erasing clouds
 

Movie Reviews

by Jerry Salisbury

Click on a movie's name to go directly to the review, or scroll down and proceed through them all.

Amores Perros, Black Hawk Down, Bully, Donnie Darko, Dragonfly, Gosford Park, Hedwig and the Angry Inch, I Am Sam, Ice Age, In the Bedroom, John Q, Joy Ride, Lisa Picard Is Famous, Orange County, Series 7: The Contenders, Showtime, The Royal Tenenbaums, We Were Soldiers

Amores Perros (Love's a Bitch)

There is no denying the influence that the media can have, both on itself, and on the general populace. News programs, reality television and game shows have proven that the public thirsts for entertainment, but what about the influences that the media has within itself. I feel it can be measured both in short term and long term ways. In the short term, there are copycats, seeking to capitalize on a supposed unfound, fertile or open market, these will usually burn out, and fade from our memory quickly. Recent examples include the boy band craze, the hair band phase and most of the 80s. But the long term ones are the lasting and memorable ones, the results of which may not be seen or appreciated until long after the initial influence is done. When Pulp Fiction was released in 1996, no one could deny that it was unlike anything anyone had ever seen or done before. Coming soon after that were the copycat films, Suicide Kings, Go and several other forgettable ones attempted to capitalize. I always felt that Fiction established, or at worst, perfected a new genre in cinema, that of the non-linear filmmaking. Since then, many have tried, and few have succeeded without looking like cheap imitations at best. I believe it becomes the difference in trying to copy, and learning from, if not paying homage to, the predecessor Amores Perros, Mexico entry into the 2001 Foreign Film category of the Academy Awards, is a perfect example of the latter. This anti-love story, told in three separate, strangely, but believably intersecting ways, works because each story is loosely linked, as life is, to other aspects, yet is independently interesting on its, when the camera just happens to follow a different perspective of things. There is never a moment where we doubt the plausibility of anything we see, and in some way, despite spanning differing classes of people, it is a film that is one most can relate to in some way another.

The story is told in three focused episodes, with hints at the others during each one. In the first, we have Octavio and Susanna. She is married to Octavio's brother Ramiro, who is less than faithful, and doesn't treat her well. Octavio is in love (or at least lust) with Susanna, and through some other circumstances, offers to take her away with the money he has earned through underground dogfights. Octavio, Ramiro and Susanna all live with the brothers' mother in a modest apartment, and do not seem to be hurting for money, but also are not well off. In the second episode, we have Daniel and Valeria, he is a married, talk show host producer, and she is a famous model. Daniel leaves his family and marriage behind, to be with Valeria, whom he sets up in a nice apartment. But circumstances intervene once again, to turn things asunder and test the bounds of love (the underlying mood in each of these stories). Finally, El Chivo and Maru, he is a homeless man, with a past; she is the daughter who believes he is long dead after he disappeared. He watches her, trying to work up the nerve to "look her in the eyes", while performing odd jobs to maintain his living. I have left a lot of the details of this story out, because there are several interacting occurrences, which give this movie its wonderful appeal. It focuses more on love than Fiction did, but also shows that life's journey, and love's destiny, can sometimes be as intermingled as the people whose lives cross. The common link between all of the stories is not only the presence and importance of the dogs, but also the one event that forever ties these people together, whether they realize it or not. Unlike Pulp Fiction this films spawns societal classes, and shows the differences and similarities in both emotions and outcomes. Like Pulp Fiction, there are common people who pass through each other's lives, and the film chooses to follow the occurrences from different perspectives, showing the vast effects that one event can have on several lives. But they are not isolated storylines either, as people pass freely, and realistically through each others lives, giving what at first seem like glimpses, but later are more reflective if the proximity that our lives have with one another. The commonality that bonds them together, is not drugs, or guns, or crime, but dogs. A simple yet representative symbol of loyalty, used to bond the classes together in ways that each may never recognize.

