Brokeback Mountain (2005)

NOTE: I have seen this movie just before the Oscars, after a long string of award wins. I’m posting this review late on purpose – waiting for the Oscar craze to die down, as well as all the hype surrounding the movie in the first place. Too much has been said about Brokeback’s loss to Crash already, and unfortunately, the loudest, most outrageous opinions stick around the longest. I’d like to correct them – some other time. Right now let’s go to Brokeback Mountain, let’s enjoy the movie for what it is, and let’s avoid cheap gay jokes for a few paragraphs. No promise on the last condition. While it’s an outstanding film, the last few weeks leading up to Oscars, and the subsequent backlash have been very-very illuminating for me. Showed the industry, the media and of course, the audiences in a slightly darker light. But i digress.

The movie has a lot of showbiz history. There was a positive, genuine buzz surrounding it at Toronto Film Fest last year, but I missed the gala, unfortunately. I had a feeling that I may need to see this film before there’s dozens of spotlights beaming across it. By the time it opened in wide release in December, it had enough attention, and managed to get on enough “top ten” lists to be qualified (IMHO) as hype. And I cannot stand hype, regardless of whether it’s deserved or not. If you remember, a year before, Sideways has done the same thing – came out of nowhere, and started collecting awards from all sides. Perhaps the two movies had the same marketing team, or same marketing idea – convincing people that they are the best movies ever made, instead of just being a movie. Sideways was a good, smart, honest film that unfortunately got over-hyped, over-extended, and over-praised. While I enjoyed it, it was somewhat disappointed by just how simple and compelling the story was. But then again, all great things should be simple.

To avoid the same disappointment, I waited for the hype to die down before I saw Brokeback. No such luck – January and February zoomed by, the movie was still playing in theaters, and every bloody day I’d read about yet another accolade. Time came to quickly jump into an empty theater and spend a few hours without any bias – so I can judge it, and our team here can make predictions for the Oscars. I think I succeeded, and came out of the theater an informed, entertained, saddened person. By the way, we ultimately chose “Crash” as the film of the year (among those nominated) and many of our contest entries fell short just in that one category. It’s good to be able to make informed decisions sometimes. Of course, the Oscars, or any other awards, or elections are famous for UNinformed decisions made by UNinmportant people, but that’s another rant altogether.

Basically, I liked the movie, DID NOT find it outstanding, and kept wondering how a dark horse like that got to grab so many headlines. It’s just a love story … between two men. What’s so groundbreaking about it? It’s not a cheesy romance (which takes away about a quarter of yearly new releases), and it’s not a soap opera (currently not playing in theaters). But it is very much a family drama – at least that’s the category it falls into. A family drama with some socio-political messages thrown in. North Country is the same kind of movie. Water, Pride & Prejudice, A History of Violence, Tsotsi. Sure, all of the above films have been nominated for this or that, but none have claimed (and been awarded) as much. Why? Because Brokeback is about gay men? What gives? I know that I may be inviting tons of critique by those who will immediately brand me homophobic, but I just don’t get why this subject can stand above others. It’s gotta be the subject of the film, because all other elements – directing, acting, photography are good, but not outstanding.

Here’s the good stuff. Amazing scenery – very romantic, incredible sequences of nature, wildlife, forests, rivers and of course, mountains. I have seen some of these places (as I traveled in British Columbia and Alberta), and they were captured without any tricks or FX – they’re really this overwhelming. You can lose yourself in a place like that – which makes many of the film’s ideas escapist and becomes so compelling and emotional, for so many people. You don’t need an exotic country to feel like a complete stranger, to turn inwards, and do some soul-searching inside – you just need to go fishing or camping. Either by yourself or with family or friends. I guess dragging the family up north every other weekend during the summer finally paid off now that it’s been glorified into a deep, spiritual, uplifting experience. Wait a minute, are we still talking about Brokeback Mountain Or March of the Penguins?

