly a realist, and at times, rather self-centered. Her eyes and head hang a little low, and the pixie we watched in Amélie practically disappears. As with He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not, this film is not a great challenge to her acting abilities, but she provides a simple role with solid performance.

The same can be said with all the cast, though it's a bit challenging to match actors' names with the characters' faces. They each play his or her role evenly, with a unique and distinguishable set of strengths and weaknesses.

Such characterization was obviously well thought out by Laurent Firode, who wrote and directed Happenstance. He does a magnificent job at characterization, and one wonders how great he might do with a film focused on two or three main characters. His visual style, while not overpowering, also contributes greatly to the presentation of detail in the film.

Don't rent this expecting Audrey Tautou in every scene, but if you wish to sample some more of her acting, or if you're just interested in an intelligent foreign film, Happenstance should leave you happy.

The Majestic (2001)

Darabont delivers again, Carrey surprises

[10/10 · 29 June 2002]

Before I saw this film, it had both good and bad going for it. The Good: Frank Darabont, one of my favorite directors. The Bad: Jim Carrey, a comedian I'd tired of. I'm glad to say, the good was only slightly under par, and the bad was, refreshingly, not bad at all.

The conflicts, the contrasts of this film are its true strength. It's a clash of two American dreams. In one, friends become names on a blacklist. Films are meant to fill pocketbooks. Self-preservation is the bottom line. In the other, strangers are given the shirt off one's back. Films fill the heart. Sacrifice transcends all. The incorporation of the "red scare" is what's most ironic and uplifting. While Hollywood and Washington tear each other down in fear of Communism, we find a small town, ultimately far more American, and at the same time, very communal. It seems to support itself not through profit but through helping hands & shoulders to lean on. And yet it does this out of unity, mercy, patriotism--all of America's greatest ideals.

Sure, like the small town Carrey's character washes up in, the film is a bit old-fashioned and cheesy, but these are simply its traits, not its flaws. In fact, the cynical criticism the film has received is not unlike the true antagonist of the film: an America out of touch with itself.

Darabont is no disappointment here. Good visuals, a great cast doing a great job, and as is his trademark, a beautiful, uplifting look into years past. I'm only sorry he didn't write the film as well. Were he to, this film might've rivaled Shawshank as his greatest.

As I said, I hadn't been fond of Carrey since the first couple of his mindless comedies (i.e. Ace Ventura). Everyone seemed to want more, but it had gotten old. He did, however, hint at something greater in Truman Show, and he delivers in The Majestic. Subtlety will probably never be his strong point, but he's learned to tone down and channel his expression well. Our expectations of him actually work to his benefit, as we can enjoy him even at points when we'd otherwise dislike the character--I caught myself chuckling a few times when it probably didn't merit laughter.

Overall, this film is not quite as great as its idea, but it's still wonderful. More than likely, this film will earn a spot among my personal favorites. (9.5/10)