Gabriel Byrne (left) and John Turturro take a walk in the woods in ‘Miller’s Crossing’
When Miller’s Crossing opened the New York Film Festival in 1990 it was going to be the film that would see the Coens hit the big time at last and simultaneously make Gabriel Byrne an international superstar. Somehow this didn’t happen, and I’m at a loss to explain why.
Byrne is execellent here, in a film that is on one level a character study of a complex, conflicted man he delivers undoubtedly his best ever performance — and that includes The Usual Suspects. His portrayal of Tom Regan as a man who keeps his cards close to his chest has everything. It is a charismatic, enigmatic performance and should have been the start of great things for the Dubliner. Unfortunately some logic-defying career choices (Ghost Shipanyone?) mean this will probably remain the high point of what should have been a magnificent career. Seeing this film again leaves me wishing a court order could be garnted, relieving Mr. Byrne of the right to choose his own roles.
In a different way this is arguably still the Coen brothers finest film. While Barton Fink won them the Palme D’Or in 1991 and Fargo sold a lot of cinema tickets this matches or betters them both in all aspects. Miller’s Crossing is funny, very funny. The dialogue is sharper than a brand new razor, some of the banter between Byrne and Marcia Gay Harden is (and I’m not joking) comparable to Bogart and Bacall in The Big Sleep. The labyrinthine plot unravels via some lyrical camerawork and quite beautiful editing but the Coens technical accomplishments never intrude on a movie that despite it’s humour is consistently sombre, contemplative and eventually mournful.
There are also several standout scenes. John Turturro pleading for his life in the woods springs to mind as well as what could be called the films showpiece in which a pyjama clad Albert Finney guns down several would be assassins while “Danny Boy” plays on the soundtrack.
So, if this film is so good (and it is) then why did it fail so miserably at the box office? Well, it was released at the same time as the equally magnificent and much more high-tempo Goodfellas and the not so magnificent The Godfather: Part Threewhich despite being a dog of a movie was a “must see” film. It seems that Miller’s Crossing was buried under other gangster films at the box office. Yet it is so much more than just a gangster film. It’s a film about male friendship, loyalty, self knowledge and a whole bunch of other stuff. Not least of which is hats. As it is Miller’s Crossing is like a best kept secret amongst film buffs. A beautifully photographed, funny, serious film that makes a viewer think about what they’re watching but never without entertaining.
Unfortuantely as with many Coen brothers films there is so much going on that it is very difficult to get to grips with on first viewing. A second viewing allows appreciation of various mirrored events and complex but tightly plotted narrative. I would even suggest that a second viewing should be mandatory, although I confess that the legal aspects of this would be difficult to impose and (arguably) the police have more important things to be doing.
Fortunately for the police force Miller’s Crossing is now available on DVD, and I can’t help noticing that in my country (England) the DVD is being promoted quite aggressively. Miller’s Crossing is the DVD you win in most magazine competitions, it’s advertised on billboards and on television. Whether this will lead to a kind of Miller’s Crossing renaissance remains to be seen.
This fine film is now available to own on DVD, but don’t be fooled by the Miller’s Crossing: Special Edition label. It’s a pretty standard package, with some informative yet short interviews with Gabriel Byrne, Marcia Gay Harden and John Torturro. There’s also an featurette interview with Cinematographer Barry Sonnenfeld that is intermittently interesting, although frustrating in being a mix of production details, analysis and mindless chatter. It’s also difficult not to dislike Sonnenfeld purely on the basis that he isn’t a Coen brother. And possibly because of his silly leather coat. Matters of fashion aside, the main reason the “special edition” tag is so dubious is the lack of a directors commentary.
To precede any one of Hitchcock’s films with “Hitchcock’s Masterpiece…” is practically redundant. It’s like calling the theory of relativity “Einstein’s Stroke of Genius” or calling David “Michelangelo’s Breathtaking Sculpture”: It simply goes without saying. So, when talking about a Hitchcock film, one should just assume a discussion of a truly great piece of filmmaking. Rebecca, currently available in a Criterion Collection double-disc set, is no exception.
