HeSaid SheSaid Movie Reviews

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Girl on the Bridge

 

HE SAID

I have to say that for the first 15 minutes of this movie, I really didn't expect to like it very much. Sure, the lead actress, Venessa Paradis, is beautiful in an old-fashioned-movie-star meets anorexic-1980's-super-model kind of way. And, yes, Paradis's opening monologue to a panel of curiously clinical onlookers was witty and well delivered. But the opening sequence to this film also seemed to include everything I hate about foreign independents: Needlessly shot in black and white, with an undertone of European weirdness, and offset with just a touch of too-cool-for-school smarminess. And, yes, I gleaned all this in the first fifteen minutes.

But my sceptical first impressions were proven unfounded as soon as Daniel Auteuil stepped into the screen. He is absolutely brilliant in this film. More specifically, the character he plays, Gabor, is brilliant. Gabor is a showman traveling the clubs and caberets of Europe. His trade? Knife throwing. And Gabor faces a pretty steep challenge in the profession of knife throwers...a challenge that I had not contemplated until seeing this film...finding someone at which to throw his knives. So, what is his solution? Cruising bridges, looking for pretty young girls about to jump. Recruiting suicidals. Brilliant.

So Gabor and Adele (Paradis) meet in this way, and we follow them on their travels. Theirs is an unconventional romance in which Gabor hovers a thin line somewhere between father, mentor, and lover to Adele. Adele herself is schizophrenic (not really mentioned in the movie, but my own diagnosis) and addicted to sex...but not with Gabor. In fact, the only physical affection we see between the two is an embrace. The sexual tension stays just below the line, but is strong, and drives the tone of the film. Trust and belief in self are also major themes. One scene in particular sums up all of the underpinnings, as Gabor and Adele spontaneously perform their act in an abandoned house...not for an audience...but simply for the sheer pleasure letting go, and allowing full trust in each other. It plays as a very "sensual" scene.

Another thing I liked about this film was the blend of new and old European flavors. This is very much a modern film, but it is also a film that, for example, asks the audience to believe that there are still theaters in this world, where finely dressed men and women clap wildly for a knife thrower or a contortionist. Perhaps there are, but in many ways this film has the feel of 1920's European culture thrust into the modern world. The dynamic is interesting, and the film is much the better for doing it this way, rather than being a period piece.

He Said: A very dark film that is surprisingly uplifting. There are a lot of themes and ideas going on under the surface of Girl on a Bridge. It's one of those movies that I expected to hate, but ended up loving. Definitely check it out.

SHE SAID

Love, like the movies, requires a willing suspension of disbelief. And, at heart, The Girl on the Bridge is a romance - with knives.

Adele (Vanessa Paradis) has been quite the loser in the zero sum game of life. She meets Gabor (Daniel Auteuir), a knife-thrower, on said bridge, and he convinces her to become the target of his affections. (What did she have to lose but death itself? And it could wait, for once.) Even before Gabor, Adele has never been able to say no to any willing man, so she agrees.

Knife-throwing, like love, requires a willing suspension of disbelief. And Adele has a knack for it. She has a knack for belief (and for being a target) that Gabor seems to feed from. Blatantly obvious metaphors between sex and knife-throwing follow (over and over again) - with Adele even breaking hurriedly from the arms of a young Italian stud to run to a deserted hut in the woods so Gabor could throw more knives at her.

The first two-thirds of the movie is a charming exploration of love and luck and fate - beautifully shot in black and white. Vanessa Paradis, whom I've never quite seen the charm of in color, is absolutely radiant in black and white. She's a grayscale trapped in a CMYK world, it seems. But it all goes to hell when Adele runs off with a man on his honeymoon. (It goes to hell in the film's story and in the film itself.) They still talk telepathically but are like two halves of a dollar bill without each other, as Gabor says. At this point, the writing in the film just seems to fall flat and it never picks back up, right up to the predictable ending.

Regardless, it's still a must-see movie. It's a visual romp through the cabarets and casinos of Paris, Monaco, Athens and Istanbul and a philosophical romp through luck, love, fate and attraction.

She Said: The black-and-white cinematography is gorgeous. The writing is sharp. And though the ending falls a bit flat, the beginning is so great you can't help but forgive it by then.

 

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Girl on the Bridge audio commentary below (or download it here) - and find out which film Eskimo picked to review next.

Powered by Podbean.com

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Conversation(s) with Other Women

HE SAID

This 2005 independent film about two lost lovers reuniting at a wedding years after their breakup utilizes a unique method of storytelling by shooting the entire film in split screen. Being that the film is primarily dialogue based between the two characters, the split screen effect serves to show the viewer the same story unfolding from two different perspectives, as well as allowing for flashbacks to occur on one side of the screen, while the main story continues on the other side.

I admit that I was a little wary of the split screen technique when I first heard about it, but, upon viewing the film, I was not distracted by it at all. In fact, I was actually disappointed that the film-makers did not use the approach to its full effect. For instance, most of the split screen shots appear from third-person perspectives, one focusing on the man (Aaron Eckhart), the other on the woman (Helena Bonham Carter). Though this gave the film very much of a voyeuristic feel, there is no sense self. Who are these two perspectives that watch the story unfold? What is their purpose? Though I think the split screen technique has potential, in this film it came across more like a gimmick than anything else.

