Change Your Image
MikeG-1221
Reviews
Love Actually (2003)
You Do Know This Movie's a Parody, Right?
I've read comment after comment for this movie, and I can't believe that people don't get it. I saw this movie in the movies back when it came out, and found myself laughing hysterically. I wasn't laughing because the movie was sweet, but because Richard Curtis has served up a ridiculous parody of these types of movies. The funny thing is that nobody gets it. Every story, however, parodies the idea of love as something that is superficial and based on looks, rather than something that is deep and lasting. There is not a single moment in any of the multiple story lines that offers a sentimental reason for characters to be together. In particular, I thought 1) the storyline where the British guy goes to America and the American women immediately fall all over themselves for him and 2) the storyline where the Prime Minister's girlfriend is called "fat" and "plump" over and over again by everyone that knows her were not meant to be taken literally. This movie is not about love and is not a popcorn movie! I just can't believe that so many people missed how subversive and twisted this movie really is. What an incredible and subtle send up of love by Curtis that so few people really got what this movie was about!
King Kong (2005)
Not much of a point
The biggest blockbuster of this winter, King Kong had all of the promising elements of not only a financial winner for Hollywood, but the chance to be a critical darling as well. With a top flight cast, a big special effects budget, and a director who knows how to use those effects to actually make a movie and not just blow stuff up, King Kong had the opportunity to be that rare movie that is all things to all people. Sadly, it just wasn't to be.
It starts off in an extremely promising way, and Jackson builds up suspense in a way that the Lord of the Rings Series wouldn't do. The great thing about an archetypal story such as this is that we all knows what's going to happen; it truly takes a great director/writer to actually build suspense and make us care about what's going to happen next. Jackson does this, which makes the middle of the movie all the more aggravating.
Simply put, Jackson loses control. There's too much going on on the island. There are too many monsters, too many harrowing situations and (sadly) too many B movie clichés. The theme of the original story is lost and there's not much to put in its place. What you're left with is a movie where you're just waiting for an ending and, when that ending comes, the disappointment is palpable. It's too bad, too, because Jackson starts out with a bang and ends with a whimper. I don't know if this is the most critically overrated movie of 2005, but it's certainly the most overrated mainstream movie I've seen all year.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
A vision finally realized.
This was a great film.
I've slogged through comment after comment for "Fellowship" and "The Two Towers," wondering what the fuss was. I won't go into it all again here, but I was disappointed by both the first and second movies. This movie, however, not only blows away the first two movies in the series, but also stands on its own as a masterpiece.
All of the problems in the first two movies disappear, as if Peter Jackson finally realized the great vision of LOTR in one spectacular movie.
The action in this movie moves swiftly and brings the viewer right in, right from the opening scene with Smeagol. The direction captures the feel of climax immediately, and doesn't let go until Frodo accomplishes his mission of destroying the ring.
In a movie like this, special effects generally stand out over acting. But a few performances in what is a solid ensemble shine majestically over the rest. Elijah Wood and Sean Astin capture the anguish of carrying ring and the struggle between the weight of their quest and the toll it takes on their friendship. Wood's body language and facial acting say more than any dialogue could have possibly said.
The big surprise for me in this movie, though, was Viggo Mortensen's performance. Whether it was because of Mortensen himself, or because of the fact that the first two movies obliterated much of his dialogue, his performance in the first two films didn't stand out. In this movie, he takes the mantle as the title character and infuses his character with strength and courage. Almost every moment he's on the screen, he exudes charisma and strength, qualities that are hard enough to reveal in a book, let alone a movie.
The triumph of ROTK, however, is in the plotting and action itself. In some movies, characters dominate the story, while in other movies, characters are swept along by events. LOTR is clearly in the latter category, and Return of the King thrusts the viewer into the action early and doesn't stop until the ring is destroyed and Frodo and Sam are rescued. The writing team finally gives up on sticking in tons of cute Gimli lines and avoids long speeches that seem out of context and almost jarring. Every character in the movie reacts to the heft of the quest.
If you loved the first two movies, I'm sure you'll love this one. If you didn't like the first two movies, I'd still recommend "Return of the King." Unlike many of the rabid Rings fans, I'm reluctant to bestow awards left and right after walking out of the theater. However, Peter Jackson's direction is award-worthy, without a doubt. No fantasy movie has ever captured the combination of splendor and gothic darkness of the fantasy genre more than this movie did.
