If you read my non-column review for MYSTIC RIVER then you already know that I'm a big fan of this Clint Eastwood drama, but I wanted to encourage those of you who haven't seen it to catch it while it's still playing in theaters. The film has already broken 40 million to date, which is impressive for a low-key, character-driven drama, but with the current state of the Oscars it needs to keep going in order to have a good chance at landing a Best Picture nod.

Between his performance in MYSTIC RIVER and 21 GRAMS, Sean Penn is pretty much a lock to get nominated and will probably end up winning (he's certainly paid his dues over the years), as long as voters can agree to vote for one performance over the other if he gets nominated for both. The same can be said for Eastwood's beautifully restrained direction, which not only nails an appropriate mood for the film but also respects the audience. Plus, we know the Academy likes Eastwood, as he won Best Director and Best Picture for UNFORGIVEN back in March of 1993.


Getting left behind in all of this Oscar talk is Tim Robbins, who contributes one of the best performances of his career and gives the film that important edge of uncertainty. In fact, I'd say Robbins performance is the most important to the story overall, because if we don't believe him we wouldn't care about anything that happens.

I don't want to beat a dead horse and continue to go on about a film I already reviewed, but what's truly remarkable is the number of little things that come together. Laura Linney, for example, doesn't have a great deal of screen-time as Penn's wife, but there's one scene towards the end where she's asked to step up to the plate, and she not only delivers, she hits it out of the park. The more I think about MYSTIC RIVER, the more I'm able to appreciate how understated and intelligent it is. Go see it.

Posted November 19, 2003 | link | 0 comments

My fiancée never got around to seeing THE TWO TOWERS and figured she should before RETURN OF THE KING hits theaters next month, so we rented it on DVD this past Friday. I reviewed the film back when it came out last December and gave it a ho-hum, not-bad-but-overrated score of 3 out of a possible 4, and I was interested to see if a second helping would change my opinion. To be honest, I think I liked the film more the second time around, and I'm even starting to warm up to the whole trilogy in general -- at least more than I was a year ago.

My initial aversion to liking THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy whatsoever was based more so on the fans of the trilogy and the acclaim it received than the actual quality of the first two movies. I think FELLOWSHIP and TOWERS are a couple of well made, beautifully shot films, but they aren't without flaws. The first film should have been shorter (not longer) and became repetitive after the first hour and a half, and they are also both guilty of using far too much CGI that looks pathetically video-game-like and fake (and no, I'm not referring to Golem). On the other hand, both films put audiences into a different world and do so in a convincing manner, while at the same time embracing solid themes and demonstrating them with some degree of subtlety.


If we as a collective audience can acknowledge the bad with the good and not turn a blind eye to it -- admit you love the films without insisting they're perfect and the greatest movies ever made -- then I'm happy to join in on the fun and accept the trilogy for what it is. Anyway, watching THE TWO TOWERS without having to read about how great it is at every turn actually has me excited to see RETURN OF THE KING, which I think we all believe will be the best of the three films.

Posted November 16, 2003 | link | 0 comments

I really wanted to love Peter Weir's MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD, based on the popular series of novels, and the way some critics have been raving about it (Roger Ebert gave it four stars), I assumed that would be the case. Unfortunately, the film is hampered by some very obvious flaws, although it's difficult to say what they are in a specific and precise manner. I suppose you could say I cared about the characters, but the problem is I didn't care nearly enough -- not for a film that's trying to be more about character than action or story.


In the starring role as Captain Jack Aubrey, Russell Crowe almost has enough screen presence and charisma to make up for the fact that the characters are ultimately superficial, but no actor is (or ever has been) good enough to overcome a story that is clearly lacking important traits. The truth is, I think Crowe saves the film from becoming completely dull. There was more life on board the ship featured in last summer's PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN, nevermind that everyone under Geoffrey Rush's command was dead.

Okay, so I get that Peter Weir wanted to put the audience into the film and make us feel as though we were actually on a ship at sea in 1805 and not merely observing from the safety of our cushioned theater seats. I was hooked for the first thirty to forty-five minutes, and the opening five minutes are brilliant, but after some time I began to wonder if something else was ever going to happen. Frankly, I'd much rather not be a part of an exciting story than be right in the middle of a dull one that seems to be killing time between the two big battles that mark the beginning and end of the film. Isn't the whole point of storytelling to avoid the monotonous in-between stuff and cut to the chase? As Stanley Kubrick once said, "Realistic is good. Interesting is better."


Of course, MASTER AND COMMANDER has plenty of worthwhile moments -- more than its share to be honest -- it's just that they don't come together to create a cohesive and compelling whole. In the end, it's an excellent bad movie. It has all of the things you need to make a quality film, including great cinematography, realistic performances from the cast, a good score that doesn't push too hard, and an epic scope. And maybe this is enough for some people and perhaps explains why the film has received far more enthusiastic reviews than mixed or negative ones, but I need more in order to call a film great.

Posted November 14, 2003 | link | 0 comments