`Monster' is based on the true story of Eileen Wournos, America's most high profile female serial killer. The keys words in that sentence are 'based on', as they should be in any movie that aspires to tell the true story of someone's life. Walking in to the theater, I knew only that Wournos was a hooker who shot her johns, and that she was responsible for a number of killings before she was caught in 1990 and put to death in Florida in 2002 for her crimes. `Monster', as so many movies before it, wants to portray the events of someone's life, events that in this case only an executed killer and a murder victim were privy to. The movie opens with Wournos wandering in to a bar one evening and meeting her true love. She has not begun killing yet; she is merely another disheveled prostitute, and has been since she was 13. Inside the bar she meets Shelby (Christina Ricci), a lesbian who is just as insecure as Eileen (who is called Lee in the film), only she displays her fears openly rather than hiding them behind false bravado and swagger as Lee does. The two unlikely partners begin to fall in love, and Lee goes out one day to make enough money to get them started on a life together. However, she is picked up by the wrong john, and she is knocked out. She comes to naked, tied to the car. After a brutal series of events, she breaks free and kills her attacker, and discovers a hacksaw in his trunk; had she not shot him, he would undoubtedly have killed her. She lives in fear for a while, but soon realizes that the police are not looking for her. A lifetime of abuse and rape explodes inside of her, and after a brief attempt to go straight (which is met with painful skepticism from the working world), she exorcizes her demons by killing more men who should be home with their wives rather than in a car in the woods with her. She hides her actions from Shelby, who she now lives with. But living with a hooker is not easy, and the two quarrel constantly. The film is very effective at showing their relationship; how lust turned to love, and how it all came crashing down. Was Eileen Wournos a monster? Yes, undoubtedly. But she was also a victim herself, a tired concept that gains new strength here. We see Lee commit horrible crimes in the name of love, to give her lover money; in one harrowing scene she kills a man who does not want sex but only wants to help someone in need and offers his son's old room in a house he shares with his wife. I enjoy true crime books, trying to understand why people do what they do (all the while understanding that some people are just evil through and through), but I also know a lot of people who have had horrible childhoods but learned from them and became better people. Wournos truly had no right to kill the men she did, with the exception of the man who would have killed her, but the movie does something no book or movie has ever done better: it makes us see her as a person, to empathize with her. By the end, I was surprisingly emotional, so good is `Monster' at painting a three-dimensional portrait of a bad person who doesn't see herself as bad, and who can justify all of her actions. We feel for her just as much as we fear her. Charlize Theron plays Wournos, and it is a real shame that so much press has been devoted to the make-up tricks she used in the role. Yes, she gained thirty pounds and shows no glamour, especially in her nude scenes; and, yes, make-up was used to freckle her face and make her a dead ringer for the real-life Eileen. But the acting is all Theron, and it would be unfortunate if it is seen as a camera trick. Theron gives the best performance of her career, but that is no great achievement; with the exception of `The Cider House Rules', most of her films, like `Reindeer Games' or `The Italian Job', have just required her to look pretty and flash a little skin, something she does very well. But what is amazing here is that she gives one of the best performances I have seen in a very long time, not just compared to her earlier work. In many ways `Monster' plays like `Boys Don't Cry', an effective love story set against horrific events, and it is every bit that film's equal. Theron is the reason; she inhabits the role, and shows fearlessness alongside a breathtaking amount of talent. Ricci has been somewhat overlooked, but she is amazing as well, using her eyes to portray a woman who has more strength than she knows. She has one amazing scene in a bar where she channels Lee and takes on her attributes in front of some strangers, and the film would not work as a love story if we don't believe both leads, regardless of how strong Theron's performance is. Both women deserve Oscar nominations, if not the awards themselves. `Monster' is one of the best films of the year, a movie that sidesteps numerous pitfalls to tell a sad, violent, and affecting story. Maybe it happened this way, and maybe it didn't; the dead cannot speak to defend themselves. But without stooping to bleeding heart liberalism or exploitation, the movie tells a tale no one who sees it should ever be able to shake.
Reviews
9 Reviews
Bruce Almighty
(2003)
Funny but sappy
29 January 2004
There are three Jim Carreys. There is the insane Jim Carrey, who starred as Ace Ventura and got `Dumb and Dumber'. There is the serious actor Carrey, who headlined `The Truman Show', `Man on the Moon', and `The Majestic'. And then there is the blended Carrey, where he takes a little of both and winds up with films like `The Mask', `Me, Myself, and Irene', and especially `Liar Liar'. All three Jim Carreys can be great, and all three Jim Carreys can be awful. `Bruce Almighty' lets Carrey blend his serious and comic sides again, and as directed by frequent collaborator and director Tom Shadyec, the duo hits more often than they miss.
Some of us handle life's big disasters smoothly but flip out if we drop a pen. Others ignore the small stuff but get overwhelmed by the big stuff. Carrey's titular Bruce lets both drag him down. Like many of us have at various ages and stages in our lives, he blames God for not doing a good job of people management. He is drowning at work, his girlfriend seems ready to call it quits, and life's traffic jams and potholes filled with water, waiting to be stepped in, surround him constantly. God, here portrayed (naturally) by Morgan Freeman, calls Bruce on his complaints and hands over His powers. Bruce now, literally, is a God.
At first, he focuses on getting even with those who have wronged him and making his girlfriend (Jennifer Aniston) fall back in love with him, ignoring the prayers of all the poor schlubs like the one he used to be. The film has kicky fun letting Bruce flex and show off his powers. But he soon realizes that he actually has to help other people, and he messes everything up even worse, sending the world into utter chaos.
