Diane Lane and Raoul Bova in ‘Under the Tuscan Sun’
In Under the Tuscan Sun, Frances (Diane Lane) plays a writer who falls into a deep depression after enduring a messy divorce. Heartbroken, Frances struggles to piece her life back together. Her first step on the road to recovery is a visit to Tuscany as part of a gay bus tour booked by her lesbian best friend, Patti (Sandra Oh) and Patti’s lover. The intensity Lane infuses in Frances surges throughout the film. The beginning of the film feels heavy and emotionally hard to bear. It is hard not to feel the weight and darkness of the character’s pain.
After Patti becomes pregnant, Frances is indecisive about whether or not to go on the vacation alone. Acknowledging that she feels displaced in San Francisco, she reluctantly makes her way to Italy. Her apprehension is fierce. As the audience, you sense how deep Frances’ pain has become by the time she arrives in Tuscany. Her smiles are always forced while her eyes are forever downcast.
As the film opens over Tuscany, it feels like taking the first dip into a luxurious bubble bath. Vacationing in Italy with Frances is an eye-opening experience of vivid landscapes. We are overwhelmed with beauty as she is. In fact, Frances is so overtaken by Tuscany that she purchases a centuries old villa (that looks it) on a whim and decides to take up residence. The film follows her as she struggles in her renovations to make it a home.
Diane Lane stars in ‘Under the Tuscan Sun’
The smooth, sensual quality of the film is helped along by Lane’s funny voiceovers. Under The Tuscan Sun, originally from a book by Frances Mayes, flows seamlessly like a great novel. And no novel is complete without a cast of colorful characters. Under The Tuscan Sun showcases an overdramatic former actress, a band of Polish workers, many passionate Italians and, of course, Marcello.
Marcello is the stereotypical, sexy as sin Italian man that Frances falls for impulsively. We are enveloped in their infatuation and Frances’ glee. However as the director would have you know, this is not a typical romantic comedy. In Under The Tuscan Sun, Frances is truly meant to come to terms with self-love, a self-love that permeates into her view of the world around her. The film becomes more and more breathtaking as Frances becomes more secure within herself.
While the wonderful characters and the stunning scenery were incredible, it was the emotional experience of Lane’s character that captured my heart. I felt sad with her, shocked with her and fell in love along with her. Rarely have a film or actress made me feel so moved and intrinsically intertwined with a character. Lane’s lovely, witty performance was refreshing. Her chemistry with the ever comical Sandra Oh made Under The Tuscan Sun a delight.
Under The Tuscan Sun is one of the best films I have seen in a long time. I have seen many films, but lost my heart to few. I love this film in the entirety of its ardor. It is a sensitive, magical but amusing journey that will emotionally entangle you and impress upon your heart and soul.
The DVD includes very few features besides audio commentary by the director. One featurette, “Tuscany 101” is a behind-the-scenes look at Tuscany and the film that is not only insightful but clearly defines the work of heart director Audrey Wells wanted this film to be. The deleted scenes are quite comedic but obviously would have deterred from the soft dexterity of the comedy in the film.
I have had the displeasure of watching Jack Black through Orange County and Shallow Hal. So when I heard that School of Rock was winning rave reviews from critics, I struggled with indecisiveness. Should I pay $10 a ticket for a film, that despite starring Jack Black, other critics had found riveting? I couldn’t take the risk. Instead, I waited for it to be available on a considerably cheaper format, the DVD rental. I should have waited longer.
In School of Rock, Jack Black plays Dewey Finn, a rockstar wannabe dumped by a band that wants to play the Battle of the Bands competition without him. Spurred by his need for vengeance, Dewey accepts a substituting teaching position only to end up recruiting his class to compete. The students are led to believe they are competing in a secret but prestigious school music contest.
Many disturbing encounters arise in the course of the film, including one where Dewey “kidnaps” the children during school hours and has them lie to get into the “Battle of the Bands” competition. This scene in particular, as a parent, seriously disturbed me. Hopefully, our children are not being taught by teachers who are swindling them. While School of Rock struggled to assert that Dewey was really helping the children out, giving them more confidence, in spite of lying to them, I found myself exceedingly unconvinced.
If anything, School of Rock is a film where kids make the movie. It excels most in the scenes where we find the children gaining confidence because of their newfound appreciation of music. Black is rather insincere throughout the film, especially when feigning interest in the children. At the end of the film, though he is supposed to be genuinely inspired by the children, Dewey seems entirely disinterested.
