One Hour Photo

From the first second Robin Williams came on the screen, I instantly felt very uncomfortable. He’s one of those actors who has the power to make you feel a certain thing with his very presence. He first entered the American consciousness in the role of Mork on Mork & Mindy, the kind-hearted and silly alien. Since then, his roles were largely relegated to the silly, with some rather notable deviations. Dead Poets Society and Jakob the Liar were very serious roles, while Good Morning Vietnam, Mrs. Doubtfire, and Toys were high on the silliness scale. In 2002, he did his trifecta of frowning, with Death to Smoochy, Insomnia, and One Hour Photo all coming out that year. Nearly everyone who has attempted to conduct an interview with him has failed miserably because he made them laugh too hard with his antics, and they always forget what questions they want to ask him. But which is better, the wild, anything-goes funnyman, or the stern, serious artist? It’s a tough call.

One Hour Photo, directed by Mark Romanek, is incredibly creepy and unsettling through atmosphere and tone rather than visual acrobatics. Romanek has the ability to take a perfectly normal setting and make it into what he wants. Though this is his first feature film, he’s had tons of practice, since he’s been cutting his teeth on music videos since the early 90s. It has served him well, because this movie has a definite sense of style, a signature mark distinctive from other films. Usually, it takes directors at least three films to really develop that. Romanek feels like a veteran, and in a way, he is.

It’s odd that this movie is classified as horror, because it differs from pretty much every other movie of that genre. There are no jump scenes, no special effects (except in a very short scene), and no scary monsters, human or otherwise. Even Sy, Williams’ character, isn’t a monster but a sympathetic man with many problems. The actions he takes in the movie are bad, and only get worse as the movie progresses, but they never seem to have evil intent behind them. He does bad things for not necessarily good reasons, but at least understandable ones.

One thing this movie does share in common with other horror movies is a heavy reliance on music. This is not surprising, since the director directed music videos for 15 years before making this film. Everything about the visual style is very exact, and that goes for the music as well. Sometimes it’s overwhelming, and I think Romanek would have done well to scale it back a bit.

Aside from Williams, who was great, there are no stand-out performances. Connie Nielsen and Michael Vartan play their parts competently as a troubled married couple, and Dylan Smith is sweet but vapid as their son. I’ll admit that in the first minutes of the film I did say “Hey! What’s Peter Benton doing in this movie?” Eriq La Salle of ER fame gives a pretty good performance, but he was basically just Peter Benton as a cop instead of a doctor.

In summation, this was a good movie about an injured man whom, though we don’t like him, we sort of understand. He develops an incredibly unhealthy obsession with a certain family, and it ends up costing both him and the family a lot. What I take away from this movie is that you should be careful where you let you emotions take you, and you should always be aware of your circumstances, and what they could mean to the future. Also, digital photography is the way to go.

Iconic lines:
“And if these pictures have anything important to say to future generations, it's this: I was here. I existed. I was young, I was happy, and someone cared enough about me in this world to take my picture.”

22 Rating: 9

Particle Man

Proof (a review by Number Three)

***NOTE*** (This is a review written by Number Three, our first guest reviewer. Look for future reviews by Number Three and other guest reviewers!)

There are two types of clever movies, in my opinion. The first type can ultimately be described as cheap. This is the kind that Hollywood usually puts out because it’s the easiest kind to develop. A viewer can know he/she’s dealing with cheap/clever when the moviemakers hide facts from you. The Ocean’s Eleven remake is a perfect example. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie as fairly entertaining popcorn fare, but it’s still cheap/clever. The “Oh cool…that’s clever” moments are a result of making us think one thing was happening and then showing us that something completely different actually happened by revealing things that the movie purposefully kept secret from us. Cheap/clever only has temporal leverage over my emotions. It’s a pop that quickly fizzes. The other kind of clever is quite different. I’ll call it smart. It’s harder to find a Hollywood production that utilizes smart/clever, but here’s how you detect it: the moviemaker reveals all of the possible realities, and then causes you to question which one is true. In other words, cheap/clever movies hide aces up their sleeves, but smart/clever movies show all the cards and dare you to keep track of them.

If you haven’t guessed it yet, Proof is smart/clever. The question is this: is Robert’s (Hopkins) mind gone for good, or does he still have moments of lucid genius? Either he does or he doesn’t, and the viewer truly questions which is true. As I watched, I kept changing my mind. But it wasn’t cheap/clever, because I knew it was one way or the other, and the moviemakers let me watch Robert be himself. There were a few unexpected revelations, but they never felt cheap. The lasting impact of the movie is that my perceptions were so wildly changed throughout the piece. I was being toyed with, and yet, I wasn’t being tricked. To me, that’s smart/clever.

How about a synopsis? Catherine (Paltrow) is the daughter of a brilliant mathematician who suffers from the crazy bug. After his death, a discovery of a brilliant mathematical proof in his study causes questions to arise about both Catherine and Robert. Add to this a nice little love story with math geek Hal (Gyllenhaal), who is trying to unlock the truth of this proof, and you have a pic that should appeal to many audiences. Think A Beautiful Mind meets Shine.

There are so many enjoyable moments in this movie that I’m reluctant to say more about the story itself. The acting is first rate all around, the story is powerful, and the popcorn is in your couch seat. Grab a glass of wine and your honey and enjoy this one.

As a new reviewer, let me explain my scoring. I use the –22 to 22 scale grading the mouthspeak and watchfeel. These terms are made up, but derived from the real term mouthfeel, which is used to describe the impact or taste of something (usually wine or coffee). In this case, mouthspeak is the overall cleverness, realness, and impact of the dialog and human interchange, and watchfeel is the overall aesthetics and impact of the visuals. Averaging these together produces an overall score, the mouthfeel, which judges the overall watchablility of the film.

Score:
Mouthspeak: 18
Watchfeel: 16
Mouthfeel: 17

Number Three

World Trade Center (Your Racist Friend)

(Note: This review is late. Please send your hate mail to the MBTA.)