At the 13th Annual Academy Awards Ceremony honoring the films of 1940, Rebecca took home the Oscar for Best Picture, making it the only Hitchcock film to ever earn the coveted statue. A haunting film that is often overshadowed by some of Hitchcock’s later works, Rebecca is no less accomplished. Hitchcock’s first American film, his first with any real budget, was a pairing of power-hungry creative minds; one being the meticulous director, and the other being the glamorous producer, David Selznick. Selznick was responsible for such grandiose films as A Star Is Born and Gone With the Wind and would later go on to back Spellbound, The Paradine Case, and the film-noir classic, The Third Man. By this time in his career, Hitchcock had made close to 30 films, giving him more than enough time to develop an unmistakable style. So, one can imagine the kind of power struggle in play when these two great minds began producing a lush, expensive Hollywood film version of one of the best-selling books of its time. Despite more than occasional clashes in vision during production, the end result was a major accomplishment for both. Rebecca stands tall as a milestone in film history, but more importantly, a damn fine piece of art and entertainment.
Both the Hitchcock film and the book by Daphne DuMaurier begin the same way: “Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again.” The line is uttered by the film’s central character, known only as “I”. She is never named, nor need she be, because hers is a journey that also becomes ours. In the opening shots, we are given a peek at Manderley, the massive estate where most of the film will take place, and even then, we sense that not all is well. Manderley obviously houses great secrets, and it is the duty of this film to reveal them in the most memorable of ways. We first meet Maxim De Winter (Lawrence Olivier) as he contemplates jumping off a cliff. He is stopped just in time, by the lovely and naïve heroine (Joan Fontaine). From that moment on, they are swept into an unexpected whirlwind romance that ends in a spontaneous wedding. The wedding marks the end of everything the heroine has ever known and an entry into a world that is not only alien, but frightening and mysterious as well. “I” enters into the marriage with the vague knowledge that she is following in the footsteps of someone much grander and more important than she should ever hope to be, the late Rebecca De Winter. However, she is in love, and love blinds her to the difficult challenges ahead.
Once she arrives at Manderley, the heroine is introduced to Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), the still devoted servant of the late Rebecca and one of the all-time great characters of the silver screen. Mrs. Danvers is the culmination of all of the creepiest babysitters you have ever had, appearing out of nowhere, just in time to catch you doing something stupid. She never smiles, instead she seems to be carrying on a constant inner monologue of her sinister plots against someone, in this case, the “new” Mrs. De Winter. Danvers is also one of the big screen’s earliest and coolest lesbian characters. Because Hollywood was under a self-imposed production code at the time, there were certain things never to be shown on film. Lesbianism, or any suggestion of such “sexual perversion”, would have been rejected by the code as morally offensive. Still, Hitchcock was a clever little devil and there is no mistaking his obvious awareness of Mrs. Danvers’ affections, although the words are never spoken. Because Danvers is a predatory and “evil” character, her tendencies were probably overlooked by the censors, because, after all, homosexuality is predatory and evil, right? Unfortunately, that was the general consensus then and, thankfully, that mentality has begun to fade. Despite the uncomfortable undertones that her character suggests, Danvers is truly one of Hitchcock’s greatest villains and her presence on screen sparkles with mystery and terror. Her final moments are absolutely unforgettable.
Joan Fontaine (bottom) and Laurence Olivier (left) star in ‘Rebecca’
The relationship between “I” and Maxim De Winter is a fascinating one. Hitchcock excels in his observation of unhealthy love relationships and Rebecca is no exception. It’s interesting to note, however, that Hitchcock often focuses on consistent ideas of male love and female love. His male characters tend to be afraid of commitment and often give cold receptions to true love. His female characters on the other hand are often naïve or have severe emotional problems that cause them to act foolishly. The love that the heroine demonstrates for Maxim is tender and subservient, almost that of an obedient daughter. On the other hand, Maxim’s love for “I” is quite different. Most of the time he seems cold and patronizing. Even when he shows an element of tenderness, the script counteracts it with a gesture to suggest the opposite. For example, when Maxim and “I” get hastily married, they come running down the stairs in a happy moment of new love. But, before the moment is through, the minister calls out for them reminding Maxim that he left behind the marriage license. An innocently amusing moment at first glance, but in conjunction with Maxim’s actions through the rest of the film, it’s a powerful foreshadowing of his unwillingness to commit to this or any woman.
