Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
It's late. I want to get writing on some reviews of my own. And there's not really much I need to say here. Ghostboy's kickin' ass with four reviews for you, so lissen up!!
Howdy,
I haven't been sending in reviews of all the screenings I've been seeing because I've been busy with production on my own film; but now that I'm in the editing phase, I have plenty of time to procrastinate. Thus, here are three reviews of movies coming soon, one of which everyone already knows about and two which deserve a bit more attention.
To begin with...I saw the new 'E.T.' tonight.
I can scarcely begin to put in words my love for Steven Spielberg's finest work. It was the second film I ever saw in theaters. I was about five, and it scared me. I scared easily back then (still do, actually) but it wasn't enough for me to have to leave the theater. The magic of what was happening on screen was far more powerful than any initial trepidations I might have had.
It is certainly Spielberg's masterpiece, and I don't imagine he will ever top it. The mix of innocence and wonder and excitement, and the wonderfully bittersweet note upon which the movie ends, these elements are all brought to to life so gracefully...they put films like 'A.I.' to shame. Even now, at the cynical age of twenty one, I can't watch the film without crying.
Because I love the movie so much, I couldn't help but be angry at Spielberg's decision to 'fix' it for it's 20th anniversary re-release. The change stirred up discontent from the moment they were made public; the removal of the guns from the final chase scene, the digital enhancements to E.T.'s face, the changing of some classic lines of dialogue - the classic adage that if it ain't broke, don't fix it was echoed across cyberspace by fans who'd already been jaded by George Lucas' ill-advised choices on the 'Star Wars' Special Editions.
I had almost decided not to see the film; I almost discarded my press pass. But then I thought of my little sister, who turns eight today and had never seen the movie. I decided to take her to the screening with me; she was my sole excuse for not waiting for the DVD.
But you know what? I'm so glad I took her, because it's still 'E.T.' It's still that great movie that I fell in love with when I was five. It's true, I don't like a lot of the changes. Most of the new facial work is a bit too obviously CG; sometimes it doesn't even seem to match the dimensions of E.T.'s face correctly. The fully CG E.T. in the new bathtub scene is forgiveable only because the scene itself is so wonderful; it's a shame it had to be excised originally, although another newly added scene set on Halloween night adds nothing to the movie. The guns shouldn't have been removed; the FBI agents hold their new walkie talkies as if they were still holding firearms, and it looks kind of silly. Thankfully, the rumors that the 'penis breath' line was excised are false.
But none of these 'corrections' detract from the heart of the film; it's still 'E.T.' And to my little sister and all the other kids in the audience who have never seen the original, this is the way 'E.T.' is going to be for them. And you know what? That's fine, because Spielberg has made a film that is timeless; his tampering with it isn't going to ruin it. I may not have liked some of the additions, but everything else about the film was still so good that I found that I didn't really care after all. I still laughed, along with all the kids, when E.T. gets drunk and bumps into things. I still felt that excitement when the bicycle took off for the first time. I still cried during E.T.'s death, and then felt my heart sore through the tears as he embraced Elliot for the final time at the end of the film.
When the DVD comes out, I'll probably stick to the original version; it's what I know, it's what I've grown up with. But for all the kids who are going to fall in love with it for the first time with this new version -- well, they'll be loving it for all the same reasons I do, and not for the new bells and whistles.
So I reccomend re-experiencing it for yourself this weekend. But if you choose not to, if you want to see something new and fresh, you might want to try 'Kissing Jessica Stein.'
From the trailers, this would appear to be the kind of romantic lesbian comedy in which two straight women discover that all they need to be happy is each other and the ability to be witty and sarcastic; it's the kind of movie guys go to see with their girlfriends, worrying the entire time that all the funny antics onscreen might be giving their ladies' ideas....
To my immense surprise and relief, this film gracefully sidesteps every cliche I predicted it would flaunt, even while it plays by the rules. It's a sweet and charming story that is definitely a romantic comedy but not really about finding true love.