The overall story was solid, if not a bit run-of-the-mill. There were some twists and turns regarding the character's lives between the time of their breakup and reunion. Some implications were made regarding exactly how and why they separated in the first place, but nothing definite is ever revealed. And it doesn't have to be. The viewer can draw his or her own conclusions. It is really the chemistry between to two leads that is the true storyline…two characters tiptoeing around the fact that they both want to sleep with each other for old times sake, despite both being involved in other relationships. My hat goes off to the script writer for really nailing the nuances of dialogue. Every word felt believable and natural. Nothing was forced, and perhaps this is due largely to Eckhart and Bonham Carter's obvious chemistry on the screen. That is just not something that can be acted.

He Said: A passable movie, but the split screen gimmick makes it none the better. Don't watch it just for that. Great acting, dialogue and chemistry between the characters. Worth a watch…once.

SHE SAID

At a party one evening, I overheard a young man asking an older man how he had been married to the same woman for over 25 years. "Oh, I haven't," he remarked. "She's been many different women." That's about the only explanation I can muster for the title of Hans Conosa's Conversation(s) with Other Women, which is largely a duologue between two now-middle-aged, unnamed characters (Aaron Eckhart and Helena Bonham-Carter) who began (and ended) a love affair when they were much younger.

This is the kickoff of our unconventional romance theme for February, and we even picked this movie out unconventionally (to stay on theme). Generally, selections arrive via Netflix after online research, but we actually walked the aisles at the local video store and picked a random movie from the shelf. This one looked interesting. I liked the cover, and it even marketed itself as "unconventional" on the box.

Part of the unconventionality of the film is that it is shot entirely in split screen. It was an interesting effect which should have been much more to narrative use. The right side of the screen is sometimes used for flashbacks and mental images, but too often is just used to show physical point of view (which gets stale after a while).

In addition to being a movie about love, it's an exploration of time and memory and how love (and loss) taints both of those. "Time really can move in two directions. It doesn't matter to the universe anyway," the Man says. And time is moving in two directions in front of our split-screen eyes. But, despite the split screen even, it becomes mainly a film driven by dialogue, in a screenplay by Gabrielle Zevin. Helena Bonham Carter and Aaron Eckhart both have impeccable timing and palpable chemistry, but once you figure out the story, it's even hard for the dialogue and the chemistry to keep your attention.

In the end it's a story of the romances in our lives with "no happy endings in our future" (or our pasts) and the vestiges of said which still linger nonetheless. Time, memory, wrong, right, all be damned.

She Said: It's a good rainy-day, Sunday afternoon romance. Worth watching but not as good as it could have been with a little more work.

 

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Conversation(s) with Other Women audio commentary below (or download it here) - and find out which film Shawn picked to review next.

Powered by Podbean.com

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Gran Torino

HE SAID

A Gran Torino is a car. I did not know that going into this film. Anyway, on to the review….

Walt Kowlaski (Clint Eastwood) is an elderly and recently widowed Korean War veteran, who, after the death of his wife, resists the urgings of his estranged adult children to move out of his home in the Detroit slums, despite his own less-than-tolerant opinion of the family of Hmong who live next door. At the urging of a local gang, Thao (Bee Vang), the youngest Hmong son attempts to steal Walt's prized Gran Torino. Walt catches him in the act, and Thoa is punished for "disgracing his family" by having to go to work for Walt. Walt slowly warms to the boy, while the gang intimidation increases, and the story unfolds as Walt becomes increasingly involved in the lives of the Hmong family.

There are a number of different story-arcs going on throughout the film. One involves a young priest attempting to fulfill the dying wish of Walt's wife to convince Walt to go to confession. Another involves Walt's deteriorating health and his strained relationship with his adult children who want him to move to a retirement home. All the characters and their stories are believable and relevant, and the storyline flow smoothly to an ending that is climactic, yet subtle.

Walt is very much a character living in the past. His is the only house that has been kept up over the years. He is a Korean War veteran with a bloody past. He is a racist. He is quite simply a mean old man with little tact and even less tolerance of the minorities that populate his neighborhood. Walt may not be a likeable man, but he is a good man, and his character is hauntingly familiar. I think everyone at one time or another has known or has met a man like Walt.

Surprisingly, the best part about Gran Torino is that it is funny. Eastwood perfectly embodies the character of Walt. He is so mean and ornery that you can't help but to laugh at his tendencies. He is a racist, but he is an equal opportunity racist. He may dislike the Hmong, Italians, blacks, and any other ethnic group other than his own, but he dislikes his "spoiled" children even more. Gran Torino is not supposed to be a comedy, but I found myself laughing out loud at multiple points during the film, which is more than I can say for some of the more obvious comedic attempts that we have recently reviewed (Burn After Reading, anyone?).

Gran Torino is a great move, but it is not perfect. I have a few issues with the motivations of some of the characters, specifically with the gang of Korean youths that terrorize the Hmong family (and eventually Walt). The reason for the harassment is because Thao does not want to join their gang. This is a huge plot point, one around which the entire film revolves…but it doesn't really fit. Seriously, this has to be the worst gang ever. They act like a bunch of bad girlfriends. I mean, why are they so obsessed with Thao? Why won't they take no for an answer? Do gangs go on drive-by-shootings when they get their feelings hurt? These are questions I'd like to have answered.

Also, some of the Hmong actors' performances (especially Bee Vang) seemed a bit stilted and forced. I don't know if there is a lack of demand for Hmong roles in Hollywood, and perhaps the actors found themselves a bit out of their element; or maybe I'm just not familiar enough with their culture to recognize the nuances. Either way, it took me out of the moment at times.

All in all, Gran Torino is a fantastic film and is a perfect example of why Hollywood could still be relevant if it wanted to, but unfortunately it never will be. Let me explain:

You see, Gran Torino is a film with everything going for it. It has an original story, razor-sharp writing, believable characters, passable acting, smart humor, and a modern relativity.

