Archive for January, 2002
105 – A Beautiful Mind
Posted by frothy in Beautiful Mind on January 23, 2002
Director Ron Howard has experience in playing with his audience’s heartstrings. Remember in Apollo 13, when the fate of the astronauts was uncertain? (Ok, so if you remember your recent history, you knew…. but still!) Or remember in Parenthood, when Steve Martin’s kid was about to make the crucial catch? Ol Opie can still pluck those strings with the best of them. (And you know, he’ll never stop being called Opie, even by those of us who never saw The Andy Griffith Show during its initial run.) And plucking heartstrings is not a bad thing at all, not when you can do it in such a sincere, noncloying way as the masterful Beautiful Mind presents to its viewers.
John Nash is a mathematics prodigy who has a decided knack at solving previously unsolvable problems. He’s socially dysfunctional, rarely looking anyone in the eye, but pours all of his energy – and soul – into producing one original idea, an idea that will distinguish him from all of the other mathemathical minds at Princeton University.
But John, like most who have had movies made about them, had his ups and downs. He meets and falls for a beautiful student of his named Alicia (Jennifer Connelly), and they produce a baby. But John also suffers from tremendous delusions and is diagnosed with a form of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia’s a tough disease, folks – it’s still not fully understood, and Nash was diagnosed with it in the middle of last century. He spends time in a sanitarium, as doctors struggle to find a cure.
Russell Crowe is absolutely powerful as the confused and confusing Nash. Although the marquee says “Russell Crowe”, you’ll immediately forget this is the hunky guy from Gladiator. I mean after all, he’s playing some nerdy scientist dude! But Crowe completely disappears in the role, and he’s unforgettable. Actors kill for roles like this one, because it gives them a chance to show off their acting chops. For many actors, this is the kiss of death, because then they’re exposed as poor thespians. But not for Crowe; if anything, this proves once and for all that he’s a grand master of acting. I realize that sounds like overkill for him, but I think that when actors are labeled as a “hunk” – their skills as actors aren’t seen as very substantial. Hey, looking darn good worked against Tom Selleck, and to a degree it has worked against Crowe as well.
And he ages well, too. The movie takes place over a fairly extended period of time, ending with Nash’s acceptance of the Nobel Prize in 1994. The makeup on Nash is neither garish nor schmaltzy; he looks completely genuine. And that’s the essence of Crowe’s performance. It’s sincere, never trying to win over the audience with a sly wink here or a toss of the hair there. Crowe shows remarkable poise, elegance, and is utterly astounding in the role.
His supporting cast is more than able. Jennifer Connelly is better than I thought she would be; in most roles, she’s the eye candy. But this role had meat to it, and she held her own. It wasn’t an easy role to play, and she pulled it off. And her scenes with Crowe do have that movie magic that each of us looks for when we go to movies, that one moment, that compatible chemistry that leaves audiences mesmerized.
And yes, this does have some very, very touching moments. The final scene, while predictable (even if you don’t know the outcome in real life), will bring more than one tear to the eye. Yes, I’ll admit it, it got me right here. But it’s okay; I did that old ‘guy-crying-in-movie-theater’ trick. If you feel the brime falling from the lid, you make a motion toward your cheek and then you scratch vigorously; people might think you have a skin infection and move away slowly, but at least they won’t think you’re a girly man.
At any rate, it’s certainly one of the best movies of the year. Everything’s in place: the direction, the photography, and especially the acting.
A Beautiful Mind: 9
104 – Moulin Rouge!
Posted by frothy in Moulin Rouge on January 15, 2002
This overstated hodge-podge of debauchery is neither fascinating nor entertaining. Like director Baz Luhrmann’s earlier Romeo and Juliet, this one leans very heavily on style. And when one leans heavily on something with little substance, one falls firmly on one’s face. Which is what this unfortunate movie does.
It tries hard not to be dull and boring, and in doing so eschews any semblance of nuance. Everyone and everything in this movie is loud, boisterous, screaming to be heard about the maddening din. Sure, this might be 1900 Paris, but if it was, I bet they had a run on Excedrin the following morning – if there ever were following mornings. I don’t doubt people were as debaucherous as this; they surely are now in some circles.
A naive young writer (Ewan McGregor) enters the world of the artists in Paris at the turn of the 20th century and quickly falls in love with an alluring chanteuse (Nicole Kidman). That’s great. A love story is fine. But sadly, McGregor and Kidman have less romantic chemistry than a can a tuna and an angry kitty cat. Each is a respectable thespian in his or her own right, but such talent is completely overwhelmed by the roar of the madness. Kidman can be very effective in much quieter roles, such as Dead Calm, Malice, and To Die For, but really most anyone could have played this particular role (provided they were tall and had 7-foot legs). Macgregor’s been in some good films, both small (Trainspotting) and large (Star Wars Episode 1). Both would have been much better off passing up on this junk.