Eventually life lessons are learned and the film gets sappy. There are many ways this film could have gone: Bruce using his powers to duke it out with God or having kinky adventures. But `Bruce Almighty' takes the mainstream road, and this is not an insult. It does everything it is supposed to do, and it does it well.
Carrey provides a solid center to this film, although his mugging occasionally feels forced in a way it never did in `Liar Liar'. He introduces new catchphrases: `B-e-a-utiful' and his way of saying `It's good' and stretching out the 'oo' sound as if he were the Swedish Chef. These too seem forced; Freeman underplays an `Alrighty, then', a nod to Ace Ventura, so well that most audience members miss it, and this works much better than Carrey's antics. Aniston is saddled with the girlfriend part, in which she plays with little kids, obsesses over a photo album, and reacts to Bruce Almighty's crazy stunts. But she plays the part with such warmth and genuineness that when she hits her personal crisis, we actually feel it. This part, like `The Good Girl', proves that she should have a wonderful career after `Friends' takes its final bow.
There is nothing new here. The wheel is not reinvented. But this film delivers exactly what it should: some big laughs, some good characters, and a nice day at the movies. Thank God.
Some of us handle life's big disasters smoothly but flip out if we drop a pen. Others ignore the small stuff but get overwhelmed by the big stuff. Carrey's titular Bruce lets both drag him down. Like many of us have at various ages and stages in our lives, he blames God for not doing a good job of people management. He is drowning at work, his girlfriend seems ready to call it quits, and life's traffic jams and potholes filled with water, waiting to be stepped in, surround him constantly. God, here portrayed (naturally) by Morgan Freeman, calls Bruce on his complaints and hands over His powers. Bruce now, literally, is a God.
At first, he focuses on getting even with those who have wronged him and making his girlfriend (Jennifer Aniston) fall back in love with him, ignoring the prayers of all the poor schlubs like the one he used to be. The film has kicky fun letting Bruce flex and show off his powers. But he soon realizes that he actually has to help other people, and he messes everything up even worse, sending the world into utter chaos.
Eventually life lessons are learned and the film gets sappy. There are many ways this film could have gone: Bruce using his powers to duke it out with God or having kinky adventures. But `Bruce Almighty' takes the mainstream road, and this is not an insult. It does everything it is supposed to do, and it does it well.
Carrey provides a solid center to this film, although his mugging occasionally feels forced in a way it never did in `Liar Liar'. He introduces new catchphrases: `B-e-a-utiful' and his way of saying `It's good' and stretching out the 'oo' sound as if he were the Swedish Chef. These too seem forced; Freeman underplays an `Alrighty, then', a nod to Ace Ventura, so well that most audience members miss it, and this works much better than Carrey's antics. Aniston is saddled with the girlfriend part, in which she plays with little kids, obsesses over a photo album, and reacts to Bruce Almighty's crazy stunts. But she plays the part with such warmth and genuineness that when she hits her personal crisis, we actually feel it. This part, like `The Good Girl', proves that she should have a wonderful career after `Friends' takes its final bow.
There is nothing new here. The wheel is not reinvented. But this film delivers exactly what it should: some big laughs, some good characters, and a nice day at the movies. Thank God.
Anger Management
(2003)
A waste of the talent of everyone involved
29 January 2004
Consider the career of Adam Sandler. He began on MTV and moved to `Saturday Night Live', where he helped spearhead a commercial revolution on that show with castmates like David Spade and Chris Farley. They were considered dumb humor, but dumb humor was just hitting it's stride, with Beavis and Butthead all over the tv and Jim Carrey and the Farrelly Brothers just beginning their reigns at the box office. Sandler was booted from `SNL' by the network brass, who hated him. He starred in a couple of low budget movies, `Billy Madison' and `Happy Gilmore', that were funnier that most critics will admit and became cult hits. Then came `The Wedding Singer' and Sandler hit the mainstream. That, to me, is when he lost his edge. Crap like `The Waterboy' and `Little Nicky' followed, and the box office dwindled. Paul Thomas Anderson, the auteur behind art-house hits `Boogie Nights' and `Magnolia', wrote a movie called `Punch Drunk Love', in which a typical Sandler doofus character was mined for sadness, and critical acclaim followed. The film flopped, however, doomed by confused frat-boy audiences booing, so Sandler is back being Sandler, alongside Jack Nicholson, in `Anger Management'.
Both actors are following the most critical acclaim either have had in years (if ever), Sandler with `Punch Drunk Love', and Nicholson with `About Schmidt', in which he lowered his eyebrows and played his age. `Anger Management' has no such aspirations. It wants to be a big, dumb comedy, and it succeeds on two out of three. It just ain't that funny.
Sandler plays quiet, shy Dave Buznik who, through a series of misunderstandings, is branded a menace by a judge (Lynne Thigpen, in her final role before her recent and untimely death) and sentenced to full-time anger management training. His instructor, Dr. Buddy Rydell (Nicholson), moves in with him to expedite the process. Rydell is considered a god by his patients, who, as played by such talented actors as Luis Guzman and John Turturro, never seem to get any better.
It goes without saying that Buddy destroys Dave's life, insisting that he's a ticking time bomb from internalizing his anger and forcing him to let it out. Soon Sandler is Sandler, smashing things and punching people. He loses his girlfriend, played by Marisa Tomei, thanks to one of Buddy's schemes. No points for guessing if all of this unconventional therapy will actually make Dave a better man and win back his girl.
