Review: Kiss the Girls (1997)

There’s part of me that I can’t quite kill that knows the world needs movies like “Kiss the Girls” . I think thrillers are part of a dying breed which values a good plot over flashy effects or stunt sequences. For me, stuff happening in a movie is more important than any amount of good film-making.

The little unkillable part of me keeps screaming that plots are important in these times of character and technical emphasis. The other parts of me are saying that I’ve seen this movie before, and it’s been done better.

“Kiss the Girls” stars Morgan Freeman as Dr. Alex Cross, a forensic psycholigist. His niece, Naomi, has been captured by a serial killer who calls himself Casanova. Meanwhile, a young doctor played by Ashley Judd, named Kate McTiernan, is captured by Casanova and manages to escape. After she has rehabilitated, she joins Alex on the hunt for the killer, who is still holding Naomi and several other women.

Many of the elements of this story are well done. The killer’s hideout, for example, is hidden in the woods and hard to find by conventional means. The performances from the two leads are also quite good, though we’ve seen Ashley Judd do this before in better movies, most notably “Double Jeopardy”. The supporting cast is well-placed, with recognizable faces like Cary Elwes, Brian Cox, and Jeremy Piven.

But for every facet that works, there’s something else that comes off as lazy. Why, for example, are there no false leads in this case? How are there no other suspects for the killer other than the ones that eventually are proven to be? Would Alex really be kept on the case when he’s become so personally involved with it? How come the revelation about the nature of the killer doesn’t have more significance?

I guess it sounds like I want “Kiss the Girls” to be more conventional than it is, but what I really want is a reason to care. There’s simply nothing wrong with it on a technical level. I can’t fault the basics of the plot, but there doesn’t seem to be a push that would make it interesting. Alex is older than Kate, sure, but has that ever stopped a movie relationship? Especially in a thriller?

“Kiss the Girls” will pass the time adequately if you’re wanting a decent thriller with some all right dialogue and good directing. It’s significantly better than “Along Came a Spider,” which was also based on a Patterson novel and also featured the same cast and crew. It will probably play best to you if you’re doing something else like surfing the internet or doing laundry or playing a game or at a party. It’s by no means a bad movie. But if you want something original in the serial killer genre, then you’re going to have to look much harder. I recommend, as a start; “Seven,” “The Silence of the Lambs,” “Scream,” “No Country for Old Men,” or the underrated “Identity.” All of those movies have a much better command of style and atmosphere than does “Kiss the Girls.”

Do I recommend the movie or not? I guess not. I don’t feel any disdain for it, and I guess I’ll hang on to my copy, as I could put it to use to help waste an afernoon, but I don’t have a re-viewing pencilled in for any time soon.

Review: I’ll Sleep when I’m Dead (2004)

There’s a scene late in “I’ll Sleep When I’m Dead” that is so small you
might miss it, but it’s the key to the movie’s success. I’m not sure I can
describe it to you without giving away too much of the plot, but here goes.
The scene is between two brothers, Will (Clive Owen) and Mickser (Jamie
Foreman). Will has a piece of information that he needs to tell Mickser, but
Will has to lay it out in a specific way. The scene reveals a piece of
information that we already know and Mickser does not.

I wish I didn’t have to be so vague. Let me start at the beginning. “I’ll
Sleep When I’m Dead” begins by focusing on two seemingly unrelated
characters, Will and Davey (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers). Will lives alone in a van
while doing anonymous work as a lumberjack. Davey is a high-profile drug
dealer who likes the job because it provides him access to a life he can’t
afford. Will is obviously a mountain-man type; he doesn’t talk much, he has
a large beard, and he doesn’t seem to have much to do besides work and live.

Since the movie simply gives us these two people, and casts them with such
talented actors, it immediately gains interest. We want to know who these
two are. I thought, when the movie began, that it would be more of a
hyperlink film, having the two connected only through coincidence and the
like. I was very wrong.

“I’ll Sleep When I’m Dead” is a full-blooded film noir all the way from the
opening credits to the ending, and it plays as a grand example of the genre.
The dialogue is my favorite part, personally, but there are other things to
praise. The performances are excellent. Clive Owen, playing somewhat against type as Will, finds so much silence and introspection in his character that he’s in danger of implosion. A lesser actor would have made Will boring and brooding, but Owen makes him fascinating, even when his goals are simple.
Will’s a character who knows what he wants and will stop at nothing to get it.

I’m also starting to think that John Rhys-Meyers really has what it takes to
be a serious movie star. He’s good-looking and finds interesting notes in
characters that aren’t necessarily provided by the script. As Davey, he
provides a character that reminded me a little bit of Johnny Depp as the
title character in Donnie Brasco; he knows his trade well enough that simply
watching him do it is interesting. Rhys-Meyers, like Depp, doesn’t mistake
opulence for character. He finds his notes and plays them the best he can
within their range.