More good stuff – the performances. Jake Gyllenhall is the more sensitive, more adventurous of the two, always trying to bring their secret relationship into the open, to run a ranch together, and be comfortable with their lifestyle. As a cowboy in the 60s-80s America, it must have been tough to even consider a normal existence among others. But he keeps bringing it up, and the light in his eyes is so honest, so idyllic, it’s a real tearjerker. Heath Ledger – the more repressed, down to earth, full or self-hate and fear is also unbelievably good in his performance. He’s not quite the opposite of the two, but their time together on screen has so much love, and far beyond any combination of other actors. Ledger and Gyllenhaal upstage pretty much everyone in this film, and I would really like to see more of them, observe more of their times together, up there in the mountains. But, unfortunately, that’s not what the movie is about.

This movie has wives, relatives, the routine of work – that must be dealt with. There are other obligations, and any romantic escapism stops here. Homophobic attitudes, suspicious looks from behind the curtains, quiet sobs during the night – it’s the reality of a gay relationship in a repressed, male-oriented time. Delivered well, but with such a cold contrast to the first half of the movie, that I almost lost interest. Plus, the women are typically poorly written, and while Anne Hathaway and Michelle Williams are trying their best, their lines are ridiculous, and they are best at not saying things. In fact, the second half of the film I enjoyed everything that was not being said – the silences. And you can’t build a compelling movie on a series of silences – unless of course they’re delivered by someone like Randy Quaid. His exchange with Jake Gyllenhaal set a very good tone early on by saying one thing and meaning something else – but that technique got diluted in the end.

That’s what it comes down to – many great elements – from actors, from script, from the cameraman, but overall it’s just not enough to be the best film of the year. Brokeback Mountain is a great-looking film, with a lot to offer. But it’s also a flawed, overly long period piece – it sets the elements in the right places, but doesn’t have much of a story beyond the “forbidden love” theme. A new twist – “forbidden gay love in the world of straights” doesn’t fly too far either. Watch it, but don’t expect much. It won’t stay with you the way all great movies do. The musical theme might stay, but the ideas, the emotions – they start strong, but fade out before the movie ends.

Capote (2005)

Truman Capote was brilliant, disturbed man. An intellectual with constantly wounded ego, he loved the sound of his voice almost as much as he loved when people turned to see or hear him. His ongoing self-hatred and self-admiration is at the core of this movie, and at the core of Philip Seymour Hoffman’s performance. He embodies the man who was famous for being famous. He thinks like Capote, and sounds like Capote. He also steals every scene he’s in, which makes it so difficult to review the movie. I do remember the plot, and I have noticed the other characters, the visuals, and haunting score, but it’s the Truman Capote whom I took home and kept seeing again and again. He stole the film, just like he would steal every camera, every pair of eyes and ears in any company or situation. He craved it, and he was a worthy, interesting attraction.

The film follows the story of Capote’s most famous novel – ‘In Cold Blood’. How it was written, how at first he was sent to do an article on a gruesome murder of a family in Kansas. He arrives, fresh from smoky, alcohol-fumed New York lounges into milky white skies of Kansas, into one-street towns, and finds there a novel. This trip is not just for one article, not a weekend assignment. There’s a great novel here, he just has to unearth it. He stays for a while, and settles in, getting to know the local sheriff, and eventually the killers. He uses connections and silver tongue to get more information than allowed, to spend more time with the witnesses than allowed. To befriend one of the killers… To delay the trial and execution. He bends rules to get to the story – how was this family killed? Why in such a brutal way? Over what?

Continue reading “Capote (2005)”

Match Point (2005)

Ahhh, to be a part of posh, British, exclusive high society. To be leading edge, and and the same time – countryside; to be screwing around one weekend, and going through the paces of an arranged marriage the next. To be at the opera one night, and lurking in the motels the next day. Ahhh, to be an outsider to such lifestyle, and slowly, patiently crawl your way into a random high-society family, climb the hierarchy, claim your stake and admire your accomplishments from a floor-to-ceiling window overlooking a famous London bridge. Must be nice, this lifestyle. And must be amusing to eavesdrop on the people occupying such universe. And that’s exactly what this movie does. It gives a glimpse into London’s high society, very similar to Altman’s Gosford Park – without judging, without comparing, without there even existing any other classes, or any other people. It’s just the family, and their social circle. A marvelous, amusing and frightening view and you can’t look away.