Yet, Paul Blart: Mall Cop is the #1 movie in the country. Go figure.

He Said: Gran Torino is a film with everything going for it: an original story, razor-sharp writing, believable characters, passable acting, smart humor, and a modern relativity. A must see.

SHE SAID

It can't be mere coincidence that the main character of Gran Torino is named Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood). Or it shouldn't be, anyway. (If I knew the deceased wife's name was Stella, it would clinch it for me.) Eastwood's performance is a cross between that most famous of Kowalskis (Marlon Brando's Stanley Kowalski in Streetcar Named Desire) and any of Eastwood's Dirty Harry roles. Most impressively, Eastwood is 78 now, and the performance still rings true.

The Eskimo chose this for his first pick in our month of firsts, and the movie boasts many. It was the film debut of much of the Hmong cast, including Thao (Bee Vang) and Sue (Ahney Her), in the first Hollywood film to incorporate the Hmong community. It's the first movie ever made from one of Nick Schenk's screenplays (not bad for a former fruit truck driver). Fittingly, Schenck wrote the screenplay about Eastwood's grumpy Korean war vet with a friend, Dave Johannson, by hand at Grumpy's, a neighborhood bar. Clint Eastwood, who produced, directed and stars in the movie, did not change one word.

Eastwood does gives a stellar performance, but what struck me most about this film was the writing. It's damn near perfect - never preachy, never heavyhanded, perfect timing throughout. It even delivers what no screenwriter seems capable of these days: a surprise ending that's actually a surprise.

Second only to the writing is Eastwood's performance of a curmudgeonly retired Korean War vet, the lone white man left in a Detroit neighborhood that has become the center of the Hmong community. (The screenplay was originally set in St. Paul, MN, which has a Ford plant and a large Hmong community, but Detroit lured the moviemakers with enough incentives to change the locale.) Despite the houses slowly decaying around him, Walt's yard is spotless (and he is often lamenting what this or that deceased neighbor would think of their lawn if they could see it now).

Walt's neighbor, Thao, a young Hmong teenager, half-heartedly attempts to steal Walt's prized 1972 Gran Torino (hand-picked while he worked at the Ford plant) as initiation into a gang he doesn't want to join. This attempted robbery (and the car) sets into motion the main conflict of the movie, earning it the title spot. The movie touches on many themes, including honor, redemption, change, forgiveness, love, and sacrifice.

It is a great pick for a film of firsts and it deserves another first too. Even though Eastwood has four Academy Awards under his belt, he has never won for acting. Eastwood definitely earned that first now with this role.

She Said: It's the best movie I've seen in a long time. Great acting, great writing. Go see it!

 

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Gran Torino audio commentary below (or download it here) - and find out which film Shawn picked to review next.

 

Powered by Podbean.com

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Seven Pounds

HE SAID

In yet another addition to Will Smith's ever growing filmography, Seven Pounds is a surprisingly tough to critique…but don't ask me why. We watched this film over a week ago, and I have been avoiding putting my thoughts onto paper ever since. I think it's because I'm on the fence with this one. Going in to Seven Pounds, I was not very optimistic. From what little I knew about the film, I expected a love story, or a film in the vein of The Pursuit of Happyness or Hitch (other Smith offerings, and ones that I am not particularly fond of). I think Smith is strongest in the action/comedy genre (think Bad Boys, Independence Day, Hancock, etc.), and I really expected to be disappointed with Seven Pounds. And I was…but not in the way you may think.

First let's go over the positives: The overall story is unique - at least as unique as any Hollywood script can be - and it is refreshing to see something different on the big screen, especially when it seems like every other movie these days is a remake or prequel. The acting is strong all around. Will Smith, it seems, always gets it right; and Rosario Dawson, the other main lead in this film, is perfectly cast and offers a spot-on and believable delivery of her character. Also, this film is beautiful to look at. The colors and lighting perfectly fit the mood for a sometimes dark, sometimes light-hearted story.

So this film should be great, right? But it isn't, and that's why this review is so tough to write. Let me attempt to explain what went wrong:

You see, Seven Pounds is one of those films that are hard to review, because any type of plot summary would spoil the movie for a person who has yet to watch it. It is basically an atonement and redemption tale. Will Smith's character is attempting to make amends for a horrible accident that occurred in his past…one for which he feels ultimately responsible. Seven Pounds is the story of his character making amends the best he can, and it has a twist ending that you never saw coming...

Wait! Scratch that! Actually, that would have been a great film. The problem is that the twist ending was TOTALLY OBVIOUS from the VERY BEGINNING! Fifteen minutes into the film I knew exactly what was going to happen. There was no build-up of suspense leading to a last-minute revelation. The character's motivations were totally obvious throughout. I sat through the entire film waiting for an ending that, for the most part, was predetermined. And the tragedy of it all is that it would have been sooooooo easy to fix in the editing room!

It really is a shame that a movie with so much potential (dare I say Oscar-worthy potential) was marred by what was, in my opinion, an amateur mistake akin to something you might see from a first year film student. I don't know if the blame lies with the producer, director, or even the script itself. All I do know is that someone ruined what might have been the best film I've seen in the last six months.

He Said: Save yourself some money at the theater. Watch the first seven minutes of Seven Pounds, and then walk across the hall to see something else.

SHE SAID

"In seven days God created the world, in seven seconds it shattered," Ben (Will Smith) narrates at the beginning of Seven Pounds. The film continues to follow themes of atonement, redemption, love, mercy, remorse, guilt - and the repayment of unpayable debts.