Oliver Stone's World Trade Center opens with a shot of something bright, blurry, and red. "What is it?" we wonder. It might be a neon sign, but eventually comes into focus as an alarm clock, showing the time to be 3:29 in the morning. A man switches the alarm off before it rings, gets out of bed, and starts to get ready for his day by showering, brushing his teeth, and taking his watch and wallet off of his dresser. Very routine. WTC is a film that presents one of the most screwed-up days in American history in a manner that is very routine.
WTC follows the story of the aforementioned man, New York Port Authority Sgt. John McLoughlin (Nicholas Cage), and Officer Will Jimeno (The Shield's Michael Pena) as they respond to the disaster, get trapped in the rubble when the building collapses, and spend desperate hours waiting and hoping for rescue. These scenes are intercut with the reactions of others around the globe and the country, and also closely follow their families, most notably their wives Donna (Maria Bello) and Allison (Maggie Gyllenhaal). Note my careful use of the word "disaster." Some words you won't hear uttered in WTC include, "Taliban," Al Qaeda," or "Bin Laden." The film tastefully avoids politics, and wisely focuses on the human spirit and how it reacts and endures in the face of unfathomable horror.
Note my use of the word "tastefully." This works quite well to define how a controversial filmmaker such as Oliver Stone handles a very, very sensitive topic. Stone avoids histrionic recreations of the disaster in vivid detail, and doesn't show us anything unless we absolutely need to see it. There is no excessive blood or gore, and I don't think anything the movie does could be categorized as morbid or ghoulish. Stone's usually flamboyant cinegraphic language has been pared down, save one or two specific shots among the solid cinematography. Minimalism is the order of the day, which enhances the subplots, such as the astonishing (true) story of Dave Karnes (Michael Shannon), an accountant in Conneticut who felt strongly compelled as a former Marine to go to the site in his old uniform with rappelling gear and help out with the search and rescue operation.
It is pretty much scientific theory, going on law, that Oliver Stone is hands down the best living "actor's director" on the planet. He has gotten good performances out of mediocre actors (Kevin Costner in JFK), and phenomenal performances out of very good ones (Willem Dafoe in Platoon). There isn't much to speak of performance-wise in this film, with the exception of over-the-top and weird specialist Nicholas Cage being pulled wayyyyy back, with nice results.
I thought what WTC was a good film. It is not for everybody, as even a PG-13 depection of what happened that day will be much too much for some people, which is fine. It suffers from some wooden dialogue (Stone unfortunately did not write the script) and the fact that it's the furthest thing from escapist entertainment, but that's not exactly the whole point of art, is it? I give World Trade Center a 15 on the 22 scale.

World Trade Center (Particle Man)

“Well, call me a transatlantic flight. He didn’t screw it up.” These were my first thoughts when exiting the theater after seeing World Trade Center. To me, the name Oliver Stone summons up images of war, murder, drugs, and the generally icky side of life. World Trade Center is a pretty screwball movie for him to do, considering. He usually does films about unsavory people doing unsavory things. I refer you to The Doors, Platoon, U Turn, and Natural Born Killers. So naturally, when I heard that he would be doing the first mondo-budget Hollywood movie about 9/11 (United 93 doesn’t count), my heart sank. Lord knows conspiracy theories about 9/11 abound, and Stone has been known to explore conspiracy theories in the past. I refer you to JFK and Nixon. He has let me down before. In fact, I’ve never really liked a movie of his that I saw. But you know, old Ollie didn’t do such a bad job on this one.

In all fairness, with the subject matter he was working with and the style he had chosen, he couldn’t have directed a great movie. He couldn’t have even directed just a good one. In fact, he only had two options: an adequate movie, or a horrendously terrible one. He must have known this, because he went with adequate. More than that, he avoided (mostly) all the things that would have made this a terrible movie. Terrible would have been easy. But instead, he ignores politics and conjectures about why this happened, and instead focuses on the human elements of the story. For the most part, it zeros in pretty tightly on the people involved in the tragedy, not the tragedy itself.

9/11 is a very touchy and sensitive subject for a lot of people. I had a very hard time getting anyone to see it with me, and ended up seeing it alone. There were a couple of moments when even I thought it would be a little too much for me. Everyone is saying it’s “too soon.” While I understand that, there really is no time that you could make this movie without it being “too soon.” This is a difficult movie for any American to watch, and if some just don’t want to, I can completely sympathize with their position.

As for specifics, the performances were good, better than they are in most movies today. There was no over-acting, and everyone was very convincing. Nicholas Cage, who’s really hit-or-miss, hits with this one as John McLoughlin, Port Authority Police Sergeant. He never oversells his character, and subtracts rather than adds to his performance, which is what this movie needs. Michael Peña plays the yin to Cage’s yang. With both of them, and all the police officers, you get the sense that they are just ordinary, unremarkable people. This is a definite plus, since all the heroes of 9/11 were just that: ordinary men and women doing what to them, in the moment, seemed like second nature. Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhaal behave just as women in their situation would have, and Bello’s performance in particular is very subtle at times.

Some things about the movie I really could have done without, like the Jesus sighting, which while probably a true account, was just cheesy. Cage saying near the end that his wife was what “kept him alive,” while also probably a true account, was very Hollywood and cliché. But for the most part, the movie was done very tastefully and with a heart. There were very few moments where we were forced to stop and think about the entirety of what just happened. The rest of the time, we were too busy being worried about the people involved. That was what the relatives and loved ones of the people involved were feeling at the time, so it fits. I appreciate that this film had to be made, and I did enjoy it. But I will probably never see it again.

Iconic lines:
“It’s as if God lowered a curtain of smoke, to shield us from what we are not ready to see.”
“I just saw Jesus and he was holding a bottle of water!”
“The kitchen isn’t even finished yet.”

22 Rating: 7

Particle Man

World Trade Center (Dr. Worm)

I think you should see this movie.

I don't know you personally, so I don't know your story and why you haven't seen it yet, or why you don't want to see it. Maybe you have already seen it; if that's the case, I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to the person behind you. The person who's saying it's too soon, saying they don't want to relive that day, saying that it's wrong to make a movie about such a dark point in our history.

Those are all fair reasons not to see a movie. But let me just tell you, they don't apply here.

Now, I can't make you see World Trade Center, and I don't want to make you see it. But I also don't want you to miss it for a reason that may be irrelevant.

If you're reluctant to see this movie, it probably isn't so much because you think it's going to be poorly shot, or because the acting is going to be bad. Neither is the case, I assure you. But I don't want to talk about that right now.

I want to talk about what this movie isn't. And what it's not--what I suspect many of you fear--is a shameless ploy to make money off of a national tragedy. It's not that. It's not even really a disaster movie. There's nothing Bruckheimerian about this film at all, no high-tech explosions, no shameless pandering to an audience's fears and emotions. In fact, the movie is notable for its certain lack of pandering. It has a certain healthy disregard for what its audience might be feeling, which leads to the inclusion of one particularly strange scene and one rather weird character that certainly are not what you've come to expect from Hollywood.

No, this movie just wants to tell a story.

And it does so to a perfectly acceptable degree. It's a simple story of two men trapped and hurting, their families wracked with worry, and the race to save them. The 9/11 background provides a context for all of us to relate to the events, but it's really much more irrelevant to the story than you might think. The acting serves the story. None of it is mind-bendingly awesome (with the notable exception of Nicholas Cage before the tower collapse), but none of it is embarrassing either. Like the lighting, the cinematography, the screenwriting, the sound mixing, and everything else, it's just another helping hand to tell the story.

But even the story by itself wouldn't have made this such a recommendable film. No, what makes this such a recommendable film to me is the take on the story that we get, summarized beautifully by a certain image and a certain speech in the movie.

The image comes toward the very end of the movie, as Nicholas Cage's character is being pulled from the rubble, strapped to a backboard. The camera pans out and shows us a literal sea of volunteers, all huddled together just to hold the backboard for a second before passing it on to the next person in the chain.

And this image is reinforced by a voiceover speech made by Nicholas Cage's character at the end of the film. "9/11 showed us what humans are capable of," he begins telling us, "the bad, sure. But also the good."

