19 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/13/06 4:00am)
It is not often that a tagline can ruin a movie, but it is possible (i.e "They're making memories tonight!" for the forgettable "It's a Wonderful Life"), and "Take the Lead" qualifies. The tagline is "Never follow." Interesting, considering this is a film about a teacher who struggles throughout the entirety of the film to get his inner-city students to follow his lead. Also interesting given the fact that Antonio Banderas says at one point, "A man leads. It is the woman's job to follow." So, never follow … unless you're a woman. \nImportant universal lessons like this one are jam-packed into this feel good dance film. For example, Banderas also imparts the audience with this nugget: "You need to dance for yourself, not anyone else." Thanks, Antonio. The lesson is clear: don't listen to anyone else, just do what feels right. Wikipedia.org describes this philosophy as "Satanism," but hey, we do not have the luxury to be picky in our philosophies in these crazy times.\n"Take the Lead" is a film about two opposite cultures intersecting: black urban youth culture and Franco-Spanish high society. That's right. You see, in this film, Banderas is half French and half Spanish. If you have been waiting for a film that finally served to ease the long-standing tension between Franco-Spanish high society and unrefined high-school culture, your wait has officially come to an end.\nThe premise of the film is simple. Banderas (playing himself, I'm fairly certain), is concerned about the students at the local high school. So, he waltzes in to the principal's office (ha!) and demands to teach the students the art of the waltz. He insists it will teach them dignity and respect. These are quite clearly the two most important things these kids need; right next to food, money, perspective and shelter.\nThe impoverished students Banderas takes under his muscular Latin wings do actually need shelter. Especially the main student, a 6'3'' Playgirl centerfold named "Rock." His father is a good-for-nothing drunk and his mother spends all their money on drugs. The movie is lighthearted, but it gets a little bit too real when Rock nearly crushes his father's trachea with his perfectly toned forearm. At this point, Rock decides to go live in the boiler room of the high school. When confronted about this later in the film, Banderas delivers one of cinema's great lines of our time: "Rock, may I ask you why you've been living in the boiler room?" \nThe school officially becomes a refugee camp when another student needs to escape from her consultant mother's clients (consultant meaning hooker, client meaning, well, client, but with different subtext).\nEventually, the Parent Teacher Association is convened for a meeting wherein the calculus teacher plots to overthrow the dance program. One of the lessons you learn early on in film school about how to spot a great film is when the bad-guy is a nerdy, un-intimidating high-school calculus teacher. Does Banderas convince the PTA to keep the program? Well, you'll just have to waste $8 to find out for yourself.
(04/12/06 11:07pm)
It is not often that a tagline can ruin a movie, but it is possible (i.e "They're making memories tonight!" for the forgettable "It's a Wonderful Life"), and "Take the Lead" qualifies. The tagline is "Never follow." Interesting, considering this is a film about a teacher who struggles throughout the entirety of the film to get his inner-city students to follow his lead. Also interesting given the fact that Antonio Banderas says at one point, "A man leads. It is the woman's job to follow." So, never follow … unless you're a woman. \nImportant universal lessons like this one are jam-packed into this feel good dance film. For example, Banderas also imparts the audience with this nugget: "You need to dance for yourself, not anyone else." Thanks, Antonio. The lesson is clear: don't listen to anyone else, just do what feels right. Wikipedia.org describes this philosophy as "Satanism," but hey, we do not have the luxury to be picky in our philosophies in these crazy times.\n"Take the Lead" is a film about two opposite cultures intersecting: black urban youth culture and Franco-Spanish high society. That's right. You see, in this film, Banderas is half French and half Spanish. If you have been waiting for a film that finally served to ease the long-standing tension between Franco-Spanish high society and unrefined high-school culture, your wait has officially come to an end.\nThe premise of the film is simple. Banderas (playing himself, I'm fairly certain), is concerned about the students at the local high school. So, he waltzes in to the principal's office (ha!) and demands to teach the students the art of the waltz. He insists it will teach them dignity and respect. These are quite clearly the two most important things these kids need; right next to food, money, perspective and shelter.\nThe impoverished students Banderas takes under his muscular Latin wings do actually need shelter. Especially the main student, a 6'3'' Playgirl centerfold named "Rock." His father is a good-for-nothing drunk and his mother spends all their money on drugs. The movie is lighthearted, but it gets a little bit too real when Rock nearly crushes his father's trachea with his perfectly toned forearm. At this point, Rock decides to go live in the boiler room of the high school. When confronted about this later in the film, Banderas delivers one of cinema's great lines of our time: "Rock, may I ask you why you've been living in the boiler room?" \nThe school officially becomes a refugee camp when another student needs to escape from her consultant mother's clients (consultant meaning hooker, client meaning, well, client, but with different subtext).\nEventually, the Parent Teacher Association is convened for a meeting wherein the calculus teacher plots to overthrow the dance program. One of the lessons you learn early on in film school about how to spot a great film is when the bad-guy is a nerdy, un-intimidating high-school calculus teacher. Does Banderas convince the PTA to keep the program? Well, you'll just have to waste $8 to find out for yourself.