Hollywood has quite a fascination with Shakespeare's (and Shylock's) demand of a "pound of flesh" in Merchant of Venice and the number seven, it seems. In the movie Se7en, one of the victims of John Doe is forced to cut a pound of flesh from his body. In Seven Pounds, Ben, the film's main character, explores Shylock's insistence on the right for revenge (and flesh) - even if it's self-imposed.

I liked the movie overall, but I really wasn't sure why. It's set up as a mystery, but about seven minutes into it, you understand that Ben's done something bad to seven people and feels a dire need to repay a dire debt. So the mystery part of it for me was more waiting for something big to change because surely it could not be just what I thought it was seven minutes into the movie. (One mystery did remain, and maybe this is what saved the movie for me. The mystery of motive. Why is Ben insistent on retribution? What is going on in his head? Is he crazy or caring?)

Ironically, I chose this film to fit with our January new beginnings theme. It was billed as Connor Cruise's film debut, which is way off. He plays a young Ben, in one scene, staring at a jellyfish at the Monterey Bay Aquarium. That's it. No speaking parts at all. He's not even looking at the camera. (If I ever get a bit part in a crowd in any movie, I'm so billing it as my "film debut" without laughing now!)

The love story thread with Emily Posa (Rosario Dawson) was a bit of a surprise, as Smith's character seemed to be in no place to fall in love again and comes across most of the time as a stalker more than a suitor. But it did tie together the seven pounds theme well in the end (albeit a bit schmaltzily).

Overall, I liked the movie. It was a bit much in places - tried too hard to show the obvious, went a bit overboard in the sentiment department at times. But it did tie together most of its loose ends and there was closure in the ending.

She Said: If you're a Will Smith or Rosario Dawson fan, go see it at the theatre. If you're not, wait for its release on DVD.

 

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Seven Pounds audio commentary here or in the player below. (And find out which film The Eskimo picked to review next.)

Powered by Podbean.com

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Scrooged

 

HE SAID

Scrooged is a creatively modern take on Charles Dickens' classic novella, A Christmas Carol. Bill Murray plays Frank Cross, a cold hearted and cynical television executive who plans to air a live version of A Christmas Carol on Christmas Eve. Cross's version is basically a Christmas exploitation film, featuring scantily clad dancers, graphic advertisements, and a shameless stunt casting of gymnast May Lou Retton in the role of Tiny Tim.

During the course of the production, Cross is visited by three spirits who show him the grim reality of his life, both past and present, as well as his ultimately depressing future. But, of course, the future is not set in stone, so Cross is able to avoid the undesirable outcome if only he will change his "Scrooge-like" ways.

I am hesitant to add any more details to the plot summary above so as not to spoil the film for anyone who has yet to see it. So, if you're thinking that the story sounds familiar, and that you've seen it all before…well, you're right. Though it's an interesting take on the classic story, there are no real suprises in this film.

Scrooged is undoubtedly Bill Murray's movie. All of the other actors are just secondary. And Murray is truly hilarious! But the problem is that he is just too damn likeable to come across as a true Scrooge. Even in the beginning of the film, when he portrays what is supposed to be a despicable and arrogant man, you can't help but to smile at Murray's "cuteness" on the screen. This takes away from the contrast that made the original story so memorable. And because Murray is not a true Scrooge character, his ultimate redemption at the end of the film feels rather flat.

Also, it is painfully obvious at times that Murray is simply ad-libbing his lines and going off script as is his wont. That may have worked on Saturday Night Live or in some of his other films but in Scrooged Murray's dialogues often seem out of place and tended to take me out of the momement. Simply put, some parts of this film came across as very amateurish, and it nearly ruined the ending for me.

One positive aspect of Scrooged that really stood out to me was the concept and portrayal of the spirits of Christmas Past, Present and Future. Murray's interaction with the spirits were by far the best parts of the film, and almost, but not quite, saved this movie for me.

Oh, and by the way, there were two story arcs that the film spent entirely too much time on: Karen Allen delivers a forgettable performance as Cross's long-lost love interest and Alfre Woodard portrays Cross's overworked and underpaid single-mother assistant. Don't get me wrong…both characters' stories serve the overall plot. But they simply took too much time away from Murray's interaction with the spirits and the story of his past, which were the best parts of the film, in my opinion. Unfortunately, we never discover exactly why Cross became a conceited and cynical television executive in the first place. The film alludes to the reason but never really satisfactorily explains it. That really bothered me.

He Said: Scrooged could have been great. But it's not. This film is like a sea-saw: The highs of a creative concept, and Bill Murray's hilarious performance, are offset by the lows of a muddled plot and boring story-arcs. Thus, landing Scrooged somewhere in the middle of mediocrity. Skip it.

SHE SAID

I've always found it ironic that A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens' morality tale about the love of money, was written in hopes of getting him out of debt. Frank Cross (Bill Murray) would appreciate this delicious irony, I'm sure, as he sets out to "own Christmas" for IBC, his network, with an all-star holiday edition of Scrooge (no holds barred - Solid Gold Dancers even).

Scrooged is a light-hearted satire of the famous Christmas story, with an ex-boss, Lew Heyward (John Forsythe), in place of Marley's ghost but with the same warning of the need for a change of ways before its too late. (The movie won an Oscar for best make-up, and I'm guessing Lew's get-up is what put them over the top in that category.) Frank is also visited by three spirits, and hilarity ensues when he's not sure half the time if the spirits are actors in costume for the studio's version of Scrooge or real ghosts.

It's easy to tell the writers had fun with this adaptation. The Ghost of Christmas Past (David Johansen) is a New York City cab driver (as a hat tip to the Manhattan setting). And the Ghost of Christmas Present (Carol Kane) is a sprite with the voice of an angel and the punch of a heavyweight (especially when armed with a toaster).