I reflected on that speech, on that image, on the fact that 19 human beings worked to bring the Twin Towers down, but that millions worked to aid, comfort, help, and serve those affected that day. And I got goosebumps. And--supposedly impossible for a film about a day of unspeakable evil--I also got an enormous feeling of good toward my fellow man.

And that's why you should go see this movie. That's why this movie gets a 16.

World Trade Center (Stormy Pinkness)

“Wow, this is eerie.”
This was my first sentiment while watching World Trade Center. The movie begins with scenes of people getting ready for work as if it is going to be a completely ordinary day. I could not get over the eerie normalness of the movie, knowing full well what was in store for these people.
Given the fact that most people remember September 11, 2001, I don’t feel it’s necessary to give a full plot synopsis. What I will say is that the story tells the tale of that day through the eyes of two Port Authority officers, Will Jimeno and John McLoughlin, who became trapped in the rubble when the World Trade Center towers collapsed.
Many people were uncomfortable with the fact that Oliver Stone was tackling this very tragic day in United States history. As someone who tends to explore conspiracy theories within his films, he was thought by many to be a bad choice to direct this film. But Stone proved his critics wrong. The movie is simply an account of that day and the lives of the officers and their families. I was thoroughly impressed with the lack of political statements, as this event is a perfect venue for anyone with strong political views to express them. I’m not saying that there aren’t ANY political statements in this film, but, surprisingly, the political statements tend to lean to the right if anything. The film utilizes the Prig school of history, which means that it shows the events as they were then without using knowledge from now. Because of that, there is no one blamed for the attacks. It is more of an "us versus them" without defining who the "them" are.
The acting in this movie was excellent. Whether it was Nicholas Cage and Michael Pena portraying the officers or Maggie Gyllenhaal and Maria Bello playing the wives of these officers, none of the acting was disappointing. Not once did I get the feeling that someone was overacting or not acting human. In fact, I was impressed with the degree of humanity that showed through the actors’ portrayal. In so many movies you see people dealing with catastrophes in several different ways, and more often than not they just aren’t believable. But I didn’t find any unbelievable acting in this movie. I was expecting it, but I was happy to be wrong.
I have to say that this review was rather hard to write. I think that simply had to do with the subject of the film. This was not a film I enjoyed. But it was an extremely well done film. There are some people who would rather not see this movie, and I can see their point. Why should they have to relive that day? They already lived it through once. Everyone should make their own choice whether or not to see this film, as it is a very sensitive subject area. Only if people view this movie on their own terms will they have their own experiences with the least amount of pre-viewing bias possible. I wanted to see this film, and so I did not have any prior negative feelings.
It is also hard to rate this movie, because I usually base my ratings on enjoyment. As I said before, I did not enjoy this movie, but I thought it was well done. But after much deliberation, I have come up with a rating: This movie receives a 16. Good job, Oliver Stone! Way to show people that you can handle such a sensitive subject.

Love Actually

Love Actually is like a good hug. It’s warm, it’s peaceful, and it makes you much happier when it’s over than you were before it began. Sure, it’s unbelievable. Sure, it’s way over the top. Sure, it makes ridiculous assumptions about our emotions and the optimism of them. For me, however, all those assumptions are right on. You really have to check your instinctual disbelief at the door to really enjoy this movie. You have to let it work its magic on you. However, the movie’s just so charming that it’s really not all that hard. It features a veritable bevy of British talent, at least four of which have been in the Royal Shakespeare Company.

Okay, just allow me to let my hopeless-romantic tendencies run wild for a little while. I promise I’ll keep them in check from now on.

Daniel, Sam & Joanna
The real story in this section is what happens to Sam and Daniel, and Joanna is just window dressing. Liam Neeson gives probably the most sympathetic performance of his career; from the second he comes on the screen in the funeral scene, you feel like giving him a hug. Thomas Sangster violates about 50 international laws with how frickin’ cute he is, and the two of them together play off each other so well, you might forget it’s a movie. Sam represents the carpe diem philosophy the film puts forth. The moment Sam comes back from the terminal and hugs Daniel was really what the storyline was about: Sam connecting with Daniel, not Joanna.

Jamie & Aurelia
Colin Firth is very convincing as a British writer, but he basically plays the same character in every movie he’s in. His performance here is basically exactly the same as his two Bridget Jones’ Diary turns, and his role in Pride & Prejudice was so minimal that it can’t bear comparison. Lúcia Moniz is a stunning physical specimen as Aurelia, and her smile lights up a room, but it really goes no further than that. This storyline, however, is responsible for one of the sweetest and most hilarious moments in the entire film.

Billy & Joe
These two are fantastic. Not a romantic relationship, but still love, though they don’t realize it till the end. Here we have one person very polite and composed (Joe), and the other a seemingly rude prick (Billy) who’s progressed to the point where he doesn’t need to be careful what he says. This relationship shows that love is different than romance, and really needs a much wider definition then romance.

Karen, Harry & Mia
This storyline is very predictable, and yet it’s not. We can see from the get-go that it’s going down a very dark road, from the first interaction of Harry and Mia. In theory, Mia is very attractive and sexy, but I didn’t find her so; maybe it was because she was just so slutty. Add to that Emma Thompson’s performance as Karen, and I just thought Harry was the biggest prat in the world. But Alan Rickman plays a prat like no one else. He is simply brilliant, like he always is. Note: Even standing at a counter is completely hilarious when it’s done by Rowan Atkinson.

Colin
This section infuriated me, and made me pout a little. I thought, “why does this happen to him and not to me?” Colin, who’s the very definition of a loser, experiences some incredibly fantastic luck, and amazingly, karma never catches up to him. By the end, I was sticking my lip out and going “NOT FAIR!!!” It’s saved, however, by Kris Marshall’s unendingly charming performance.

John & Judy
Nothing much happens in this storyline, and it’s basically just the comic relief in a movie that needs none. The fact that they’re very innocently pursuing a romance while they’re doing what they’re doing is pretty funny. It’s like they don’t even take notice of their surroundings. Funny, but unnecessary.

Peter, Juliet & Mark
It’s hard to choose, but this is probably my favorite section. Keira Knightly is very good in a subtle and sweet turn, as is Andrew Lincoln. Of all the characters, I probably empathized with Lincoln’s character Mark the most. The shot where he’s just walked out his door and he’s deciding whether or not to go back inside almost made me cry, and the choice of the Dido song was pitch-perfect. The way the storyline ends exists on an incredibly delicate balance; if it ended any other way than it did, it would have been horrible, but as it is, it’s brilliant.

David & Natalie
The non-believability of this section is really what makes it shine. Hugh Grant seems to have carved his place out as the selfish bastard, but I think he’s a lot better when he plays passive-aggressive nice guys, like here and in Notting Hill. This storyline really emphasizes that you have to have your suspension of disbelief cranked to 11. Once you do, however, Hugh Grant and Martine McCutcheon make a very cute couple. The Billy Bob Thornton cameo is a case of dead-on casting, too.

Sarah & Karl
This section, one of the not-as-good ones, is redeemed by two things: that they got Laura Linney to play the part of Sarah (as opposed to basically anyone else), and the turn it takes. Normally, very stark turns in a mostly happy film are not advisable, but here it works. This section brings the movie to giving a complete view of love; it shows that it doesn’t always work out the way you want.