Joan Cusack is a gem to be discovered in the midst of film that’s slow to start. As the principal of the school, Cusack plays her role to a twitchy, neurotic perfection. By underplaying her character, she both endears herself to the audience and balances Black’s manic overacting. When School of Rock drags along, it is her character that spearheads the film forward.
The music in School of Rock is incredibly catchy. Those who loath rock need not apply. School of Rock is truly a good old-fashioned love letter to rock music. I would have been more enthusiastic if it had not pretended to be a film about believing in children and all of their individual special abilities.
Featurettes abound on the School of Rock DVD and for the most part, they are stellar. You can choose to view the film with commentary by the children in the film or Jack Black with director Richard Linklater. The former involves mostly giggling while the later greets us with a considerably subdued Black. While a music video starring Black and the children is amusing, an MTV diary featurette starring Black is not. A Kids’ Video Diary from the Toronto Film Festival and Dewey Finn’s History of Rock Interactive Feature are very entertaining to view.
To quote rock boys, Puddle of Mudd, very loosely: Jack Black tried too hard and he tore at my feelings like I had none and ripped them away. That’s my story, as you see, I learned my lesson and so should he. Now it’s over and I’m glad, because I’m a fool for renting this movie and realizing, again, that Jack Black is really, really bad.
Parminder K. Nagra and Kiera Knightly carry the trophy in ‘Bend It like Beckham’
I have heard Bend It Like Beckham likened to My Big Fat Greek Wedding with soccer, but it’s much more than that. Unlike most sports films, this story isn’t really about a team or a sport. Bend It Like Beckham is about a young girl pursuing her dreams against all odds.
The twist? This film centers around Jess Bharma (Parminder Nagra), an English girl from a traditional Indian family who idolizes David Beckham and wants to play soccer just like him. Jess’ family, however, has other ideas about her future. Her father doesn’t want her to get hurt. Meanwhile, her mother wants her to learn to cook authentic Indian meals as she schools Jess to become a model Indian wife. Jess, however, wants it all!
Bend It Like Beckham is film about being true to yourself. When Jess joins a girl’s soccer team after being urged on by a new English teammate, Jules (Keira Knightly), she is forced to hide it from her disapproving family. Her sister, Pinky (Archie Panjabi), helps to keep her secret, because as it turns out, her sister has her own secret meetings with her fiancée. On top of everything, Jess’ close friend also pushes Jess on while his own dreams never quite come out of the closet during the film. This is a film where young girls run around hiding secret loves from their parents, but they aren’t hiding beaus, they’re hiding soccer!
The film focuses on Indian culture in many lights because Jess’ family is an integral part of all the decisions she makes throughout the film. At once, the culture seems stifling, and then during scenes from Pinky’s wedding, beautiful, exotic and encompassing a certain modesty.
The film doesn’t stop there. It has plenty to say about a Western culture, where English girls have to go to America to play soccer because their own country doesn’t have a professional team. Or a culture, where Jules’ mother (Juliet Stevenson) worries that playing sports can lead to lesbianism. The film highlights these serious subjects in powerfully honest and amusing scenes, while remaining diplomatic and allowing the viewers to come to their own decisions.
Yes, this is a sports comedy about girl empowerment, but my boyfriend loved it, too. Bend it Like Beckham promises scenes where a head of lettuce can substitute a soccer ball and daughters will dish out lessons on prejudice: Just because I wear trackies and play sports, doesn’t mean I’m a lesbian!” Anyone who has ever worked off their butts to persevere against adversity and all of adversity’s hard knocks will relate to this film.
The delightfully sweet humor combined with intense action scenes packs a powerful punch and it’s all played to some funky Indian, English and American tunes that include solo tracks by Spice Girls, Victoria Beckham and Melanie C. Bend it Like Beckham will have you gyrating in your seats as the film comes full circle to show everyone that the reality is that no one should find themselves accepting conformity, not when the freedom to do your own thing is something you should be fighting for.
The DVD is home to fun featurettes like, “Who Wants to Cook Aloo Gobi?” where director Gurinder Chadha, with the help of her mother and aunt, explain the delicacies of cooking meat curry. For the most part though, the standard deleted scenes and cast music video are sweet but a totally ignorable snoozefest. Press play and carry on to the film and the laughs.