Ultimately, Amores Perros is an intense social commentary and tribute to this style of film making which should be viewed by all groups of people. Our lives unfold, interact, and become reactions of those whom we encounter. Films like Sliding Doors, Amelie and Lola Rennt (Run Lola Run) have shown how important the minutia in one's life, and the decisions made can be. Perros takes that one step further to show that the have's and have-not's are not as far apart as may be believed. There is a saying that "they all put their pants on one leg at a time," I've always added the addendum that "but their pants cost a lot more." This film not only shows that humanity is a bond that will always transcend any amount of status, but that human emotion is something that cannot be bought. Money may make the world go around, but it cannot buy happiness, love, contentment, or peace. These have to come from inside us, and the movie reflects that in a powerful, sometimes painful way.

Black Hawk Down

Move over Private Ryan, Ridley Scott has just done Spielberg one better, an unenviable feat to say the least. With Black Hawk Down, Scott has created the most frighteningly, yet amazingly realistic war sequences ever put on film. Just imagine the first 20 minutes of Ryan, multiplied by 6, and given a deeper focus of complexity. While the film is betrayed at times by its clichéd script, and the dramatic license taken is a little emotionally manipulative, the final effort is still one that leaves a sense of awe, respect and admiration, not just for the creators of the film, but for the soldiers and ideals so powerfully depicted.

It is both frightening, and shocking, how quickly that important events can fade from our memory. Two years removed from the Gulf War, the nation had entered into another peacekeeping mission, in the African nation of Somalia. The country was in the midst of a famine of "Biblical proportions" and was under the dictatorial control of warlord Mohammed Aidid. The United Nations sent in food and supplies to help the 300,000 innocent Somalis affected. Once the country was back on its feet, a small contingent of peacekeepers was left behind to help maintain order, and Aidid targeted them, thus creating a hostile environment. This story, based on the best selling book by Mark Bowden, tells of one of the more infamous occurrences during the mission. It started as a raid on a meeting of political dignitaries of Aidid, which was scheduled to last 30 minutes, but due to several mitigating circumstances (including a fallen soldier, and two downed helicopters) ended up costing 18 American lives, and leaving several soldiers pinned down in Mogadishu for almost 15 hours.

Having not read the book, I cannot compare, but I'm told that it takes the same, detailed minute-by-minute retelling that the movie does, also jumping around to several stories and people all during the same timeframe. This may cause confusion or frustration for some, who either get lost in the shooting, or just mixed up as to which camouflaged, buzzed haircut, soldier they are following. But I feel, being a veteran of a much less violent Desert Storm operation, that this effectively reflects the mass disorientation, and maddening sense that the soldiers here, and in any kind of armed conflict, must have experienced. The way that Scott and cinematographer Slavomir Idziak captured this must truly be seen, to be awed. They were duly, and deservedly rewarded with Oscars for their editing of these complex scenes, and the sounds of the battles. The choreography and direction of having several different things occurring, in several different perspectives and areas of the scene, is truly a marvelous experience, even sans the gunfire, blood, vehicles, explosions, and troop movement. All of those combined, with a reasonably solid script, make this one as close to a "You are There" experience than most of us will ever want. My only minor complaint involves the sometimes predictable side stories (involving a new troops introduction, a last minute phone call, and a letter to the parents, not to mention half of the generals "leave no man behind" dialogue) I do not know if these were actual occurrences, or Scott, Bowden and Zailian took dramatic license to go for the sympathetic effect. This brings into question my whole, does life imitate art, or vice versa debate. Do people say and do things because they saw them on TV or the movies, or do the movies do these things because they think its what people would actually do, or at least want to be done. It's hard to say, and a never ending debate, but in this film, those little occurrences, only mildly taint the overall magic, and frightening reality of the films experience.