The original was an inspired musical featuring some fine tunes. This one is a mish mash of pop hits from the 1970s to the present, often sung at inopportune, inexplicable times (and sometimes not even in the song’s entirety). There’s plenty of visual goings-on, however, for the viewer to forget the music sucks. Admittedly, the cinematography is superb, eliciting images upon images; there really is some magician behind the camera for this one. But rather than being a masterpiece in and of itself, the camera artwork merely overwhelms everything else about the movie. If I wanted to do nothing but see compelling images, I’d go to an art house and gaze at Monet for a few hours. Or, in the case of this flop, Peter Max or perhaps early Andy Warhol.
Moulin Rouge!: 3
103 – Jeepers Creepers
Posted by frothy in Jeepers Creepers on January 15, 2002
Remember back in 1974, when the now-famous Texas Chainsaw Massacre made its debut? Okay, neither do I. But I did see it later, on video, and it still scares the bejeezus out of me today. What made that film work was that it was low budget (and therefore more realistic) and that the gore was so… well, so disgusting, for 1974. But the best part of the movie was that it was a popcorn movie – the kind where you’d warn the people in the movie not to go downstairs, and so on. It’s pure escapism. Jeepers Creepers fits into this mold. It’s an escape movie. You don’t watch it to learn things; you watch it for plain old mind-numbing entertainment.
The movie is about two siblings driving along a long, quiet country road on their way home from college. A madman in a big, souped-up, customized truck tailgates them, then runs them off the road. Later, they see him dumping something down a huge pipe. And sure, they stop to investigate. I mean, wouldn’t you?
As in many escapism movies, the characters consistently do profoundly stupid things, like climb down the pipe, don’t go for help, don’t get the heck out there like right now, and so on. It’s the old Scooby Doo mentality; let’s solve this puzzle, huh gang?
For much of the movie, I laughed heartily. But hey! you say. It’s not a comedy, is it? Right on, it’s not a comedy. It’s a horror film. And I wasn’t laughing at stuff that was supposed to be funny. I was laughing at stuff that was supposed to be scary. That’s not a good quality to have in a horror movie, folks.
So I had a good idea of how I was going to rate this movie. “Pretty cheesy,” I thought to myself. “Effects aren’t bad, acting is kind of forgettable.”
But then the final 20 minutes or so came. And man, let me tell you – this is some serious fear. The final few scenese are better than anything else in the movie put together. There’s dramatic tension AND good effects. That hardly ever happens in modern horror films. And the final shot? Absolutely memorable. This movie went up a few points on the basis of those final scenes. I certainly won’t give anything away, but when I was checking out background info on this movie online I noticed there was a Jeepers Creepers 2. The ending of the movie can be seen either as an ending or a beginning, which to my mind makes it a perfect movie ending – it leaves you on the edge of your seat without making you feel unsatisfied.
Jeepers Creepers: 6
102 – Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
Posted by frothy in LOTR: FOTR on January 3, 2002
Watching Lord of the Rings is at once a mesmerizing and fascinating experience. Even if you’ve never read any of the books, the story is woven in such a delicious, viewer-friendly manner that even the most curmudgeonly of us will appreciate the tale.
The Lord of the Rings trilogy (actually four books, if you include the prequel The Hobbit) tells the tale of the quest to return an all-powerful (and all-evil) ring to the fire from whence it was forged in an effort to destroy it forever.
J. R. R. Tolkien’s books are very rich with detail, particularly with historical detail. The world of Middle earth is populated by all sorts of creatures, and man is not yet the dominating species. In Tolkien’s world, sorcery, might, and pastoral settings all exist together, albeit not always in perfect harmony.
The first several minutes of the 178-minute movie (subtitled The Fellowship of the Ring, the title of the first book in the series) describes the terrible history of the One Ring. If someone had not read the books, it might be difficult for them to comprehend the story; thankfully, the startling special effects and brisk storytelling make it all worthwhile and informative.
In short, here’s how the tale unfolds. Back in the old days, the ultimate evil being Sauron forged a series of powerful rings. Some he gave to the Elvish race (known for their wisdom). Some he gave to Men. Some he gave to Dwarves (known for their strength and courage). But there was one Ring that was designed to bind all of the others together, to be as strong as all the others combined. With this ring, one could rule all of Middle Earth. But the evil Sauron was defeated by Men, and his hand (well, the hand of his physical being) was chopped off; a Man recovered the Ring, but fell prey to its power. The Ring eventually sunk to the bottom of a river, where it was recovered by an eerie creature named Gollum, who also fell prey to its allure. And from this creature, the tiny Hobbit Bilbo Baggins acquired the Ring, not knowing its power and keeping it to himself for 60 years. Bilbo gives the Ring to his nephew, Frodo Baggins.