The most obvious charm to Rebecca is the overwhelming sense of great mystery and uncomfortable suspense. From the opening shots to the unforgettable conclusion, Hitchcock is able to transform a seductive love story into one of slow, satisfying suspense. Hitchcock’s amazingly acute eye triumphs here in his love of manipulating camera and light for maximum effect. Wide shots of the Manderley interiors with a dwarfed heroine in the middle of the screen accentuate her feelings of loneliness and fear. Darkly lit and smoky frames of Mrs. Danvers appearing through transparent curtains heighten the eerie suspense of her every action. Shadows cast upon Maxim’s face suggest a psychological prison he is always trying to escape. The film is filled with articulate mood and dripping with atmosphere.
Rebecca is given the royal treatment in a beautiful double disc set from Criterion, who have released excellent prints of 5 other Hitchcock films. The transfer is nearly flawless. As opposed to the earlier DVD version, marred with muddy blacks and whites and distracting scratches, this print seems as though it’s brand new. Criterion claims, in the liner notes, “preserved from the original 35mm nitrate camera negative”. Black and White has never looked as glorious as it does here. The special features are plentiful, but I assume some will appear lackluster to the casual filmgoer. Some of the better features include screen tests for many of the women who auditioned for “I”, including Vivien Leigh and Margaret Sullivan. There are also radio interviews with Hitchcock, Joan Fontaine, and Judith Anderson. Criterion has also included three different radio broadcasts of Rebecca, one with the vocal performance of Orson Welles. The commentary track is by film scholar Leonard J. Leff, who provides a wealth of information concerning relationships between actors, crew members, and fascinating insight on the relationship between Hitchcock and Selznick. He also points out much of Hitchcock’s technique and is even gracious enough to point out continuity flaws and mistakes. While the track doesn’t have the insider’s feel that tracks on some other discs do, this is nonetheless very interesting. It’s unfortunate that they were not able to gather any production documentaries on the making of the film. Instead they allow you to file through pages of text which explain much about production, pre-production, filming, costumes, etc., which I imagine many viewers will not have the patience to sit through. There are no deleted scenes, but there are the script pages with the scenes that were left out. The features are plentiful for those with patience, but for those who desire more visual behind-the-scenes insight you won’t get an overload from this particular set.
All in all, Rebecca from the Criterion Collection would be a shining star in anyone’s DVD collection. Even if one doesn’t spend the time exploring all of the special features, the spotless, beautiful transfer alone is worth the price tag. It’s an essential for any serious or casual fan of Hitchcock and for lovers of fine cinema or old Hollywood classics. (I would also recommend it to everyone else.) While the heroine in Rebecca declares that she can never go back to Manderley, we have the glorious privilege to return over and over again.
Aliens arrive in ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’
When I was a wee-lad, I can remember seeing Close Encounters of the Third Kind on television. Originally released in 1977, it was in theaters a second time in 1979. However, I was still young at the time, and have no memory of seeing it in the theaters.
The first time I watched it in the widescreen format was only recently, when I purchased the “collector’s edition” DVD. Although I am extremely annoyed and disappointed with Spielberg for not doing audio commentary on ANY of his films released on DVD, I was really interested in adding this DVD to my collection.
And I don’t regret my choice.
Although I’m sure most of you are familiar wit the story, let me give a brief description of it for those of you who are not.
Close Encounters tells the story of humanity’s first full-fledged encounter with aliens from outer space. It follows a team of governmental-backed scientists who are striving to uncover the mystery of WWII airplanes appearing in the desert, a ship found in Mongolia, and strange signals coming from outer space.
At the same time, Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) is one of several people who witness several UFOs in his small suburban town. He is then haunted by a vision he cannot explain, and journey’s to Wyoming to find out what it means. There, he and the scientists discover that we are not alone.