Unfortunately, the performances save Josh Hartnett, Tom Sizemore, Ewan McGregor and William Fichtner (that still leaves over 15 focused speaking roles) go unnoticed, or blend into things too much to really single out. By reading the credits afterwards, I learned that Ron Eldard, Jeremy Piven and Brendan Sexton were in the film, but I could barely tell you where. None of these really stand out, as they are, as soldiers are, a part of a cohesive team. Each has a part, a job, to fill and do, and sometimes its not as important whom the person is, as to how they contribute to the team. This is the case in this multi talented, effective cast, which does bring a bit of heart and realism to a painful piece of history.

Ultimately, Black Hawk Down is a brutally realistic depiction of warfare; its heroes, their triumphs, the losses, the sadness, and the overall emotion of the situation. This will be as close as most of us will ever come to real warfare, complete with the bullets, the blood, the confusion, the chaos Amidst the predictability of recent cinematic efforts, it seems that the art of film making often gets lost amongst the attempt to present a universally crowd-pleasing product. Filmmakers are storytellers, just as authors are, and their goals are similar. Each creates a story, whether the basis is factual, or generated in the mind of the teller. They attempt to take us into their world, and give us a complete experience, using every available method. With Black Hawk, Scott has returned to the forefront of visual storytellers (after his Hannibal debacle) and has given a nation a reminder that soldiers and heroes have existed around us for ages, all we need is someone to bring the story to our attention and give it due justice in telling.

This was a part of our history that a lot of people may have forgotten, and others would like to forget. But for the sake of patriotism, and national unity, we cannot, and shall not, thanks to Ridley Scott's amazing vision. I was a soldier, serving during this time, and only in reflection and research, did I recall and recount the details of this small dark slice of American history. George Santayana once said, "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it." Sometimes it takes the story telling medium of the movies, not just books, to remind, recount, reflect and respect the participants, and the repercussions of our past discretions. Let Black Hawk Down stand as a reminder that America is not a perfect country, but will always be a proud, patriotic one.

Bully

We are all familiar with them, they come in all shapes and forms, span social and cultural boundaries and have become an unfortunate part of our culture. They are the bullies, those that feed on, and gain power from the emotion of intimidation and force. Secretly, the oppressed and the put upon dream of exacting their revenge and venting their pent up frustrations on their tormentors. So in a way, most of us can relate and associate with the characters in Larry Clark's, acerbic vengeance tale, Bully. Similar to In The Bedroom and John Q, it shows what happens when emotions can drive people to extremes, except for the fact that this is sadly, based on actual events. Not only does Clark allow us to live vicariously through these characters, but he also shines the light on a much more glaring issue. if the youth are the future of our country, then maybe the future is in trouble and is not as bright as it may seem. Larry Clark's brazen, no-holds-barred approach is a strong in-your-face commentary on a subculture of today's youth that will hit closer to home than many care to admit. He focuses in on the spoiled, unmotivated, carefree slacker stereotype, wrapped around the true story of the 1993 murder of a young Miami man caught up in a web of hatred and jealousy. His approach may be criticized for the extent to which shows, exploits and delivers the message, but there is no denying that this movie will grab your attention, and possibly open your eyes to a festering wound that is spreading across America.