(04/06/06 4:00am)
A family film should be good for the family (and maybe for a date, as well), and "Ice Age: The Meltdown" is certainly that. Very impressive animation is presented in this film, which will impress the older viewer and dazzle the younger viewer. However, as a legitimate, enjoyable movie, "Ice Age 2" unfortunately falls short of the standards that the first "Ice Age" set.\nThe first film is filled with funny, often hilarious moments and the characters are all incredibly differentiated and fun. In the sequel, the three new major characters are missing the complexity of the three original main characters. There is Ellie (voiced by Queen Latifah), the female mammoth who is convinced she is a possum, and her two brothers, Eddie and Crash (actual possums). Her conflict, which consists of believing she is a possum, might entertain small children but it is very hard to believe. Not hard to believe that it could actually happen, because obviously, this film contains talking animals; but hard to believe even within the world that director Carlos Saldanha sets up.\nIn the first film, Diego the saber-tooth tiger (voiced by Denis Leary) is a dangerous and frightening character. His character arc brings him from fierce predator to understanding compatriot and friend, and it is his storyline that propels the first film forward more than anything else. From the onset of the sequel, however, Diego has lost his edge. Something about him being simply a caring, loving member of the herd just doesn't feel right. The filmmakers attempt to make him seem dangerous to Sid the sloth (John Leguizamo), but it comes off as forced and playful as opposed to actually dangerous. \nThe danger in this film comes from natural disasters as opposed to characters; the only bad guys who pose any direct harm to the main characters don't even have any lines of dialogue. This is quite interesting when viewed in contrast to the first "Ice Age," where a herd of saber-tooth tigers are plotting to kill Manny the mammoth (voiced by Ray Romano) throughout the film. In the sequel, there is not as much a feeling of danger to the characters, and thus it proves harder to get sucked into the storyline. \nThis film is not about good characters escaping bad characters, though; it is about the concept of individuality and isolation versus having a family or a herd that you can feel comfortable with and be important within. Diego must overcome a fear, Sid must feel respected, Manny must feel loved. These are not tangible goals such as the first Ice Age provided (i.e get the human child to safety), but rather emotionally interesting goals that keep us involved in the characters if not so much the plot.\nI recommend seeing this movie either with a date or a child. But please do not combine the two.
(04/05/06 10:47pm)
A family film should be good for the family (and maybe for a date, as well), and "Ice Age: The Meltdown" is certainly that. Very impressive animation is presented in this film, which will impress the older viewer and dazzle the younger viewer. However, as a legitimate, enjoyable movie, "Ice Age 2" unfortunately falls short of the standards that the first "Ice Age" set.\nThe first film is filled with funny, often hilarious moments and the characters are all incredibly differentiated and fun. In the sequel, the three new major characters are missing the complexity of the three original main characters. There is Ellie (voiced by Queen Latifah), the female mammoth who is convinced she is a possum, and her two brothers, Eddie and Crash (actual possums). Her conflict, which consists of believing she is a possum, might entertain small children but it is very hard to believe. Not hard to believe that it could actually happen, because obviously, this film contains talking animals; but hard to believe even within the world that director Carlos Saldanha sets up.\nIn the first film, Diego the saber-tooth tiger (voiced by Denis Leary) is a dangerous and frightening character. His character arc brings him from fierce predator to understanding compatriot and friend, and it is his storyline that propels the first film forward more than anything else. From the onset of the sequel, however, Diego has lost his edge. Something about him being simply a caring, loving member of the herd just doesn't feel right. The filmmakers attempt to make him seem dangerous to Sid the sloth (John Leguizamo), but it comes off as forced and playful as opposed to actually dangerous. \nThe danger in this film comes from natural disasters as opposed to characters; the only bad guys who pose any direct harm to the main characters don't even have any lines of dialogue. This is quite interesting when viewed in contrast to the first "Ice Age," where a herd of saber-tooth tigers are plotting to kill Manny the mammoth (voiced by Ray Romano) throughout the film. In the sequel, there is not as much a feeling of danger to the characters, and thus it proves harder to get sucked into the storyline. \nThis film is not about good characters escaping bad characters, though; it is about the concept of individuality and isolation versus having a family or a herd that you can feel comfortable with and be important within. Diego must overcome a fear, Sid must feel respected, Manny must feel loved. These are not tangible goals such as the first Ice Age provided (i.e get the human child to safety), but rather emotionally interesting goals that keep us involved in the characters if not so much the plot.\nI recommend seeing this movie either with a date or a child. But please do not combine the two.
(03/30/06 5:00am)
Many times, when renting a film based on hype or awards season, the viewing ends in disappointment: the acting is not as great as its accolades suggest, the story is not as interesting or the plot is not as driven. "Capote" is certainly not one of these films. While watching this movie it is easy to understand why "Capote" found such incredible critical success and garnered so many awards for Phillip Seymour Hoffman who nails the role of his life.\nThe film begins slowly, but once the plot gets rolling it is impossible to look away. And while the beginning may be a little slow paced, the writing is sensational and witty enough to keep any viewer intrigued. \nWe find out from the outset that a family has been killed in a small town in Kansas. We are then introduced to Truman Capote, the author and famous playwright, and immediately are drawn to the way he interacts with friends, strangers and acquaintances. He is affable, pitiable and his strange voice forces the viewer to wonder if something is wrong with this man.\nCapote reads about the murders and decides to write an article about them for The New Yorker magazine. After meeting the two men accused of the horrific crimes, Capote develops an intense friendship with one of them, Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.). Collins gives a performance just as impressive as Hoffman's, which is the key to this film's success. \nThe two performances bounce off each other and gain strength and momentum as the friendship blossoms. It all comes to a head, however, when Smith asks Capote what he plans to title the book he is writing about the situation. Earlier in the film, Capote has bragged about his title, "In Cold Blood," to the police chief of the town. Now, however, Capote claims to have no title chosen. Perry knows about the title, though, and in one of the most powerful scenes in a film, he confronts Capote about it.\nThe power of "Capote" lies in this scene and in director Bennett Miller's ability to humanize a murderer to the point that being a cold blooded killer can crush his spirit; not because it is a lie about the title, but because it is the untarnished truth. Perry tells Capote about the crime and Capote cries upon hearing the story; not because he is sad for the victims, but because he is sad for Perry. This may sound morally bankrupt if you have not yet seen the film, but the way the story is presented is absolutely fascinating and believable.\nThere have been two films produced in Hollywood based on Capote's masterpiece "In Cold Blood," but neither have become classics. The reason? Because they ignore the most important part of the story; the fact that the author of the story was the character who drew out of these murderers a vibrant sense of humanity.\nThe most interesting special feature on the single disc DVD is not about the movie at all, but is a short featurette entitled "Answered Prayers," which provides viewers with an interesting and important biography of Capote. This featurette contextualizes his life within the film and I suggest watching it before watching the film.\nWith the novel "In Cold Blood," Capote invented a type of genre; the infusion of literary novelistic writing into journalism. With "Capote," Hoffman and Miller give a new breath of life into an old and important Hollywood genre: the biopic. This film does not deal with Capote's entire life from childhood, instead we are given the most formative years of the most important work of Capote's life.