ROTK is clearly an epic, even though the first two movies were not. This is movie is a perfect 10 out of 10. I'll let time be the judge of whether or not this movie is an all-time great, but this is definitely the best movie I've seen in 2003.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
I feel like I'm missing something here...
SPOILERS COMIN' UP! BE YE WARNED!
I agree with everyone here who says that the book and movie are separate entities. It is unfair to expect the same exact plot regurgitated onscreen. That's not what a movie should do. But...
The Two Towers is visually stunning and scored wonderfully. If nothing else, Peter Jackson is a near-perfect director from a technical standpoint. His shots of Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli running and then riding across Middle Earth are beautiful and awe-inspiring. The battle at Helms Deep is also a tremendous accomplishment in terms of the reality of a medieval battle as one might imagine it.
Jackson also does make the three plots from the book work in the movie. Abandoning Frodo and Sam for the first half of the movie would have failed miserably. He does a very good job of mixing up the three stories enough so that you're not wondering what the heck happened to any set of characters (a suspense tactic that works well in the book that wouldn't work in the movie).
However, there are problems that keep this movie far from epic status. The two glaring holes in "The Two Towers" are a) a lack of explanation of what certain characters or places are and b) little or no characterization (character traits or actions that wouldn't make sense unless you read the book).
The transition from "Fellowship" to "Towers" is great...but then it gets a little disjointed. There's no explanation of what Rohan is, and what it has to do with the destruction of the Ring. As the movie goes on, the plot diverges so far away from the Ring that it almost becomes forgotten, except for the obligatory scenes where Frodo gets moody or angry or violent. By the end of the movie, the story has moved so far away from the significance of the ring, and so near the "battle for Middle Earth" that it's almost a mystery what these people are fighting for.
But my biggest problem with both movies is the lack of characterization, for the most part. What little characterization there was in the first movie is almost completely lost here. Frodo's character - probably the strongest in Fellowship - disappears here, with Jackson giving Elijah Wood little to do but stare with those big blue eyes into the camera and go through mood swings. Gimli becomes an even bigger joke, Aragorn is a mystery (why is he such a leader? Never truly explained.) and everyone is swept away by events without ever really participating in them. This would be fine if the events were built up to, but they never really are. Things just happen in Jackson's version of "Rings," and the reasons are seldom satisfactory.
One of the greatest scenes in the Star Wars Trilogy (and perhaps one of the greatest movie scenes of all time) is when Luke Skywalker decides to leave Dagobah to save his friends from Darth Vader. He's torn by the decision, but he knows that he has to be true to who he is. It's a human decision made in a supernatural world. At that moment, we feel for him, and admire and care for him because we probably would've done the same thing if placed in his position.
Tolkien also had his characters make these kinds of decisions. In "Fellowship" the book, the Fellowship decides to go through the mines of Moria by vote, whereas in the movie they have no choice. This lack of choice is even starker in "Towers". Saruman influences Theoden's character in the book, but Theoden falls under the wizard's spell in part because he is willing to do so, not because he's literally possessed. In the book, Aragorn gives up the search for Merry and Pippen because he decides that it is more important to help Rohan, even though the decision tears him apart. In the movie, Peter Jackson takes these decisions away from the characters and, by doing so, nullifies what makes them seem real. Without this strength of character, "The Two Towers" becomes a movie where fate overwhelms the human strength that makes characters - and movies - worth remembering.
And the dialogue - what little there is - is slightly below average, at best. Theoden, in particular, has two clunky speeches, and the one about "the father outliving the son" was extremely cringeworthy.
"The Two Towers" falls short of epic by a long shot. It definitely doesn't belong in the Best Picture/Greatest Film of all Time realms either. Bascially, this is a nice looking film that has its moments, but fails to cohesively bring them together. It's clear that Peter Jackson has a love of these books, but the screenwriters' working on this film don't have the ability to pull it all together. It's as if the expectation is, "well, you've seen enough of these types of movies by now to know that Aragorn is the strong hero, and Saruman the bad guy, and Frodo the classic underdog." Apparently, the majority of comments on this movie put me in the microscopic minority, but I just don't get why everyone is drooling over this film. I'm not sure if it's because of a love of the books and seeing the characters come to life or a feeling that, "well, now our generation has our Star Wars Trilogy." I give this movie a 5/10, and hope that if Oscar feels the need to give a nom to a mainstream movie, that they give one to "Minority Report" or "The Road to Perdition" - two films with better performances, better characters and superior stories.