Subtlety is not a term that would be used in describing Clark's filmmaking style thus far. He does not shy away from showing blatant sexual situations, casual drug usage, and graphic violence, but he does it in the context of emphasizing a point, rather than exploiting its presence. Needless to say I would not want to swap childhood stories with he, or Todd Solondz. If a filmmaker's style and content are any reflection of past experiences, then these two must not have had happy times growing up. Clark uses his abrasive styling this time around to make a commentary, while regaling this story. The facts of the story are this: In July 1993, Bobby Kent was found dead in the desolate areas outside of Miami. Within days, a group of people, including his best friend Marty, Marty's girlfriend Lisa, her best friend Alice, her boy-toy friend Donnie, Alice's cousin Derek, and a hired "hit man" were convicted of murder, and conspiracy to commit murder. We are introduced to Kent and Marty Puccio, lifetime best friends, in a relationship that borders on masochistic. Kent has an odd obsession with homosexuality (one of the few subtexts that Clark doesn't explore, but which adds another facet to things), and takes his aggressions and frustrations out, physically and verbally, on Puccio. Marty is a seemingly placid surfer, prone to eruptions of emotion bottled up over years of abuse apparently. He is dating Lisa, a dropout, seeking love and attention, which she thinks she has found in Marty (although it appears more lust than anything else) Her best friend, Ali is a vice-ridden loose cannon who helps Lisa explore the wild side buried deep within her psyche. Marty's parents are oblivious to his abuse, while Bobby's think Marty is the bad influence, often threatening to move him away to remove the evil from his life. The frustration comes to a head after Lisa finds out she's pregnant, and Bobby rapes Ali. What follows is the methodical, eerie, and often sadistically calm hatching of the plan, played out with an unflinching brutality and honesty. Clark takes a two-pronged approach in his presentation of the story. From one side, he delves into the lives of the characters to show and represent not only a sad section of society, but also a wake-up call to parents and others. On the other, he unflinchingly presents the facts, the motives, the reasons, the planning, the justification, and the end results of human emotions overcoming rational thought. These teens are not unlike most, past and present, having to deal with pressures presented by environment, expectation and circumstance. Bully tackles both social commentary and representation of events, in a balanced way, pulling no punches so the audience can grasp and feel the full extent of the repercussions. These are kids who are at a crossroads of life, trying to become adults, while still struggling with the freewheeling nature of their youth. It is a culture where its denizens often waste entire days with casual sex, casual drug usage, driving their parents expensive cars, hanging out in malls, arcades or comic book shops, or just indulging the whims of their inner beast. By allowing us into the lives of the characters, Clark also presents an interesting contrast, the have's, namely the victim and his family, and the have-nots, everyone else, ranging from surfers, to comic store workers, to high school drop outs, leaving the question of motive for our own derivation. Personally, I saw it not only as a crime of hatred, but one of jealous and envy (as witnessed by a conversation between Alice and Bobby regarding his future). Clark never takes sides in the matter either, saying that the killing was justified, nor saying it was unnecessary, instead presenting both sides of the case and allowing the audience to derive its own conclusion. This is a sad tale, but even sadder is that the situations in this movie play out in more of this country than most will care to admit.

The performances of the young stars not only bond things together, but also create a relatable sense, necessary to elicit any kind of emotion. Brad Renfro and Nick Stahl are the most recognizable members of the cast, and their performances are the most memorable. Stahl has shed any pretty boy image he had, and truly makes Bobby despicable, and yet creates a small air of sympathy with his eyes that seem to be screaming that he is putting on a façade based on expectations and pressure. Renfro, bulked up and nearly unrecognizable, creates an angry, frustrated aura, which sometimes explodes, and hides very little. Of the remaining performances, the most interesting are Pitt (Tommy Gnosis from Hedwig) as the near masochistic, but somehow innocent, Donnie, and Leo Fitzpatrick (a grown up carryover from his incendiary teen mockumentary Kids) as the brutal, by the numbers hit man who seems to be the only rational voice amidst the emotionally volcanic and building madness. Overall, the cast each embodies differing aspects of the same problem, and should relate in some way, to situations and people that we know.

Ultimately, Bully is a powerful, tragic, relentless social commentary on the travails of allowing emotion to overcome, and drive personal actions. Few will argue that each generation has suffered through their own traumas, trials and tribulations, and that overcoming these have made us into the people we are today. No one is perfect, and no one should try to be, and sometimes friends are all we have to save us from the actions that our emotions can sometimes drive us to. Clark's delivery may seem excessive, unrealistic, or unnecessary to the uninformed, but those who think that, are blind to what is occurring around us. His commentary that the youth of today may be slackers, ne'er do wells and dropouts, but they are also humans, with feelings, desires and dreams. Sometimes the need to lash out, as the kids do, and Clark does with this film. Wake up America, the children need us, and it would not surprise me if situations, and people like this, are walking around us, quietly simmering and suffering, just waiting to explode. Clark has shown us a near flawless example of the eruption, the damage, and worst of, the victims.