But let’s talk about that dialogue. I’m starting to get sick of movies where
the characters talk like they’re being filmed to be colorful. Any indie
comedy will show you this (I exempt “Juno,” since it had a plot to go with
it). “I’ll Sleep When I’m Dead” blows the lid off of colorful dialogue and
says as much as possible with as few words as possible. Each character
sounds unique. Will, in the scene I referenced at the beginning of the
review, talks very differently from Mickser, even though he doesn’t say
much. I would have been content to just let these people talk in their
unique rhythms and word choices for the 100 minutes of the film.

There’s a scene, for example, in which the villain, Boad (Malcolm McDowell),
is asked what he was doing on a particular night when a crucial plot point
happened. In a movie with less confidence, he would grin and launch into a
grand soliloquy about how evil he was and about how much he loves what he
does. Instead, Boad does something far more chilling. He looks the other
character straight in the eye and says, “That night… I was at home with my
family.” Now that’s saying more with less.

Review: “Heights” (2005)

A personal note before I start the review: I’m about ready to write off any
movie that contains major characters who are actors. I’m especially wary of
any movie that does so while taking place in New York or LA. I’m even warier
of movies that feature miserable actors, in particular ones who happen to be
brilliant at their craft. I make an exception for movies that feature people
who are in love with their work but miserable otherwise (see Bob Fosse’s
brilliant and entertaining “All that Jazz”). The message of any of the good
films about actors seems to be that success comes at a price. The worst
films about actors forget to mention what one is buying.

“Heights” is one of the worst ones, make no mistake. It stars Glenn Close,
in a brave and daring performance as Diana, a veteran actress and director
who routinely cheats on her husband with her actors. She’s got a tenuous
relationship with her daughter, Isabel (Elizabeth Banks), who is soon to be
married to Jonathan (James Marsden), and they both live just downstairs from
Alec (Jesse Bradford), who just happens to be auditioning for Diana’s new
play. Yeah, it’s that kind of movie.

Isabel is miserable. Why, I couldn’t say. Yes, she gets fired from her dream
career as a photographer, but she’s miserable before the firing. She’s one
of those movie characters who is never happy, despite being young, rich, and
in love. I’ve never met one of these people, but I think I’d dislike them if
I did. She certainly isn’t interesting to watch.

“Heights” mistakes cynicism for insight. The obvious inspiration is Mike
Nichols’s “Closer,” another film containing a collection of really terrible
people. Nichols’s movie, however, had the courage to really be about
terrible people and how they function and relate to one another. “Heights”
thinks that simply observing such behavior is on the same level.

Perhaps “Heights” worst offense is the fact that the revelations that
comprise the ending have true impact and surprise. I had to think long and
hard about whether these represented a high point in the movie for me, but I
eventually decided that it was the final nail in the coffin. A good ten
minutes with eighty behind it makes it that much more insufferable; why
couldn’t the whole movie be as good as its ideas?

Or maybe it’s that the movie is just about boring, awful people. I think
that might have something to do with it. I tend to dislike movies with
dislikable characters anyway, unless they go all the way with it and make
them into real human beings capable of terrible things. Movies like this
include “Carnal Knowledge,” “Closer,” “Match Point,” and “Goodfellas.” All
of those movies had a hook beyond the awful people, though. These movies
were about things, or at the very least, they asked some questions about
human nature at their core.

I have a name for movies like this. Wallowers. They don’t have good plots,
but they start and end in basically the same place. The characters have no
major conflicts and collect dust as they dredge through their unhappy lives.
The movie wallows in their self-loathing. Other entries in the genre include
“Five Easy Peices,” “Half Nelson,” and “Leaving Las Vegas,” perhaps the
ultimate of the genre. “Heights” isn’t as good as any of those movies, and I
never want to see any of them again, either.

Yes, I hated it. With all that said, if terrible people doing boring things
doesn’t bother you, “Heights” is well-made and contains unique dialogue from
distinct characters. Glenn Close is the only person in the movie who throws
herself at the material the way she should, and everyone else seems to be
sleepwalking through their roles. I guess George Segal is always watchable,
but his part is very small, so it doesn’t really count in my book.

Review: “The Falcon and the Snowman” (1985)

What would it take for you to become a spy? What’s your price? How many people on the upper tiers of government are currently party to sensative secrets, and what would it take for them to start spilling their guts to a foreign government?