Ekin Cheng and Charlene Choi in ‘The Vampire Effect’
Now, you must understand, I am the kind of person who preorders Buffy, the Vampire Slayer Season 6 on DVD two months in advance. Having said this, it is by no means a stretch of the imagination to find that I am reviewing a film where Jackie Chan kicks vampire ass! Now you may not have heard of this film, for neither had I until I viewed the trailers on my Godzilla against Mechagodzilla DVD.
Vampire Effect opens to a dark landscape, full of vibrant reds, blacks and grays highly reminiscent of the scenes of fellow vampire flick, Underworld. As with Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, the vampire hunters and the vampires have a silly sense of humor that lightens the underlying drama. The vampires, for instance, are shacking up in a church because “it’s a bit offbeat”. Sure, they drink blood, but they believe it’s not kosher to suck it.
DVD cover for the Jackie Chan actioner, ‘Vampire Effect’
Reeve (Ekin Cheng) is a vampire hunter trying to take out all these silly vamps but his sister, Helen (Charlene Choi), has other ideas. Unbeknownst to Helen, her new love interest is a charming vampire prince, Kazav, who has “fallen in love with supper”. As a budding romance blooms between Helen and Kazav, Reeve tries to break in a new partner, Gypsy (Gillian Chung), who only has eyes for Reeve.
There are various other plot lines in Vampire Effect that intersect, including a yarn (er, YAWN) where a European vampire is out to steal the vampire essence of five vampire princes so he can become a super vamp that can walk in the sun. He and his legion of lackeys are after Kazav and they won’t let anyone stand in their way…not even Jackie Chan!!! Chan’s long drawn out cameo is distracting and annoying until he starts kicking up a storm. Chan is at his best when bumbling while fighting vamps in a madcap, but entertaining action sequence.
Vampire Effect struggles to balance a Romeo and Juliet star-crossed romance with other plot lines that aren’t quite as interesting. The action is heated but except for Kazav’s witty vampire friend and loyal subject, the vampires are dull as dirt. As with Buffy, the girls are the ones kicking the most butt here. When Helen and Gypsy steal the show after Reeve bows out, it is in a fighting scene that looks like it was pilfered out of Kill Bill: Volume 1. I’ve never understood why the bad guys feel the need to line up to get their butts whooped but then again, I never particularly liked any of these vamps.
Vampire Effect is Buffy, the Vampire Slayer–light, done in Cantonese. It’s fun to watch the action scenes and the jokes that are few and far between but it’s nevertheless forgettable. Well, except for one girl-on-girl fight over a teddy bear, that was memorable. At the end, Vampire Effect seems to lead into the possibility of a sequel. The only reason to watch Vampire Effect or any sequel for that matter would be to catch the cutesy comedic duo of Choi and Chung fighting vampires while maintaining a keen fashion sense.
I grew up in the ’80s watching movies like Beverly Hills Cop, The Golden Child and Coming to America. Back then, it seemed like there was no one quite as funny as Eddie Murphy thrilling us with his trademark laugh. Then he disappeared, tried to make a go at it in the music industry (big flop) and made several movies most of us didn’t see and quickly forgot if we did.
Lately, it would seem that Eddie is back in the game! With movies like Dr. Doolittle and The Nutty Professor under his belt, Eddie Murphy has found his niche in the funny, fuzzy sort of family films that kiddies and parents can enjoy together. With this in mind, I rented Daddy Day Care, a film where Charlie (Eddie Murphy) and Phil (Jeff Garlin) start a daycare center after being laid off from their high-profile advertising jobs.
Oh, of course, neither of the dads have any experience in child care! And Anjelica Huston plays a scary Miss Harridan, the headmaster of the prestigious (think: expensive and stuffy) Chapman Academy that quickly begins to lose students to Daddy Day Care. Before you know it, a war has broken out between the two daycare centers!
The kids rule in ‘Daddy Day Care’
Huston is terrifying to look at in this film. She must have been channeling Morticia Adams for this role! Luckily, the children are all very adorable and hilarious. Who doesn’t love adorable and hilarious children, I ask you?
The cast of characters includes Charlie’s son (Khamani Griffin), who is happy to spend time with his father until he realizes his father has no idea what he’s doing and must spend too much time disciplining the other children. The other children include “Flash”, who refuses to EVER remove his superhero costume, another little boy who accepts bribes to stop him from screaming at the top of his lungs, and a little girl whose mother urges them not to feed her any junk food but especially, nothing with the ingredient, “Red Dye No. 4”!
