Anthony Minghella's COLD MOUNTAIN is a victim of Miramax's reputation for manipulating the Hollywood awards season. For the past year, even before Minghella was done filming, everyone knew this would be Harvey Weinstein's Oscar horse no matter how good it actually was. Naturally, this makes many people hate the film before they've seen it.

Now, I'm not suggesting COLD MOUNTAIN is a great film -- it's not -- but it's a heck of a lot better than some folks would have you believe, and there's no denying it's expertly crafted. As he demonstrated in his multi-award-winning hit THE ENGLISH PATIENT, as well as the highly underrated THE TALENTED MR. RIPLEY, Minghella is one of the best when it comes to making a movie feel like a beautiful painting come to life, without sacrificing the story's darker side. His latest attempt is no exception, as he captures the aura of the South during the Civil War in a way that draws you in and makes you feel like you're a part of it.


The biggest complaint I've heard about both the film and Charles Frazier's book is that Inman (Jude Law) and Ada (Nicole Kidman) spend so little time together, yet they're supposed to be pining away for each other over a period of four years. For me, this wasn't a problem at all, and I actually admire the decision to not give them more shared screen-time, which probably would have felt like a desperate attempt to convince us they're in love. You see, I don't think they need to be in love for the story to work. Inman and Ada certainly have feelings for one another, demonstrated by a single passionate kiss and a few awkward moments, but the point is that when the war breaks out they both have something to hold onto and look forward to. Each serves as the other's object of hope, which is more important under certain circumstances than what's real.

While you're most likely to remember the comedic moments centered around Renee Zellweger's character, Ruby (I'll admit, she won me over despite my apprehensions), Jude Law is the one who holds the film together. His performance is very understated, with a flawless and steady Southern accent, although the role lacks those pandering "Oscar" moments that voters seem to require in order to give an actor recognition. Natalie Portman is also excellent in a cameo performance (I'm so used to seeing her recite George Lucas dialogue I forgot she could act), conveying the pain and desperation of the Southern women left behind. In fact, for me this was the thematic core of the entire movie (reinforced by Ada, who is reduced to accepting handouts), as we rarely think of the ramifications of war on those who aren't directly involved.

Posted December 28, 2003 | link | 0 comments

Just when I was starting to warm up to THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, I feel like I have to be one of the detractors for the sake of sanity (Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere has been making a valiant effort). I'm not saying that THE RETURN OF THE KING is a horrible movie, it's just not the greatest achievement in cinematic history. Please, let's get some perspective, shall we?

First, Peter Jackson is obviously a talented director with great vision, but I think we can all admit that subtlety isn't his strong suit. He often allows his actors to over-emote as if they were on the stage in a Broadway show, so much to the point that there are moments where he might as well have plastered a title on the screen saying, "Really dramatic moment here, so don't miss it!" Of course, this really isn't a big deal in an epic fantasy film, as opposed to a small drama where emotions and acting are the main focus.


One thing I will say about Peter Jackson, the guy sure can orchestrate one hell of a battle. I mean, wow. Having seen films that feature massive battles like BRAVEHEART, GLADIATOR, THE PATRIOT and countless others in recent years, I've become a bit numb to them and sometimes I'll begin to tune out. Not to say these other movies have done a poor job depicting gigantic clashes, but Jackson puts the audience right smack in the middle and does so without excessively jump cutting to the point that we can't tell what's going on. When a wave of Orcs comes marching across the battlefield riding enormous elephants with huge tusks and sweeping trunks, I could feel their weight. Normally I dislike this kind of stuff, but the detail and care that went into its construction shines through, making the fight one of the most engaging I can remember. In fact, this battle to end all battles is so well done that I was almost able to forgive the film's horrendous ending.

Almost. What's sad about the final thirty-five minutes of THE RETURN OF THE KING, which is so pandering and sentimental I have trouble believing anyone could think it works, is it essentially spoils a pretty darn good movie up to that point. I understand THE RINGS trilogy is epic and contains a lot of different characters and subplots, but do we really need to see every single loose-end tied up in a nice little bow? A shorter ending that allows us to resolve the troubles of Middle Earth in our own minds would have been far more satisfying than having to sit there and watch every moment play out. The first 2 hours and 45 minutes went by at a surprisingly quick pace, but the last half hour felt like it went on for an eternity. Score: 3 out of 4

Posted December 22, 2003 | link | 0 comments

I think the media has collectively agreed that THE MATRIX trilogy has officially gone bust, at least from a creative standpoint. What I find most surprising, however, is how few have actually commented on just how fast the third and final film has disappeared from theaters and dropped in weekly box office revenues. Aside from a piece in Entertainment Weekly, the only stories I ever saw about the film at the box office were about how it set the five-day opening record worldwide.

If you thought BAD BOYS II opened big and went nowhere fast, compare it to THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS. Not only did ELF take the top spot during the second weekend (with both films sharing their respective first weekends), it wasn't even close. I realize the buzz for this film was definitely on the negative side, but has there ever been a better example of how important and under-valued word-of-mouth really is? A year ago, if I told you that by its fourth weekend THE MATRIX REVOLUTIONS wouldn't even be in the top ten, you probably would have thrown me into a mental institution. Amazing.