The answer might surprise you. If you were able to gain access to secret and sometimes volitale information, how can you be sure that your loyalty wouldn’t be swayed? These are the questions that underly the fascinating “The Falcon and the Snowman,” a thriller with the volume turned down.
Timothy Hutton stars as Christopher Boyce, a recent seminary dropout who gets a small government job with the CIA. It pays extremely poorly, but the environment is casual and he can drink at work by making margaritas in the paper shredder. Boyce is played by a very young Timothy Hutton. His performance has a lot of advantages over the screenplay, and the biggest is that Hutton seems to suggest that Boyce never seemed to care that he was selling US military secrets. He didn’t seem to be doing it for the money or for the noteriety, or even for the thrills.

Boyce’s oldest but perhaps not best friend is Daulton Lee, played by the always interesting Sean Penn. Lee is an extremely insecure drug dealer, and formulates the idea of selling Boyce’s secrets to Soveits. Lee becomes Boyce’s contact with Russia, and proves to be a smidge unreliable.

“The Falcon and the Snowman” reminds me a lot of the documentary “Overnight,” about an overconfident director slowly self-destructing. Daulton Lee goes through a similar transformation during the course of the movie, starting out completely unasailable and imploding at the slightest provocation.

“The Falcon and the Snowman” is the work of John Schlesinger, better known for his Oscar-winning “Midnight Cowboy,” and he shows a sure hand in directing real-life material that could’ve easily become routine. The movie doesn’t rely on forced chases on cheap thrills, only the constant possibility that the two leads might get caught. It’s written by Steven Zaillian, of such movies as “Schindler’s List” and “Gangs of New York,” and he’s penned a quiet kind of masterpiece, a film that works as history and as simple human interest.

There’s a undertone to “The Falcon and the Snowman” that implies that the two leads did not commit their acts as a matter of treason, but because of simple boredom. Neither of them take much pleasure in the act, and when it’s over, they know they’re through. The film is based on a true story of two men who actually did, and if it’s accurate, what does it say about America that it’s more interesting to sell government secrets than to live one’s life?

Joint Review: “Lars and the Real Girl” (2007)

It’s a bit after 48 hours, but we do have the written reviews polished and ready for reading!

Gayle’s Review: Lars and the Real Girl

Sean’s Review: Lars and the Real Girl

And, in case you missed it, we also did a podcast of our reactions. There’s even a bit of arguing, just to make it properly authentic.

Gut Reaction: Mamma Mia! (2008)

It’s starting to seem like last year’s wonderful comedy “Juno” was from some other movie universe, where people react like real people and talk in more interesting ways. Here in this universe, we have to put up with movies like “Mamma Mia!”, where the people sing real pretty most of the time but talk and act like they’ve had pieces of their brains removed.

Remember that scene towards the end of “Juno,” where Juno decides that since Vanessa wants a child, and is more financially stable, and is smart and sweet, that it doesn’t matter who the “real” parent is, only who will love the kid? That scene has more intelligence in it than the entirety of “Mamma Mia!”. There were moments here where I wanted to yell at the screen to keep the characters from having another stupid misunderstanding that would be cleared up if they only stopped acting like idiots.

A perfect example; on her wedding day, Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is distressed because her mother is worried about the three men she’s invited to the wedding to prove that she… screw that, no. The point is, Sophie says to her mother, Donna (Meryl Streep), “You don’t want me to get married at all, do you?” and starts crying and carrying on. Then they have a fight. There’s not a shred of a reason for them to fight except for them to cry and make up later.

The movie centers around Sophie’s wedding day. She’s found her mom’s old diary, where it shows that one of three men could be her father. So she invites all three men to the wedding. They’re played by Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, and Stellan Skarsgard, all of them former lovers of Donna, her mother. When they get there, the movie is a very long series of events where one person is trying to keep a secret from another person. Sophie hides the men in the goat house, where of course Donna will never look. It’s agonizing to watch these people rushing around trying to avoid each other in the finger-quotes wackiest way possible, just to avoid a three-minute conversation that might be sort of awkward. If the relationships with any of the men had been given any weight at all, there might have been some justification for what passes as humor here.

“Mamma Mia!’ isn’t a complete waste. There are two legitimately good performances here- Meryl Streep and Pierce Brosnan have natural and charming screen presences that show through even with the awful dialogue they have to recite, but then again, they’re only two characters in the movie with anything to do. Brosnan, God bless him, can’t sing to save his life. I also like most of the music, and the choreography suits the energy level. But many of the songs feel too repetitive and too short. “Dancing Queen” is, what, one chorus and one verse?

But for every song that does work, there’s a scene of boring, obvious, agonizing dialogue or plot contrivance. There’s also a performance by Christine Baranski that is like fingernails on the blackboard for me.

But y’know what’s really the problem here? No on took the time to write a script with characters and dialogue and a meaningful series of events building to a climax. No one took the time to make a movie. They threw a bunch of fundamentally unconnected songs together and hoped a miracle would happen. It makes me think of last year’s “Across the Universe,” which also used pop songs, but had a story based around characters and ideas rather than contrivance.