Anyone who has children or has ever been around children understands that you do not feed them six different kinds of junk food at lunch time, but that’s part of the hilarity of the film. I found myself wanting to yell, “Oh, no!” while watching the frazzled fathers commit all sorts of errors in childcare. And yet, Charlie refuses to give up despite all odds, even as Miss Harridan continually sabotages his efforts. He eventually realizes he hasn’t a clue what to do with the ever increasing number of children in his daycare center, so they hire Marvin (Steve Zhan), introduced to us as the mail guy at work who loves to smell the paper. He also has a strange understanding of children.
In a world where mothers are debating whether to stay at home or juggle motherhood with the 9 to 5 daily grind, it is both amusing and touching to watch a film where fathers fight the misconception that only women know anything about raising children. Early in the film, Charlie poses the question, “Can’t men do everything that women can do?” A mother reluctant to sign her her child up for Daddy Day Care greets him with a resounding, “No!”
Daddy Day Care is a film that will make you laugh until you find yourself in tears, warm your insides and put your faith back in Eddie Murphy’s ability to do anything to make us all smile. Some naysayers believe Eddie Murphy is doing himself a disservice by starring in family films. They believe that as John Travolta’s career did with Look Who’s Talking, Eddie Murphy’s career has, in fact, flopped.
Well, folks, I’d like to introduce you to the new Eddie Murphy: father and comedian. He has grown up with the rest of us and now he’s making the sort of feel good films you want to watch with your family.
Sigourney Weaver faces off with vicious, murderous aliens in ‘Alien 3’
Now, when I first saw Alien3, I fell in love with it. The style was just outstanding. Distinctive and different, I completely fell for it. I’m a fan of this film. This film is one of the reasons David Fincher is one of my favorite directors.
At the same time, I dislike this movie. I think it was a terrible follow-up to Aliens, and set the stage to totally derail was could have been one of the greatest sci-fi film series in motion picture history.
I love film, and as a lover of film it’s difficult to dislike Fincher. His style is so interesting that each image is like a carefully staged painting. Although I think it’s sometimes a bit too much, kind of like staring at only one image for two hours, it’s a great image to look at. His style really impacted me when I first saw Alien3, and has influenced me ever since. I also greatly enjoyed the character of Dillon, played by Charles Dutton. Although a violent and dark man, he was sympathetic and respectable. From that moment on I have been willing to watch anything Dutton is in.
Taken apart from the series, Alien3 is a fine film. Dark, exciting story with a tragic yet hopeful ending.
But, as I said earlier, when taken in context with the two films that preceded it, it was horrible. A tragic mis-step. A sad failure.
Aliens succeeded brilliantly in expanding the Alien storyline. Alien3 succeeded in slamming back down, narrowing it and destroyed what Aliens had so clearly established.
Charles Dutton leads the criminal element on Fury in ‘Alien 3’
The chief mistake was so unceremoniously killing Hicks and Newt. The two were good characters, and could have provided good drama and conflict had they been allowed to continue in the story. This would also have allowed overall story of Ripley and the aliens to develop as it should have, by expanding on the alien concept and perhaps bringing the “company” into the story more.
In essence, it erased anything that Aliens tried to do with the series and moved backwards, narrowing the film back towards the original by trying to a more horror than action — and failing miserably, as the film is more beautiful to look at than frightening to watch.
Perhaps their hope was to emulate the original in hopes to make it successful instead of allowing the story to grow and develop, as they had with Aliens. Not sure I understand why, however, since Aliens was such a resounding success.
The new extended version of this film highlighted on the DVD release isn’t much of an improvement. In fact, it hurts the film by adding so much needless filler. The only good point to it is that it restores the original Ox sequence. Although I think the dog was very effective, the Ox was a little more interesting. It plays better logically to the story, but at the same time doesn’t pull at your heartstrings like watching a poor dog suffer (the ox is already dead).
And while the extended version also provides more story — such as with the Golic character, who always seemed more important that he amounted to in the original cut — none of it is terribly interesting.
One of the issues I read about the documentaries that chart the making of this film is that about 30 minutes was excised. Apparently, everything of Fincher was removed, supposedly because it was so negative of 20th Century Fox and the producers of the film (this is rumor, as Fox hasn’t officially commented on the change). But, I think the documentary gave a pretty clear picture of how bad the experience was and how it went from a while with so much potential to a total retreat to poor storytelling.
With all that, I can still appreciate the film. But, in the end, I watch it with a sense of disappointment at how great it could have been.