Scattered throughout are cameos by Bobby Knight and John McEnroe playing themselves, and actors like Heather Graham (as a temptress with some brownie issues), John C. O'Reilly (as a childhood bully turned monk), and Woody Harrelson (as a cross-dressing German male prostitute) pop up in a showy way. Steve Buscemi shows up again, as he seems to in all of Sandler's work. Sandler and Nicholson give us what they think we want, playing loud and obnoxious, Nicholson's eyebrows arched over some crazy facial hair.
But the script panders too far, avoiding anything new and giving us the obligatory sappy ending. You walk out just thinking that you expected more, and you're right. There is comedy to be mined here, but no one involved is doing anything more than just coasting along on a trail of easy punch lines and predictable slapstick. There is nothing wrong with dumb or gross-out humor; `American Pie', `There's Something About Mary', and the `Austin Powers' movies are just a few examples of flicks with creative, energetic low-brow jokes that work. But `Anger Management' has no creativity and no energy; it's a one-note joke that never seems to end.
Both actors are following the most critical acclaim either have had in years (if ever), Sandler with `Punch Drunk Love', and Nicholson with `About Schmidt', in which he lowered his eyebrows and played his age. `Anger Management' has no such aspirations. It wants to be a big, dumb comedy, and it succeeds on two out of three. It just ain't that funny.
Sandler plays quiet, shy Dave Buznik who, through a series of misunderstandings, is branded a menace by a judge (Lynne Thigpen, in her final role before her recent and untimely death) and sentenced to full-time anger management training. His instructor, Dr. Buddy Rydell (Nicholson), moves in with him to expedite the process. Rydell is considered a god by his patients, who, as played by such talented actors as Luis Guzman and John Turturro, never seem to get any better.
It goes without saying that Buddy destroys Dave's life, insisting that he's a ticking time bomb from internalizing his anger and forcing him to let it out. Soon Sandler is Sandler, smashing things and punching people. He loses his girlfriend, played by Marisa Tomei, thanks to one of Buddy's schemes. No points for guessing if all of this unconventional therapy will actually make Dave a better man and win back his girl.
Scattered throughout are cameos by Bobby Knight and John McEnroe playing themselves, and actors like Heather Graham (as a temptress with some brownie issues), John C. O'Reilly (as a childhood bully turned monk), and Woody Harrelson (as a cross-dressing German male prostitute) pop up in a showy way. Steve Buscemi shows up again, as he seems to in all of Sandler's work. Sandler and Nicholson give us what they think we want, playing loud and obnoxious, Nicholson's eyebrows arched over some crazy facial hair.
But the script panders too far, avoiding anything new and giving us the obligatory sappy ending. You walk out just thinking that you expected more, and you're right. There is comedy to be mined here, but no one involved is doing anything more than just coasting along on a trail of easy punch lines and predictable slapstick. There is nothing wrong with dumb or gross-out humor; `American Pie', `There's Something About Mary', and the `Austin Powers' movies are just a few examples of flicks with creative, energetic low-brow jokes that work. But `Anger Management' has no creativity and no energy; it's a one-note joke that never seems to end.
Blue Crush
(2002)
Beautiful to look at, painful to watch
29 January 2004
`Blue Crush' is about something new in the world of commercial sports: female surfers. Everything is popping up 'extreme' these days, and while female surfers are not new to the world at large, they are new to the pop landscape. `Blue Crush' takes this interesting idea and strands it in a pedestrian storyline with nice performances, passable special effects, and beautiful cinematography and stunt work.
Three friends living on Hawaii's North Shore are determined to make it big and be the first women on the cover of Surfing magazine. The best of the three, Anne Marie (Kate Bosworth), recently wiped out and got sucked under, getting slammed into the razor-sharp coral reef. Since then, she has not been the same surfer. Right off the bat, we've moved into the valley of the banal.
She and her friends Eden (Michelle Rodriguez) and Lena (Sanoe Lake) work as maids at an upscale hotel. There Anne Marie meets and falls for Matt (Matthew Davis), an football player visiting the island with his team, which seems to be made up of a handful of African-American guys who try to give the movie 'flava' by yelling a lot and cramming a fat guy into a Speedo. Anne Marie gets fired after yelling at the Speedo boys for leaving used condoms lying around, and she begins to practice hard for a big upcoming surfing competition.
Bosworth, as Anne Marie, gives a nice little performance. All that is really required of the girls is to look good in bikinis (Rodriguez especially suffers playing an underwritten tough girl), but Bosworth comes up with a little more. We root for her because we genuinely like her, and it's Bosworth that makes this happen, not the script.
That script is a little paint-by-numbers deal, throwing in a little of everything but never focusing on one issue long enough to explore it. Anne Marie is looked down on by male surfers, Matt distracts her from her goal, money is tight among the girls, the island boys beat up Matt for being a mainlander and surfing in a private spot with Anne Marie...each little crisis is introduced and completed in about five minutes. No one has a person to play, just a collection of lines.
Which is unfortunate, because the cinematography (by David Hennings) and editing (by Emma Hickox) are nothing short of spectacular. You have never seen a surfing movie that looks like this (assuming you've ever seen a surfing movie). The camera goes above the water, under the water, inside the curls, and on the boards as it prowls the beach. The water is beautiful, and Hennings pulls off camera tricks no one has ever seen before. Digitally pasting the actress' faces over the women who did the actual surfing is sometimes fake and distracting, but the actresses seemed to do a lot of the surfing, and the women who filled in for the tough stuff did a great job. Hickox weaves it all together dazzlingly; this film is a joy to look at. It's too bad that listening to it is so painful.