(03/29/06 11:34pm)
Many times, when renting a film based on hype or awards season, the viewing ends in disappointment: the acting is not as great as its accolades suggest, the story is not as interesting or the plot is not as driven. "Capote" is certainly not one of these films. While watching this movie it is easy to understand why "Capote" found such incredible critical success and garnered so many awards for Phillip Seymour Hoffman who nails the role of his life.\nThe film begins slowly, but once the plot gets rolling it is impossible to look away. And while the beginning may be a little slow paced, the writing is sensational and witty enough to keep any viewer intrigued. \nWe find out from the outset that a family has been killed in a small town in Kansas. We are then introduced to Truman Capote, the author and famous playwright, and immediately are drawn to the way he interacts with friends, strangers and acquaintances. He is affable, pitiable and his strange voice forces the viewer to wonder if something is wrong with this man.\nCapote reads about the murders and decides to write an article about them for The New Yorker magazine. After meeting the two men accused of the horrific crimes, Capote develops an intense friendship with one of them, Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.). Collins gives a performance just as impressive as Hoffman's, which is the key to this film's success. \nThe two performances bounce off each other and gain strength and momentum as the friendship blossoms. It all comes to a head, however, when Smith asks Capote what he plans to title the book he is writing about the situation. Earlier in the film, Capote has bragged about his title, "In Cold Blood," to the police chief of the town. Now, however, Capote claims to have no title chosen. Perry knows about the title, though, and in one of the most powerful scenes in a film, he confronts Capote about it.\nThe power of "Capote" lies in this scene and in director Bennett Miller's ability to humanize a murderer to the point that being a cold blooded killer can crush his spirit; not because it is a lie about the title, but because it is the untarnished truth. Perry tells Capote about the crime and Capote cries upon hearing the story; not because he is sad for the victims, but because he is sad for Perry. This may sound morally bankrupt if you have not yet seen the film, but the way the story is presented is absolutely fascinating and believable.\nThere have been two films produced in Hollywood based on Capote's masterpiece "In Cold Blood," but neither have become classics. The reason? Because they ignore the most important part of the story; the fact that the author of the story was the character who drew out of these murderers a vibrant sense of humanity.\nThe most interesting special feature on the single disc DVD is not about the movie at all, but is a short featurette entitled "Answered Prayers," which provides viewers with an interesting and important biography of Capote. This featurette contextualizes his life within the film and I suggest watching it before watching the film.\nWith the novel "In Cold Blood," Capote invented a type of genre; the infusion of literary novelistic writing into journalism. With "Capote," Hoffman and Miller give a new breath of life into an old and important Hollywood genre: the biopic. This film does not deal with Capote's entire life from childhood, instead we are given the most formative years of the most important work of Capote's life.
(03/23/06 5:00am)
The tagline of "The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio" ("the true story of how a mother raised 10 kids on 25 words or less") suggests a much different plot than we are actually given in the film. Expectations are that Evelyn Ryan (Julianne Moore), the mother of 10 children, will turn to television and radio prize contests when money gets tight for her and her family. However, director Jane Anderson makes an interesting choice: instead of focusing the main conflict of the film on the family's poverty (this is dealt with, but only as the secondary conflict), Anderson decides to focus on the relationship between Evelyn and her husband, Kelly (Woody Harrelson).\nThis is a successful choice. The marriage is held together only by Evelyn's desire to give her children a stable home. Kelly comes home every night, drinks and destroys what little property the Ryan family owns. The house is so small that all ten children are witness to these drunken outbursts, and the tension that is built up between the family members is truly terrifying. For much of the film it seems as though Harrelson's character is plummeting toward a violent outburst on one of the children and this tension keeps this relatively slow-paced film moving more quickly than it would otherwise.\nThe film's main weakness is its inability, or maybe more properly its refusal to cement itself in the time period it is portraying (mainly the 1950s). Anderson apparently does not trust her audience to believe her representation of the 1950s, so she uses gimmicks to keep her viewers entertained. The film starts out with a direct address narration; Evelyn stares right into the camera and explains the situation. This is, quite simply, jarring. There is a reason one of the major rules of Hollywood filmmaking is that characters should never look into the camera. The direct address recurs throughout the film and is jarring each time.\nLater, to show us an example of Evelyn Ryan's prize-winning jingle, three brightly-dressed women come out, stare into the camera and sing the jingle (right over Evelyn's head). For a film that deals with some serious issues like alcoholism and domestic abuse, these kitschy moments stand out and pull the viewer out of the film world of the '50s and right back into the cinematic world of 2005.\nThe DVD is nicely produced and feels more set in the '50s than the film itself. The "making of" featurette explains some of the difficulties of producing a period piece featuring children when the story moves forward years at a time.\nOverall, the film is entertaining despite the gimmicky moments. The film ends with the real Ryan children going through their mother's possessions, which unfortunately gives the film an air of much too severe seriousness. The reason for this might be that the only other film I can think of that ends similarly to this is "Schindler's List," and I do not think Anderson wants us to draw comparisons between these two films. Unfortunately that's what happens.