We may live in a fallen and sinful world, but no matter how much filth and ugliness you apply to some things, they still reflect something holy and pure. That’s what Love Actually brings out to me. Okay, hopeless-romantic moment over.

Iconic lines:
“I’m on Shag Highway, heading west!”
“Tell her that you love her! You’ve got nothing to lose, and you’ll always regret it if you don’t. You’ve seen the films, kiddo. It ain’t over till it’s over!”
“Enough. Enough now.”

22 Rating: 18

Particle Man

Donnie Darko

Initial Reaction: I’m not sure why that was so good.

After my first Donnie Darko viewing, I loved it, but was convinced that I needed to see it again to understand it. I did, and loved it, but was convinced that I needed to see it again to understand it. I did, loved it once more, but was saddened to realize that I needed to see it again to understand it. I watched the movie for probably the sixth time today, and I still don’t freaking understand it.
Donnie Darko fascinates its audience in almost every way possible. Jake Gyllenhaal, who plays Donnie, delivers a seamless performance as a teenager who is—big surprise—disturbed. He suffers from bouts of sleep walking and trouble at school, and as we learn further into the movie, an “imaginary” friend named Frank. The relationship between Donnie and Frank (who, by the way, is a guy in a creepy rabbit suit) seems predestined, and a bit schizophrenic. Frank comes to Donnie at night or when he’s alone, and in the beginning tells him that the world is going to end in 28 days. He continues the countdown throughout the film, and also instructs Donnie to do various illegal acts, mostly vandalism. These scenes are haunting, yet somehow reassuring. Frank is a character that we feel like we should figure out, but his purpose and cryptic messages are a little too random and sporadic.
As we would expect from a movie focusing on a troubled teen, we get to know the rest of the family. And the Darko family is totally engrossing. Holmes Osborne and Mary McDonnell play lenient parents, seemingly forced to be that way because they’ve lost control of their children. Gyllenhaal and his sister, Maggie Gyllenhaal, are on-screen siblings who are picture-perfect as teenage brother and sister. Each character contributes to a realistic sense of familial dissatisfaction, frustration, and hope.
The other characters, some almost caricatures, and some painfully normal, are nothing amazing. They serve the purpose of the movie. The only person noticeably not good in a role was Drew Barrymore as a young English teacher. I felt like she must have happened to be walking by the set the day that their English teacher called in sick; they grabbed her, gave her some shoulder pads, and wrote her lines on the back of her hand. This is especially sad, since she was one of the film's executive producers.
I love a lot of the different pieces of Donnie Darko. As I mentioned, the actors who play the Darko family are dead on. The music is delicious…a soundtrack that reflects a part of the 80s we actually enjoyed. Never without an appropriate mood, each scene allows the actors, music, set, and effects to build upon each other in an expert way. And the film does make some great points. One of my favorite subplots involves Patrick Swayze’s character, and gives us an ugly picture of how deceiving people can really be.
The movie gets so many things right. But it’s also too confusing for its own good. The characters explore such intriguing concepts as God’s plan, time travel, and ethics. It somehow tries to tie all of these things together in the midst of adolescent turmoil, and nearly does, but fails to deliver. I’m convinced that most people walk away from this movie mostly confused. If they don’t, then they probably missed something. There are so many loose ends that we’re confused about where we’re being led, and by the end we’re forced to forget about most of them anyway. The director has various subplots going on, and because of the nature of the film, they’re left in a tangled mess. The running story of Cherita (which I loved) just sort of…happened. There was a subtle theme of “everything’s going to be OK” that didn’t seem to fit well. The reasons behind what Frank tells Donnie to do are super-vague and not explained at all. I’m considering the fact that these things were maybe left open because of the way that time travel fit in. But, wait a second… then what was the point of this movie?
I loved the movie It’s a Wonderful Life. I generally enjoy the story in which the main character gets to see how his life affects people around him. It forces us to reevaluate our lives, our choices, and our significance. Donnie Darko, in almost a reverse way, gets to see this in his own life. I thought this was brilliant, and always an admirable choice for a movie scenario. However, this one lacks the punch that most of those movies have. We’re left drifting, wondering about existence and if our own is currently helpful or harmful. And no one wants to feel uncertain about purpose.

Rating: 14

I know, I know, it makes no sense. But I love this movie. I feel like if the director didn’t let it run away without him, it would be just about perfect. Richard Kelly is like a child roasting marshmallows on a stick for the first time. He slowly gets the sticky treat close to the fire. When he sees it turn a beautiful golden color, he gets bolder and sticks it directly into the flames. The white ball is now engulfed, and burning quickly. Once the kid finally gets the fire out by swinging the stick around in the air, his wonderful, fluffy white marshmallow looks like a hunk of coal. In the end, he (and the audience) are left with no other course of action but to eat through the charred and bitter coating in order to get the gooey sweetness.

Iconic Lines:

“Chut up!”
“Rose, sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.”
“I’m NOT afraid anymore!”

Movie of the Month - August '06

World Trade Center

Stay tuned for our reviews coming up August 20th-24th! Lucky for you, They Might Be Critics hosts a regular movie of the month. During this exciting time, all (or most) of our critics post reviews of a chosen movie that is due to come out this month. We are all about providing a range of opinions and insights, and allowing for an open forum in which we discuss the film with each other and anyone who desires to participate. So, see World Trade Center, and join in!

The Descent

The Descent is a little horror movie that was released in England last year, made the rounds at quite a few festivals in Europe, and finally reared its head in America to do what seems to be good sleeper business. It is the tale of Sarah (Shauna McDonald), who loses her husband and child in a tragic accident at the beginning of the film. From the accident and the immediate aftermath, we fast-forward a year to Sarah and her friend Beth (Alex Reid) as they arrive at their friend Juno's (Natalie Mendoza) cabin near the Appalacian Mountains to meet up with some friends for a caving expedition. But one of the girls has a secret that gets them into more than they bargained for, and they find themselves stalked in the caves by....something. Or do they?
The Descent was directed by Neil Marshall, director of cult favorite Dog Soldiers. The film grabbed my attention from the first frame, and held on to it for the rest of the movie. It is well shot, and the trees, mountain landscapes, and caves are visually much more pleasing than in your average horror movie. The score serves the film without drawing attention to itself, and the performances are.....well, nothing amazing, but nothing to complain about either. Like many other elements, they serve the film.
The things that The Descent gets right are atmosphere, ambience, and tone.....three very similiar traits that can and will make or break a horror film. There is gore to be had, but it doesn't create tension like the scene where one of the girls scouts out a VERY narrow passage to the next tunnel......if you're claustrophobic, you might want to avoid this film like a ophidiophobe will be avoiding this week's much-talked-about Snakes On A Plane.
Neil Marshall has done well here: The Descent is one of the most honestly frightening films I've seen in years.....if it doesn't make it into my top 5 for Horror, which it might. I give The Descent a 14, in terms of how much I liked it in terms of replay value. But the actual score the film deserves? It's an 18 out of 22, all the way.