Just as in the Dickens' tale, Cross has to make things right with the love of his life that left him because of his love of money. The end of the film is a bit pat - Cross changes his life and is a generous soul and they all lived happily ever after. But, to be fair, the ending of A Christmas Carol is a bit pat too and they were trying to adapt, not rewrite.

She said: Go for it. It's a great Christmas film. As Frank Cross says, "Yule love it!"

 

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Scrooged audio commentary here or in the player below. (And find out which film Shawn picked to review next.)

Powered by Podbean.com

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Brazil

HE SAID

Brazil was by far one of the most interesting movies I've seen all year. But that doesn't mean it's a great movie. Let me explain:

A film being simply interesting isn't always enough. For a timely example, let's take Christmas decorations. During the holidays there are always new things to see and enjoy....things you only see once a year...and it's fun to look at them. But when you get right down to it, they're just decorations. If the same decorations were up all year, would they mean anything? Probably not. And this is my problem with Terry Gilliam's Brazil. Other than being a different sort of film, does it have anything else going for it? I'd like to say yes, but I can't quite convince myself.

I'll start with the positives: First and foremost the camera work and direction was great. There was a weird combination of Lynchian and film noir elements that prevailed throughout. Gilliam shot in such a realistic style, that the film seemed almost surreal...as if everything and everyone were too perfect on screen. And this is what gave Brazil its underlying creepiness. Also, like Lynch, Gilliam used vibrant background colors, as well as crisp angles and cut shots to set the mood. But the element I was perhaps the most impressed with was Gilliam's vision of a future world that seemed to be falling apart at the mercy of its own technology and bureaucracy. The gaudy futuristic gadgets and vehicles were amazingly creative; funny yet somehow believable all at the same time. Also, the setting was very well realized with amazing detail. All in all, the special effects were nothing short of incredible, especially for a film made in 1985.

So, all of the above elements I mentioned are definitely positive, but they share a common thread. The film looked and felt great...it was tightly shot, beautifully imagined, and cleverly directed. But let's dig a little deeper:

The story itself is supposed to be a sort of dark comedy. And, in that sense I believe it succeeded. But there was an underlying British humor throughout the film that got on my nerves a bit. Some of the acting seemed over the top at times, though due to the nature of this film, it was forgivable. But nothing bothers me more while watching a film than to be completely annoyed by a character... especially if it is the main character. Such is the case with Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce). His nervous, almost pathological behavior just didn't sit well with me, even though I think it was an intentional contrast to the largely dry delivery of the supporting cast. Also, as I stated before, the story Gilliam is telling with this film is a good one, but it simply went on too long. This is a 1.5 hour story stretched into a 2.5 hour film. I don't want to point to editing as the culprit here, because I don't think that's really the problem. The problem, I believe, is that Gilliam had the opportunity with Brazil to finally make a movie his way, and crammed in a lot of thoughts and ideas that, though interesting, didn't really drive the story. They just felt like something he had always wanted to do, and Brazil was his opportunity to finally accomplish it on film.

He said: Brazil is a surprisingly great movie if you go into it knowing that it is a director's manifesto....the film he always wanted to do...and now that he has the chance he isn't holding anything back. That's great for writer/director Terry Gilliam, and I can appreciate his enthusiasm, but the overall film suffers for it. Brazil is pretty to look at and and engaging to watch, but it goes on too long. By the last quarter of the movie I think even the actors were wondering if the story would ever end. I give it a recommend with an astrix (kind of like Barry Bonds). This movie is definitely not for everyone.

SHE SAID

I had the honor of kicking off the first HeSaid SheSaid holiday season and picking our first X(mas) factor movie (nontraditional Christmas movies). When I was in grad school as a literature major (many moons ago), I took film classes for a break from books now and then. Brazil was one of the movies I watched in one of those classes, and I remembered just enough to know it was set around Christmas. And after re-watching the movie, I think I still have the same opinion of it almost 20 years later: It's an interesting movie that's about an hour too long.

Terry Gilliam, Brazil's director, and Sidney Sheinberg, who was the head of Universal studios at the time, fought about the length of the movie (among many other things about the film, including the title, the theme, and the ending). Sidney wanted it cut to 132 minutes from 142 minutes, but 10 minutes just wouldn't be enough.

The film was nominated for two Oscars - Best Writing and Best Art Direction/Set Decoration. And one thing I didn't realize when I watched it in grad school was that Tom Stoppard, who wrote Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (one of the many plays I was studying at the time), was one of the screenwriters. (Stoppard later wrote the screenplays for Billy Bathgate and Shakespeare In Love too.) The writing was good, but the set decorations were very impressive. They accurately capture the Big Brother-feel Gilliam wanted the movie to have. (They even make the duct work itself feel like a character.)

Gilliam claimed that he wanted to call the film 1984 1/2 because his inspiration for the film was a mixture of Fellini's 8 1/2 and George Orwell's 1984 (which he admitted he never read). Gilliam is quoted as saying the film is about the fear of love, but, if so, it seems to concentrate more on the dehumanizing effect of technology and bureaucracy - the two entities in the film so big they seem to become almost characters themselves.

A computer bug (literally) causes the incarceration of a Mr. Harry Buttle (Brian Miller) instead of the known "freelance subversive," Harry Tuttle (Robert De Niro). This one mistake causes a chain of events which lead to the eventual demise of the main character, Sam Lowry (Jonathan Pryce), who was a predictable bureaucratic yes-man before meeting his dream girl (literally), Jill Layton (Kim Greist).