This movie will no doubt entrance girls of all ages. While I can't recommend the movie based on the story, I can and will recommend the amazing visuals. It's just too bad that the real world of female surfers didn't get a movie that did them justice.
Three friends living on Hawaii's North Shore are determined to make it big and be the first women on the cover of Surfing magazine. The best of the three, Anne Marie (Kate Bosworth), recently wiped out and got sucked under, getting slammed into the razor-sharp coral reef. Since then, she has not been the same surfer. Right off the bat, we've moved into the valley of the banal.
She and her friends Eden (Michelle Rodriguez) and Lena (Sanoe Lake) work as maids at an upscale hotel. There Anne Marie meets and falls for Matt (Matthew Davis), an football player visiting the island with his team, which seems to be made up of a handful of African-American guys who try to give the movie 'flava' by yelling a lot and cramming a fat guy into a Speedo. Anne Marie gets fired after yelling at the Speedo boys for leaving used condoms lying around, and she begins to practice hard for a big upcoming surfing competition.
Bosworth, as Anne Marie, gives a nice little performance. All that is really required of the girls is to look good in bikinis (Rodriguez especially suffers playing an underwritten tough girl), but Bosworth comes up with a little more. We root for her because we genuinely like her, and it's Bosworth that makes this happen, not the script.
That script is a little paint-by-numbers deal, throwing in a little of everything but never focusing on one issue long enough to explore it. Anne Marie is looked down on by male surfers, Matt distracts her from her goal, money is tight among the girls, the island boys beat up Matt for being a mainlander and surfing in a private spot with Anne Marie...each little crisis is introduced and completed in about five minutes. No one has a person to play, just a collection of lines.
Which is unfortunate, because the cinematography (by David Hennings) and editing (by Emma Hickox) are nothing short of spectacular. You have never seen a surfing movie that looks like this (assuming you've ever seen a surfing movie). The camera goes above the water, under the water, inside the curls, and on the boards as it prowls the beach. The water is beautiful, and Hennings pulls off camera tricks no one has ever seen before. Digitally pasting the actress' faces over the women who did the actual surfing is sometimes fake and distracting, but the actresses seemed to do a lot of the surfing, and the women who filled in for the tough stuff did a great job. Hickox weaves it all together dazzlingly; this film is a joy to look at. It's too bad that listening to it is so painful.
This movie will no doubt entrance girls of all ages. While I can't recommend the movie based on the story, I can and will recommend the amazing visuals. It's just too bad that the real world of female surfers didn't get a movie that did them justice.
28 Days Later
(2002)
Timely horror
29 January 2004
Every summer, the news media pounds a story or series of stories into the ground until that season is known for it. Consider a couple of summers ago, which was the summer of shark attacks. Or the recent summer of child abductions. In reality, there were not more shark attacks or child abductions in their respective summers, but the media grabbed a couple of high profile cases and built trends around them (road and air rage media circuses also apply here, very fittingly). 2003 will probably remembered as the summer of SARS and monkeypox, which makes it the perfect summer in which to see `28 Days Later'. As the story opens, Jim (Cillian Murphy) wakes from a coma in a locked London hospital room and finds it deserted, the key to his room shoved under the door. In a series of amazing shots, he wanders by Big Ben and through Piccadilly Circus and finds no one. He does find walls plastered with missing persons photos that immediately bring 9/11 to mind (although the film was made before then). He finally finds three people who bring him up to date: a vicious virus was accidentally unleashed by animal rights activists freeing specimens from an Army facility. The virus is blood borne, and if you're infected, you will be dead in twenty seconds. Those infected are overcome with rage, attack those around them, and vomit infected blood everywhere. Get this blood in an orifice or wound, and you've got twenty seconds yourself. In twenty-eight days, England has been wiped out. This sounds like one of Romero's living dead movies (but since the writer wrote the book and movie `The Beach' and the director, Danny Boyle, is responsible for `Trainspotting', there is no doubt an anti-drug subtext here) with one major difference: these zombies are fast. They move like lightening, although they do nothing more than infect the living, not devour them. This virus is not a smart one; without sustenance, the world will be quickly wiped out, and the virus with it. The first third of the movie, the discovery phase, plays like `Night of the Living Dead'. The second third, wherein four survivors search for others, plays like `Dawn of the Dead' (including a deliberate homage, a shopping trip). The end finds them in a military base, like the one in `Day of the Dead', right down to the zombie tied up for experimental purposes. But Boyle did not make a mere horror movie here. This is social commentary with a pulse, fast and furious, and it will put you on the edge of your seat. It's shot in grainy digital video for a documentary feel, and the camera struggles to keep up with the action when it occurs. You think you see more than you do: the savage flashes of marauding monsters will make you shrink away from the screen, but the gore is minimal. Boyle overreaches somewhat; horror fans will no doubt jones for more outright scares, and the audience that would love dissecting the film will be put off by the graphic violence and tone. The cast is game, with Naomie Harris strong as the seemingly tough chick and Brendan Gleeson sympathetic as a concerned but gruff father. Everyone digs deep and seems real enough to make you care, a rare trait in a horror movie, even an arty one. It will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever seen a movie that the military folks are up tp no good (although I would have never guessed their sinister plot), so as the film rachets up the tension, building towards the climax, it actually loses creativity. The shocks here are among the best in the film, but we can feel it running out of speed. Watch the scene with the rats in the pitch black tunnel; that is the kind of nail-biter the last part of the film should have delivered. And the actual finale seems a little too upbeat for such a dark vision; it jars with everything that has come before it. Boyle has said that the movie is about Jim's search for a father figure, but that message is obscured by the seeming prescience of current events the film achieves. Strap in and read into `28 Days Later' whatever you wish to; there's enough here for everyone.