Munich

Every human being is just that: a human being. Now, this may not seem like a huge revelation or a deeply profound statement, and maybe it’s not. But when dealing with conflict, with wrongs being done to us and deciding how to answer those wrongs, we very often forget that those wrongs are being done to us by humans. Remembering that might make us think twice about how we react to things.

Munich is a very important movie, one of the most important movies to be released in recent years. Leave it to Spielberg to make a movie like this. He’s the most famous director in the world for a reason, and that was brought home to me by this movie. He has a golden touch for most things, and does social issues with a certain delicacy and gentleness. His methods are kind of like a good father’s: he unflinchingly lets you see the horrible things of life, then cradles you gently and whispers words of comfort while you’re trying to deal with them. Usually with Spielberg, there’s some sort of hope. Whether it’s the fun and pluck of such films as E.T. or Indiana Jones, or the quiet endurance of Schindler’s List, there is some element in there that lets you know the whole time that it’s all going to be all right. In Munich, that hope is muted and frail, but it’s still there. The hope comes in the human element of the story, in the simple fact that no amount of ugliness can quench the human spirit.

The framework of the plot of Munich is real events. The only things we know for absolute certain as being real and true are that in 1972, 11 Israeli athletes were kidnapped and murdered at the Munich Olympics by Arab terrorists, and shortly afterwards, 9 of the men thought to be responsible, directly or indirectly, were dead. After that, everything ranges from “could have been” to “probably was” to “almost certainly wasn’t.” The thing that’s so remarkable about Munich is its inability to let anyone off the hook. It never lets us forget that these are people involved in these stories, people with mothers, fathers, jobs, needs, obsessions, fears, and aspirations. When someone dies, it’s not just a statistic, a mark on a chalkboard.

The actors, who are mostly unknown to the general public (Geoffrey Rush aside), do a nice job of creating people who are real, whole, and don’t know they are in a movie. The cinematography is spectacular, creating a surprisingly warm atmosphere. Eric Bana carries the movie with ease and fluidity, making sure to highlight the issue at hand instead of himself. The movie doesn’t deal in answers, and brings out that the questions it poses don’t in fact have answers. It instead attempts to understand the actions of these characters through empathy, which is what any great film does. Once it does that, however, it doesn’t wave that power around irresponsibly like a kid who’s found his dad’s gun. It tries to bring us to a place where we can be more aware, more understanding, and maybe more compassionate.

In retrospect, Crash just barely has the edge over Munich for the Best Picture Oscar in my opinion. Both movies make you think very hard when they’re done, and spark a little bit of soul-searching. Crash deals with something that’s a little more universal, and does so in a more explicit fashion, but watching Munich doesn’t make you feel like a bastard the way watching Crash does, and that’s actually to its credit. The last line that’s spoken in the film is by a wife to a husband, saying “I love you.” After all that ugliness, there is still hope.

Iconic lines:
“Oh, we are tragic men; butcher’s hands, gentle souls.”
“If my fingernails grow, do I not cut them off?”
“Don’t f*** with Israel.”

22 Rating: 17

Particle Man

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

“Drink up, me hearties, yo ho!” Once again it is time for some piratey goodness. Pirates of the Carribean: Dead Man’s Chest finds us in the world of Captain Jack Sparrow and his wacky adventures yet again. We are wrangled into a setting of pirates and propriety that are always fighting each other for prominence.
The movie opens as a bride is sitting in the rain (it actually kind of reminded me of some of the Guns N’ Roses: “November Rain” video.) As the camera focuses, we see that it is Elizabeth who's the wet bride. One can only assume that she was waiting to marry Will Turner, whom she chose at the end of the first movie. However, the audience is soon set right that no marriage can happen. Both Elizabeth and Will are in grave danger from having helped Captain Jack Sparrow and must find some way to avoid the noose. A shrewd businessman comes to Port Royal to make a deal for their freedom. Will must retrieve a certain item of Jack’s if he is to live until his wedding night. He sets off on this adventure to save his love and himself. Elizabeth however, not one to sit around and wait for her man, takes matters into her own hands.
Jack in the meantime has once again escaped from a prison and is back sailing on the Black Pearl. His bliss is short-lived, however, as he is soon reminded of a debt he owes to Davy Jones, the legendary pirate who rules over an army of enslaved sailors. When I first heard this name in the movie I expected the old Monkee to come out and start singing, however, I was sorely mistaken ;). An old friend shows up on the Black Pearl to remind him of his debt. That friend's name is William Turner. Yes, boys and girls, William Turner Sr., the dashing Will Turner Jr.’s father. Jack tries several ways to get out of repaying his debt, including offering Will Jr. as a replacement. Young Will tries to find a way to destroy Davy Jones, if he can just find his vulnerable point. Elizabeth is not far behind and rushes along with Jack to save Will. For anyone who has seen the first movie, the dashing Commodore Norrington does appear in this installment, but in somewhat of a different form.
OK. First of all, I have to say how excited I was that this movie was coming out. I had seen The Da Vinci Code and X-Men: The Last Stand, both with entertaining results, but felt a mourning for my summer that would go by without any more big blockbusters. In come my heroes, Johnny and Orlando, to save the day. As I anxiously awaited this movie’s premiere, I read some reviews written by the people who were lucky enough to see it early, which left me rather bummed. None of the reviews were good. “Oh, no!” I thought, “I didn’t think my boys would let me down!” Then D-Day came (Debut Day). I braced myself for what I was about to see, and two hours and 45 minutes later I was walking out of the theater with my group of friends.
During that walk so many things were bouncing around in my head. “That was so entertaining!” My brain was yelling at all the critics who had bashed the movie. What did they expect? A moving piece of cinema that rocks the very foundation of our society? Or maybe they were hoping for something showing that the world may have gone off kilter but it would right itself soon enough. Ok, what about the concept of a PIRATE movie did these people not understand? I didn’t go to this movie to be challenged, I came to be entertained. Pirates achieved that goal in stellar form. It was not about this movie meeting me where I was in my life, it was about pirates (although not as cool as ninjas) still being really cool and able to entertain, love, betray, and pilfer without too much alienation. I do not know what these critics were expecting, but I think they might be spending too much time at the movies (yes, there is such a thing) and not enough time on their personal lives. This could be causing them to try to have movies double as fulfillment in their lives and also their livelihood. You’re bound to be dissatisfied when you’re trying to live vicariously through movies.
The movie has amazing special effects. One thing I would really like to congratulate the movie on was the ability to use jokes from the first movie, but not to a point of exhaustion. Otherwise, I do not know what else to say about this other than, “It's entertaining.” Some movies are made to change our lives. Others are made to show what we need to change. However, some are made to remove us from reality for a bit of relaxation. The night that I saw this movie, I was definitely in need of the latter. I don’t care what the critics say. I liked it!
I ran through several different ratings in my head trying to figure out what would be the right one for this movie. I came up with a set of requirements that the movie had to meet, and I would rate it accordingly to how it met my expectations: 1) Was it worth the money I spent to see this movie? Definitely. Therefore, the movie already starts at a ten, since that’s the amount that I spent. 2) Did I have any need to hurt the directors or producers of this movie? (note: I have sometimes felt like that when I have seen a sequel that they totally ruined) No. That brings the movie to a 12. 3) How much did I enjoy this movie? Very much; I didn’t go to see something deep, I went to see some pirates. Good job, movie! Way to stick it to the man! My enjoyment of the movie bumped it up another 4 points. Bringing the total to 16. No matter what, I suggest that you go and see the movie for yourself and see if you enjoy it or if it reminds you of really bad eggs.