Far from Heaven (2002)
A masterpiece
"Far from Heaven" is one of the greatest movies of 2002, and definitely one of the best movies of the past ten years without a doubt. It takes two sensitive subjects and deals with them in a way that doesn't preach, yet doesn't sugarcoat either.
Todd Haynes has quickly moved to the top of my list of great writer/directors. In both this film and "Safe," he takes topics that can easily be sensationalized and rejects that approach. Instead, he lets the story tell itself, by letting the characters react to what is happening in a very real way, something that is lacking from most films.
Beyond Haynes' masterful craftsmanship, three actors take this film and bring it to the level that makes it a masterpiece. Julianne Moore is superb as Cathy Whitaker. She plays a character who deals with not just one, but two situations that are beyond the realm of a 1950s housewife and reacts in a way that makes her seem more human than many people I actually know. She combines charm and sadness in a way that I don't know I've ever seen before. If she doesn't get an Oscar nomination for this, then there's something wrong.
Dennis Haysbert is the best actor most people have never heard of. This is his greatest and most serious role yet, and he nails it. He combines the dignity of his character with the tinge of sadness and anger you'd expect from an African American in a racist environment.
Finally, Dennis Quaid floored me in his conflicted role as Frank Whitaker. I'm honestly surprised by the commentary I've seen that says that his character is a condemnation of homosexuals. Again, Todd Haynes' film isn't trying to put characters on a pedestal and say, "This is wrong." His films examine human nature and how imperfect we are, and the price of that imperfection. Quaid gives a performance that reveals how overwhelming the fear of discovery is, when his "crime" makes him the worst "deviant" he could be, when in reality he just wants to be what he is.
Haynes' brilliance comes through BECAUSE he is a master of creating environment. Just like in "Safe", where he created an ultra high-tech, poisonous world, here he creates a picture perfect world, where nature is manicured perfectly and the suburban landscape is a breathtaking vista. Yet, the emptiness is evident, in the fact that there is no room for anything beyond absolute conformity. Everyone is trapped within a narrow role, and the triumph of this movie is how everyone reacts to that realization. Todd Haynes is a genius, and I hope that everyone sees this film if they can.
A Night at the Roxbury (1998)
A couple laughs, but really bad
I rented this movie after a terrible day at work; my girlfriend sent me to the video store with instructions to get "really bad movies." So I wasn't expecting much. That said, this movie is bad...but it doesn't belong in the IMDB bottom 100.
For those of you who haven't seen the "Saturday Night Live" bit this is based on, Chris Kattan and Will Ferrell reprise their duo of trapped-in-the-80s disco dummies, although the movie gives them some dialogue. It will never be mistaken for a great comedy, but there are some funny moments (a good parody of the movie "Say Anything," and a great self-effacing cameo by Richard Grieco). Still, it's not worth spending 90 minutes of your life on unless you're really a fan of these characters. 3/10.
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
A synthesis of what's wrong with America
Before posting this message, I read through a lot of the comments for both this movie and "Roger & Me." Moore's critics are generally of two stripes: 1) those who accuse him of distorting the facts and 2) people who call him "too liberal" and accuse anyone who dares like his movies of being too liberal as well.
What I think people are missing, however, is that Moore, liberal though he may be, isn't telling his audiences what to think. He's presenting a picture of the United States that, though most people don't like to look at, is what many people see, particularly people who live outside of this country (at least people I've met and relatives of mine from outside the States).
I don't think this movie is a "Guns are Bad" movie. What this movie is really about is the "culture of fear" that Moore talks about in the movie, of which a "culture of stupidity" is closely related. The genius of Michael Moore is that he never walks onscreen and says, "OK, this is what I want you to believe." The juxtaposition between the U.S. media (Killer Bees! Y2K!) and the Canadian media (Potholes) is humorous but telling at the same time.
Even before 9/11, the masses in this country were already preconditioned to panic. His point isn't that "guns are bad." His point is that we don't have a society that's mature or evolved enough to handle guns properly. Is some form of Canadian socialism the answer? I personally don't think so (as a conservative myself), but giving corporations tax breaks and sh***ing on the poor isn't a solution either (or truly conservative).
It's hard to summarize my feelings on this film. I don't agree with everything Moore says, and I do agree with people who say that you shouldn't take everything Moore says and gobble it down with a big fat spoon. But Moore would probably tell you the same thing, and I think that's the point of his work. His clip of Bush talking about the "general alert" was also dead on; there are too many people today unwilling to think about anything that's happening in our world. If his "liberal views" bother you that much, I feel sorry for you, because he represents such a small portion of the population that isn't threatening to the mainstream views in any way.