Bend It Like Beckham
(2002)
Just give in & enjoy it!
29 January 2004
Is there any more worn-out genre than that of the sports film? With the exception of Ron Shelton films (`Bull Durham', `White Men Can't Jump', `Tin Cup'), the only decent one on the last decade was Spike Lee's `He Got Game', which dealt more with father-son relationships than actual sporting events (I'm not counting the wonderful `Kingpin' as a sports film here). Either we get bland and dull kiddie fare like `The Mighty Ducks' and `Air Bud', or we get unimaginative grown-up fare like the noisy `Any Given Sunday' and the sappy `The Legend of Bagger Vance'. `Bend It Like Beckham' is not only another sports film, but it's one made in Britain, set in the world of football (in America, British football is known as the never very mainstream game of professional soccer), and references in the title an English athlete most Americans have never heard of (David Beckham, the Michael Jordan of British football, who is married to former Posh Spice Victoria Beckham). What a wonderful surprise, then, this movie winds up being such a treat for all ages, a sports film that looks beyond the big game to the relationships of those playing it.
Jess (Parminder K. Nagra) is a teen girl of the strict Sikh faith who loves playing football. Of course it is forbidden by her family, so when she is spotted in a park by Jules (Keira Knightley), who plays for the local girls' team, an invitation to try out is both alluring and forbidden. Jess makes the team, becomes friends with Jules, develops a crush on her coach Joe (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), and spends the summer hiding her passion from her family as she prepares for college and her sister's wedding.
None of this is new or unique on paper, but the film keeps finding new ways to present the material. The uneasy relationship between the Punjabi and Caucasian communities in Britian is one new idea, and the fact that Jess and Jules are such distinctive, well-drawn characters helps as well. As Jess fights with her dad (Anupam Kher) to be able just to play, Jules has to subvert her mother's (Juliet Stevenson) belief that female athletes must be lesbians. This is a borderline-offensive concept played a little too broadly, but it does result in a wonderful payoff near the end of the film.
Jess' continuous lies and battles to play her game lends the film its drama, as does the dueling crushes Jess and Jules have for their coach, who would be fired if he fooled around with one of his players. By disobeying her parents and playing, Jess is violating scared tenets her faith is built around, and the fact that she might throw so much away over a game gives the film true and powerful tension. Her parents are not drawn as caricatures, like Jules' folks (her father loves the idea of her playing football if it keeps her out of trouble with boys), and their real outrage over her behavior and fear for her future gives the film power. They could never allow her to play, really, a concept fraught with sadness but resolved realistically.
The film plays like a fairy tale, complete with a storybook ending that some may decry as false and sappy. But this film and these girls earn that ending, and only a crank who has forgotten their own youth could not only not smile at the final scenes, but also not want to see them happen. Nagra is a revelation here, a stunningly beautiful girl who seems so shy and unhappy but just shines when kicking the ball. Knightley, a doppleganger for Natalie Portman, is also beautiful and wonderful in her role; these two girls play off of each other and the script in a way I have not seen for a long time. Kher is also a joy as Jess' father, taking a character that could have been shallow and giving him more depth than can be imagined. Director Gurinder Chadra, working from a script he co-wrote with Paul Mayeda Berges, is a veteran filmmaker making his first big splash in America, and he makes every last moment of this film a treasure.
This film, despite receiving a PG-13 rating that seems entirely inappropriate (nothing here warrants more than a PG), is being marketed towards young girls. Don't be fooled: this is a film for everyone, regardless of age or gender. I barely know Manchester United from the Chicago Fire or Pele from Mia Hamm, but I know great movies. `Bend It Like Beckham' is a blast of fresh air, a film so filled with joy that you cannot resist its charms.
Jess (Parminder K. Nagra) is a teen girl of the strict Sikh faith who loves playing football. Of course it is forbidden by her family, so when she is spotted in a park by Jules (Keira Knightley), who plays for the local girls' team, an invitation to try out is both alluring and forbidden. Jess makes the team, becomes friends with Jules, develops a crush on her coach Joe (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers), and spends the summer hiding her passion from her family as she prepares for college and her sister's wedding.
None of this is new or unique on paper, but the film keeps finding new ways to present the material. The uneasy relationship between the Punjabi and Caucasian communities in Britian is one new idea, and the fact that Jess and Jules are such distinctive, well-drawn characters helps as well. As Jess fights with her dad (Anupam Kher) to be able just to play, Jules has to subvert her mother's (Juliet Stevenson) belief that female athletes must be lesbians. This is a borderline-offensive concept played a little too broadly, but it does result in a wonderful payoff near the end of the film.
Jess' continuous lies and battles to play her game lends the film its drama, as does the dueling crushes Jess and Jules have for their coach, who would be fired if he fooled around with one of his players. By disobeying her parents and playing, Jess is violating scared tenets her faith is built around, and the fact that she might throw so much away over a game gives the film true and powerful tension. Her parents are not drawn as caricatures, like Jules' folks (her father loves the idea of her playing football if it keeps her out of trouble with boys), and their real outrage over her behavior and fear for her future gives the film power. They could never allow her to play, really, a concept fraught with sadness but resolved realistically.