Donnie Darko

John Hughes was the penultimate voice of the youth during the 80s. With Breakfast Club, Sixteen Candles and Pretty in Pink, he captured the vast scope and breadth of what it was like to be a fertile, blooming, but confused young mind during the decade of decadence. But for all the depth that he gave his movies, he only skirted and browsed through the darker tormented sides of growing up during those years. Behind the façade of suburban families, IROC's, Hobie T-shirts and leotards, lie a generation struggling to understand the world and their place in it, and afraid of what lie ahead at every juncture where decisions controlled destiny. In Donnie Darko, a chillingly morbid, and at times frustrating view of life during these times, director Richard Kelly has slashed open the wound that Hughes exposed, and dives into it with twisted, but truthful glee. Those who seek to grasp and understand the film may get frustrated or angry, but I ask them to look not at the end result, but at the undercurrents flowing seamlessly through the characters, stories and atmosphere of the story. The 80s, and our teens did not make sense to us either, and we grew up okay, so he asks not to justify or explain, but simply understand and try and relate.

Donnie is a student who is mysterious, brilliant, troubled and blunt. He isn't afraid to confront a teacher preaching the explanation of life (classifying everything on a line between Fear and Love), or a motivational speaker who seems to feed the audience full of empty catch phrases, or ask the pretty new girl if she will "go" with him (probably the most believable initial dating sequence since Say Anything) Inside Donnie's mind though, lies something dark and mysterious. His name is Frank, and he's a 6-ft haunting rabbit, who prophesizes about impending doom, while "driving" Donnie to explore his darker inhibitions. The movie is mostly an exploration of the characters cast in Donnie's life, and the reaction after a plane engine mysteriously falls through Donnie's bedroom, yet no airplane is ever found. Cue the foreshadowing music here. Drew Barrymore is the teacher who seems to care about expanding the minds of students (since Barrymore's production company produced the film, her role may have gotten more screen time than necessary). Mix in his parents (Holmes Osbourne and Mary McDonnell) (her sarcasm and charm both ever-present and in perfect pitch), his torturous, yet oddly loving sister (real-life sister Maggie), a lonely Oriental student and Grandma Death, and this still only scratches the surface of the realm of personalities covered here. Only a film this odd could make Michael Dukakis, plane crashes, talking rabbits, the sexuality of Smurfs, and time travel, into a cohesive, gripping, and dark story. The contrasts of cultures are blatantly shown, to show that while things on the surface may appear well, underneath, may be bubbling confusion and frustration. Think American Beauty, from the children's point of view. Our lives are just a series of events and occurrences along the path towards a goal we may not understand, but always seek to find and achieve. Upon rumination, the ending of this movie may not make sense, but in the criticism of any aspect of the moviemaking process, I feel that if you cannot offer a viable alternative, then it is difficult to fault. In the case of Donnie Darko, I am not sure I could have come up with a sensible, or justifiable ending for Kelly's setup, but I somehow feel that one is out there. Like the answers that Donnie, his friends, family, and the residents of his town seek, the explanation of this film, and its ending, may defy, confuse yet still resonate in the inhabitants.

Helping to set the mood of the 80s, along with clothes and the references (Smurfs, Star Search etc) is the soundtrack, full of some great songs from that decade, which ironically enough, are now fitting in the context of the film. Tears For Fears' love/obsession anthem "Head Over Heels," Duran Duran's melodic, but creepy, "Notorious," and a remake of Fear's fitting "Mad World" gave music to the various moods displayed in the characters. As a side note, this becomes the second film in months to use Joy Division's underground classic "Love Will Tear Us Apart" (the first was Series 7:The Contenders' climatic showdown/love story angle) which will always make me smile, yet ache inside when remembering the decade.