(03/23/06 2:55am)
The tagline of "The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio" ("the true story of how a mother raised 10 kids on 25 words or less") suggests a much different plot than we are actually given in the film. Expectations are that Evelyn Ryan (Julianne Moore), the mother of 10 children, will turn to television and radio prize contests when money gets tight for her and her family. However, director Jane Anderson makes an interesting choice: instead of focusing the main conflict of the film on the family's poverty (this is dealt with, but only as the secondary conflict), Anderson decides to focus on the relationship between Evelyn and her husband, Kelly (Woody Harrelson).\nThis is a successful choice. The marriage is held together only by Evelyn's desire to give her children a stable home. Kelly comes home every night, drinks and destroys what little property the Ryan family owns. The house is so small that all ten children are witness to these drunken outbursts, and the tension that is built up between the family members is truly terrifying. For much of the film it seems as though Harrelson's character is plummeting toward a violent outburst on one of the children and this tension keeps this relatively slow-paced film moving more quickly than it would otherwise.\nThe film's main weakness is its inability, or maybe more properly its refusal to cement itself in the time period it is portraying (mainly the 1950s). Anderson apparently does not trust her audience to believe her representation of the 1950s, so she uses gimmicks to keep her viewers entertained. The film starts out with a direct address narration; Evelyn stares right into the camera and explains the situation. This is, quite simply, jarring. There is a reason one of the major rules of Hollywood filmmaking is that characters should never look into the camera. The direct address recurs throughout the film and is jarring each time.\nLater, to show us an example of Evelyn Ryan's prize-winning jingle, three brightly-dressed women come out, stare into the camera and sing the jingle (right over Evelyn's head). For a film that deals with some serious issues like alcoholism and domestic abuse, these kitschy moments stand out and pull the viewer out of the film world of the '50s and right back into the cinematic world of 2005.\nThe DVD is nicely produced and feels more set in the '50s than the film itself. The "making of" featurette explains some of the difficulties of producing a period piece featuring children when the story moves forward years at a time.\nOverall, the film is entertaining despite the gimmicky moments. The film ends with the real Ryan children going through their mother's possessions, which unfortunately gives the film an air of much too severe seriousness. The reason for this might be that the only other film I can think of that ends similarly to this is "Schindler's List," and I do not think Anderson wants us to draw comparisons between these two films. Unfortunately that's what happens.
(03/09/06 5:00am)
"Ultraviolet" begins with a comic book sequence attempting to establish the female lead as a comic book character. The only problem is that "Ultraviolet" was never in a comic book or a graphic novel. This is a marketing concept that boggles my mind, and makes me believe that the producers of this film believe that comic book readers love inane movies.\nThe film opens with five black spheres being fired through the windows of a skyscraper. The spheres then become people. People with swords, who summarily execute some armed gunmen. \nThen, we meet Ultraviolet, whose vibrant hair and clothing are flooded with cheap-looking lighting effects throughout the film. Why? Hard to say. The director doesn't decide to tell us.\nThen, Ultraviolet kills legions of people, and between each kill, manages to pose for the camera. A film like "The Matrix" made Keanu Reeves look pretty cool at times (you might not remember that this happened, but in the first one, it did). "Ultraviolet" makes Milla Jovovich look like a heroin-addicted asylum escapee who does not realize that modeling is for the runway in Paris and killing is for the logical movies in Hollywood.\nThe highlight of this film comes early on as Violet runs up a wall onto the ceiling. A security guard says, "How did she do that?" (please note: He did not ask how she formed a gun out of thin air, which she did as well), to which his superior replies, "I don't know. She must have some sort of gravity leveler."\nFortunately, the gravity leveler works on her motorcycle as well, and she is able to escape the helicopters by zooming up the side of a skyscraper at a hundred miles an hour.\nObviously, this movie is a science fiction thriller and is allowed to make new rules for its universe. If they want a gravity leveler, fine, have one. However, I find it fun to find smaller non-realisms. For example: One, Violet weighs probably 100 pounds, yet when she jumps onto the sidewalk, it cracks along a few feet around her. Two, the machine gun bullets always trail after her. Why don't the gunners lift the gun up one measly inch to compensate and end the movie earlier? Three, Violet picks up a suitcase the size and thickness of an iBook and a ten year old kid is floating in water inside of it.\nI enjoy going to bad action films as much as the next lunatic, but this movie was nearly impossible to enjoy. If you are not a funny person, either do not see this movie, or bring your funniest friend so they can use it for cannon fodder for 86 minutes. 80 minutes could have easily been taken out of this film.
(03/08/06 8:44pm)
"Ultraviolet" begins with a comic book sequence attempting to establish the female lead as a comic book character. The only problem is that "Ultraviolet" was never in a comic book or a graphic novel. This is a marketing concept that boggles my mind, and makes me believe that the producers of this film believe that comic book readers love inane movies.\nThe film opens with five black spheres being fired through the windows of a skyscraper. The spheres then become people. People with swords, who summarily execute some armed gunmen. \nThen, we meet Ultraviolet, whose vibrant hair and clothing are flooded with cheap-looking lighting effects throughout the film. Why? Hard to say. The director doesn't decide to tell us.\nThen, Ultraviolet kills legions of people, and between each kill, manages to pose for the camera. A film like "The Matrix" made Keanu Reeves look pretty cool at times (you might not remember that this happened, but in the first one, it did). "Ultraviolet" makes Milla Jovovich look like a heroin-addicted asylum escapee who does not realize that modeling is for the runway in Paris and killing is for the logical movies in Hollywood.\nThe highlight of this film comes early on as Violet runs up a wall onto the ceiling. A security guard says, "How did she do that?" (please note: He did not ask how she formed a gun out of thin air, which she did as well), to which his superior replies, "I don't know. She must have some sort of gravity leveler."\nFortunately, the gravity leveler works on her motorcycle as well, and she is able to escape the helicopters by zooming up the side of a skyscraper at a hundred miles an hour.\nObviously, this movie is a science fiction thriller and is allowed to make new rules for its universe. If they want a gravity leveler, fine, have one. However, I find it fun to find smaller non-realisms. For example: One, Violet weighs probably 100 pounds, yet when she jumps onto the sidewalk, it cracks along a few feet around her. Two, the machine gun bullets always trail after her. Why don't the gunners lift the gun up one measly inch to compensate and end the movie earlier? Three, Violet picks up a suitcase the size and thickness of an iBook and a ten year old kid is floating in water inside of it.\nI enjoy going to bad action films as much as the next lunatic, but this movie was nearly impossible to enjoy. If you are not a funny person, either do not see this movie, or bring your funniest friend so they can use it for cannon fodder for 86 minutes. 80 minutes could have easily been taken out of this film.