Jennifer Connelly and Jared Leto are drug-addicted lovers in ‘Requiem for a Dream’
Requiem For A Dream is the 21st Century’s answer to The Exorcist. The latter was banned in Britain from 1973 to 1998. The British Board of Film Censorship saying “the problem with The Exorcist is not that it is a bad film, it is that it is a very good film. It’s one of the most powerful films ever made.” The opposite of the popular ‘so-bad it’s good’ phenomenon, The Exorcist was so good it was bad.
When the film was initially released, young British girls passed out and threw up (though not in that order) in cinemas across the nation. Modern audiences are made of sterner stuff; so when The Exorcist was re-released in 1998 there was no vomiting and there was even some laughing — the special effects not dating as well as the narrative. However, I have to confess that my (admittedly convincing) tough guy persona was dealt a serious blow by Aronofsky’s latest, Requiem For A Dream. This film left me wanting my mommy.
There is plenty to criticise here. The tale of Jared Leto, Marlon Wayans and Jennifer Connelly falling into drug addiction is clichéd, and some of the ‘drug-talk’ left me unconvinced (“this stuff is dynamite”), and the idea that Ellen Burstyn’s character is addicted to the ‘other’ drugs such as TV, coffee, sugar, etc is shouted rather than whispered. Leto’s character even says “No one’s a bigger TV junkie than the old lady,” just in case there’s someone very slow out there who doesn’t quite get it. Likewise, the visuals are more than a little over-stylised, so much so that the overt ‘technique’ shifts attention away from the characters, sometimes resembling a very long student film.
Jennifer Connelly co-stars in ‘Requiem for a Dream’
It’s incredible that these quite significant shortcomings don’t detract from the absolutely terrifying, can’t-watch-but-can’t-look-away power of the second half ofRequiem For A Dream. Seeing Jared Leto force a syringe into his gangrenous arm is horrifying enough, but there is nothing in the world that can prepare you for the last fifteen minutes, a savage assault on the senses that will leave you longing for a cold, dark place to hide.
When thought about rationally, the actual events aren’t so bad. It’s just the way Aronofsky presents them that is so devastating. He repeats a montage of extreme close ups, focusing on the nuts and bolts of drug addiction, always culminating in a dilating pupil that fills the screen. Sounds like a bad idea on paper but Aronofsky gives the montage a rhythm. It becomes like a musical piece, subtly changing each time it’s repeated.
There’s something darkly terrifying about this little montage and the whole thing grows and expands to become a four-way cross cut of parallel action as the principal characters sink into their individual tragedies, this being the basis of the above mentioned nightmare inducing finale. This hypnotic rhythm must be why even as you become so overwhelmed you think your head might explode it is one hundred percent impossible to look away. It slowly draws you in and won’t let go until you’re spat out the other end.
With The Exorcist, there is a pleasure in being shocked and scared. That’s the nature of the horror genre. Requiem For A Dream is a dramatic film, and there is no pleasure in having your emotions mauled in this way (unless you’re a card carrying masochist), and assuming that you knew beforehand getting addicted to heroin is not a good idea, there’s nothing to be learnt either.
This in mind, it’s worth questioning if Requiem For A Dream needs to exist at all, except maybe as something parents can threaten their children with. “Finish your dinner or I’m putting you know what in the DVD player!”
Jennifer Connelly reveals all in ‘Requiem for a Dream’
On the other hand something that prompts such a strong reaction has to be considered an achievement. ‘Art’ even. Still, I’m certain of one thing: if Requiem For A Dream is re-released in 25 years time, there’ll be no laughing in the theatres, just former tough guys calling out for their mothers as the credits roll.
The DVD doesn’t contain any of the usual press junket repackaged as a making of documentary here, and no Jared and Jennifer sitting around talking about how Darren is simply wonderful to work with. Instead, there’s an excellent director’s commentary (Aronofsky knows what’s what) and a short but informative few minutes called Anatomy Of A Scene.
There are also deleted scenes aplenty, if that’s what floats your boat, and an interesting interview with source material writer Hubert Selby Jr. It’s everything you could ask for shiny disc wise.
Carrie Henn gets saved by Sigourney Weaver in ‘Aliens’
If Alien was considered a classic of horror, James Cameron’s Aliens was pure action and adventure. Although it still held elements of horror, Aliens offered up a action heavy film which — I believe — perfectly complimented the original and successfully expanded the story.
One of the chief purposes of a sequel, creatively, should always be to expand and develop what was established in the first film. In the case of Aliens, everything is expanded. We learn more about the creature, the story is bigger and moves the overall story of the humans experiences with the alien creatures forward. It literally continues the tale begun in Alien, following up on the company’s greediness and giving Ripley a sense of resolution to her previous encounter.