Given her titular status, it's no surprise that the movie is about the romantic travails of Jessica Stein (Jennifer Westfeldt). Jessica is a twentysomething copy editor in New York City, whose Jewish mother, like all Jewish mothers in movies, is constantly pestering her to find a husband. We see, in the indie comedy tradition of 'Next Stop Wonderland,' a montage of Jessica's many suitors, all of whom are distinctly unsuitable caricatures; it's an old gag, but it still works when it's done as well as it is here.
But Jessica isn't the only girl whose story we follow; we're also introduced to Helen (Heather Jurgensen), a socialite art retailer whose frequent sexual conquests are becoming more and more unsatisfying. Spurred on by her zany gay roomates, she places a personal ad in the 'Women Seeking Women' section of the paper Jessica works for.
Which Jessica reads, of course, and, on a whim, answers. Her first meeting with Helen is full of cold feet and stammered declines, but after a few drinks they strike up a friendship. Jessica is so nervous about the whole thing that she'd probably be happy with just that. But she slowly plays her way into a relationship with Helen, too slowly for Helen's tastes but sweetly enough to make the wait worthwhile.
The film follows their relationship through several months of ups and downs, surrounding them with the usual conflicts (parental approval, old flames turning up at unexpected times) but never deriving unnecessary drama from them. For example, there is a scene at Jessica's brother's wedding, where her old boyfriend and current boss Josh (Scott Cohen, in a wonderful role), who is still in the dark about Helen, takes her out on the balcony to confess his undying feelings for her. He manages to steal a kiss, and the whole time I was waiting for Helen to walk in on them, stare at them and shock, and then storm out without waiting for an explanation. But it never happened...it was just a sweet little moment that developed the characters. It felt real.
The director of this little gem, Charles Herman-Wurmfeld, is not going to get much credit for the film, because it really is the baby of its two stars. Westfeldt and Jurgensen conceived it years ago as a bit of dialogue, which became a play and then a studio project that never quite materialized. In the time it took to reach its final incarnation, they obviously honed the material to its fullest potential. That they are best friends in real life (although they are both straight) also makes their performances incredibly natural. They may not be playing themselves, but they certainly make us think they are.
'Kissing Jessica Stein' is one of those rare crossover films that both gay and straight audiences can enjoy; it doesn't tip the scales in any way, it doesn't offer stereotypes instead of characters (with the exception of those zany roommates), and it doesn't ever quite take the turns we expect it to. At the climax of the movie, I was all ready to like it with the fairy tale ending I was sure was coming; that ending never came, and that it closes the way it does makes me just about love it.
And last but not least, a little film that's slowly making it's way out around the country...it may have already left certain areas, so you might not have a chance to see it until it hits DVD.
When I first saw that new masterpiece called 'Monster's Ball,' I made the error of assuming it was director Marc Forster's debut film. After some minimal research, I learned that he had already completed a previous feature, a DV film which made waves at the 2000 Sundance Film Festival and won Forster a statuette at the Independent Spirit Awards.
The film is 'Everything Put Together,' and it is only now getting a limited release, in light of the success of 'Monster's Ball.' The story focuses on Angie (Rahda Mitchell), a young housewife who lives in a state of expectant bliss with her friends; they're all pregnant and enjoying the communal aspects of maternity. Little off-kilter moments, such as when Angie's doctor double checks to make sure her baby's heart is beating inside the womb, are all forgotten when the little boy is finally born.
The child's birth is a moment of pure joy, and Forster captures it perfectly; the handheld digital video and long, uninterrupted takes adds that documentary feel, so that by the time Angie and her husband lovingly gaze at their newborn, we've forgotten that we're watching actors.
And then the next day the baby dies, and that joy is quickly replaced with a sickening, sinking feeling. Angie does what she can to handle the loss, but her composure begins to slip away. Her husband tries a little bit harder, planning a vacation and having all of the baby's things put into storage. But Angie's case of post partum depression begins to take effect on her sanity, especially when her girlfriends ostracize her from their circle as if they're afraid of catching some plague.
Forster is clearly channeling Polanski with this piece, although it's not so much an homage to 'Rosemary's Baby' as it is an offshoot of 'Repulsion.' As in that classic film, there is never anything supernatural happenings; all of the paranoia and fear is dispensed directly from the main character's head. Angie obviously goes a bit crazy, but it's never clear how far gone she is, which adds quite a bit of suspense every time she picks up someone else's child. That the character is so believable is largely due to Mitchell, who gives a powerhouse demonstration of how effective subtlety can be.
