At the Movies

I've watched some odd movies lately. My excessive consumption of Coca-Cola has earned me movie rental coupons. The Blockbuster clerk probably thinks I'm a cheapskate because I have paid for maybe one movie rental out of ten in the last month.

A Good Woman, based on Lady Windermere's Fan by Oscar Wilde, was well done. An authentic production with lush but not overdone production design and wonderful, fabulous costumes, especially for the ladies (I am really am a closet girly girl--those dresses and t-strap shoes are to die for!). The story moves along nicely. It might be a little too happily ever after for some people, because it is a story with conflict but without a villain, but it can't all be death and tragedy and scandal.

Scarlett Johanssen is characteristically demure, and Helen Hunt gives an honest, straightforward performance. She delivers some of her lines as if she is one a theater stage rather than a film set, but all that does is remind you that this is Oscar Wilde you are enjoying. Tom Wilkinson, an accomplished British actor we need to see more of in the States, matches Hunt perfectly in his genuine delivery. The gossipy supporting cast provides a reasonable background chorus, and the two younger men--Mr. Windermere and Lord Darlington--are entirely forgetable.

Two for the Money was disappointing. As the head of a big-but-dying-to-be-bigger sports betting business, Pacino was much less vibrant and outrageous than I had hoped he would be. Maybe he's showing his age. (I doubt it.) Maybe he was reined in by the director. (And, really, who would make that mistake?) The part was excellent for him but he gives in too much to his character's heart condition. There was some attempt at intensity as opposed to fire, but I was so wanting the fire that the intensity wasn't as effective as it could have been. Renee Russo as his wife, however, gives a vibrant, emotional performance.

The Lost City has such a promising premise (the story of a wealthy Cuban family living through the revolution with different family members on different sides), but there was an almost complete lack of tension. Slow is an understatement. The NPR interview with Andy Garcia intrigued me greatly. Bill Murray was wonderful, as usual. Dustin Hoffman was a waste of star power, and unconvincing besides. Raul Julia would have been a much better, if more stereotypical, choice.

A History of Violence was much weirder than I expected. I might have expected the stranger bits had I known ahead of time that it was based on a graphic novel. Maria Bello is fantasic as always.

Mrs. Henderson Presents is quite good. Bob Hoskins and Judy Dench are fantastic actors and work wonderfully together. Mrs. Henderson is the kind of old lady I hope to be.

Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang was a bit odd, but certainly not without its moments. Kind of a buddy cop movie gone wrong. They aren't really buddies or cops. One is a private investigator and the other is a small time crook who gets mistaken for an actor. Somehow they end up trying to solve a case sort of together. Val Kilmer isn't particularly convinving, but then he isn't given much to work with or much opportunity to provide depth to his character. Robert Downey, Jr., is pretty much himself. The severed finger was too graphic, overdone, and pretty much unnecessary.

I've decided that I want to see Beyond the Sea, Stage Beauty, The Cooler, Cat's Meow and maybe V for Vendetta.

Tonight the role of Woody Allen will be played by Kenneth Branagh.

Woody Allen is one of those inescapable Hollywood icons. He's been around for a long time and made enough of a name for himself that he can weather a huge scandal and go right on making movies, and people go see those movies because they are Woody Allen movies. Now, I am not particularly well steeped in the lore or even the work of Woody Allen. The movies that made him famous I saw when I was far too young to appreciate them. Annie Hall sits in my DVD collection unwatched. I keep planning to get around to it.

Recently I have watched two much newer Woody Allen movies. Match Point is an elegant film
about interconnected relationships and the potential effects of obsession. Wanting what you can't have but getting it, or most of it, anyway. Three of the four main characters are straightforward. Not perfect, but likeable. The fourth character is never clear. Is he completely devious, two-faced and self-serving or just incredibly susceptible to temptation? I found it impossible to decide. The fact that the character was played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers was distracting because he looks and sounds so much like Joaquin Phoenix, who I find creepy and sinister.

Then there is Celebrity in which the part of Woody Allen is apparently played by Kenneth Branagh, who is most famous for giving amazing performances in numerous film productions of Shakespeare plays. I don't know if it is a credit to him that he can do such a thorough imitation of the master that all I could do was notice that he wasn't actually Woody Allen. If the part was so clearly Woody Allen with the stuttering and stumbling and the hand gestures and the slouch, why wasn't Woody Allen playing the part?