See this movie. It will make you think, even if you don't agree with everything he says. I don't (I thought his Canada/U.S. analogy was off), but still enjoyed it tremendously. 9/10 rating.
Kissing Jessica Stein (2001)
More mainstream than I expected
WARNING: SPOILERS HEREIN! YOU ARE WARNED!
This seemed like the perfect video movie for me, as I wanted to avoid the "indie hype" that a lot of movies like this seem to generate. I definitely like independent movies, especially romances, as they tend to eschew many of the mainstream conventions Hollywood can't get away from.
I saw this movie with my girlfriend and her friend, and they both were very happy with it, from the standpoint that they felt that it wasn't stereotypical regarding gender and relationship. This I agree with, but many of the issues I had with the film weren't even on this level.
First of all, the good points. The movie is entertaining, if only in the sense that the writers keep it moving. Even some of the more predictable parts (and I saw a lot of what happened at the end coming from a mile away) don't linger. The performances of Westfeldt and Juergenson were good, and I was surprised to look at their bios and see that they both aren't long suffering actresses who haven't gotten their big breaks.
But the problems I had were many...
The biggest problem I had was with the feel of the movie. It had that "fantasy New York" feel that a lot of movies can't avoid. Even the way the movie was shot left many scenes where Westfeldt was "glowing" or "radiating." The jobs the characters had and the social situations they were in didn't have any sense of reality. Jessica and Helen could have easily slipped into a "Friends" episode and you wouldn't have been surprised.
Many of the background characters were also problematic. Jessica's family was so stereotypically Jewish it was ridiculous. I recognize that stereotypes stem from truth, and a movie can make stereotypes work while keeping this in mind. But there didn't seem to be any balance between the stereotype and the reality. Jessica's mother, in particular, was absurd. Beyond this, the other background characters didn't seem fleshed out; they just seemed to exist for the convenience of the plot.
The portrayal of men. I wouldn't call this movie a "man-hating" movie by any means. But I also can't blame Jessica and Helen for trying lesbianism, based on the men that seemed to exist in their world. Early in the film, there's a dating montage, where we see all the jerks Jessica has to deal with. This was done in the movie "Happy Accidents" to much better effect. I don't think that the screenplay was written anti-man, but it does seem to indicate that there are no options out there.
But the biggest problem I had with the movie was the real lack of growth in the title character. By the end of the movie, she's overcome a lot of superficial fears and quirks. However, I didn't leave the movie with the feeling that she's really learned anything. Her character strikes me as kind of sad, and I can't forsee bliss for her going forward. While I don't think this is how the screenplay was intended, this is what comes across.
There's a sad line early in the film from Jessica, where she says (I'm paraphrasing): "I don't tell my shrink that; it's private." Despite her attempts to overcome her fears, I don't think she overcomes this sense of privacy. The circle of neuroses will continue, and the movie's ending is confusing. Are we supposed to be happy? Sad?
I would recommend the aforementioned "Happy Accidents" (which is coming out on video and DVD next month). It has the similar "men-are-so-hard-to-find" theme, but treats the subject in a much more real way, with characters that I cared a lot more about by the end of the film. It even takes place in Manhattan, but a very different Manhattan than the fantasy New York in KJS. "Stein" was watchable, but problematic, and is not good for the analytical like myself.
The Minus Man (1999)
A Wonderful, Disturbing Film
"The Minus Man" is an amazing film as much for what it does as for what it doesn't do. This movie isn't for everyone...people who want a serial killer with panache or style should go see a movie like "Silence of the Lambs." This is a very different film, which disturbs you without a drop of blood...a talent that is even more difficult than it sounds.
Owen Wilson plays Vann Siegert, an amiable drifter who kills an asthmatic junkie at the beginning of the film in a non-violent way. He then settles into a quiet, West Coast community, befriending a moderately dysfunctional older couple (Brian Cox/Mercedes Ruehle), getting a job at the local post office and also befriending a lonely co-worker (Janeane Garafolo).
The performances are all above average, at least, and a few of the actors simply stand out. I'm a big Ruehle fan (ever since "Married to the Mob"), and she didn't really get the chance to shine here, but Garafolo really came through in a supporting role. Dwight Yoakum and Dennis Haysbert are great as cops (I won't say more) who question Wilson, and there are several other key performances.