(03/02/06 5:00am)
"Proof" is a singular film. From the outset, it is well acted, the plot is compelling and the story line pulls at the audience and doesn't stop. Adapted for the screen by the same playwright who authored the Tony-winning play, the film version demands impressive performances by the small, tight-knit group of actors. Gwyneth Paltrow, Jake Gyllenhaal, Hope Davis and Anthony Hopkins all deliver powerful and even award-nomination-garnering performances (Paltrow was nominated for a Golden Globe for her role).\nThe story begins with Catherine (Paltrow) speaking with her father Robert (Hopkins) in the kitchen. It is her birthday, and she is worried that she is going insane. Her father, a world-renowned mathematician, was senile and crazy as of his late 20's, and now that Catherine is turning 26 she is worried she will suffer the same fate. At the end of the conversation, a secret is disclosed (that will not be spoiled here) that forces the question: is Catherine really going insane, or is she simply paranoid about becoming insane?\nThis powerful conflict propels the story forward beautifully. Catherine's sister, Claire (Davis), flies in for their father's funeral and only complicates things; she wants to help, but her aggressive interferences agitate Catherine to the point of even more complex ambiguity: is she crazy, or simply angry with her sister? \nThe unfolding of the ambiguity of Catherine's struggle is fascinating to watch, and Paltrow handles the role beautifully. The script is highly conducive to wonderful performances, because for much of the film, the viewer must decide on their own: are we watching a woman losing her mind, or are we watching a woman battle a more common depression? Is Catherine going to suffer the same fate as her father, or will she be able to stave off the sickness and lead a normal life?\nGyllenhaal's performance as the love interest Hal is also well-done. While he is overshadowed by Paltrow's and Davis's near-perfect performances, the story is so interesting that it provides these actors with inherently compelling roles. \nThis is a film that is easily recognizable as being adapted from a play. \nThere is very little flashy action in this film, other than the actual movements of the characters. The opening scene, broken up by only a flashback, is 15-minutes long and takes place in one setting (the ground floor of Catherine's house). However, the film is just over 90-minutes long, a decision made by director John Madden to keep the film gripping despite that it looks and feels like a play at certain points.\nThe DVD has an interesting "Making Of" featurette, in which Madden explains the challenges in taking a successful play and creating it within a new medium. However, if you're buying this DVD, do it for the film, not the special features; they did not go to any lengths to provide much else of any significant value.
(03/02/06 12:11am)
"Proof" is a singular film. From the outset, it is well acted, the plot is compelling and the story line pulls at the audience and doesn't stop. Adapted for the screen by the same playwright who authored the Tony-winning play, the film version demands impressive performances by the small, tight-knit group of actors. Gwyneth Paltrow, Jake Gyllenhaal, Hope Davis and Anthony Hopkins all deliver powerful and even award-nomination-garnering performances (Paltrow was nominated for a Golden Globe for her role).\nThe story begins with Catherine (Paltrow) speaking with her father Robert (Hopkins) in the kitchen. It is her birthday, and she is worried that she is going insane. Her father, a world-renowned mathematician, was senile and crazy as of his late 20's, and now that Catherine is turning 26 she is worried she will suffer the same fate. At the end of the conversation, a secret is disclosed (that will not be spoiled here) that forces the question: is Catherine really going insane, or is she simply paranoid about becoming insane?\nThis powerful conflict propels the story forward beautifully. Catherine's sister, Claire (Davis), flies in for their father's funeral and only complicates things; she wants to help, but her aggressive interferences agitate Catherine to the point of even more complex ambiguity: is she crazy, or simply angry with her sister? \nThe unfolding of the ambiguity of Catherine's struggle is fascinating to watch, and Paltrow handles the role beautifully. The script is highly conducive to wonderful performances, because for much of the film, the viewer must decide on their own: are we watching a woman losing her mind, or are we watching a woman battle a more common depression? Is Catherine going to suffer the same fate as her father, or will she be able to stave off the sickness and lead a normal life?\nGyllenhaal's performance as the love interest Hal is also well-done. While he is overshadowed by Paltrow's and Davis's near-perfect performances, the story is so interesting that it provides these actors with inherently compelling roles. \nThis is a film that is easily recognizable as being adapted from a play. \nThere is very little flashy action in this film, other than the actual movements of the characters. The opening scene, broken up by only a flashback, is 15-minutes long and takes place in one setting (the ground floor of Catherine's house). However, the film is just over 90-minutes long, a decision made by director John Madden to keep the film gripping despite that it looks and feels like a play at certain points.\nThe DVD has an interesting "Making Of" featurette, in which Madden explains the challenges in taking a successful play and creating it within a new medium. However, if you're buying this DVD, do it for the film, not the special features; they did not go to any lengths to provide much else of any significant value.