Although Forster's style isn't as well honed as it is in 'Monster's Ball,' it's still obvious here that this is from the same director, one who favors emotion over incident. This could certainly be considered a horror film, but it's of the purely psychological sort. There are shots of normal things such as wine being poured down a drain or vegetables being ground in a blender that are placed in such a context here that they become disturbing suggestions of everything that can go wrong inside a woman's womb.
Forster also uses the DV aesthetic quite well, beginning the film with loose, almost amateurish composition and then, at a certain point, slowing everything down, washing the colors out and letting the camera rest on certain images. A few times, he changes the white balance in the middle of a scene, with terrific dramatic results.
This is a powerful and provocative film; it's very good, if not quite great. It's almost too bad that it was released after 'Monster's Ball;' had it come out earlier, everyone would have been excited about this obvious new talent, and then been completely blown away by how incredibly he avoided the sophomore slump. Now, it simply is an assurance of what is already a very clear fact; a great new filmmaker has arrived.
Remember, for more reviews as well as some lucid insight into the indie filmmaking process, be sure to visit www.road-dog-productions.com.
I'm outta here...
But suddenly I'm reappearing with another review!
I headed out to the screening of Henry Jaglom's 'Festival In Cannes' with no expectations at all. I had no idea what the film was about, I hadn't even seen a trailer. Thus, I was pleasantly surprised to find it a delightful, improv-heavy comedy centered around...
Oh wait. Who cares? I don't, because after that screening, I immediately went to another one. And this one was for 'Blade 2.' A movie which made most of the other movies I'd seen this year disappear and makes me want to dispense with my usual reserved reviewing style and just FREAK OUT!!!
Okay, I'll do my best.
I walked in expecting a lot. The first 'Blade' film was the epitome of cool. I remember hating the trailers, and having no expectations whatsoever. And then it blew me away. When Guillermo Del Toro signed on for the sequel, I knew great stuff was in store. The trailers were all somewhat lackluster, but I figured that New Line was just hiding all the good stuff from us.
And then Harry wrote his review...which I have to say kind of turned me off a little bit. Every time Harry gets really really hyped up about a movie...some sort of cynical trip wire is triggered in my brain and I wonder if it could really be that good. And his review of 'Blade 2,' aside from being rather repulsive in its own right, seemed to me to be a big case of overhyping.
But of course...I was wrong. There is no possible way this movie can by hyped enough.
It starts out nicely, if somewhat routinely. We get to see Blade kill some vampires; exciting and fun, but about what you'd expect. We learn that he's in the Czech republic, searching for Whistler, who the vampires have been holding captive in a state of partial undead-ness. This plotline occupies the first twenty minutes or so of the movie, all of which I enjoyed but left me thinking, "yeah, it's not all that."
At roughly the half hour mark, it does become all that and more. In spades. I won't give anything away. All I'll say is that when Del Toro and writer David Goyer say that they modeled this film after a greek tragedy, they weren't lying. Mr. Del Toro creates a mood that is strikingly different from the film's predecessor; both visually (cinematographer Gabriel Beristain's golden sodium lighting scheme is gorgeous, and the movie has more than it's fair share of breathtaking shots) and tonally. He proves that he is an incredible action director, but he also adds the touch of a cinematic poet; it's true that the movie never lets up once it really gets started, but at the end Del Toro slows down and leaves us with imagery that is sad and beautiful and just the right note to end the film with.
So ignore the hype if you want. It doesn't really matter. Just go see the film. Go see 'Festival In Canne's too, because it's a real delight, but by no means should you see it before 'Blade II.' Not just because you won't remember it, but because if you're a real film lover, the kind that relishes exellence and true artistry no matter what the genre, trust me, this needs to be your top priority. I for one haven't been blown away by this type of film in quite a long time; the experience was a welcome shot to the heart.
And with that, I'm gone...for real this time.
Thanks, man. Do Ghostboy the favor of checking out his site for other writings by him. We're always happy when he drops some stuff off for us.
"Moriarty" out.