They take him in ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind’
The film is, of course, presented with outstanding quality. The sound is crisp, the image quality is outstanding, everything you would expect from a DVD. There is even a THX guide that can help you properly calibrate your television’s sound and picture.
However, the highlight of this DVD is the one-hour-plus documentary featuring Spielberg—obviously interviewed from the set of Saving Private Ryan — as well as Dreyfuss, Teri Garr, and other cast and crewmembers. This featurette, which could have been a little shorter, was pretty interesting.
One of the most interesting aspects is that it details more about how the film was made. Close Encounters has gone through three different versions over the years.
According to Spielberg, the original film released in 1977 wasn’t exactly the way he wanted it. He approached Columbia about re-editing the film to add a few sequences. They replied by asking if he would alter the ending and show the inside of the ship. Spielberg agreed, and so came Close Encounters of the Third Kind: The Special Edition.
Spielberg regretted making the change. Generally, when you see Close Encounters on television, they show the original version. But, Spielberg made a third edit on the DVD, removing some scenes and restoring others. However, these alterations are not discussed on the DVD. All they talk about are the differences between the original release and the “Special Edition.”
Do not fret, however, because all of the deleted scenes can be found on the DVD. Most are pretty dull, and you can easily understand why Spielberg removed them. It also includes the “Inside the Spaceship” sequence.
Another interesting tidbit to this DVD are the two trailers. Both the original version trailer and the “Special Edition” trailers are included, and both have a completely different style. It think this is a good example of how trailers are made changed between 1977 and 1979.
From left to right: Sean Astin, Jonathan Ke Quan, Jeff Cohen, Corey Feldman, Josh Brolin, Kerri Green and Martha Plimpton in ‘The Goonies’
When I was a kid, I was completely drawn in by The Goonies. A pure escapist childhood fantasy from the mind of Steven Spielberg. I went to see it with my friends several times. I made treasure maps at home, going so far as to literally burn the paper in the oven to brown it, then take a match and singe the edges.
I even took the painstaking steps to draw the musical notes on the back of the maps. The Goonies had me hooked.
And, yes, I even collected the trading cards.
When I saw that The Goonies had been released on DVD, I was excited. I hadn’t seen the film in years, but I remembered every scene, every character, every joke.
Renting it one night from Blockbuster — to the annoyance of my wife — I watched it in beautiful widescreen, and enjoyed the wonderful stereo sound. The quality of the image was terrific.
For those of you not “in the know,” The Goonies is a warm-hearted tale of a young boy, thirsty for adventure, wild with imagination, who desperately hopes his father will save his town from being demolished by local developers looking to build a golf course for their country club.
When he discovers a map detailing the way to famed-pirate One-Eyed Willy’s treasure, he enlists his hodge-podge collection of misfit friends to embark on the adventure of a lifetime.
That adventure quickly turned into a race for their lives, as they avoid boody traps, er, I mean booby traps, as well as the dreaded Fertelli gang.
The performances are fun. I remember admiring Sean Astin, and being disappointed that he did little after The Goonies. However, he turned in a great performance in the under-appreciated Rudy, and will soon be seen in the Lord of the Rings trilogy — as my favorite character from the books, Sam, Frodo’s loyal friend.
Donner’s direction is simplistic, but he isn’t a terrifically stylish director — not that he needs to be, since he does know how to craft an enjoyable film.
Sure, there are some imperfections in the story and its plot. As I watch it with an adults’ eye, I find many aspects of the film to be rather odd — Sloth? What’s up with that? It also contains some cliché suspense elements, such as the scene where the children are playing on the bone piano to escape the Fertellis.
But, this isn’t the kind of film that requires analysis. It’s fun, it’s harmless, it’s a good, Saturday matinee popcorn movie.
As for the DVD, the single highlight is the terrific — and I mean TERRIFIC — audio commentary. Not only does Donner share some of his thoughts of the film, the ENTIRE CAST gathers to share their thoughts, comments and memories.