The movie became too long when Gilliam overplayed his Orwellian vision. The set design was sufficient. We got it. But he seemed to overemphasize again and again the despair and darkness, from the commercialization of the zombie-like Christmas to the terrorists we never actually see or understand. And, besides the obvious play on the importance of appearances in a bureaucracy, I never got the many scenes focusing on Lowry's mother and her friends, who were all plastic surgery addicts.

She Said: It's a clever film. But as the proverb says, it's good to be clever but not to show it. And this film tries a bit too hard to show its cleverness. Regardless, it's worth watching for the art direction and set decoration alone. (Watch with the sound off even if you want.)

 

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Brazil audio commentary here or in the player below. (And find out which film the Eskimo picked to review next.)

Powered by Podbean.com

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: The Lazarus Project

HE SAID

This is a film that I had often seen on the shelf during my rounds at the video-store (and I had heard a few positive comments about it on the on-line talk boards as well), but never had a chance to pick it up. So I thought "why not" when it came to my turn to pick a film for this week's review. Many of my past picks had been movies I had either seen and thought would make for an interesting review or films that I had seen a long time ago and remembered enjoying, but didn't remember exactly why.

It was nice going into a review cold, and The Lazarus Project did not disappoint. It is the story of a young man, Ben (Paul Walker), who puts the troubles of his youth behind him (a stint in jail for past felonies), and has a fulfilling, blue collar life, complete with a loving wife and child, and a promising career. But when Ben loses his job after his felony record is discovered, he resorts to one last act of crime to make ends meet, along with his recently released from jail brother (Shawn Hatosy). The job goes horribly wrong, and when a security guard is shot and killed, Ben is sentenced to death by lethal injection.

This is when the story gets interesting, as Ben seems to "rise from the dead" as the new groundskeeper at a hospital for the mentally disturbed. His memory is fuzzy, and he is not sure exactly who he is or how he came to be working at the hospital. The plot unfolds as Ben struggles to put the pieces of his past life back together.

All in all, this was a complete movie…a good story that was worth the watch. Some things really worked for me, like the point-of-view being that of Ben's perspective. He is an unreliable narrator, and it really adds an element of suspense to the story as we never know exactly what to believe. Also, the acting was above average, especially considering the film was comprised of a cast of relatively unknown actors.

So, I want to give praise where praise is due, but, on the other hand, I don't want to give the wrong impression. There were definitely some missteps in this film in my opinion. At times, the plot seemed to drag out, and I felt like the story was stuck in neutral. Also, sometimes I wasn't sure what the film was trying to say. Certain mysterious characters would randomly appear….doing strange things (like carving symbols in a tree), and I wasn't sure exactly what was going on. Had I seen the characters before from Ben's past life...or were they just patients at the hospital? Either way, it could have been made more clear. To be fair, perhaps The Lazarus Project is one of those films that deserves multiple viewings to firmly grasp the subtleties, but honestly - though I liked the film overall - it didn't impress me enough to want to watch it again.

One other thing (with out giving too much away here, I hope) is that I was disappointed with the ending. Granted, it tied the story together and was a successful ending for the film, but The Lazarus Project is the type of film that is just begging for a twist ending…and one I kept waiting for…but it never happened. I simply got what I expected…a "happy ending"… and that was it. Film over. It was disappointing because there really was so much more potential to build upon.

He Said: A good film with an intriguing plot…but it seemed to develop in reverse order. The beginning-to-middle was compelling, but the ending fell flat and left me wanting more. I am on the fence about this one, so I won't say "skip it." This is good movie to pick-up when nothing else piques your interest.

SHE SAID

I find it interesting that a film originally titled The Heaven Project is said to be about Purgatory by the film's composer. (And I'm sure that Ben Garvey, the film's main character, might argue that it's about hell too.)

When we first meet Ben, his life seems like a kind of heaven - perfect wife, beautiful daughter, great job. Then his not-quite-ex-con brother enters the scene with the promise of a get-rich-quick job and an air of Purgatory hangs over. After Ben loses his job when they find out he's an ex-con, he decides to join his brother on the job and his life quickly descends into hell (ending with Ben sentenced to death in Texas for his part in the killings of a heist job gone awry).

The film marks screenwriter John Glenn's (Eagle Eye) directing debut, and he also wrote the screenplay. The film's (new) title, The Lazarus Project, is a nod to Lazarus of Bethany's resurrection in the New Testament. But in this Lazarus Project, the "Jesus" that does the resurrecting is Father Ezra (Bob Gunton), who runs the psychiatric hospital in Oregon where Ben "wakes up" after his lethal injection. He is employed as a groundskeeper and is told he has been given a second chance by God.

Though we're led to believe that Ben's second chance is quite literal, the film also touches on questions of criminal rehabilitation in general. (Can an ex-con be reformed? Is Ben a criminal or merely a victim of circumstance? Is criminality nature or nurture?)

In the meantime, Ben begins to question his new circumstances. Did he die? Is this mental hospital a kind of Purgatory? Can he go back to his old life with his second chance?

The film raises some interesting questions and answers most of them well. It's slow going and confusing at times but it wraps up much of the loose bits by the end (which was succinct but not very satisfactory).

She Said: It's an interesting movie and worth a watch. Not an all-time favorite, but not a dud either. You'll enjoy it more if you're into Biblical and literary allusions, as they abound throughout the film.

 

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the The Lazarus Project audio commentary here or in the player below. (And find out which film Shawn picked to review next.)