The film plays like a fairy tale, complete with a storybook ending that some may decry as false and sappy. But this film and these girls earn that ending, and only a crank who has forgotten their own youth could not only not smile at the final scenes, but also not want to see them happen. Nagra is a revelation here, a stunningly beautiful girl who seems so shy and unhappy but just shines when kicking the ball. Knightley, a doppleganger for Natalie Portman, is also beautiful and wonderful in her role; these two girls play off of each other and the script in a way I have not seen for a long time. Kher is also a joy as Jess' father, taking a character that could have been shallow and giving him more depth than can be imagined. Director Gurinder Chadra, working from a script he co-wrote with Paul Mayeda Berges, is a veteran filmmaker making his first big splash in America, and he makes every last moment of this film a treasure.
This film, despite receiving a PG-13 rating that seems entirely inappropriate (nothing here warrants more than a PG), is being marketed towards young girls. Don't be fooled: this is a film for everyone, regardless of age or gender. I barely know Manchester United from the Chicago Fire or Pele from Mia Hamm, but I know great movies. `Bend It Like Beckham' is a blast of fresh air, a film so filled with joy that you cannot resist its charms.
Adaptation.
(2002)
A neat idea that turns too formulaic
29 January 2004
In `Adaptation', Nicholas Cage portrays real-life scribe Charlie Kaufman, screenwriter of `Being John Malkovitch'. Cage also portrays Charlie's twin brother Donald, who does not exist in real life. Meryl Streep and Chris Cooper also play real people; Streep as journalist Suzie Orlean and Cooper as toothless wacko John LaRouche. Orlean wrote a popular book, The Orchid Thief, about LaRouche's attempt to find and pollinate the rare ghost orchid. But while they play real people, the events of the third act of the film no doubt never took place. John Cusack and Catherine Keener also pop up, playing themselves as the stars of `Being John Malkovitch', which, of course, they were. Confused?
Charlie has been tapped to write the screenplay for Orlean's book. He is too steeped in self-loathing to be able to achieve this, a condition made worse when Donald attends a hack screen writing class and begins to pound out a cliched thriller involving a serial killer, his hostage, and the cop chasing them. While Donald finds the writing easy and energizing, Charlie feels lost in his attempts to turn a non-fiction book about flowers and Darwin's theory of adaptation into a cohesive and filmable script. He wrestles with himself, masturbates frequently, loses his girlfriend, and finds himself sinking deeper and deeper.
It would unfair to describe any of the film's climax to anyone who has not seen it. But `Adaptation', after a clever and involving first two-thirds, overshoots itself and makes it's points with the least amount of subtlety possible. It is still clever, to be sure, but clever in a 'look at me!' way that betrays the movie as much as Charlie's screenplay betrays everything he hates and Donald loves. Maybe it was too much to try and pound this thing out and maintain the level of creativity all the way through, but the last half-hour or so loses the zing that the previous hour sang with.
Cage takes a tough job and makes it look easy. Resembling a less manic version of Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, he creates two very realistic people with seeming ease. It's nice to see him actually act again, rather than striking another `Snake Eyes'-`The Rock'-`Gone in 60 Seconds' pose. Movies in which the same actor plays twins have always given me a headache figuring out the logistics of it (`Multiplicity', with Michael Keaton getting cloned over and over, nearly killed me), but Cage handles the actions in a non-showy way that let me forget my worries for a moment. Streep is as amazing as ever, playing a character going through massive changes and doing things she never thought she would do with the same dazzling skill most of us have taken for granted from her. And Cooper, best known as the militant and closeted neighbor in `American Beauty', really shines, avoiding the trap of turning the seeming nutjob into a character filled with profundities he's unaware of. He could have been a backwoods, toothless Forrest Gump, spouting shallow-yet-deep catchphrases, but Cooper makes him a three dimensional being, filled with faults and pain and yet not someone to be pitied.
Kaufman and director Spike Jonze both worked together
on `Malkovitch', a movie perfect from beginning to end. With `Adaptation' they stumble yet manage to produce a film better than most anything Hollywood could dream up.
Charlie has been tapped to write the screenplay for Orlean's book. He is too steeped in self-loathing to be able to achieve this, a condition made worse when Donald attends a hack screen writing class and begins to pound out a cliched thriller involving a serial killer, his hostage, and the cop chasing them. While Donald finds the writing easy and energizing, Charlie feels lost in his attempts to turn a non-fiction book about flowers and Darwin's theory of adaptation into a cohesive and filmable script. He wrestles with himself, masturbates frequently, loses his girlfriend, and finds himself sinking deeper and deeper.
It would unfair to describe any of the film's climax to anyone who has not seen it. But `Adaptation', after a clever and involving first two-thirds, overshoots itself and makes it's points with the least amount of subtlety possible. It is still clever, to be sure, but clever in a 'look at me!' way that betrays the movie as much as Charlie's screenplay betrays everything he hates and Donald loves. Maybe it was too much to try and pound this thing out and maintain the level of creativity all the way through, but the last half-hour or so loses the zing that the previous hour sang with.