(02/16/06 5:00am)
The magic of Peter Sellers' presence in the original "Pink Panther" films of the '60s, '70s and even '80s, was his remarkable appearance of dramatic ineptitude: he did not seem to know that he was acting in a comedy film. Steve Martin, filling the shoes of Sellers, takes a much different approach in the 2006 remake, "The Pink Panther." \nMartin dives into his performance from the onset as an overtly silly and painstakingly gauche police officer. While Sellers was much loved for his subtle and nuanced performances, Martin has decided to reenergize the role of Inspector Jacques Clouseau. And, for the most part, it actually works.\nWhile most fans of the originals will no doubt lambaste this remake as juvenile and asinine, it is important to remember that inane slapstick gags were what made the Blake Edwards-directed classics so popular. The gags have been brought back in full force by Martin and his compatriots. There's the homage to Sellers' famous globe spinnings, a new take on Clouseau's random attacks on his assistant and of course, Clouseau does at one point electrocute his own testicles.\nWhile there are a variety of failed jokes in the film, there are enough successful antics by Steve Martin to validate this film's existence. The still limber 60-year-old comedian pulls off a number of legitimately hilarious physical shenanigans and delivers some funny (if usually ribald) one liners and jokes. \nThe film's ultimate redemption and the impetus for you to see this film is the solution to the whodunit mystery that drives the story forward. Martin fools the audience into thinking that a number of events in the ongoing murder case are trivial and ancillary to the plot, but these same events become hilariously important at the conclusion of the case. Director Shawn Levy and Martin should end the film after the case is solved, but instead they include a throwaway and thoroughly awkward gag consisting of Clouseau harassing the Chief Inspector (Kevin Kline) in the hospital.\nThe major failing of the film resides in Levy's attempts to establish some sweet and genuine moments between Clouseau and his assistant Ponton (Jean Reno). Because the film relies so heavily upon crude slapstick and idiotic behavior, the brotherly bond between the two detectives comes across as trite and even hackneyed. \nOverall though, this is a comedy worth seeing. Steve Martin is an extremely successful comedian for a reason. He has made a career of jumping around and acting like a lunatic, and he does so without class, but with high energy, yet again in this film. See "The Pink Panther," it will be worth the time.
(02/16/06 1:46am)
The magic of Peter Sellers' presence in the original "Pink Panther" films of the '60s, '70s and even '80s, was his remarkable appearance of dramatic ineptitude: he did not seem to know that he was acting in a comedy film. Steve Martin, filling the shoes of Sellers, takes a much different approach in the 2006 remake, "The Pink Panther." \nMartin dives into his performance from the onset as an overtly silly and painstakingly gauche police officer. While Sellers was much loved for his subtle and nuanced performances, Martin has decided to reenergize the role of Inspector Jacques Clouseau. And, for the most part, it actually works.\nWhile most fans of the originals will no doubt lambaste this remake as juvenile and asinine, it is important to remember that inane slapstick gags were what made the Blake Edwards-directed classics so popular. The gags have been brought back in full force by Martin and his compatriots. There's the homage to Sellers' famous globe spinnings, a new take on Clouseau's random attacks on his assistant and of course, Clouseau does at one point electrocute his own testicles.\nWhile there are a variety of failed jokes in the film, there are enough successful antics by Steve Martin to validate this film's existence. The still limber 60-year-old comedian pulls off a number of legitimately hilarious physical shenanigans and delivers some funny (if usually ribald) one liners and jokes. \nThe film's ultimate redemption and the impetus for you to see this film is the solution to the whodunit mystery that drives the story forward. Martin fools the audience into thinking that a number of events in the ongoing murder case are trivial and ancillary to the plot, but these same events become hilariously important at the conclusion of the case. Director Shawn Levy and Martin should end the film after the case is solved, but instead they include a throwaway and thoroughly awkward gag consisting of Clouseau harassing the Chief Inspector (Kevin Kline) in the hospital.\nThe major failing of the film resides in Levy's attempts to establish some sweet and genuine moments between Clouseau and his assistant Ponton (Jean Reno). Because the film relies so heavily upon crude slapstick and idiotic behavior, the brotherly bond between the two detectives comes across as trite and even hackneyed. \nOverall though, this is a comedy worth seeing. Steve Martin is an extremely successful comedian for a reason. He has made a career of jumping around and acting like a lunatic, and he does so without class, but with high energy, yet again in this film. See "The Pink Panther," it will be worth the time.
(02/09/06 5:00am)
"The Legend of Zorro" is a film that understands its place in the hierarchy of cinema. There are films that make us think, films that make us laugh, films that move us or make us cry -- and then, there is Zorro; a film that uses campy and self reflexive clichés to tell a story in an entertaining fashion.\n"Zorro" is by no means a classic or even a good movie, but it successfully presents a compelling story of a man who is emasculated and forced to re-masculate himself in order to win back his family. Not necessarily a great lesson for the kids, but certainly an effective Hollywood strategy to propel a plot forward.\nZorro's emasculation begins when he is slapped in front of his son, Joaquin (Adrian Alonoso). Zorro is in his street clothes as Alejandro (Antonio Banderas) and is unable to defend his honor. Soon after, Alejandro watches Elena (Catherine Zeta-Jones), his ex-wife, prance around a vineyard with another man, only to be slapped by her in front of hundreds of guests. Alejandro then loses a game of extreme joust polo (not a joke) to the very count his ex-wife is now sleeping with, and, in the worst emasculation of all, Alejandro's horse steals his wine and drinks it (also not a joke).\nTo re-masculate himself, Alejandro proves to his son he is a fighter, proves to his wife he is a family man and finally reins in his wild and alcoholic horse. \nOne of the film's major failings is the way in which director (Martin Campbell) attempts to intertwine American history with the story of Zorro, the Mexican folklore, rogue hero. Early on in the film, Zorro's wife tells him to retire, saying: "For ten years, you have fought to give California its freedom." Zorro points out that, "California won't really be a state for another three months." This is the funniest scene in the film.\nThe climax of the film comes when the governor of California is about to sign California to statehood. A train comes rushing down the tracks, but Zorro's horse (now sober) is able to save the day by kicking the guide-rail lever just in time. The connection to this moment in time gives the film an interesting but wholly unbelievable historical context.\n The action sequences are well choreographed and, except for the initial fight scene (wherein Zorro saves a child from a gun-wielding maniac by tossing his hat in the man's face), are suspenseful.\nAs a DVD, "The Legend of Zorro" is worth a rental but not a purchase. For those interested in the magic behind the Hollywood gloss, there are two well-produced featurettes on stunts and visual effects. Bottom line, if you are looking for a laugh or two and enjoy high speed horse chases, this film is a must-see.