Rich people are fascinating, aren’t they. They make money (or are born into it), and then can attend to their children (the phrase “safety net” is mentioned probably 5 times in the film), or give to museums or theaters. Standard Philantropy 101 – give to the cause you identify with. Of course the only problem with that is if you’re slightly less successful, or have no interests, or have no kids. Then you’re either overworking so you can finally provide your kids with the level of comfort as the guy in the next-door castle. Or, if you’re childless, you put off the family until … until it’s convenient. But when is convenient if every few months there’s a new “ground floor opportunity that stands to earn us all quite a lot of money”, or a new promotion, or a new acquisition. At what point does your dinner date become a business date? At what point do you realize you’re only attending because you can make a deal later on, and not because you’re looking forward to spending some time with your partner, wife, father-in-law, or mother?

Fascinating questions – of course, they are never mentioned here. The movie is a glimpse into the lives of a certain group of people who behave in a certain way. The fact these thoughts have resurfaced days later, and are staying with me is just another compliment to great writing. The film itself is not about this at all – there’s no time to ponder anything, when you’re late to an opera. The movie is about luck. It’s about the odds, and people who can use them to gain advantage or get destroyed by them. The movie is about sudden changes of fortune, and about the routine formula of our actions. It starts with a main character flipping through Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment, and later in the movie, he spills a glass of red wine. Nothing more needs to be said about the plot.

I went to see Match Point because I missed Woody Allen’s quick wit, and sharp dialogue. I suffered through Anything Else a couple of years ago, and was looking forward to snippy quick one-liners, observations about families, about lovers, and about classes. I got all of it, and yet the movie is very different from typical Allen formula. It’s much darker, it’s slow-paced, and it’s set in London. Hence the immediate similarity to Gosford Park, and in a way – Talented Mr. Ripley. A former tennis pro Chris Wilton (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) gets an exclusive job at a country club, gets to know a few regulars, comes into their house (the Hewetts), befriends everyone in an appropriate way, starts dating the daughter (Penelope Wilton) of the head of the family Alec Hewett (Brian Cox), gets noticed, gets hired “into the business”, excels, gets promoted, and literally married into the family. Luck and opportunities make all that possible. He was a a tennis pro, and became a powerful executive with a safety net, regular visits to the opera, and a family with extensive, always interesting social circle. All is perfect, except that early on Chris falls for a girl Nola Rice (Scarlett Johansson) who’s dating the son of the family. She’s untouchable at first – forbidden fruit, but when they break up, and the girl goes back to her “acting career”, that changes things. And this is where the most entertaining juggling and pondering begins. Does Chris court Nola and walks away from this immense opportunity, or does he treat her as a booty call while staying faithful to main obligations – to be a good, providing husband, and to never miss a night at the opera. Decisions, decisions.

The cast is great – Brian Cox walks away with every line he utters; he’s comfortable, and is only concerned with the comfort of his children. The mother hen is a typical “mum” who says what’s on everyone’s mind, but drinks too much – which gives everyone a reason to dismiss her truisms. The kids are proper, dull, predictable entities who have been pulled by their ears from birth, and have no unique views, no characters, no drive. All they have is status and permanent fancy restaurant reservations. And then there’s Chris – ambitious, sharp and very kind when the situation demands it. His goals are set from the first scenes, whereas everyone else’s – whatever daddy thinks they should do. Nola is also sharp, but she’s emotionally involved, plus she’s a girl. Girls don’t have much say in such families. Words are everyone’s weapons, and so the dialogue is very polished, hardly any word wasted. The locations and visuals are typical Allen – he loves bridges, rivers, shores, driveways. He follows the action, even though in his films, most of the action is verbal, or even silent. Chris and Nola (Meyers, Johansson) face off very well, showing great depth, putting absolutely everything into the background. And the undertones – the ones you take home with you and realize much much later – are priceless. Just like the many scenes where what’s not said is more important than what we hear. It’s sheer joy to listen to these interactions.