It is Wilson, however, who steals the show. Owen Wilson is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors. He's made me laugh more than any American actor in recent memory ("Bottle Rocket" and "Zoolander" immediately spring to mind), but he really took his acting up a notch here, perfectly capturing the ambiguity of this character. He's likeable and disturbing all at once, a mystery all the way to the end of the film, because Wilson never gives anything away. This is his best performance, without a doubt.
The movie is disturbing because Vann is an everyman, a nice enough guy who can't really stop killing. The random, methodical nature of what happens throughout the film chills, not to mention his "weapon" of choice.
Some of the comments I've seen complain that the movie is lacking in terms of dialogue or ingenuity, but I generally loathe movies that try to "understand" a tormented or sick mind. This isn't to say that some or most serial killers aren't sick f**ks, but a movie like this...where the killer is a boy-next-door type...hits home really hard. I don't think this movie is attempting to be "clever"; I think it's genius lies in the feel it conveys, and how it captures the rhythms of everyday life and how easy it is for a killer to weave his way into that life.
The movie brings home not only how easy it is for someone to kill, but how anonymous our nuclear-family structured society really is. We know no one, and safety is only in our imaginations. Unlike "American Psycho" or "One Hour Photo", this movie is a whisper instead of a shout, but a whisper that is delivered effectively. I give this one a 9/10, and recommend it to anyone who wants to be scared subtly by the ordinary and familiar.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Not sure I saw the same movie as everyone else
Based on the long-running hype surrounding this movie, not to mention the critical raves it has generally received, I knew that one of two things would happen when I went to see this movie:
1) It would truly live up to the hype as one of the greatest movies of all time or,
2) It would not match up.
I am not surprised that, given the nature of mainstream, Hollywood blockbusters, that I fall into the second category. "The Fellowship of the Ring", though exciting in parts, fails to maintain a constant stream of interest and energy, thus making it fall far short of the "epic" that many viewers are already calling it.
Since most people on planet Earth are already familiar with the story, I won't go into great detail here re-creating it. From a plotting standpoint, the movie has several problems. Since Tolkien's work is so masterfully detailed, it would be difficult to completely portray every character with the depth and understanding that he did. But the beginning of the movie does just that, as the moviegoer is painted an excellent picture of the Hobbit Shire and the beauty and peace that this diminutive-sized but big-hearted race has achieved. But then the movie gets bogged down.
Character after character is hastily introduced, as we are pushed through fight scene after fight scene. "Fellowship" suffers from the same syndrome that many action movies suffer from: despite the fact that the heroes are constantly pitted against insurmountable odds (in numbers, resources, etc.), they never seem to be in any real danger. And the movie generally stages a fight scene, gives the audience a few minutes to breathe, and then stages another fight scene. Although the fights are done well, what is lost is a true understanding of characters, as we never really get to know any of the main combatants. Worse yet, we eventually forget why they're fighting in the first place, since so many of the fight scenes fail to explain what is going on.
Visually, the movie is occasionally stunning. But there are certain scenes (like the battle scene at the beginning of the movie) that look obviously computer-generated. Even the tightest military formation does not move in complete synce unless it is a COMPUTER SIMULATION. I did think that the camera angles and the way that the movie played with the actors' height was pretty great, though.
I've heard a lot about how the acting in this movie was tremendous, but this is not a character-driven movie, so how can you tell? Except for Elijah Wood, I didn't feel like anyone really gave a performance worth remembering. There were no bad performances, mind you, but no one (except for Wood) really stood out.
The monotony of the fight scenes made me anxious for the movie to end. I could feel the length of this movie, and that's generally not a good sign, unless you're dealing with an historical piece like "Schindler's List" or "Ghandi", where the time isn't as important as the story that's being told.
In the end, this movie is not a "Star Wars" or a "Godfather" or anything of that nature. It morphs into a generic action feature that presents its audience with some exciting scenes, but ultimately fails to deliver a cohesive movie. I give it a 4/10, since it has some value, but isn't anywhere near the "classic" that people are hastily calling it.
A final note on this movie being #1 in the IMDB. I wouldn't get worked up about this. Though the database has a great deal of value, weighing the historical importance of movie is difficult. We will have a more balanced picture 10 to 20 years from now about the importance of this movie. Even great movies that seemed like they would last forever after they were released (remember "The English Patient"?) have faded into the background after a few years.
Gladiator (2000)
An excellent, albeit historically inaccurate, film.