It doesn't help that the character is pretty much a slime ball. He likes women and can even get women to like him, but he avoids commitment just in case something better might come along. The blurb on the rental by mail dvd sleeve says "A neurotic magazine writer sets out to write about the nature of celebrity and becomes entranced by the lifestyles he sees around him." Well, sort of. When we first meet him, he is already entranced. He desperately wants to be one of the beautiful people, or at least be accepted by them, but he can't get out of his own way. In fact, it seems pretty clear that he deliberately sabotages any possibilities of success. It's odd, and not particularly interesting. Much more interesting is the journey of the wife he dumps after sixteen years of marriage. She has to get through her pain and anger and frustration and insecurities and learn that it *is* possible to improve herself, have a better life, and be happy. Judy Davis gives a wonderful, real, sensitive performance. Branagh just makes a fool of himself.

The movie looks like an allegory for what might be Mia Farrow's revenge. She (her character
anyway) moves on to a successful career and remarries happily, while her philandering
imbecile of an ex-husband ends up going nowhere.

Marketing to Curiosity

When music CDs first appeared on the consumer marketing scene ("What?!?" say the kids, "There was a time when CDs didn't exist?!?") I was probably not as impressed as true audiophiles. Sure, they sounded nice, but my favorite features were those of convenience. I could listen to the same song over and over without having to waste time rewinding or worry about wearing out the tape. There was only one side, and no needle to scratch the record.

DVDs. on the other hand, opened up a whole new world as far as I was concerned. The first DVD in my collection was Disney's Fantasia, and the clarity of the animation was amazing. VHS pictures just looked grainy, and VCRs were suddenly thunderously loud, winding tape from one sprocket to the other. Sound quality was as dramatically improved as the picture. And then there were all of the extra bits.

It's the extra bits that concern me today. Well, maybe not concern. Just got me thinking is all.

Being a child of the 80s, quite a few of my favorite movies are hitting their twentieth anniversary marks, which provides the studios the opportunity to dust them off and release new editions. It's the same movie I already own. I know it's the same movie. And yet, I succumb to the curiosity. I feel the need to find out what the few extra minutes in the Director's Cut really adds to the movie. I want to know what actors and directors have to say about the movie they have made. I want to see the outtakes and the parts that didn't make it for one reason or another.

Cats have nine lives. I end up with several copies of the same movie.

I guess now I really do have to read the books.

I just finished watching Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and I get the distinct sense that I am missing something. Actually I think that I am missing a lot because I haven't read the books.

The ending proved quite anticlimatic. Harry does so much work throughout the entire film. Then Cedric dies, and the schoolyear is over. There was no real plot. Everyone arrives for the tournament. The contestants are chosen. They endure their three tasks. The evil is revealed. And everyone goes home. There was no real sense of being at school. The passage of time was sketchy at best. If not for the previous three films, you wouldn't even know who half of the characters were or why they were important. There are only the vaguest hints at subplots.

And there are all sorts of weird things that happen which don't have much explanation. Why is Ron so upset about Harry being selected for the tournament? For that matter, why has Ron turned into such a sullen teenager? What is with Dumbledore pulling things out of his head and storing them in some sort of well? There was such great potential for the rivalry between Cedric and Harry. And if Cho Chang is his first real crush, shouldn't her character have had more of a role? Harry's heroism in saving Fleur's sister and Cedric as well as Harry's expression of grief over Cedric's death add melodrama more than depth.

The more I think about it, the more disappointed I am in the whole thing. Too many references, and if you aren't a member of the club, you won't understand what's going on except superficially. The subsequent books are even longer, so even more will have to be cut, and as a result, there will be even less room for continuity and development of characters.

The one bright spot is Brendan Gleeson's fantastic performance as Professor Moody.

In the context of the book, it's probably an excellent movie, and the special effects are indeed spectacular, but if you are not an expert in all things Harry Potter, you will be left wondering.

It's not Vengeance . . . it's Punishment.

From a comic book standpoint, the only thing I know about the Punisher is that he made his first appearance in the pages of The Amazing Spider Man, so I can't comment on how faithful the 2004 film starring Thomas Jane and John Travolta might be to either the letter or the spirit of the comic.

It's a violent film. Not quite Sin City violent, but close. Old Testament violent--an eye for an eye, or in this case, a family for a family.

As Frank Castle, Jane makes an impressive transition from hardworking undercover cop who is finally retiring to a desk job so that he can be with his family to destroyed but driven vigilante with a serious score to settle. He's somewhat like Batman, in that he uses brains before (and in addition to) braun, but darker and favoring an excessive use of force when the situation calls for it.

Travolta offers a lackluster performance as Howard Saint. He's a pawn, a small time player in the big game. There is no reason to think that he might triumph. He is too easily made a fool of, and the goon assassains he sends after Frank Castle are cartoonish and impossible to take seriously as threats.

The ones to actually fear are Saint's wife, Livia, and his second in command, Quentin Glass.

The characters to actually like are Castle's quirky, misfit neighbors.

Without an effective villain and with a brooding, grieving anti-hero who doesn't say too much, it's the supporting cast on both sides that makes the movie work.