(02/08/06 11:09pm)
"The Legend of Zorro" is a film that understands its place in the hierarchy of cinema. There are films that make us think, films that make us laugh, films that move us or make us cry -- and then, there is Zorro; a film that uses campy and self reflexive clichés to tell a story in an entertaining fashion.\n"Zorro" is by no means a classic or even a good movie, but it successfully presents a compelling story of a man who is emasculated and forced to re-masculate himself in order to win back his family. Not necessarily a great lesson for the kids, but certainly an effective Hollywood strategy to propel a plot forward.\nZorro's emasculation begins when he is slapped in front of his son, Joaquin (Adrian Alonoso). Zorro is in his street clothes as Alejandro (Antonio Banderas) and is unable to defend his honor. Soon after, Alejandro watches Elena (Catherine Zeta-Jones), his ex-wife, prance around a vineyard with another man, only to be slapped by her in front of hundreds of guests. Alejandro then loses a game of extreme joust polo (not a joke) to the very count his ex-wife is now sleeping with, and, in the worst emasculation of all, Alejandro's horse steals his wine and drinks it (also not a joke).\nTo re-masculate himself, Alejandro proves to his son he is a fighter, proves to his wife he is a family man and finally reins in his wild and alcoholic horse. \nOne of the film's major failings is the way in which director (Martin Campbell) attempts to intertwine American history with the story of Zorro, the Mexican folklore, rogue hero. Early on in the film, Zorro's wife tells him to retire, saying: "For ten years, you have fought to give California its freedom." Zorro points out that, "California won't really be a state for another three months." This is the funniest scene in the film.\nThe climax of the film comes when the governor of California is about to sign California to statehood. A train comes rushing down the tracks, but Zorro's horse (now sober) is able to save the day by kicking the guide-rail lever just in time. The connection to this moment in time gives the film an interesting but wholly unbelievable historical context.\n The action sequences are well choreographed and, except for the initial fight scene (wherein Zorro saves a child from a gun-wielding maniac by tossing his hat in the man's face), are suspenseful.\nAs a DVD, "The Legend of Zorro" is worth a rental but not a purchase. For those interested in the magic behind the Hollywood gloss, there are two well-produced featurettes on stunts and visual effects. Bottom line, if you are looking for a laugh or two and enjoy high speed horse chases, this film is a must-see.
(02/02/06 5:00am)
On his 2005 rendition of the much-adapted tale of Oliver Twist, Roman Polanski, known best for directing the noir classic "Chinatown" and the critically acclaimed "The Pianist," does not force his audience to work hard to decipher the intricacies of his characters. From the outset of the film, each character, with the notable exception of Fagin (Ben Kingsley), lacks complexity with conflicting emotional bonds toward other characters. Instead each are painted with a simple stroke: good for Oliver or bad for Oliver. \nThe guards at the orphanage push Oliver around and tease him for crying: bad for Oliver. The old woman on the road feeds Oliver and gives him shelter for the night: good for Oliver. While these easily recognized symbols seem to be tailored toward a younger audience, the film's dark undertones and violently disposed characters suggest that the PG-13 rating may be misleading. \nThe following events, occurring nearly in succession, seem not to have been designed around the goal of attracting an audience of Oliver-aged children: A man wants to buy Oliver and implies he might burn him alive, two guards snort snuff; Oliver is forced to eat scraps left out for the dogs; Oliver sleeps in a room full of coffins; his boss claims he will see Oliver hung; Oliver is beaten with a cane; Oliver drinks rain water out of a puddle in the street; a gun is shoved in Oliver's face more than once. And then, Oliver is shot in the arm with said gun.\nThese dark spots in the film are not brought up here as a criticism; indeed, they do help Polanski achieve his singular goal of creating a world that seems impossible for little Oliver to rise up to comfort within. However, these moments are disturbing. The character of Bill Sykes, played with an absolutely vibrant aggression against the world by Jamie Foreman ("Sleepy Hollow"), beats a woman to death with a cane. Later, her friend finds a sinuous river of blood congealing on the ground. These images are not child-friendly, and rather than creating a family-friendly adaptation of this classic tale, Polanski decides to create a much more chilling and mature story.\nThe character of Oliver Twist, brought to life with a nice balance of youthful innocence and childhood naivety by Barney Clark, is shown to us through the eyes of the other characters. As stated previously, we judge the characters in this film through their treatment of young Oliver, and Polanski feels no need to have Oliver prove his own value through dramatic action or dialogue until the end of the film. Oliver visits the old and progressively senile Fagin in prison, and instead of chastising the man for his evils, Oliver prays for God to forgive "this wretched man." \nWe see in Oliver's words and actions what an organically caring soul he possesses. All he does before this moment is cry; now, he prays for Fagin's redemption. \nWhile Polanski does not reinvent the tale of Oliver Twist, he injects into the story a vision of humanity that is easily defined but difficult to accept. The world, Polanski says, is full of those who would take advantage of the unsuspecting. Through it all, though, Oliver finds his comfort. Not through his own actions, but through his moral superiority to the slums of England Polanski presents.