Posted December 14, 2003 | link | 0 comments

Mentioning Roger Ebert, the marketing department over at Random House was kind enough to send me a copy of his latest book, THE GREAT MOVIES. For the past month I've been picking it up now and then to read his thoughts on some of the greatest films ever made, to which he has dedicated five or so pages of analysis each. Books like this are great for digesting a piece at a time.

While his writing and approach are almost always top-notch, in the past I've had some problems with Ebert's take towards certain films, particularly during the last few years. A good example is how he gave both FIGHT CLUB and ERIN BROCKOVICH only two stars -- ignoring what is obviously quality filmmaking no matter what your personal tastes dictate -- while casually giving hollow tripe like XXX positive reviews just because it's summer. Of course, I'm sure every critic could be accused of doing this at some point. The difference is that when Ebert slips up everyone is watching.

Whether you agree or disagree with his reviews week-in and week-out, THE GREAT MOVIES underlines and reinforces that in the grand scheme of things Ebert really does have a great understanding of film and its history. In my opinion he truly deserves his already cemented status as the most famous critic of all time. Not only is he dedicated, but when you read what he has to say about particular movies, there's no denying that he simply "gets it" more often than not.

The book covers all kinds of cinema, from the silent era and Buster Keaton to the 90's and Quentin Tarantino. I was most impressed by his explanation and defense of Oliver Stone's JFK, which has been simultaneously adored and hated for over ten years now. The controversial aspects of the film naturally stem from Stone's creative license towards the assassination and all of the various conspiracy theories and questionable facts; Kevin Costner's district attorney character is based on a real man, but the depiction of what happens in the film is a far cry from what happened in reality. But as Ebert explains, "This is not a film about the facts of the assassination, but about the feelings."

I don't care what a lot of politicians and concerned citizens believe -- movie theaters are not the place to go for an accurately detailed history lesson, unless of course you're too stupid to learn by picking up a book. Ebert clearly understands this concept at its very core. Walter Cronkite lambasted him for praising JFK, even though there's not a "shred of truth in it," and Ebert's response succinctly covers the often confused line between film and journalism. "He wants facts. I want moods, tones, fears, imaginings, whims, speculations, nightmares. As a general principle, I believe films are the wrong medium for fact. Fact belongs in print. Films are about emotions."

I couldn't have said it any better myself. My fear is that future generations of filmmakers and critics won't fully embrace these types of concepts and will allow political correctness and so-called "fact" to rule over art and expression. Anyway, THE GREAT MOVIES makes for an interesting read and is the type of book you might leave out on the coffee table for a couple of months.

Posted December 13, 2003 | link | 0 comments

I've been putting off writing about 21 GRAMS because I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about it, at least not in a way that satisfies me. What I do know is that I came away quite disappointed. Not because the film failed to live up to my expectations (although it did), but because I knew how easily it could have been as great and powerful as some people are saying it is.

I feel bad admitting that after nearly an hour of watching 21 GRAMS I was bored out of my mind, but it's true. Actually, I think I was more annoyed by my own boredom than anything else, because there's so much to love about this film.


If anyone had doubts concerning whether or not Sean Penn deserved to be a lock for Best Actor this year for MYSTIC RIVER, his performance here should solidify that he does in fact deserve the Oscar that has eluded him for years. I don't think there's a better actor working today; he can say so much without ever opening his mouth. Benicio Del Toro proves that his Oscar win for TRAFFIC wasn't a fluke, as he is very convincing as a man who turns to Jesus in a manner that is just as unhealthy as the criminal activities of his past, mainly in the way it causes him to reprioritize the importance of his wife and kids. Finally, Naomi Watts is truly superb as a former drug-addict mother who is forced to endure a tragic loss. There are very few performances I can remember that cover such a wide range of emotions and are delivered with such conviction. Watts is the real deal, without question. The scene where she finds out the bad news (the central event of the story) is absolutely heart-wrenching.

So why is it that I was so bored by a movie that has three of the best performances of the year (or even the last five years), and tells a story that is equally dramatic and disturbing? It was chopped to pieces in the editing room. I know some people have come to the defense of director Alejandro González Iñarritu, who received lots of attention for his accomplished film AMORES PERROS (a.k.a. Love's a Bitch), but in the opinion of this critic there's no two ways about it.


21 GRAMS would have been a far superior and vastly more interesting film had it been told in chronological order. As it stands, there's no suspense or driving force behind it because we already know most of what takes place. Not everything, mind you, but enough to undermine its effect. I realize the purpose of the film is not to tell the story but to unfold a number of parallel themes between characters, but Iñarritu still could've accomplished this without sacrificing the unknown. I believe he is a director with immense talent and the potential to deliver some extremely powerful films as his ability matures and he begins to place more trust in himself. As Roger Ebert said, "he needs to get out of his own way."

Posted December 10, 2003 | link | 0 comments