Brokeback Mountain

Cowboys and fishing trips and homosexuality, oh my! Considering all the Oscar buzz and controversy surrounding this movie, I was preparing myself for a great movie-going experience, or at least an intense one. Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal kissing is bound to ruffle a few feathers, and so many people were up in arms about something as masculine as the cowboy lifestyle being crossed with homosexuality. Needless to say, my interest was piqued. Now that I’ve seen the movie, I feel sort of gypped.

The movie didn’t go for shock value, which is good. It didn’t look at a homosexual relationship as something entirely normal, either, which is good, too. But that doesn’t leave it with very much room to go to. It would have been nice, I think, if the director made some sort of comment, even a miniscule one. Instead of making a statement and then letting the audience members make up their own minds, Ang Lee cut off his own tongue before he even got to that point.

The plot of Brokeback Mountain involves Ennis and Jack, two cowboys who find an interesting way to keep warm during cold nights on the prairie. The time period of the story is 1963 and back then, this type of thing was just not done. Even in this day and age, it would be met with acceptance but a few raised eyebrows. As unsettling or unusual as the subject matter is, the movie doesn’t really seem to care. The tone through the entire first act is one of voyeurism, with no energy put forth to make us like, sympathize with, or even understand the characters or their actions. The actions and reactions of the characters (at least in the first part) seem random and inexplicable, and the movie doesn’t even try to explain them. Things happen, and we as the audience feel like intruders, watching events that have nothing to do with us. Not that I’m callous, but why should I care?

It took awhile for the story to introduce a character I could really get behind, but it did with Alma, Michelle Williams’ role. I totally felt for her as she watched her husband have an affair. I get the feeling that I would have had sympathy for Anne Hathaway’s character as well, if she had had more screen time. Jack and Ennis were the two involved in the relationship that was the main focus of the film, but the story I found much more involving was what happened with their respective wives. I wish a movie could have been made from their perspectives. The other supporting performances (Randy Quaid and Linda Cardellini) added great touches, being fully realized characters with very limited screen time.

Brokeback Mountain was supposed to be a big movie, as it received a lot of hype and generated a lot of controversy. Honestly, I don’t see what all the fuss was about. While it’s true that it was strange to see two big-name actors (that were both men) having sex with each other, the tone of the movie encouraged non-reaction instead of the opposite. The cinematography and sets were very good, but the story had a messy resolution. Thumbs up to Michelle Williams for making a character that I could really believe in, but as for the rest of the movie, I could really take it or leave it. I imagine the novel is a whole lot better.

Iconic lines:
“Brokeback got us good, don’t it?”
“Texans don’t drink coffee?”

22 Rating: 2

Particle Man

The Devil Wears Prada (Wicked Little Critta)

The following is a true story* about John and Jane, your average American movie-going couple.

John and Jane headed out one drizzly, humid July evening to the Centerville Cinema to catch a movie. Neither one really knew of any movies in theaters, but John was confident in the possibility of some variation of a race car/horror movie starring The Rock, and Jane was comforted in the knowledge that John would be more than happy to accommodate her preferred movie tastes. After about 15 minutes of meandering through a packed stadium-sized parking lot, they eventually landed in what some might call a “parking space” from which they were pretty sure they could see the theater in the distance. They headed in and hopefully scanned the movie listings and show times. Just as John’s suggestion of Fast and Furious IV was on his lips, Jane exclaimed with glee: “OH! The Devil Wears Prada is playing! I’d forgotten about that one…” she turned to John as though he’d be interested: “You know, the girl from Princess Diaries, and um, Meryl Streep! I’ve wanted to see this. I forgot it was playing!”

And so, John shelled out about $20 on tickets for The Devil Wears Prada, a movie starring women, about women’s fashion, and another $20 for popcorn, soda, sugar-free Mike and Ike’s, and a bottle of water. Jane got in line for the ladies room.

After John had made all of his purchases, memorized all the movies coming out in the next three months, and played a game or two in the arcade, Jane joined him. They were early enough to get fabulous seats.

They waited. Ate 80% of their food, did some word scrambles, and watched previews. The movie starts.

Jane: Wow, Anne Hathaway looks great!

John: Hey, that girl isn’t bad looking. Maybe this won’t be total torture.

Jane: Oh my word, my boss is just like that! Get out now, Andy!

John: What a b*tch. Just punch her!

Jane: Hey! That girl was in Rent!

John: …

Jane: Those clothes are soooo gorgeous. What I’d do to wear Gucci…

John: Umm, is that actually clothing? I mean, is it even wearable?

Jane: (giggles) The gay guy is so funny!

John: That gay guy is pretty funny.

Similar thoughts ran through their minds as the movie continued. They both learned a number of things. Jane learned that doing what one is told to do is always a choice, and a person is responsible for his or her choices. She also learned that size 6 is the new 14, so she had some dieting to do. John learned that there’s a lot of money in the fashion industry, that there are more than five colors, and that it’s never cool to put work ahead of the people you love. Finally, they both learned that sometimes a person needs to give up one good thing to get an even better thing.

All in all, a good movie experience. On the -22 to 22 scale, they rate it a solid 10. Tune in next time when Jane and John watch Fast and Furious IV.

* True, as in “probably happened.”

The Devil Wears Prada (Dr. Worm)

So The Devil Wears Prada is actually pretty good. This is not what I expected when the TMBC Illuminati suggested it as our next movie of the month, but I was pleasantly surprised.

My initial hesitation probably stems from the fact that this movie is marketed almost exclusively to females, which I took to mean one thing: chick flick. And I can appreciate a good chick flick as much as the next reasonably sensitive guy -- I enjoyed My Best Friend's Wedding, for example -- but in general the prospect of chick flicks doesn't set my heart racing.

You can imagine my confusion, then, when -- sitting beside fellow critics Wicked Little Critta and Stormy Pinkness (both girls), in a movie theater filled with women -- I actualy found myself enjoying this movie. In fact, that very idea frightened me a little bit. Would I soon prefer salads over beef? Would my interest in sports start waning? In short, were my testicles shrinking?

I'm pleased to report, however, that none of these fears were warranted. I didn't enjoy the movie because I was becoming a chick; I enjoyed it because it's not a chick flick.

Now I understand that some of you may balk at this. How can a movie in which the two leads are female and which is almost wholly concerned with the fashion industry not be a chick flick? Well, here are three big reasons why The Devil Wears Prada does not fall into the "chick flick" category.

1. Chick flicks are obscenely predictable. The Devil Wears Prada is not. I'm not saying it's an edge-of-your-seat, keep-you-guessing thrill-ride, but at least you don't know the ending just by looking at the movie poster.