Cameron’s approach with Aliens was similar in his later approach to Terminator 2. He develops a new story with a new set of dangers and characters, but borrows elements from the previous film. One shining example is the character of Private Hudson, played by Bill Paxton. His character is basically Lambert (Veronica Cartwright) from Alien. Emotional, scared, the most vocal of the group. There are also other things — a traitor among the group who wants to profit off the alien, the film ends with an alien sneaking onto the escape ship, the creature is blown from an airlock.
The soldiers listen to a briefing on the aliens they’re face in ‘Aliens’
These elements all present themselves in ways that make them unique, and I’m in no way slighting Cameron for making these connections. I think they are brilliant, and work beautifully to compliment the original by mirroring it in a sense but in a new and exciting way.
The action in Aliens is top notch. The fighting sequences are exciting and edge-of-your-seat thrilling. The visual style is very different from the original, but like in the story, there are several moments where the visuals compliment the original.
I recently watched the “Special Edition” of the film which was done in 1992. I thought this version proivded much more motivation for Ripley, developing the idea of her having a daughter who died while she was in hypersleep. This provides much more depth to her relationship with Newt (Carrie Henn). There are several other scenes, but much of that is rather unnecessary fluff. It’s cool, like the sentry guns the marines used while trapped on the planet, but other than that the added stuff was not anything the audience needed. In some cases, such as the added sequence that shows us the fates of Newt’s parents, is completely unnecessary. It also managed to damage some of the mystery surrounding the fate of the colonists. We don’t need to see the bustling colony to feel and understand the tragedy that befell them.
This film is by far my favorite of the Alien films, chiefly because its the sequel that dared to expand the story. To make it more than just a horror series. Unfortunately, the films that followed — while good — failed to follow in its footsteps.
The documentaries that were included with this film are terrific, but not as detailed as the one for Alien. However, the biggest surprise was that the actor who played Hicks was not the person originally cast. And I was kind of surprised to see who actually was. The documentary does offer some insight into Cameron’s approach to the film, but most of his interviews are old, compared to the new ones conducted with the actors and producers.
Ian Holm, Sigourney Weaver, Tom Skerritt and John Hurt encounter an unstoppable creature in ‘Alien’
I first saw Alien when I was a young child. It was on television late one night. I don’t recall being particularly scared, but I did enjoy the film. It was exciting, with cool special effects — for the time — and a great creature.
I couldn’t tell you when the first time was that I finally saw it unedited, or how I felt about it when I was old enough to begin to really appreciate film, character, story and so forth. But, as I watched it recently — restored with a few new scenes put in — I’m still impressed by it.
In the end, Alien is simple a horror movie. Ridley Scott has often compared it to Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and he is basically correct. You start out with a collection of people, all but one of whom are carefully picked off by the creature. Plus, the main survivor is a woman. So, on that level, it shares much with the other horror classic.
The crew of the Nostromo awakens at the beginning of ‘Alien’
However, Alien differs from that film — and pretty much all others — in its style. The visuals presented to us were drastically different than anything else at the time. Sure, the darkness and style has since been replicated and destroyed since, but at the time it was very much unique.
But is it really scarey? I don’t find anything particularly frightening about any of it. But, of course, I was only four years old when it first came out, and but the time I’d gotten around to viewing it my mind was long since corrupted. That’s one of the interesting parts of viewing a film like this. You can’t simply watch it, you also need to keep in mind the time period in which it was released. Forget the advances in effects and the other kinds of violence you’ve seen on screen since. Remember the innocence of the audience that witnessed this film for the very first time. If you can get yourself into that mind set, you can easily see why Alien is so respected.
The one element of the film that I’ve always enjoyed the most is not the horror elements. What I enjoyed most was the interaction between the characters. Chiefly, the scenes around the dining table. Characters all talking all at once, carrying about in conversations, and we being left to simply watch as if we were sitting in the room with them but not participating. The overlapping dialogue gave this film a very simple sense of realism that was very unique. The way Yaphet Kotto’s character, Parker, rambles on about shares and renegotiating his contract. This is something that we can easily relate to, forgetting that he’s an engineer on a space ship decades from now. With that very brief scene, he and the others are made into regular people that could have easily been sitting on an ocean freighter or sitting around a counter at a truck stop.