The casting in this film is good, but the size and necessity of certain roles (namely Barrymore's) is questionable at best. McDonnell (her sarcasm and charm both ever-present and in perfect pitch) and Osbourne (sneering, sarcastic yet emotional) as the parents strike a chord a difficult, yet realistic balance of loving, imperfect and compassionate as they struggle, along with their children, through the events. Courtesy appearances from Noah Wyle (as the science teacher who feeds Donnie's time travel ideas) and Patrick Swayze (hamming it up as the motivational speaker) lend credence to the oddities, yet commonalities that naturally occur in life without question to purpose or reason. But the strongest performance, of course, comes from Jake Gyllenhall as Donnie. A drastic departure from his October Sky role, Gyllenhall lends a creepy curiosity and innocence to this conflicted, confused soul searching for his place, and what it all means. Coupled with Jenna Malone, attractive, docile and troubled and Jolene Purdy who stands out, even though she only has one memorable line, repeated several times, Kelly has managed to almost encompass the darker side of the decade of decadence and confusion.

Ultimately, Donnie Darko is Hughes style teen movie, filtered through Atom Egoyan and applied by David Lynch. It is eerie, dark, uncomfortably humorous, yet painfully real in its telling. It builds a tension of impending doom, akin to what adolescents felt, and feel trying to understand the world around us. While the setup may be tiring, and the payoff frustrating, the heart of this film lies in the relation of the audience to its characters, and their predicaments. Having things forced upon you, pressures applied, both internally, and externally, there is no telling what the end result may be. Maybe we would see giant talking rabbits, pushing us towards those temptations that exist within our subliminal conscience. Maybe not. Kelly explores both sides of things, exposing us to multiple characters to show the varying aspects and effects that the decade, the expectations, and the need to conform to societal mores put on us. Life defies simple explanation, and to a teen struggling not only find his identity but also to understand the new world before him, anything is possible, and the mind will sometimes accept any explanations offered forth, regardless of sensibility. The film uses this confusion, throwing in some odd little twists, and creates a memorably dark journey through teen angst. Being a child of the 80s, I guess I related more to this, once I overlooked my initial frustration of things. At first, I tried to figure this movie out, like most movies that offer a conclusion or resolution that is not readily evident, and I found it confounding, yet intriguing because of the masterful setup. The way Kelly lures us in, and builds things up, and generates expectation and anticipation shows his true talent as a storyteller and filmmaker. And the emotional undercurrent remains present throughout, and evident upon later reflection, but a stronger, easier to discern conclusion may have driven the message home better. I got the point, I think I understand it as well as can be expected, but still have a bit of an empty feeling about it all. The overall experience isn't diminished, but what could have been truly breathtaking, instead is worth a gasp, a puzzled look, an a-ha, and then a general feeling of anxiety. In relation to the decade in which it's set, I think that is satisfactory enough.

Dragonfly

Don't look now, but Kevin Costner is hearing voices again. This time, instead of mysterious ramblings from a cornfield, Costner is haunted by a duality of natural phenomena, insects, and waterfalls. In Dragonfly, a haunting love story that works when it is unconventional, but stumbles when it goes over the top for emotion, Costner is a stubborn, doubtful doctor who has just lost his wife in natural disaster while she was on an aid mission in South America. The movie hearkens back to Ghost and The Sixth Sense, and while it lacks the edge and genuine emotion of those two films, it does succeed in making us think twice about those things that we would normally dismiss, and believe in the power of true emotion to help us see what we may doubt or scoff out.