This is not a typical Woody Allen film, but it’s full of dark humour, class observations, and a lot of amazing dialogue. It’s not necessarily about the characters we like or approve of, but it’s certainly entertaining.

Memoirs of a Geisha (2005)

Memoirs of a Geisha wants so hard to be a poignant, serene observation of human nature in the Far East that it gets lost in its own narrative, frequently prefers style over substance, and offers a gorgeous film, with wonderfully misguided casting, and a lot of build-up with little payoff. Which is a shame, because this movie, based on a bestseller by Arthur Golden could have told us so much more about the culture of geisha, the rivalries between schools, the bidding wars for the girls’ affection and the war that ravaged Japan’s delicate balance of classes. There’s so much more on the pages of the book that never made the movie. And while the movie is a great tale, it just doesn’t do the book justice. Or, maybe I got spoiled by successful book adaptations in recent years.

This film has been in works for about a decade now. First if was a Spielberg production, which could not get it off the ground due to other filming schedules (the man’s been busy making sci-fi flicks with Tom Cruise, and heading up a movie studio – Dreamworks). Then the film rights were rumored to be given to Ang Lee, and finally, after the amazing success of Chicago, Rob Marshall was given director’s chair. He’s completely changed his visual style from the flashy, glitzy sparkles of Chicago, to vast, gorgeous landscape, narrow, winding streets of Osaka (is it Osaka? where does the movie take place? anyone remembers?), busy, crowded bars and of course, geisha dance training classes – also done in small, dusty quarters. I don’t know if it’s an accomplishment – Marshall heavily borrows from Chinese and Japanese filmmakers – or absorbs their styles to develop his own – but there’s very little “Hollywood” about the look and feel of the movie. I think it’s a good thing, even if it’s borrowed.
Continue reading “Memoirs of a Geisha (2005)”

Mrs. Henderson Presents (2005)

They never closed. The famed Windmill theater in London prided itself on never closing its doors to audiences during the worst air raids of WWII. Yes, that is one way to remember the theater, but Mrs. Henderson Presents mentions this in passing, as a matter-of-fact. The movie is based on a tense and hilarious relationship between the theater’s owner, a recently widowed Laura Henderson (Judi Dench), and theater director, Vivian Van Damm (Bob Hoskins) who was hired to assist her run the business properly. And although their stubborn and insightful dialogue gives the movie its backbone, there are many things presented here that go beyond the stoic theater performances, and beyond the nude scenes. Yes, the movie is also about nudity. You wanna read some more about nudity?…

Stephen Frears (director), when introducing the film to Toronto audiences back in September 2005 had said with elation: “I finally made my first nudie … my mum would be so proud”. Of course he was just getting the audience’s attention with the promise of naked women, just like I did above. In reality, the film (and the theater) deals with more serious issues. Deals with them light-heartedly, almost as if it all was a farce. Which takes away some of the weight of heavy themes, but doesn’t make them any less important. In a way, like Like I Beautiful, this film is about war that happens to everyday people – people who do have jobs, who may need entertainment, who may be entertainers. People who have to find laughter in everyday situations while everything is grim and hopeless. Laura Henderson is not such a person, and neither is Vivian Van Damm. They just run a theater (she, because she’s bored of being a typical widow, visiting friends for tea, exchanging innocent gossip, waiting for another close friend to kick the bucket); as for Van Damm, he likes a challenge. He almost walks away from the job, and that’s why he’s hired – he can tell it straight, and he won’t budge on principles. Despite Mrs. Henderson’s well-known eccentricities, he manages to keep the theater interesting, entertaining and profitable. They’re an odd couple, but somehow, their business works out. But then war happens.