2. Chick flicks are typically pretty shallow. Really, they're just about biological urges. Sure, they claim to be about "true love" and all that, but they're really about what every female wants: to find a partner with the best genes possible so as to pass favorable traits on to her offspring. The Devil Wears Prada, however, is not shallow at all--shocking for a film that centers around fashion. Instead, The Devil Wears Prada asks relevant and cutting questions about human mutability, about the nature of commitment, and the all-important (for this generation) quandry of how to balance career and personal life.

3. Chick flicks tend to be dishonest. The insidious message that chick flicks send is that each human being has a perfect match out there, so if you are unhappy in your current relationship it's because you're with the wrong person. This sentiment, I believe, is largely responsible for our society's staggeringly high divorce rate, and chick flicks have for many years contributed to the acceptance and prevalence of this myth of the "perfect match." I could go on here, but I really only mention this to compare it to The Devil Wears Prada, which is a surprisingly honest movie. There is a seemingly "perfect" guy in the mix to tempt our heroine, but much to my relief this movie didn't dabble in the aforementioned dark arts of chick flicks (and that's all the spoiling I'll do on that topic.)

But the movie is in fact quite honest in showing our herione to be, like everyone else in the movie (and the world), a flawed human being. And she behaves the way a human being might in her situation. Characters in this movie don't overreact to petty offenses for seemingly no other reason than to throw a wrench into the plot, and there are no absurd twists based on miscommunications (both chick flick staples). When you see the movie, you believe the events in it could really happen--even though some of the characters are comically farcial. But I suppose that's because the novel that spawned the movie is based on real events from author Lauren Weisberger's life.

I suppose no two words better describe this film than "exceeds expectations." If there's any exception to that, it's the acting, but that's no dig. Anne Hathaway is charming as Andy Sachs and Meryl Streep effortlessly chews scenery as Miranda Priestly, Andy's boss. But both actresses have impressed before, so seeing them succeed here is expected. But for the plot, the script, the supporting cast, and the suprising freshness the movie demonstrates, "exceeds expectations" is a perfect modifier.

And it's especially apt for the title. I first read the title as, "Okay, her boss is really mean, so she's the devil, and because she works in fashion she wears Prada." Fortunately, the title is much deeper than that. It refers instead to the Faustian offer that Miranda presents for Andy: Work for her, and Andy will soon be able to do anything she dreams of, careerwise. But, as Andy learns, she may just lose her friends, her humanity, and her soul in the process.

And if I had to condense all these thoughts into a single number, I'd condense them into the number 9.

The Devil Wears Prada (Stormy Pinkness)

“Wait a second! You want me to do what? Are you so lazy and incompetent that you cannot manage to do one simple task by yourself?” Pretty much every secretary on earth has had these thoughts at one point during those long, eight-hour days. The life of a secretary or assistant is usually one of non-existent thanks, long hours, and passive-aggressive behavior. With all this in mind, it is time to discuss The Devil Wears Prada, starring Anne Hathaway, Meryl Streep, and Stanley Tucci.
The Devil Wears Prada tells the story of Andy Sachs, a young journalist who is willing to do anything to start her career. Finally, she interviews for a job as an assistant to Miranda Preistly, who is basically the be all and end all of the fashion magazine world. After, seeing people run around like chickens with their heads cut off to please this woman and after a rather strange interview (personally, if I had been in Andy’s position I would have run the other way rather than taking the job), she gets the job that every girl who loves fashion would die to have. She soon realizes that there are sacrifices and challenges that she will have to face in this job and in her life. She will have to learn how to deal with her demanding new boss, who has a great amount of clout in the publishing world, and she will also have to balance her work life with her life with her friends and her boyfriend.
Anne Hathaway entertains in her portrayal of Andrea Sachs. She has just graduated from college and needs a job, so basically anything that has even the slightest thing to do with her chosen field would be great. She soon realizes that this is not as easy as she originally thought, until she finally receives the job as Miranda’s assistant at a fashion magazine.
As someone who works as an assistant/secretary, I thought that she portrayed the role believably I don’t know how many times I have been confused by vague instructions, or passive-aggressively completed a job that my boss thought was impossible and silently gloated after doing so.
Although Anne Hathaway did a good job as the assistant Andy, nothing could top Meryl Streep’s portrayal of Miranda Preistley, the Evil Fashion Dictator. The moment she showed up on the screen she made me feel like I should be doing work instead of watching a movie—I felt like I should pretend to be busy so I wouldn’t get in trouble. Streep’s character is someone who knows she is powerful and uses that to get anything she wants.
Throughout this movie, Andy is faced with a number of decisions that she needs to make. She continually tries to be true to herself and not end up like her boss, who is characterized as the epitome of evil. However, even though she goes through the movie doing everything with the best of intentions, it soon shows that people can change without even knowing it.
Immediately after the movie ended, I was not too impressed. I thought it was too long. However, as the days passed, my opinion of the movie continued to improve. Overall, it was not an awful movie. It was entertaining and had an enjoyable cast. After going back to work, a few days after seeing the film, my appreciation for it grew as I went through the same tasks that Andy does and also dealt with some of the same challenges.
And now for the moment that everyone has been waiting for: the rating. I would give this movie an 8. It was something I related to and the acting was very believable. I have heard complaints that the movie was not true enough to the book, but if you feel that then stick to the book, because last time I checked movies and books were different.

The Devil Wears Prada (Particle Man)

When I was about 13, we got a kitten. We hadn’t had a cat for a period of about 6 months; quite sometime for us to go without a cat. We had a dog and a bird, but it just wasn’t the same. We got this kitten that was all white except for a small black mark on her head. We named her Sasquatch, initially because she was all white. We later found out that the name was entirely appropriate because she was a total monster. On the other hand, she was so cute she could peel the paint off an ocean liner. Seriously, I think cuteness of that magnitude is illegal in some states.

The Devil Wears Prada is like Sasquatch. At first look, it appears, cute, fluffy, and harmless. You pet it, play with it with a ball of yarn, laugh and smile, and it playfully attacks your hand. But after you’re finished, you notice that your hand is all scratched up and bleeding from the kitten’s little claws and teeth. And you think, “did that little thing really do all this?”

Anne Hathaway (no, not the wife of Shakespeare) stars in this little comedy as Andy Sachs, though Meryl Streep gets top billing. Part of me thinks that’s unfair, but then I think, “hey, it’s Meryl Streep.” Speaking of Meryl, I cannot say enough good things about her performance in this movie. Instead of making us hate her character through loathsome and instantly enraging acts, she instead chooses crushing indifference. The way she lightly says “that’s all” simultaneously implies apathy, condescension, and finality. She’s calm, cool, collected, and in charge, and she doesn’t let anything ruffle her. Well, almost anything, but I don’t want to give a spoiler.

This is not to impugn Anne Hathaway’s performance, or the many great supporting performances. Anne simply glows with that charm and appeal she radiates as second nature. Given the right role, she has the ability to draw you in, even in saccharine Disney movies like The Princess Diaries or its sequel. Stanley Tucci and Emily Blunt are fantastic in their roles as scenery-chewing fashionistas, slaves to the whim of the almighty Miranda Priestly (Streep’s character). Even Adrian Greiner gives a competent performance as the boyfriend who stretches to ridiculous lengths in the wake of Andy’s transformation, but only so far.