Costner is Dr Joe Darrow and along with his physician wife Emily, was apparently living a comfortable life. But all is turned asunder when a flood washes away their future plans and leaves the doctor a distraught workaholic. But something is amiss. He begins experiencing things, which most would chalk up to coincidence or chance, but with his heart longing and yearning for her memory, he begins to expand his realm of the possible. You see, he hears her voice, he feels her presence, and through some circumstances some sappy and maudlin, others just downright predictable, he begins to wonder if she's really all the way gone. Courtesy of the convenient presence of nun, some young cancer patients, and a tolerant law professor neighbor, Costner begins to explore the boundaries of the impossible, while clinging to the love and emotion that he lost. The film repeatedly, if not inadvertently, poses the question, does our mind, fueled by emotion, expand what it believes and what it doubts. Does Costner's love for his wife allow him to consider that she is still out there trying to contact him? Does his passion to find these answers allow him to explore circumstances which he normally pass off as inane? The film stumbles through the groundwork of establishing the potential connection, but somehow touches an emotional nerve during his journey, both physical and mental. The resolution of the film, while not a twist, is still kind of a pleasant surprise, and is acceptable in the grand scheme. Director Tom Shadyac falls back on some of his tools that almost made Patch Adams too much, in the establishment of the bond between the doctor and his wife, and the circumstances, some believable, some questionable, in order to support, and ultimately justify, his conclusion. He does manage to balance it enough to make it tolerable, without being excessive. Oddly enough, I thought back to one of the better movies of last year, Memento, during the viewing of Dragonfly. Both involve a grieving husband, and the search for answers by whatever means necessary. In Dragonfly however, the supernatural edge adds something to it, while the clichéd filled script detracts, and at times distracts from the matters at hand. Had Shadyac lain off just a bit, and taken a few more chances with things, he may have had a memorable film.

Most of the time, Costner is better when he's at the extremes of character traits. When he's serious (JFK, Thirteen Days, Dances With Wolves, Field of Dreams) his determination and stubborn nature comes across to near perfection. When he's cute and humorous, (even add in athletic, Tin Cup, Bull Durham), he plays off his rugged good looks and charm and coasts through the roles. But in past roles like this one, as grieving, doubting, stubborn, cute and romantic, he has usually failed (For Love of The Game, Revenge, Waterworld, The Postman) This time around though, he has balanced all of those and bottled them when necessary, and lets them out at just the right times (although occasionally, during movies failed dialogue scenes, he comes off as a bit too over the top). This movie is his to make or break, and he doesn't do anything outstandingly good or bad, but comes in at just the right pace to make this film work.

Ultimately, Dragonfly could be the poster movie for someone who just will not let go. It treads on similar ground that Ghost laid down a few years ago, and that other movies have touched on upon recently, that of the communication with lost loves through other than worldly forces. The movie succeeds at being entertaining, but stumbles when it falls back on clichéd situations and dialogue. The overall experience is one that is mildly successful, but with a toned down touch, could have been a strong supernatural love story that presents the query of strength of emotional bond, fueling strength of belief in that which most would normally dismiss or cast off. Just as in life, if you open your mind and heart, and allow your blinders to come off, in favor of the potential that exists in the world, then you may be pleasantly surprised at the results. Even if it isn't exactly what you expect, it can still be a refreshing surprise amidst the madness.

Gosford Park

Robert Altman's overextended whodunit Gosford Park is further proof of life not just imitating art, but showing an ironic parallel. With each situation that life presents us with, there is a rhythm and timing befitting the execution. This philosophy also applies to movies, and their various types. Love stories can be slow and methodical, to help the audience feel the bond, while action films are fast paced, so as to give the frenetic, energized feeling that the characters do. Somewhere in between, comes the suspense genre. In order to generate suspense, you must establish certain details, characters, settings etc, along with keeping the pace moving quickly enough so that the nerves are kept stimulated and on the edge. This is where Gosford Park fails. While Altman, normally the master of juggling a large ensemble cast and weaving them into an interesting tale, may have had an intriguing tale to tell, his belabored character development bogs things down, and ultimately lulls the audience into a sedated state of ambivalence. Even a decent ending, cannot save Gosford Park from being well cast bore.