Powered by Podbean.com

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: La Moustache

HE SAID

Going into this film, I was intrigued by the concept: That La Moustache is about a man who shaves off his mustache and nobody notices. In fact, his friends and family claim that he never had a mustache to begin with. I'm not sure what I thought when Shawn first told me about this film…but I know that I got a whole lot more than I expected.

La Moustache is an intriguing and dark psychological mystery (if you can believe that from the plot summary above). It kept me interested throughout, and had me going back and forth on different theories about what was really going on with the plot. I love movies like that…the ones that make you think, and keep you waiting for the final reveal... for that "oh, now I get it" moment. I love that moment.

And that is exactly why this film failed miserably in my eyes. After all of that…after all the emotions this film provoked…after all the mystery and intrigue….after really thinking that Shawn had stumbled upon a true gem of an independent film….it turned out to be about absolutely nothing. That's right. NOTHING.

Nothing is explained. Nothing is revealed. The finale makes absolutely no sense, and the worst part of all is that it wasn't just me that didn't get it. Even the director said that he didn't know what the film was about. What a crock! The same director wrote the book this film is based on! How do you write a book, and not even know what it means for God's sake?!

(1, 2, 3, 4, 5....deep breath...)

And so here is my problem with La Moustache: Throughout the entire viewing of this film I had formulated multiple theories as to what was really going on. Was the main character moving forward in time while everyone else was moving backwards? That would have been cool…but, uh, no…wrong. Wait! Is the main character having memories of the future, or maybe living inside a dream? That would really wrap things up nicely! Again, no. Maybe all the other characters in the movie have been screwing with this guy's head all along. That would have been a lame ending, but it sill would have worked. Unfortunately, no… nope…nothing…nada…thanks for playing. Thanks for wasting my time!

He Said: This movie pissed me off. It doesn't make any sense. And the worst part is that it's not supposed to…that's the whole stupid point! La Moustache is like one big F-you to the audience, compliments of director Emmanuel Carrere. I am calling bulls**t on this film. Skip it.

SHE SAID

I left the 2005 French film La Moustache with only one certainty: Vincent Lindon looks better without a mustache, hands down. The rest is up for interpretation.

The film begins with Marc Thiriez (Lindon) asking his wife, Agnes (Emmanuelle Devos), as she's walking out the door if he should shave off his mustache. She remarks that she likes it and wouldn't know him without it. In true male fashion, he then immediately shaves it off.

She returns and, ironically - or mysteriously or irritatingly, just depending on your perspective - doesn't notice that he shaved it off at all. And neither do their closest friends. Or his co-workers. Marc gets increasingly agitated and paranoid about all of this and becomes convinced it's all a grand practical joke on him. His wife and friends start to worry for his sanity, and Marc himself even begins to wonder whether he had a mustache or not (even resorting to bringing a picture up to stranger and asking her if he has a mustache in the photo).

When he begins hearing Agnes's plans to have him committed, he leaves in a panic to Hong Kong. And rides the ferry back and forth for days. And then meets his wife at an undisclosed island location - and she now notices he has a mustache and says he looks wonderful, with or without it.

In between the beginning and the ending - in addition to the fact that he may or may not have had a mustache - we learn that Marc's father may or may not be alive, he and Agnes may or may not have best friends, and she may or may not be trying to make him believe he's crazy. Liberties are taken with the concepts of time, space, perception, memory, and just about anything else we humans use to make sense of a bizarre world.

Director Emmanuel Carrere said of the enigma: "The thing about this story is that its meaning escapes me, just like the book's reader and, now, the film's viewer." (The movie is adapted from his own novel.) And, admittedly, this is the problem I have with the movie. I mean I don't mind the meaning escaping me once in a while, but I damn sure want there to be one that could have been captured, at least.

She Said: It's beautifully filmed and worth watching - if you're prepared for a movie whose meaning even escapes the director, that is.

 

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the La Moustache audio commentary here or in the player below. (And find out which film The Eskimo picked to review next.)

Powered by Podbean.com

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

HE SAID

Based on the novel by Richard Condon, The Manchurian Candidate was first brought to the big screen in 1962 by director John Frankenheimer. The film is a political tale that revolves around the ambitions of the Iselin family - an ultra conservative husband and wife duo (James Gregory and Angela Lansbury) - who strive for political power. Their son (stepson to Mr. Iselin), Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey), and his Korean War infantry are captured and brainwashed by Communists. Upon their return to the States, the infantrymen explain their disappearance with a fictitious tale, preprogrammed by the Communists, of battle field heroics that earns Raymond the Medal of Honor. But when some of Raymond's company (most notably Major Bennett Marco, played by Frank Sinatra) begin having recurring dreams about the brainwashing process, it becomes clear that Raymond is an unwilling pawn of the Communists. Marco must somehow make the military believe his story and determine the intent behind Raymond's subconscious Communist agenda.

This film was admitted into the National Film Archive in 1994 for having "cultural significance." I'm not sure why it didn't happen sooner. The Manchurian Candidate is just as poignant today as it must have been when it was released during the peak of the Cuban Missile Crisis and age of McCarthyism. The plot is engaging and well told. Those familiar with the source work say that the movie follows very closely to Condon's original novel, even to the extent that entire conversations are lifted verbatim from the text...a formula Hollywood rarely follows these days, as most new releases sourced from novels tend to be "based on" or "adapted from" the source material and usually provoke criticism from disappointed fans. Point in case: The Manchurian Candidate was remade in 2004, and many of the characters' roles were condensed or completely reimagined, though in my opinion the re-make was also a very entertaining film.