When the Ring’s existence is confirmed, a meeting involving all of the creatures of Middle Earth is convened in the Elvish home of Elron, the lord of the Elves. It is decided that the Ring must be returned to the peak of Mount Doom, where it must then be cast into the fires that made it (and where it can be unmade). Frodo volunteers for the horrible task, and representatives from each of the major species in Middle Earth are assembled to aid him in his quest: Aragorn and Boromir from the land of Men; Leglolas the Elf; Gimli the Dwarf; Gandalf the wizard; and the Hobbits, Frodo, Samwise, Peregrin, and Merry. These nine are chosen to travel the great distance to the land of evil, and cast the ring back.
Quite a daunting task, isn’t it? And while all of this is going on, the evil of Sauron is aware that the Ring exists, and he is preparing his armies for his own quest – recover the Ring at all costs.
Luckily, the good guys have some all-stars on their side. Gandalf (played very memorably by Ian McKellen) is more than just a circus magician – he’s one of the most powerful wizards in history (that’s not common knowledge at the outset, at least not to the naive Hobbits, but it’s apparent rather quickly). Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) is more than a mere Ranger, he’s also of noble blood, and has the courage of a thousand lions. These two leaders are the soul and minds of the Fellowship. But the story’s focus is on the tiny Ringbearer, Frodo. You see, carrying this ring isn’t quite the same as, for example, carrying a wedding ring up the aisle to the about-to-be-wed. Frodo is drawn to the ring but still has such amazing inner strength that he can stick to his mission. He knows its power, and as he gets closer and closer to Mount Doom the pressure of carrying the jewelry is absolutely overwhelming. It’s as if you or I walked around the office carrying a Volkswagen.
Besides the story, there are two other intangible stars at work here: the special effects and the makeup/costumery. There’s one particular scene in which Gandalf rides a giant bird (an eagle, perhaps) to safety. My mind immediately assumed this could happen; but upon reflection I believe that this was wizardry of another time, another example of the magnificence of special effects. Some of the scenes are absolutely jaw-dropping. The Fellowship must travel through the Mines of Moria; they tackle the precipice of a giant snow-covered mountain; they hike over marshes and through forests. And at no point does one think that all of this is make-believe.
Another asset is the cinematography. Gandalf is a human, although a tall one in the books. The Hobbits are halflings, or little people – they’re much smaller than humans. Their homes are smaller, and Gandalf has to duck to enter. But side by side, Gandalf and Bilbo look exactly as they should – Gandalf perhaps six feet tall, and Bilbo perhaps four. Not bad when you consider both roles are played by grown men (Bilbo is played by Ian Bannen)!
And the acting! Mortensen as Aragon! John Rhys-Davies as Gimli the Dwarf! The great Christopher Lee as Saruman the White, a fellow wizard of Gandalf! Sean Bean as Boromir!
And the actresses are even better. Liv Tyler as Arwen the elf and Cate Blanchett as the Lady Galadriel are absolutely stunning. These are not just beautiful women playing ethereal roles; their screen presence is off the charts.
The only downside to the acting is Elijah Wood as Frodo. Throughout the movie, he looked like a deer caught in headlights, constantly stunned and shocked. Wood’s never been a particularly good actor, and his limitations are unfortunately readily amplified by this major role. But he’s not horribly miscast, either. Most of the time, the action in the movie is so intense you forget what a dull performance he’s turning in.
I’ve read all of the books, so of course I knew what to expect here. The friend I went to the movie with had not read the books, so I asked her if she found it boring, uninteresting, or confusing. She answered in the negative, surprising considering the length of the film. But here’s something you can expect, if you’ve not read these wonderful books. There are three books, of course, and the other two movies have been filmed already. The ending of this film does not tie everything up neatly (as the first book did not). The filmmakers faced a very difficult task in ending the movie, and they chose to stick with the book’s ending (which I certainly will not reveal here). But please, if you watch this film, realize there are two more to come, and that the ending of this is also the beginning to the next one.
There are plenty of intense scenes in the movie, probably too intense for very young kids. This is NOT a children’s story (the books certainly weren’t, either), although it’s one that can be enjoyed by all. If I had kids, I would be reading these books to them as often as possible. This is epic storytelling at its absolute best. There is never a slow moment in the movie (or the books). The movie is a masterpiece, one of the finest examples of moviemaking we’ve seen in a long, long time.
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: 9.5
-
You are currently browsing the archives for January, 2002
People Had This to Say