Sigourney Weaver is sexy and dangerous in ‘Alien’
These weren’t fancy space pirates like Han Solo or heroes like Flash Gordon. They were normal, average, blue collar types just trying to make their way in the galaxy. This allows us, the audience, to instantly like them. To relate to them. To feel for them when the horror that is the creature falls upon them.
Ridley Scott scored with this film. He offered people a different view of aliens which had mostly been treated as friendly and misunderstood, like with Close Encounters of the Third Kind. However, I find myself wondering if a film like this could have been made today. It does have a bit of a slow pace, and many scenes are comprised of single shots with little or no coverage. In a world where these films fly by in a span of 90 minutes with commercial-like editing; dialogue that cares more about promoting a tag-line than it does about detailing a character; and effects that may be photorealistic but still don’t look quite as real as a man in a suit, I find it hard to believe.
The “director’s cut” offers a few little tidbits, but is not terribly different from the original version. The biggest alteration is the addition of the Dallas scene at the end of the film. I found this to be rather interesting because it offers a completely different take on the Aliens developed later by Cameron. Instead of a Queen, we learn that the Alien captures people and does something to them causing them to transform into the eggs. The added Dallas scene shows him halfway through his transformation, yet still alive. Ripley discovers him and torches him.
The behind-the-scenes documentary is outstanding. It offers a detailed look at how the film was developed, how Scott came on board the project, how the film was made and the experiences of the actors. It was, by far, one of the finest DVD documentaries out there — right behind the “Beginning” documentary from Star Wars: Episode I — The Phantom Menace.
Michael Moore shows a victim of gun violence in ‘Bowling for Columbine’
Michael Moore, purveyor of such stirring works as Roger and Me and TV Nation, does it again giving America a hard dose of reality with his new film Bowling for Columbine. This is Mr. Moore’s investigation into America’s obsession with guns and violence.
His impetus for doing this project was the tragic shooting that occurred at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado in the spring of 1999. Two young boys, alienated by their peers and fed a steady diet of television and media violence, entered their school armed with shotguns and other weapons. They were determined to make others suffer as they felt they had suffered, killing several students and injuring several more before taking their own lives. Mr. Moore takes his reason for doing this film, and the film’s name itself, from this unique American tragedy.
Americans are killing each other at an outrageous, epidemic pace. Bowling for Columbine explores all aspects of American violence and our love affair with the gun. This is a documentary of the most frightening kind. Mr. Moore takes us into the ranks of a Wisconsin militia and uncovers the paranoia and destructive insecurity therein. Men dressed in full battle camouflage trudge through the frozen Mid-west taking target practice with semi-automatic weapons and preparing for the invisible boogiemen they’re positive are lurking just beyond the woods.
While I wouldn’t call these men educated, they have at least graduated high school and can hold down full time jobs. They talk about owning and carrying guns as their god-given right, referring several times to the second amendment — the right to bear arms. In fact, this is a pervasive theme throughout the film. All these people confuse the privilege of owning and operating firearms with the inexplicable right to do so.
Men are not the only victims of this delusion. Mr. Moore speaks to women in this encampment, too, who voice the need to protect themselves with guns. Not pistols, mind you, but semi-automatic assault weapons capable of discharging hundreds of rounds per second. The irony is not lost on us that while one woman describes her fear and the need to protect her family from invisible monsters, her two-year-old daughter plays child-like with a rifle twice her size. He doesn’t set out to portray these people as jingoistic slobs, he just lets them talk and they do it themselves.
Lest you think this film is a dry, uptight representation of this subject, Mr. Moore infuses much humor and tongue-in-cheek commentary to lighten the somewhat heavy subject matter. One of the most hilarious and yet hard-hitting segments is a three-minute cartoon written by Mr. Moore that describes the history of America. Narrated by a singing, dancing bullet, the animated short is an encapsulation of America’s history-born out of fear and continually controlled by it. The Puritans left their homes with fear of persecution and founded a country with fear of retribution. The short takes us through the massacre of the Native Americans to slavery, racism, and the eventual paranoid reality of segregated suburban communities. It is as concise a history as I’ve ever seen and not something they teach in school. It will make you think, and rightly so. All of our actions are fear based and until we eradicate that irrational and dangerous notion that someone is always out to get us, we will never be free.