A rousing story of one man surviving adversity and destroying a corrupt man in the process, Gladiator is a very entertaining 2 1/2 hour ride. The best part of the movie is the backdrop itself, for which Ridley Scott aggressively takes the moviegoer on a trip throughout all corners of the Roman Empire, and even to their concept of heaven in the process. Definitely worth the money, and I'm sorry that I didn't get to see it on the big screen.
I was disturbed, however, by the historical liberties taken with the script. For those of you who don't care about this sort of thing, please stop reading now.
OK, first of all, Marcus Aurelius died of the plague, which would have been pretty hard for Commodious to fake if he had killed his father. 2nd, Commodius lived for 12 years (180-192 A.D.) so his quick rise and fall doesn't really jibe historically either (he died in a wrestling match). Also, he was known for his physical strength, so his wimpiness in the movie really didn't make sense.
These items, taken alone, bother me a little, but then there are more disturbing factors to take into account. For one, soldiers weren't allowed BY LAW to get married, so all of Maximus' talk of "going home to see his wife" really doesn't make sense. Soldiers did keep women on nearby plots of land, but they probably wouldn't talk openly about it. Also, Rome was in a defensive posture; most of the lands they had acquired they acquired BEFORE Marcus Aurelius came to power.
I think what bothers me the most is the fact that Marcus Aurelius was no hero. He was renowned for persecuting Christians; he stepped up efforts during his regime, believing that Christianity would be the death of the empire. While he did do some very good things for the empire, he wasn't the benevolent patriarch that the movie made him out to be. He also tried to marry his nephew to his daughter so they would produce a "super emperor"; my guess is that he probably didn't want Rome to be a Republic again.
Revisionist history is troublesome. Although this did happen nearly 2 millennia ago, we still can't forget that the emperors of the day were not heroes by today's standards. I'm not one of those politically correct people who thinks that movies about despots shouldn't be made. I simply believe that historical figures should be presented honestly for what they did (and didn't do), and not sugarcoated for a mass audience.
Having said all that, I really did like the movie. I give it an 8/10, with the disclaimer that it's no Braveheart, but it is visually stunning and hard to look away from while you're watching it, but not a movie that really will affect me for months after seeing it.
Boys Don't Cry (1999)
A good film, but not fully realized.
I had heard a lot about this movie, and my girlfriend was a very big fan of the film, so I was looking forward to it. I thought it was good, but I felt like there were some things missing.
First of all, the positives. Hilary Swank and Chloe Sevigny both give very good performances. I'm not really sure that either performance is "Oscarworthy", as many people have said, but they both fall into their characters and make you believe in what they're doing. The other performances were also very good. The other positive was how the director caught the feel of the helplessness of Falls City (the town where this takes place). The dark, moody lighting and the decay that seemed to surround their lives was the perfect backdrop for the film.
However, the film does have problems. Brandon Teena's story is not fully explained. Unless you are aware of her story, you don't know how she wound up becoming sexually confused, and a little more explanation of this would have been helpful. The other problem I had was with the pacing. As a lot of people on the comments board have noted, this movie is very slow. Some movies are slow in that they build up to something, but the pacing in this movie is very bad. The writer probably intended to give you an idea of what a nothing existence there is in Falls City, but instead it makes you wonder when the payoff is coming.
But it is a good movie. It makes you think about homosexuality in Middle America, which is definitely something worth thinking about and not ignoring. I do get the feeling that this movie was made for people who are A)very knowledgeable about the Brandon Teena story and B) very sympathetic to her and to homosexual issues in general. However, the film isn't exclusionary or limited in that way. It did need to be a little more fleshed out, though, to truly make it a four-star movie, which this film wasn't. 7/10.
Safe Men (1998)
When thieves go dull.
I had never heard of this movie, but boy was I disappointed in it. The plot really didn't make sense, and the actors weren't really given enough decent material to work with. Actors like Michael Lerner (who I loved in Barton Fink) and Paul Giamatti (take your pick; he's a great character actor) were wasted in this seemingly pointless exercise in filmmaking. I think the humor was supposed to stem from the odd "situation" of two ordinary guys cracking safes, but it didn't ring true. Good or great comedy is supposed to make you forget that the situations are implausible or impossible, but "Safe Men" just reminded you the whole time that this could never really happened. It wasn't one of those absolutely painful films that makes you groan, but it is the kind of movie I just couldn't wait to see end. "Meet the Parents", John Hamburg's second effort as a writer is much funnier and much better, so don't count him out as a comedic force in the future, but BLEECH!