Cage takes a tough job and makes it look easy. Resembling a less manic version of Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka, he creates two very realistic people with seeming ease. It's nice to see him actually act again, rather than striking another `Snake Eyes'-`The Rock'-`Gone in 60 Seconds' pose. Movies in which the same actor plays twins have always given me a headache figuring out the logistics of it (`Multiplicity', with Michael Keaton getting cloned over and over, nearly killed me), but Cage handles the actions in a non-showy way that let me forget my worries for a moment. Streep is as amazing as ever, playing a character going through massive changes and doing things she never thought she would do with the same dazzling skill most of us have taken for granted from her. And Cooper, best known as the militant and closeted neighbor in `American Beauty', really shines, avoiding the trap of turning the seeming nutjob into a character filled with profundities he's unaware of. He could have been a backwoods, toothless Forrest Gump, spouting shallow-yet-deep catchphrases, but Cooper makes him a three dimensional being, filled with faults and pain and yet not someone to be pitied.
Kaufman and director Spike Jonze both worked together
on `Malkovitch', a movie perfect from beginning to end. With `Adaptation' they stumble yet manage to produce a film better than most anything Hollywood could dream up.
The Believer
(2001)
Warning: potential spoilers!
29 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I have seen quite a few documentaries on white power groups; as even this film says, know your enemies. They are made up of a couple of natural leaders and an army of skinheads who want nothing more than to drink beer, thrash to hate metal bands, and look scary. Few of them came their hate naturally; the charismatic leaders find teens who feel disenfranchised by life and tell them that it's the fault of blacks, of Hispanics, of Jews. The lonely kids, hungering for a sense of family, seize on this and begin to truly believe it, and another skinhead is born.
`The Believer' opens with Ryan Gosling (who also shone in the tepid `Murder by Numbers', filmed after this but released first) and his gang showing up at a small white power meeting in a nice house hosted by Theresa Russell and a wigged Billy Zane. Zane and Russell want to get their point across by getting candidates into office and corrupting from within; Gosling just wants to kill a Jewish person. He even knows which one, a powerful banker. His idea is discounted, but his charisma and knowledge aren't. No one knows his real reason for wanting to kill this man; that he too is Jewish.
This movie, with it's many speeches and explorations of the Jewish religion, could have been awful; offensive, boring, and absurd. But Gosling is portrayed as smart and conflicted rather than a megalomaniac or a goon. As a child, he sat through Jewish study classes and then brought up points for debate that he didn't feel comfortable with. But rather than taking the time to answer the boy's questions, the teacher kicks him out of class. This fosters resentment towards the faith, which eventually turns to rage and hate.
But Gosling still loves the faith; he simply hates those who practice it. He grows angry when members of his gang curse in front of an unrolled Torah scroll. He snaps at his girlfriend when she parades naked in front of it. He has cut himself off from all of his old friends, the Jewish ones, and he no longer sees them as people. They are just the enemy.
The white power group lets him become a public speaker for them, turning aside his dreams of murder. But, with his gang beside him, he taunts and attacks Jews, slowly working up towards his first murder with the help of a silent sniper. All around him, people are puzzled; he walks the walk of hatred, but he doesn't quite talk the talk. Their suspicions grow as Gosling's girlfriend thinks about converting to Judaism and he runs into his old childhood friends. The film builds quietly and effectively to a natural, powerful climax.
Gosling is powerful as the character. The rest of the cast is solid but never noteworthy; whether they were simply overshadowed by Gosling or told to underplay cannot be known. But this is Gosling's show, and the young actor brings pitch-perfect shades and textures to the role. Those who oppose films like this dislike it when they humanize this sort of character and make us see him as a person rather than as a symbol of hate. In `American History X', as good as it was, Edward Norton's character was either a cartoon of a scary, homicidal skinhead or a repentant young man; both sides were not allowed to exist at the same time. `The Believer' bravely allows conflict in a person who hates; it makes his dilemma both understandable and confounding. And with Gosling, they have found the perfect actor to express these feelings realistically, without caricature.
`The Believer' opens with Ryan Gosling (who also shone in the tepid `Murder by Numbers', filmed after this but released first) and his gang showing up at a small white power meeting in a nice house hosted by Theresa Russell and a wigged Billy Zane. Zane and Russell want to get their point across by getting candidates into office and corrupting from within; Gosling just wants to kill a Jewish person. He even knows which one, a powerful banker. His idea is discounted, but his charisma and knowledge aren't. No one knows his real reason for wanting to kill this man; that he too is Jewish.
This movie, with it's many speeches and explorations of the Jewish religion, could have been awful; offensive, boring, and absurd. But Gosling is portrayed as smart and conflicted rather than a megalomaniac or a goon. As a child, he sat through Jewish study classes and then brought up points for debate that he didn't feel comfortable with. But rather than taking the time to answer the boy's questions, the teacher kicks him out of class. This fosters resentment towards the faith, which eventually turns to rage and hate.
But Gosling still loves the faith; he simply hates those who practice it. He grows angry when members of his gang curse in front of an unrolled Torah scroll. He snaps at his girlfriend when she parades naked in front of it. He has cut himself off from all of his old friends, the Jewish ones, and he no longer sees them as people. They are just the enemy.
The white power group lets him become a public speaker for them, turning aside his dreams of murder. But, with his gang beside him, he taunts and attacks Jews, slowly working up towards his first murder with the help of a silent sniper. All around him, people are puzzled; he walks the walk of hatred, but he doesn't quite talk the talk. Their suspicions grow as Gosling's girlfriend thinks about converting to Judaism and he runs into his old childhood friends. The film builds quietly and effectively to a natural, powerful climax.