The setting is England; somewhere in the early 1900s I'd guess. Several well-to-do guests, and their valets (or assistants) have been invited by Sir and Lady McCordle at a stately British manor for a weekend of shooting and socializing. Through the extended relations and conversations it becomes apparent that all is not as comfortable and cozy as it seems it would be for people of this social status. There is a Hollywood director, and his apparent assistant, researching for their latest film, along with a famous actor with a talent for piano playing, who seems to draw the attention of an unhappy heiress in a loveless marriage. Then there's the crotchety old owner of the house, and his wife, who seem to hold the cards over some of the guests. There are also servants, who have their own stories, only one of which I could really discern. Owen plays an orphaned assistant to the movie star, who seems secretive, yet lamenting, over his past. There are other stories and events which become cluttered in the first 2/3 of the film, and ultimately hard to tell what is what, who is who, and how they could possibly be connected. Then comes the murder, the investigation, and the resolution, all crammed into the last 35 minutes of the film, like Altman realized that he was running out of time, and the resolution, that while surprising, does little to relieve the agony of getting to know these characters. I can respect a character driven piece, that wants us to care about the people, and what happens to them, but Altman takes that to near overkill status here. What would have worked better is if he had cut down the number of characters slightly, thus shortening the setup time, and allowing more for the suspense and curiosity of their outcome. Granted, that is typical of suspense movies, but it works. Altman could have used his touch of managing a large cast, giving us enough insight into each to get to know them, but not deluging us with useless information. Red herrings are one thing, creating suspects and motives are another, but there is a delicate touch and balance to this, along with establishing a rhythm that works to generate thought and interest in the audience.

With a cast this large, it was difficult to pick certain people and actors out, since they all seemed to meld together in a blur of tuxedos and British accents. Maggie Smith is notable as the cranky Countess of Trentham. She has just the right balance of sarcasm, arrogance and humor to almost bring life to the role, and stand out from the others. Along with Helen Mirren, who is relegated to the role of a maid, who may or may not have more going on behind her quiet demeanor, these may be the only roles to take away from the film. There are other faces, some recognizable (Kristin Scott Thomas, who does little more than pout and be arrogant, Emily Watson, who melds into the background, Bob Balaban, who also co-produced, Ryan Phillippe, who seems out of place, and Clive Owen, whose look gets him by more than his dialogue) and others who get lost in the crowd. (including the wonderful Richard E. Grant, relegated to a near nothing role) Overall, Altman just couldn't seem to say no to people, and the fact that there were 5 different production companies, shows that there were a lot of hands in Gosford Park, and even a skilled and talented director like Altman could not corral all the ideas and characters into a semblance of a coherent movie.

Ultimately, Gosford Park is a futile exercise in excess, the result of which is a tiring period piece detective thriller that fails to generate any momentum or interest. There is an unwritten order that should be followed in a film that wants to gain curiosity and suspense. There is the establishment of atmosphere, the introduction of characters, the act itself and the resolution. Altman does all of this, but takes longer than necessary, and keeps too many balls in the air, for it all to come down in any kind of sensible manner. He excels at doing pieces which are more about the who's, then the what's and where's. When he puts people into situations, and then reflects their actions and reactions, he succeeds (The Player, Short Cuts), but here he steps out of his normal genre and, like Cameron Crowe in Vanilla Sky, he seems out of his league, and grasping to save face by the conclusion. Gosford Park never establishes any kind of timing or rhythm, except a hypnotic state lethargy, which results in disappointment at what could have been.

For the rest of the reviews, proceed to the next page.

Issue 9, April 2002 | next article


this month's issue
archive
about erasing clouds
links
contact
     

Copyright (c) 2005 erasing clouds