The characters in The Devil Wears Prada aren’t one-dimensional or paper cutouts, as would be expected in a fluffy comedy like this one. It only appears fluffy, though. Like Sasquatch, it has unexpected claws. It ever-so-gently skewers the fashion industry, and you see the materialistic nature of it. Andy is definitely not a fashionista, but through working at Runway magazine, she starts to become one. The question that the movie presents is “does she want to advance in her job, or keep her integrity and humanness?” It’s a great job, but not one for her. We as the audience know that, but Andy at some point forgets.

This movie appears nice and quaint, and it is, but it also has barbs that you appreciate, mostly because they’re directed at the movie itself and not at you, the audience. Enjoy it, but be wary of its claws. It may be cute, but it’s really a Sasquatch.

Iconic lines:
“I’m on this new diet where I don’t eat, and then when I feel like I’m about to faint, I have a cheese cube. I’m one stomach flu away from reaching my goal weight.”
“That’s all.”
“The person whose calls you always take? That’s the relationship you’re in.”

22 Rating: 10

Particle Man

Movie of the Month - July '06

The Devil Wears Prada

Stay tuned for our reviews coming up July 18th-22nd!
Lucky for you, They Might Be Critics hosts a regular movie of the month. During this exciting time, all (or most) of our critics post reviews of a chosen movie that is due to come out this month. We are all about providing a range of opinions and insights, and allowing for an open forum in which we discuss the film with each other and anyone who desires to participate. So, see The Devil Wears Prada, and join in!

Superman Returns

Does the world need a Superman?

That's the question that a lot of people have asked, and a lot of people just can't get behind the idea. He's "too powerful," "too much of a goody two-shoes," "not dark enough," etc. I am not one of those people. I think that Superman works as a character ... how else would he have survived the last 68 years? But people do have a point in that he seems an ill-suited character for these dark times ... a point that is negated by the argument that in darker times, you need a bright icon like The Man of Tomorrow. But ... enough rhetoric.
Superman Returns takes place 5 years after the events of Superman II ... we are told that astronomers discovered the remains of Krypton, and Superman went to see it, and had been absent for 5 years. He returns to Earth to find that his world has changed: Lois Lane has a child, is engaged to be married, and has written a Pulitzer-winning story called "Why The World Doesn't Need Superman." Lex Luthor has gotten out of prison, thanks to his gold-digging of an old widow, and Superman not being around to testify at his trial (oops). What follows is the story of Clark/Superman getting back into his old life, and overcoming the obstacles presented before him.
This film is more ... orchestral in tone that most of the other superhero films we've seen in the last few years, save the transcendent Batman Begins. Bryan Singer set out to make an epic befitting the Man of Steel, and he succeeds nicely. The film doesn't feel any longer than it's 2 hour and 40 minute running time, and there are no script problems save a minor one that a new character presents and that I won't go into here ... too spoilery. The special effects are among the best I've ever seen, and Superman's powers are rendered impressively. I was impressed by Brandon Routh, who exudes authority as the Last Son of Krypton, and hits all the right comic notes as the hapless (?) Clark Kent. Kevin Spacey chews scenery as the orginal bald genius Lex Luthor, leaving Gene Hackman's hopelessly dated performances in the dust.* Kate Bosworth and Frank Langella turn in serviceable performances as Lois Lane and Perry White, and Sam Huntington shines as the enthusiastic Jimmy Olsen. Parker Posey also shines in a patented Parker Posey (tm) performance, as Kitty Kowalski, the "new" Miss Tessmacher.
This movie may not do as well as it deserves to because of the daunting box-office performance of POTC: Dead Man's Chest, but it is well, well worth your time. I give Superman Returns an 18 out of 22** on the 22 scale.

*To be fair, this isn't exactly Gene Hackman's fault. The old Lex Luthor was written as more of a Prankster/Funky Flashman type character, not the cunning and intimidating genius that Lex was/is.

** 18 is the lowest score I would give to something that I would actually deign to own on DVD ... normally.

Amelie (Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain)

Initial Reaction: *big smile*

Watching the movie Amelie (Le Fabuleux Destin d’Amelie Poulain) is similar to strolling along a bright sunny beach with a group of best friends while eating an ice cream cone and belly-laughing at the funniest joke you’ve ever heard. Or eating Thanksgiving dinner after your team has won the football game and you know they’re serving your favorite dessert. Or skipping through a field of daisies holding hands with the Easter bunny and singing like Julie Andrews. In any case, whatever your cup of tea may be, Amelie is thoroughly delightful and smile-inducing from start to finish.

The main character is Amelie Poulain, our heroine. She is a shy, socially-awkward young woman who is nevertheless incredibly sweet. Her life consists of her job as a waitress, visiting her father, observing the people around her intently, and dreaming of the many fantastic possibilities that the world holds. Amelie is completely captivating, and fascinates the audience with her childlike aura and unique approach to life.

In most ways her life is very ordinary, but all this changes when she stumbles across an old tin filled with children’s treasures in her apartment. When she realizes it belonged to a little boy who must have lived there years ago, she is overcome with a desire to return the treasures to their owner. She imagines the wonderful moment when he finds it, and thrills herself with the idea that she might make someone’s life better. After some detective work to find the man (now middle-aged) it belonged to, she is able to return the tin, and she is pleased with his reaction to being reunited with this long-misplaced piece of his past. At this crucial point, Amelie decides that she will devote herself to helping people around her. The scenarios that follow are sweet, hilarious, and surprising as she—for better or worse—gets involved in people’s lives to help, as well as punish those that steal happiness!

We follow our beloved heroine through all these escapades, and incidentally, through a developing romance as well. In a twist of fate, she manages to meet someone just as wonderfully odd as herself, but because she doesn’t really know how to interact with people, she gets pretty darn creative in trying to woo him. The whole thing is unbelievably funny and sweet, and she makes some interesting friends that help her along the way.

Rating: 20

This movie, as you might have guessed, is a French film. I will recommend (as I always do) getting the version with English subtitles. In my opinion, it takes so much away from the movie when you are unable to hear the characters’ true voices. And these characters are worth every second of screen time they have. Each one is perfect in his or her role. Some that stand out are Audrey Tautou (Amelie), Rufus (Raphael Poulain), and Isabelle Nanty (Georgette). The director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, did an excellent job. The plot moved smoothly, but still kept me thoroughly involved. There were an incredible amount of creative touches that made the movie complete and unique, a work of art. I can’t rave enough about this movie. If you are currently a member of TMBC and haven’t yet seen it, don’t see it without me! ;)

Excuse me, Partical Man, for using your “Iconic Lines” section, but I couldn’t resist.

Iconic Lines: “If Amélie chooses to live in a dream-world and remain an introverted young woman, she has every right to mess up her life!”

“With a prompter in every cellar window whispering comebacks, shy people would have the last laugh.”