(02/02/06 12:11am)
On his 2005 rendition of the much-adapted tale of Oliver Twist, Roman Polanski, known best for directing the noir classic "Chinatown" and the critically acclaimed "The Pianist," does not force his audience to work hard to decipher the intricacies of his characters. From the outset of the film, each character, with the notable exception of Fagin (Ben Kingsley), lacks complexity with conflicting emotional bonds toward other characters. Instead each are painted with a simple stroke: good for Oliver or bad for Oliver. \nThe guards at the orphanage push Oliver around and tease him for crying: bad for Oliver. The old woman on the road feeds Oliver and gives him shelter for the night: good for Oliver. While these easily recognized symbols seem to be tailored toward a younger audience, the film's dark undertones and violently disposed characters suggest that the PG-13 rating may be misleading. \nThe following events, occurring nearly in succession, seem not to have been designed around the goal of attracting an audience of Oliver-aged children: A man wants to buy Oliver and implies he might burn him alive, two guards snort snuff; Oliver is forced to eat scraps left out for the dogs; Oliver sleeps in a room full of coffins; his boss claims he will see Oliver hung; Oliver is beaten with a cane; Oliver drinks rain water out of a puddle in the street; a gun is shoved in Oliver's face more than once. And then, Oliver is shot in the arm with said gun.\nThese dark spots in the film are not brought up here as a criticism; indeed, they do help Polanski achieve his singular goal of creating a world that seems impossible for little Oliver to rise up to comfort within. However, these moments are disturbing. The character of Bill Sykes, played with an absolutely vibrant aggression against the world by Jamie Foreman ("Sleepy Hollow"), beats a woman to death with a cane. Later, her friend finds a sinuous river of blood congealing on the ground. These images are not child-friendly, and rather than creating a family-friendly adaptation of this classic tale, Polanski decides to create a much more chilling and mature story.\nThe character of Oliver Twist, brought to life with a nice balance of youthful innocence and childhood naivety by Barney Clark, is shown to us through the eyes of the other characters. As stated previously, we judge the characters in this film through their treatment of young Oliver, and Polanski feels no need to have Oliver prove his own value through dramatic action or dialogue until the end of the film. Oliver visits the old and progressively senile Fagin in prison, and instead of chastising the man for his evils, Oliver prays for God to forgive "this wretched man." \nWe see in Oliver's words and actions what an organically caring soul he possesses. All he does before this moment is cry; now, he prays for Fagin's redemption. \nWhile Polanski does not reinvent the tale of Oliver Twist, he injects into the story a vision of humanity that is easily defined but difficult to accept. The world, Polanski says, is full of those who would take advantage of the unsuspecting. Through it all, though, Oliver finds his comfort. Not through his own actions, but through his moral superiority to the slums of England Polanski presents.
(11/19/02 4:42am)
From 1965 until 1975, about 40 million American babies, destined to become a generation of society's blacklisted slackers, were born. Generation X could not compete with the ranks of the Baby Boomers, who by 1965 were 75 million strong and looking forward to their chance to take over the world. Generation X was forced to grow slowly in the looming shadow of the free-spirited Baby Boomers, which created a stigma that has never been diminished. \nEveryone has seen the headlines and psychological debates waged on Gen X's misunderstood ideals. But who has heard of Generation Y?\nKeith Naughton, Detroit bureau chief for Newsweek magazine, wrote about certain traits unique to Generation Y in an Oct. 21 article, "Hip to be Square."\n"Gen X was comprised of the disillusioned, forgotten little siblings of the baby boomers, it was all about things not turning out as well for them as for the boomers," Naughton said. "The formative years of Gen X were the recession of the early 90s and the Gulf War, which were painful events." \nGen Y has been referred to as the "millennials," and the "echo boom," but they can be described more specifically as "Kids under the age of 23, maybe 15-23, high school and early college aged kids," said Ricki Farquer, Generation Y coordinator for the Amarillo Globe News based in Amarillo, Texas. \nGen Y has been raised thinking it's going to replace the Baby Boomers as the next generation that gets to run the world, and soon, it will begin the takeover by becoming America's largest consumer group. \n"Through the 90s you've had an unprecedented era of prosperity, their parents were doing well, they were baby boomers who were indulging them and giving them anything," Naughton said.\nThat "anything" includes a college education for many Gen Yers, according to Richard Canada, executive director of Center for Sales Studies and Market Intelligence at IU. \n"You and your friends have parents paying for your education, because the boomers made all this money and handed it over to their kids," Canada said. "Thirty years ago, that money didn't exist."\nAs the first members of Generation Y start to graduate, the marketers will be waiting with outstretched arms and coupons, ready to sell them their first cars, homes, and just about everything else. \n"Where we're at now with Gen Y is where the baby boomers were 30 years ago, just getting out of college," Naughton said. "The first wave is coming out of college, getting their first jobs. And usually, people can afford their first cars before their first house, so car companies will come at them before reality companies."\nThe car companies certainly haven't waited for all of Gen Y to get its first jobs. Michael Wood, vice president of Teenage Research Unlimited in Northbrook, Ill. said that Honda has already been innovative in attempting to appeal to the Gen Y demographic. \n"Honda had a contest with Blink 182, they sent the Honda Civic on tour with the band, and attendees could register to win it," Wood said. "With Generation Y, it's all about doing something surprising, or out of the ordinary." \nGreg Livingston, vice president of Wonder Group, the nation's leading independent youth-marketing agency said that Honda isn't the only car company trying new things. \n"Take for example companies such as Volkswagon or Mitsubishi," Livingston said. "They are targeting particularly lower priced entry level vehicles, specific to what Generation Y will want to purchase." \nCar companies are not alone in their quest for the fresh taste of new consumer dollars. For example, Abercrombie & Fitch did not start out as a popular brand of clothing. \n"Abercrombie has been around for 50 years, it used to be a houseware company," Livingston said. "When they saw there was an underserved market they completely restructured to meet the needs of Generation Y."\nLivingston and Wood agreed that the most effective way to advertise to Gen Y is grass roots advertising.\n"It's not all about a television commercial anymore," Livingston said. "That could still be important, but you see more grass roots advertising now. Brands are getting out to where Gen Y hangs out, at malls, events, even Web sites." \nWhile Generation Y is seen by many companies as holding the key to its financial futures, the members of Gen Y go on with their lives, trying to successfully reach the point when they will be able to afford the merchandise being thrust in their direction.