A few mis-steps worth mentioning in Frankenheimer's original film: Frank Sinatra was strong in a leading role, at least as far as the acting was concerned. But even though his character of Major Marco was necessary to drive the plot, it seemed a bit overblown...as if many scenes were just "face-time" for Sinatra. It is interesting to note that his name appears at the top of any casting list you may see, including the original movie posters, but that his character is very much secondary to those portrayed by Laurence Harvey and Angela Lansbury and should be viewed more as a supporting character rather than a lead. Also, Sinatra's love interest in the film, Eugenie Chaney (Janet Leigh), seemed totally out of place and unnecessary, yet the actress receives the same overblown billing as Sinatra.

Also, the "dream" sequences, which show the infantry men under Communist control, seem to drag out longer than necessary. After the first time, we get the idea, but it seems that the director is uncertain of our ability to understand this easy-to-grasp, yet significant, element of the story line and keeps coming back in an attempt drive the point home. Unfortunately, it has the opposite effect, at points making the plot unnecessarily confusing.

He Said: This is a must see. The Manchurian Candidate is a true classic that is relevant even in today's world. Some of the plot element were unnecessarily revisited over and over, as if the Frankenheimer doesn't trust the audience to "get it", but that can be forgiven. The strengths of this film far out way the weaknesses.

SHE SAID

Plot Summary: Alice in Wonderland meets Robert Ludlum

The Eskimo picked The Manchurian Candidate as his next film pick right before the elections, and it is a classic political thriller (perhaps the classic political thriller even). Its basic premise has become such an ideological mainstay that there is even a "Manchurian Candidate" attack in politics: you are the candidate people know, while your opponent is not who he seems to be. (Remember the mass Obama emails?) But the movie also explores bigger themes beyond politics and McCarthyism and brainwashing.

The writing is impeccable. The acting is excellent (especially Angela Lansbury). But what stayed with me most about the film was the cinematography. John Frankenheimer's direction was reminiscent of Citizen Kane to me - with every second of every shot meaning something. (This adds to the denseness of the film though. You feel while watching it that if you look away even for a second that you'll miss something - and you're right.) Even the Queen of Diamonds had a "Rosebud" feel to it, tying the stories together throughout.

I found it funny that Frankenheimer became well known for a shot of Sinatra that was slightly out of focus. It became a kind of signature for him - and it was all an accident, he said, not an example of his innovative camera techniques. That shot just happened to be the best take, so he used it. Regardless, the camera work made me long for a return to an era where a shot - be it a slow fade or a long reach - meant something.

My one complaint about the movie? The sweat. Such fake, glistening sweat is generally reserved only for movies based in Mississippi (where we KNOW sweat) in current times, and I was confused at its purpose. It was so noticeable as to be almost comical in certain scenes and just made no sense.

She Said: Watch it. But be prepared to concentrate when you do.

 

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Manchurian Candidate audio commentary here or in the player below. (And find out which film Shawn picked to review next.)

Powered by Podbean.com

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Monster Squad

HE SAID

I have to say that I went into this movie very skeptically. Of course, I knew it was considered a cult classic, and a childhood favorite of many of my friends…and of course I remember the famous line: "Wolfman's got nards!" But I really expected a campy, silly kid's movie. That was not to be the case...well, actually maybe it was, but in a good way.

Monster Squad is one of those great 1980s "coming of age" films, like The Goonies, where you can really relate to the characters. I don't know what it was about 80s movies, but for whatever reason they nailed the reality of growing up in middle-class suburban America! I mean, these kids are vulgar, and funny, and smart, and eccentric, and, above all else, remind me of my friends and me when we were that age.

The plot, of course, was a bit silly, but also brilliant. Putting all the famous movie monsters together in one film to do battle with a gang of pre-teens…I mean, how can you go wrong?

Needless to say, I loved this movie, and am disappointed only in that it took me this long to watch it. Perhaps it is my age but I can really relate to the characters, thus giving Monster Squad a bit of a nostalgic edge in my opinion, but I think that anyone who loves to lose themselves in the bliss of a fast-paced, funny movie can find something to like about this film.

He Said: A must see! If you haven't seen Monster Squad, run to the video store. If you have, watch it again. The perfect family film for Halloween.

SHE SAID

Plot summary: The Goonies + Back to the Future + Stand By Me + All the great monster movies of the '50s = Monster Squad
 
I had not read much about this film when I chose it for my Halloween movie pick. It was chosen simply because it had ALL the great scary monsters in it and we were nearing dangerously close to October 31. But it was a great pick (even though serendipitously).
 
The movie is not shooting for high drama and it never takes itself too seriously, which is what makes it so much fun. It's a B-movie done right - with kids turning it all around on monsters even. The Monster Squad, led by Sean (Andre Gower), holds regular meetings at their clubhouse, where they recount a multitude of ways to kill a miscellany of monsters. "Scary German guy," an old man who lives in the neighborhood, gets brought into the action when the Squad needs help translating Abraham von Helsing's diary. He helps the boys (and Phoebe, Sean's younger sister) figure out how to ensure monsterless world peace for another 100 years.
 
Special effects have come a long way since 1987. The time warp scene is almost laughable today. And the Wolfman was strange looking to me. But Dracula, Frankenstein, and The Mummy could walk right into a movie playing this weekend and look right at home. (It's one of the best looking Mummies I've ever seen.)
 
She Said: It's a great family film for Halloween. The monsters are not too scary. There is some bad language in the film, but nothing more than you hear in songs on the radio these days. A fun watch! (And I really, really want a "Stephen King Rules" t-shirt now too.)

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Monster Squad audio commentary here or in the player below. (And find out which film Shawn picked to review next.)

Powered by Podbean.com