Continue reading “Mrs. Henderson Presents (2005)”

King Kong (2005) – revisiting a reimagined remake

King Kong has been playing in theaters for about a month now, and prior to that it’s been promoted on say, every possible medium – newspapers, television, radio, internet, and bus stops. Too much spin for my liking. Now that it’s out of the top ten box office films, I decided to go check it out. No screaming fan-boys, no crunching popcorn under my seat, no high expectations, just a movie on the screen, a story that may or may not engage. That may not even be memorable. A film that will make me think twice about yet another story of dinosaurs chasing doomed humans on a mysterious island. Oh, whom was I kidding. King Kong takes its time building up the characters and their world, and then throws them all into a whirlwind of an adventure. On the ship, on the island, in NYC – the adventure stops only when the credits roll, and not a moment sooner. You can catch your breath in the lobby on the way out. As long as you’re in the seat, you’re part of that adventure. Hope you enjoy the ride.

So if you’re expecting a criticism, you won’t find it here. The movie is well-done, and if you haven’t seen it on the big screen, drop everything now and go see it. Seriously, turn off your computer, walk out that office/house/library and go to the nearest theater. If you remember the sheer joy and energy of Indiana Jones (in the 80s), or Jurassic Park (in the 90s), this is such an epic, massive adventure for this decade. No, not a blockbuster, a dumb summer action flick that accidentally got released during Christmas. King Kong is not a blockbuster. It’s an epic. Dare I compare it to Titanic? Romance, action, thrills, a doomed group of people, discovery, hope and more thrills? Yep, sounds about right, except that King Kong is more believable, and makes each of its act seem to effortless. That’s the best part of the movie – with all the work and love that was put in it, every plot twist, every action scene, every vista (real or computer-generated) looks like it was always there, waiting to be shot, waiting to be captured on film. It’s not forced. Nor story, nor the effects.
Continue reading “King Kong (2005) – revisiting a reimagined remake”

The Weather Man (2005)

Thanks to J.D. Salinger we know everything there is to know about teenage angst. The book (Catcher in the Rye, for those who don’t read much) was about a boy growing up and dealing with becoming a mature individual. Dealing with rejection, lust, trust, friendship, loss. Basically, becoming an adult without a reliable, constant authority figure to help along. A good book, maybe I should re-read it. In fact, after I’m done with this review, I just might. The music industry has milked this ‘angst’ concept to death, first with Nirvana a decade ago, and currently with all the neo-punk teenage bands, all trying to sound really depressed, disillusioned, and lost in this big, loud world. But this is something different altogether, a movie about a middle-aged man who’s basically in the process of growing up, maturing. Perhaps I didn’t get the point of the movie at all, but this is all I kept thinking  it’s  ‘Catcher in the Rye’ for adults.

Not that there’s anything wrong with the concept. It’s definitely unusual, and attractive. It’s just not my cup of tea. Consider this dilemma of the main character. He works as a weatherman (duh!), and his current pay is 900k a year. He works 2-3 hours a day. He’s divorced. His daydream is to move up in the world, to get a gig at a big TV station, in a big city. He feels lost, unaccomplished, alone without that big break. Yup, with 80% of his time available for his own amusement, and just under a million in salary, and he feels unaccomplished. You’d think it’s mid-life crisis, or just another caricature of a spoiled white man. But I think this is mid-life angst. I think there’s a lot of that going on around us. The man is not spoiled, he is troubled. I personally cannot identify with his lifestyle, but I’m definitely watching his story, this is gonna be good.
Continue reading “The Weather Man (2005)”

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

Don’t you just hate it when a fun, entertaining movie opens up and dies a slow and painful death in a few weeks? Don’t you feel really good about yourself for having “discovered” it along with a dozen of so people who were also sitting with you in the dark, laughing out loud, enjoying the film, connecting with the script and in a way, with you? Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is that type of a movie. It won’t make the big bucks, and it won’t have a cult following. And I have no idea why – it’s a great ride, delivered by actors who actually had fun on the set. How come Oceans 11 (and the sequel) can rake in gazillions and this little flick can’t even break double digits? Is George Clooney really that much cooler than Robert Downey Jr? Is he, really?