The cool part is, of course, seeing “Chunk” as an adult. He is thin and trim, and apparently has abandoned the acting business for a law career. The others continue to work in the film industry, achieving a certain level of success — or in Corey Feldman’s case, riding a roller coaster of success and failure.
As a child who grew up loving this film, hearing the actors talk about their experience making the film, sharing little tales of the behind the scenes shenanigans, was thoroughly entertaining.
I was especially surprised to hear about how Michael Jackson, a personal friend of Spielberg’s, was constantly on the set of the film. Plus, how Spielberg actually directed a few shots—one of which is PURE Spielberg. So much so that I thought it looked very Spielbergian at the time I watched it prior to listening to the commentary.
I was left, annoyingly, with one mystery I would LOVE to solve. Sean Astin, for some unexplained reason, left the audio commentary early in the film. While I don’t think it was because of anything bad, I would love to know why he left. It would have been much more enjoyable had he remained through the whole thing.
Jedi and Sith battle in ‘Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace’
Like millions of others, I was excited to hear that Lucas—the supposed “leader” of the digital revolution in Hollywood—had finally relented and released one of his many great movies on DVD.
Unfortunately, he picked The Phantom Menace to be his first. This is not a comment on the DVD, which is top-notch. It is, however, a comment on the lack-luster prequel to his fun and exciting Star Warstrilogy.
For those “not in the know”, Star Wars: Episode I—The Phantom Menace, is a space opera about two Jedi knights (Liam Neeson and Ewan MacGregor) as they rescue a queen (Natalie Portman), discover a child gifted in the Force (Jake Lloyd), and battle deadly droids and the evil Trade Federation, who are being manipulated by a Dark Jedi bent on ruling the galaxy.
It is the first part of a “six part” series of films, which began with the Star Wars trilogy released between 1977 and 1983.
A Star Wars fan since I was a wee boy, I snatched up this DVD the first day it came out last week. Unfortunately, I didn’t have the time to sit and watch all it had to offer in one sitting. It took me several days to watch all the documentaries, deleted scenes and listen to the audio commentary (oh, and watch the movie, too). Actually, I still haven’t watched everything—I’d seen all the web documentaries when they were on the Internet, as well as the “poem” commercials, so I put them off until later.
Although I do not think The Phantom Menace was the greatest film in the world, I greatly enjoyed this DVD. The audio commentary, a person favorite of mine on most ANY DVD, was terrific. It operates in the “best-of” style, jumping from one person or another, as if capturing the best comments for that particular scene and playing it. Lucas chimes in often about filmmaking, the story, and what he was trying to accomplish or the difficulties he faced making TPM. Members of the special effects team also contribute to how the special effects where done, and the producer, Rick McCullum, adds a few comments here and there.
Palpatine manipulates Amidala in ‘Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace’
The name of the speaker is flashed at the stop of the screen when they talk, so the watcher knows who is speaking—an interesting addition I’d never seen before.
The deleted scenes are another highlight, although it is fairly easy to see what Lucas decided to trim them out—some, however, have been placed back into the film on the DVD.
The much-talked about waterfall scene was really pretty lame. As was the additional footage at the beginning of the pod race. And as much as I enjoyed the scene where Anakin fights Greedo, it felt completely out of place, and wasn’t really well acted.
However, while there are only seven deleted scenes on the DVD, Lucas seemed to reveal that these were simply an example of scenes deleted from the film.
The brand-spankin’ new documentary, “The Beginning”, was terrific. Really well done, and actually revealed some new insights into the film. One portion shows the first viewing of the rough edit of the film. The long faces on everyone after the showing was a clear indicator, at least to me, that Lucas had missed the mark with The Phantom Menace. I swear, you can see the tension, as if they were all thinking, “My God, what the hell did we do?”
There are also special features that delve into the special effects and such, but, as much as I love movies, I don’t find these things particularly interesting. Not the behind-the-scenes, how they-did-that information, but simply the way the generally present it isn’t engaging.
Of course, the quality of the film, from the image to the sound, was outstanding.