Michael Moore talks it up in ‘Bowling for Columbine’
Fear is a controlling factor in our society and this film shows that it’s an almost exclusively American proclivity. Mr. Moore takes us to Windsor, Canada, the neighbor of Detroit, and explores their beliefs about violence and fear. While Detroit, at the time, had a murder rate of close to 400 people a year, Windsor was knocking on the door of four. Most of the residents of Windsor that were interviewed couldn’t even remember the last murder that took place. In fact, the police chief sited the last murder to be nearly a year before, and that, he said, was committed by a Detroit resident who had crossed the river.
Mr. Moore juxtaposes images of American gated communities and high-tech security with shots of friendly Canadians who not only don’t have security alarms, but who don’t even lock their door. As an experiment, he actually goes to a fairly urban part of town and starts opening doors to people’s houses. People there don’t lock their doors when they’re home. He walked in on several people who where not only unperturbed by this intrusion, but were downright friendly about it. Try that in Detroit.
Why was this? Why were Canadians so fearless in there daily lives? The answer seems to lie in the media. Clips of Canadian news programs reveal not one hint of violence. Their news was focused on — surprise — news. They talked about events happening on a world stage. They talked about cultural events and social concerns — not one whiff of murder or destructiveness.
By contrast, the clips of American news shows were littered with violence. The top story is almost always involving death or brutality. Bowling for Columbine is peppered throughout with interesting and disturbing statistics. The most surprising was this; while over the past twenty years as the murder rate in America has declined by over twenty percent, the coverage of it has risen by six-hundred percent. Less people are being killed than ever before, but the media doesn’t reflect that. To the average viewer, it appears that murder is at an all time high.
Why does the media perpetuate this horrible idea? Well in a word, because it sells. Murder sells and the media has to survive so in the desperate search for ratings they breed fear and paranoia. Murder isn’t the only thing the media memorializes. In their attempt to keep us tuned in, they prey on all our fears of death. If it’s not about murders and rapes, it’s about killer bees or super viruses. The media even tries to make us afraid of the weather-killer storms, killer floods, killer winds. This only makes us a society filled with fear. Living in fear of everything and feeling helpless and inadequate we turn to extreme measures to protect ourselves.
The media is playing on our fears to make a buck. It is infuriating and dangerous.
These dangerous mindsets permeate into the heart of our society. This is a country run by rich old white men. Why is it the group with the most power, the most money, and the most freedom has the biggest fears? It’s the irrational fear of losing it all. If you’re always afraid you are going to lose all your “stuff” I guess you’ll protect it however you can. This is made poignantly clear when Michael Moore finally tracks down Charleton Heston. Mr. Moore has been trying to talk to Mr. Heston the entire film and when he finally encounters him, it’s a sad reality about the people who are running this country. Mr. Heston is the head of the N.R.A., the National Rifle Association — a huge lobby in Washington, and after the tragic deaths at Columbine High School he insisted on having an N.R.A. rally in Denver that same week.
Why, Mr. Moore wanted to know, did Mr. Heston continue such an insensitive crusade? Mr. Heston replied that it was his right to bear arms and no one was going to stop him. He never apologized for his actions nor was he able to see how, given his position, he could have actually helped by condemning the actions of those young boys. As they spoke, it became increasingly obvious that Mr. Heston is a confused, pathetic, scared old man who is close to the edge of his own sanity. While sitting in his palatial hilltop home above Hollywood behind secured gates and high walls, Mr. Heston said that he had several guns in the house and that most of them were, surprisingly, loaded — “just in case.”
When Mr. Moore spoke about children being killed and hinted that Mr. Heston had a responsibility to help turn over some of our too-liberal gun laws, he became disoriented spitting incoherent and racist platitudes, rudely and abruptly ending the interview. His only quotable line was “it was good enough for those old white guys who founded this country and it is good enough for me.”
That’s the problem. As Mr. Moore left his house, he placed a picture of a six-year-old white girl who had been shot and killed by a classmate who found his uncle’s gun and brought it to school. The shot of this sweet little girl propped up against the barricaded front door of Charleton Heston is one of the most touching and moving moments of this film.
I loved this film. I think every person in America should see this film. I think parents should see it with their children and discuss it later. While everyone may not agree with Mr. Moore’s hard-hitting, no apologies type of filmmaking, the subject matter is one that must be explored.
America has a murder rate that is larger than all industrialized countries put together. Over 11,000 Americans are killed each year, and as the population rises, this statistic will inevitably rise as well. This film is educational and necessary for so many who don’t know or don’t think that there is a problem. We need to be shaken out of our complacency, and a no-holds-barred reality check like Bowling for Columbine is just the medicine this ailing country needs.