In all seriousness, I heard about this movie back in August, when it started doing to film circuit – Vienna, Montreal, Toronto. It was an unusual festival fare – not a classy, artful film, not a lot of glitzy stars, no controversy, and not really an independent, out of the blue production. Sure, it’s low budget, but it’s high entertainment. Perhaps the rumors are true – Shane Black (the screenwriter) is blacklisted. Who is Shane Black you ask? Oh, nobody really, only the guy who wrote all four Lethal Weapon films, gave us The Last Boy Scout, and (unfortunately, Last Action Hero and Long Kiss Goodnight). If you throw away the last two, it’s a solid resume. And if you do find Kiss Kiss Bang Bang somewhere and actually listen to dialogue for a minute or two, you’ll agree that Shane hasn’t lost his touch. If anything, his heroes are rougher, colder, more detached, and with more distant (deep under skin) emotions that you can get from most action films these days.
Continue reading “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)”

RIP John Spencer (1946-2005)

It’s a little late, I know, but honestly, when I first heard about this on Saturday morning, I thought it was an elaborate joke. Perhaps The West Wing writers are trying to get some publicity for the show, or maybe some joker announced it on the radio somewhere, and the story spread out of control. No, unfortunately, it was not a joke – John Spencer has died last Friday from heart attack. You know him as Leo McGarry from the West Wing. Others may know him from Presumed Innocent, Ravenous, Cop Land, The Rock, Green Card, Black Rain, Sea of Love and many many other films. He’s the leutenant, the cop, the investigator – serene and quiet, but all coiled up inside. With John, it was all in the eyes.
Continue reading “RIP John Spencer (1946-2005)”

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

“Difficult times lie ahead, Harry.” Difficult indeed. The kids are growing up — faster than their characters in the book(s). The directors for this franchise keep changing — not always a bad thing, but if you got someone with a specific visual style (Alfonso Cuaron), the successor (Mike Newell) should at least try to match it, or to make the differences less glaring. And finally, the adventures themselves — although they are getting darker and more menacing, thanks to heavy use of CGI and second-rate acting, they are less believable. And repetitive. The three main actors — Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Emma Watson (Hermoine) and Rupert Grint (Ron) were cute and cuddly in the first movies, but in this one they’re just awkward. I don’t have a problem with their characters’ adolescence; everyone goes through an awkward stage. I mean their acting, their “too old for the characters, too young to be grown-ups” behaviour on screen. Having never read the books, I can only imagine that this awkwardness was either intentional, or the age issue is going to get worse unless the future Harry Potter screenplays are adjusted properly.

See, the challenge of a franchise this big is that you gotta keep it interesting for everyone — newbies as well as those who are familiar with the books. Goblet of Fire spends very little time on introductions to bring a new viewer into the story. But it spends a lot of time dealing with “kids growing up” issues: the silly misunderstandings, the lusty looks, the hissy-fits, and the mindless fights between closest friends. All good material, for drama as well as comic relief. Except that the kids cannot convey that. They’ve passed this age, and unless properly trained, cannot really throw a fit the way a teenager would. Blame it on the writers, on the misguided direction (why not let younger kids leer and drool, while Harry and Co. are saving the world, the viewer will understand the difficulties of growing up). Or, perhaps they just aren’t that good at acting. Of course when the supporting cast includes Alan Rickman, Jason Isaacs, Michael Gambon, Brendan Gleeson, Maggie Smith, Ralph Fiennes, Gary Oldman and Miranda Richardson, anyone younger than 40 will be upstaged in any given scene. But that was the case with the other three movies, and they balanced the “kiddy” scenes with serious ones quite well.
Continue reading “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)”