One of the greatest little surprises on this DVD is the hidden “easter egg”, featuring a handful of outtakes. You can access them on Disc 1 by going to the “Options” menu, and entering “1138”. There are a few other easter eggs. For the best information, visit www.theforce.net.
For those of you who read my Made review, then you are already aware that I rented this film because my wife wanted me to get a film “she would like”. Of course, she didn’t completely believe I was actually going to bring home one for her, but, I did.
I decided, since I like Renee Zellweger, that I would sit and watch the movie with my wife. Yes, I enjoyed it. Of course, I knew EXACTLY what was going to happen and how it would end within the first five minutes of the film.
Bridget Jones’ Diary is based on a column from England about a fictional woman named Bridget Jones and her life, written as entries in a diary.
The film follows the love life and mistakes of its title character, played by Zellweger, a somewhat cliche’d female character these days—drinks to much, smokes to much, but is a utterly charming Brit (think Absolutely Fabulous, but cuter and less obnoxious).
A fumbling public relations person for a publishing house, she winds up having an ill-advised affair with her boss (Hugh Grant). At the same time, she continually encounters a rude and obnoxious man (Colin Firth) who she eventually grows to like. However, her boss and he share a hostile past.
I don’t want to say to much, because it is difficult to talk about the story without giving it all away — it’s that predictable.
And that, in the end, is what makes this film something you should probably just skip. You’ve seen it a million times before, and it doesn’t really offer anything all that different, aside from a few chuckles and several cheap and easy gimmicks at the end.
Still, Zellweger is cute and is a charming actress. Her British accent is terrific, far better than most. Grant, who overloaded with “nice guy” parts in romantic comedies, plays a jerk for once, which is slightly refreshing for him.
As for the DVD itself, it offers some deleted scenes, music videos, a selection of trailers from other films and an audio commentary — which I didn’t get a chance to listen to.
Pretty much all of the deleted scenes were cut from the movie for good reason, and don’t really offer anything new or interesting. As for the “behind the scenes” documentary, its more PR junk than an actual look at the making of the film.
Of course, I guess that’s fitting — an unremarkable DVD for an unremarkable film.
Ewan MacGregor and Nicole Kidman are star-crossed lovers in ‘Moulin Rouge’
Let me start by saying this: I HATE MUSICALS!
With a few exceptions — The Music Man and White Christmas — I can’t stand musicals. I just never understood how all those people know the same dance steps, or all the words to the songs??
But Moulin Rouge is different, adding a facsinating spin on the classic musical mold. I liked it a lot.
Unfortunately, I don’t think that formula could work again.
Moulin Rouge tells the story of a young writer (Ewan MacGregor) who moves to Paris, France during the early-1900s to experiece life so he’ll have something to write about.
Shortly after his arrival, he falls in with a band of bohemian actors — or, more technically, they “fall in” with him—led by a dwarf named, Toulouse-Lautrec(John Leguizamo). They take him to a famed and elaborate night club called Moulin Rouge, where the writer meets Satine (Nicole Kidman).
The two fall madly in love, but complications arise as Satine was “promised” to the Duke (Richard Roxburgh), a rich but insanely jealous man who helps the owner of the Rouge, Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent) produce a musical that Zidler hopes will end his days as a night club owner and make him a legimate producer, as well as make Satine’s dreams of being a famous actress come true.
While some of the musical numbers are traditional, advancing the story by serving as exposition, most of the music and dance pieces are simply that — music and dance. Many of which incorporate portions and themes of modern songs — for example, “Roxanne”, by the Police. Elton John’s “Your Song” is used beautifully as Ewan MacGregor’s first singing moment, and he does a wonderful job.
The story is well told. There are no grand secrets revealed towards the end or surprising moments, as basically everything is known to the audience. However, they are not known to MacGregor’s character. As they get revealed to him, you can’t help but feel sorry for him.
Both MacGregor and Kidman to terrific jobs during their singing numbers, featuring surprisingly powerful voices.
The visual style was more than an eyefull. While the editing during the opening dance number inside the Moulin Rouge was edited with a nausiating pace — some cuts move so fast you aren’t give an opportunity to enjoy Luhrmann’s visuals. At times, it’s very jarring, completely pulling you away from the movie.