If “Mamma Mia!” succeeds, and here’s hoping it doesn’t, it will be on the backs of the talents of ABBA and the fans of the stage show. The legacy of the band could probably float more than one movie, and maybe it deserves to. But it’s certainly worth more of a plot than this garbage.

Review: Fahrenhype 9/11 (2004)

There’s a funny thing about Michael Moore- I can’t remember the last person I talked to who liked him, and yet there doesn’t seem to be anyone willing to challenge him with another movie. Hopefully I can make it through this review without leaking my own personal feelings on the man’s politics, but
dammit, Fahrenhype 9/11 doesn’t make it easy.

If you haven’t heard of it, “Fahrenhype 9/11″ is supposed to be a rebuttal to Michael Moore’s 2004 film, “Fahrenheit 9/11.” It’s right there on the box; “Unraveling the truth about ‘Fahrenheit 9/11′ and Michael Moore”. There’s a level on which the movie lives up to that statement. Michael Moore is a spin doctor, and not even he denies that. He orchestrates situations in his movies that fit his worldview, even if they don’t synch up with reality.

An example: Moore names a company with close ties to Saudi Arabia, which he claims Bush benefited from by invading Iraq. The context that Moore leaves out is that several ex-Presidents and many other politicians also have close ties to this very company, including Clinton and Bush senior.

That’s interesting stuff, simply because Moore’s movie made a lot of money out of selling this kind of thing, and if you don’t agree with him, here’s some ammunition for your arguments against people who do. But when it ventures away from simply bashing Moore, it stumbles quite a bit. Moore’s movie, for all its faults, was pretty well-made and could probably convince some people who didn’t already agree with him. It had a good flow of ideas and presented its arguments in a somewhat organized fashion.

“Farhenhype 9/11″ is not its equal on this level, and it really needs to be. There’s far too much use, for example, of music throughout the movie to evoke emotions. You can practically name them once it picks up- anger, patriotism, sadness, ire, etc. Fahrenhype is also bookended by shamelessly exploitative images and speeches from 9/11 and the soldiers of Iraq.

I’ve always thought that the image of the twin towers should have been in Michael Moore’s movie. “Fahrenhype” doesn’t make this point, but it does contain the images of the towers burning. Moore’s intent, no doubt, was to avoid claims of exploitation of the images for political gain, but you know what? People did die. Foreign policy should be shaped by debate and review of this footage, and it should not be forgotten, especially by a movie that claims to make an argument about it. Moore’s attempt at being
non-exploitative sort of backfired on itself in his movie. The use of these images in “Fahrenhype 9/11″ is intended to simply evoke emotions of those days. Very little argument is made about them. It’s sort of funny, in a grim way, that “Fahrenheit” didn’t use the images at all, and that “Fahrenhype” uses them incorrectly.

Overall, I like the anger of “Fahrenhype 9/11,” sort of. It’s not directed at anything, and it doesn’t really come from anywhere, but it is there. There’s a certain outrage to be had against someone who makes their money by lying, and in this case, lying about really important things, but Fahrenhype 9/11 still isn’t the movie I wanted it to be, and it’s certainly not the movie that needs to be made on the other side of the Moore fence.

One more note. The movie has talking heads from a lot of experts, which is always good, on the subject of politics and 9/11, and then it has Ann Coulter. Her rants about liberals (in this movie, personal feelings aside
remember) are so obviously inspired by partisan politics that she adds nothing to the film. I think the filmmakers felt that as well, because she’s hardly in the movie at all. I think they shot a lot of footage of her in an interview and then realized that there was very little of it that was actually usable. To the film’s credit, most of its other sources are well-chosen and well-read on their subjects. There are also very few other
high-profile sources other than Coulter.

All in all, I’m kind of sick of seeing other filmmakers pulling their punches when it comes to Michael Moore. The question remains; why are they afraid of him? Is it because he’s rich? Or unashamadely liberal? Or loud? Or are they afraid his next movie might be about them? I’ve found some of his movies to be interesting, even if I didn’t agree with them (or did!). The point I’m trying to make here is that the great anti-Moore documentary remains to be made.

There was a film released a year or so after this one called “Michael Moore Hates America.” When I heard the title, I knew I had to see it, just to find out if it really believed it. MMHA didn’t really believe its title, but was
an examination of that rhetoric and of Moore’s tactics as well. It was a sincere attempt to understand Moore and what makes him so popular despite apparently being hated by so many people. Michael Moore Hates America had a lot of the same problems as “Fahrenhype 9/11,” but was a sincere effort. This film seems like it doesn’t want to step on too many toes, and for that, I can’t really recommend it. Check out the blogosphere at large for better attacks on Moore. In the meantime, maybe you can make a movie about him
yourself. Someone’s bound to.