Gosling is powerful as the character. The rest of the cast is solid but never noteworthy; whether they were simply overshadowed by Gosling or told to underplay cannot be known. But this is Gosling's show, and the young actor brings pitch-perfect shades and textures to the role. Those who oppose films like this dislike it when they humanize this sort of character and make us see him as a person rather than as a symbol of hate. In `American History X', as good as it was, Edward Norton's character was either a cartoon of a scary, homicidal skinhead or a repentant young man; both sides were not allowed to exist at the same time. `The Believer' bravely allows conflict in a person who hates; it makes his dilemma both understandable and confounding. And with Gosling, they have found the perfect actor to express these feelings realistically, without caricature.
Assault on Precinct 13
(1976)
Fianlly...a restored version!
29 January 2004
`Assault on Precinct 13" was writer/director John Carpenter's third film, after the science fiction parody `Dark Star', and before `Halloween' made him a household name and a horror superstar. It has just been reissued on dvd, with all of the bells and whistles, but for most people, the best part is just finally getting a cleaned-up wide-screen transfer on this 1976 film.
First off, there is no precinct 13 in `Assault on Precinct 13". There is just a nearly-deserted station house, with a couple of empty cells and some files left. Lt. Ethan Bishop (Austin Stoker), newly transferred to Los Angeles, finds himself assigned to babysit there overnight. He's disappointed; he's in the big city to catch bad guys, not sit on boxes.
He's about to get his wish. An ambush the night before led to a shoot-out between cops and a members of a street gang called Street Thunder. The cops won, but others in the gang have decided to get revenge by assaulting the station house. They start by showing nothing is sacred, as a scene by an ice cream truck proves. The scene is violent, genuinely shocking, and shows that we are in the hands of a master. The gang begins sniping the station house just as a transfer truck containing a couple of death row inmates shows up. Soon Bishop and secretary Leigh (Laurie Zimmer) find themselves overwhelmed and outgunned, so they decide to let the prisoners, including the notorious killer Napoleon Wilson (Darwin Joston) help out.
That's it, folks. That's the plot. The acting is cardboard, character development is on the first-grade level, and the special effects are primitive by today's standards. But this film has something that all the CGI-encrusted films of the last couple of years can't match: tension, suspense, an escalating sense of fear, and gritty realism.
The gang members slowly increase their force, and the phones in the station house have been disconnected and the power shut off. Other precincts get phone calls about shots being fired, but when cruisers drive by the bad guys recede into the shadows, making it look like nothing is happening. The gang members riddle the station house with bullets, then prepare to go in and finish off whoever's left alive. There are dozens of bad guys and a couple of good guys with few weapons and less ammo. The film ratchets the suspense until it reaches breaking point. Carpenter uses an early murder to show us that no one is safe, and we are putty in his hands until the violent conclusion.
The film is still a classic because it still holds up. Carpenter uses the same techniques he used on `Halloween': simplicity and pacing are the keys to this one, as well as his own score, not as memorable as `Halloween's but still effective. The visuals are stark and chilling, helping to build a mounting sense of doom. This movie did action in a 1970s style, one that most of today's film makers should study. Escaping fireballs and dodging flipping cars is exciting, but not very suspenseful. Carpenter pulls the carpet out from under us with the first gang shooting and never lets up. This one is a marvel of pulp film making, and I dread the day when they announce the inevitable remake, with it's fireballs, flipping cars, and CGI overkill.
First off, there is no precinct 13 in `Assault on Precinct 13". There is just a nearly-deserted station house, with a couple of empty cells and some files left. Lt. Ethan Bishop (Austin Stoker), newly transferred to Los Angeles, finds himself assigned to babysit there overnight. He's disappointed; he's in the big city to catch bad guys, not sit on boxes.
He's about to get his wish. An ambush the night before led to a shoot-out between cops and a members of a street gang called Street Thunder. The cops won, but others in the gang have decided to get revenge by assaulting the station house. They start by showing nothing is sacred, as a scene by an ice cream truck proves. The scene is violent, genuinely shocking, and shows that we are in the hands of a master. The gang begins sniping the station house just as a transfer truck containing a couple of death row inmates shows up. Soon Bishop and secretary Leigh (Laurie Zimmer) find themselves overwhelmed and outgunned, so they decide to let the prisoners, including the notorious killer Napoleon Wilson (Darwin Joston) help out.
That's it, folks. That's the plot. The acting is cardboard, character development is on the first-grade level, and the special effects are primitive by today's standards. But this film has something that all the CGI-encrusted films of the last couple of years can't match: tension, suspense, an escalating sense of fear, and gritty realism.
The gang members slowly increase their force, and the phones in the station house have been disconnected and the power shut off. Other precincts get phone calls about shots being fired, but when cruisers drive by the bad guys recede into the shadows, making it look like nothing is happening. The gang members riddle the station house with bullets, then prepare to go in and finish off whoever's left alive. There are dozens of bad guys and a couple of good guys with few weapons and less ammo. The film ratchets the suspense until it reaches breaking point. Carpenter uses an early murder to show us that no one is safe, and we are putty in his hands until the violent conclusion.
The film is still a classic because it still holds up. Carpenter uses the same techniques he used on `Halloween': simplicity and pacing are the keys to this one, as well as his own score, not as memorable as `Halloween's but still effective. The visuals are stark and chilling, helping to build a mounting sense of doom. This movie did action in a 1970s style, one that most of today's film makers should study. Escaping fireballs and dodging flipping cars is exciting, but not very suspenseful. Carpenter pulls the carpet out from under us with the first gang shooting and never lets up. This one is a marvel of pulp film making, and I dread the day when they announce the inevitable remake, with it's fireballs, flipping cars, and CGI overkill.
Tell Your Friends