However, this doesn’t happen during the rest of the film. The first major dance number is a grand display, but the other numbers are simply more intimate.
This film will definitely win Oscars. I would be surprised if it takes any of the high honors — director, screenplay, picture—but it will most likely walk away with art direction, costume design, and song (“Elephant Love Medley” was great).
Now, let me address the comment I made above: Unfortunately, I don’t think that formula could work again.
One of the elements of this film that concerned me was that it takes an element of modern pop music that I HATE and, to a degree, makes is somewhat “legitimate”. It’s called — or has been “labeled” — has “sampling”.
Many, if not most, of today’s pop artists do not bother to write new music. They simply steal rythyms and tunes from old songs, insert new lyrics, and claim it as their own. Artists who do this today include: Will Smith, Destiny’s Child, Alicia Keys.
I don’t like sampling. I think it’s an insult to the artists who originally created the music, and it’s simply a cheap way for present-day pop stars to use an established tune to make themselves look talented.
While the film does this in a clever style, I don’t think it could be emulated. It was a one-time gag, that worked for this film, but any other that tries to copy it will simply look like they are trying to emulate the success of Moulin Rouge.
It was one of those films that was not technically original, but was unique enough to be a one-time glimmer.
During the holidays, I was given the honor of watching over my seven-year-old niece, Amanda. We played Playstation, went to the movies, and watched TV together. It was great.
We journey to Blockbuster one day, and she was allowed to pick a movie to rent. She was torn between three films, but picked Legally Blondebecause it was the only one of the three she hadn’t seen. Plus, I wouldn’t let her rent Killer Vampires — the kid loves horror films.
So, out of curiosity, I sat and watched the hit film. In the end, I found it was actually enjoyable. There were a few genuine laughs.
The basic story follows Elle Woods (Reese Witherspoon) as she tries to prove to her ex-boyfriend that she could be a smart, politician’s wife. She follows him to Harvard Law School, where she successfully enrolls.
However, she discovers that law school is harder than she expected, and finds that self-worth is more important than the affections of a wishy-washy guy.
I liked this film. It was simple, light-hearted and innocent.
Okay, the love story-line was predictable, but that was this film’s only real weakness. It also does a nice job of establishing that while Witherspoon’s character may appear dumb, she clearly is not. She simply has some misplaced priorities.
What I also liked is how the film ended showing that her character has grown because of her experiences, but did not insult the kind of person she was when the film began.
Witherspoon is a terrific talent, and while I haven’t really watched all of her films, she’s always proven herself to be a fine actor. For example, I thought Election was too long and a tad boring, but she was very good in it. I would hope that she will not shy away from some more challenging roles in the future.
Legally Blonde is a movie Goldie Hawn would have made had she been 30 years younger. It is not unlike Protocol or Private Benjamin. I would like to think that Witherspoon is not attempting to mimic her career, because she has much more to offer.
I’m not saying that Hawn was a bad actress, she wasn’t. But, with the exception of Sugerland Express, she basically stuck with light-hearted comedies. I would like to see Witherspoon stretch herself a little further than that.
Vince Vaughn (right) and Jon Favreau reteam in this killer comedy, ‘Made’
Swingers was one of those movies that I wound up seeing more than a dozen times because the pay-cable channels just loved showing it. Now, they love showing lots of movies, and I don’t constantly tune in for them. But Swingers was funny, and I enjoyed the inside film jokes, as well as the obvious ones.
As I was searching for a DVD the other night — under a mandate from my wife to find a movie she would like — I came across Made. I had heard about the film, but never got an opportunity to see it in the theaters. So, I grabbed a copy and brought it home (along with a copy of Bridget Jones’ Diary for the Mrs.)
I’ve found Jon Favreau to be a fine actor, and pretty funny in most of the roles I’ve seen him in — he was one of the highlights in The Replacements. In Made, Favreau re-teamed with his Swingers buddy, Vince Vaughn, he is in top form — if not taking on a slightly familiar role.
Made tells the story of two not-to bright guys from Los Angeles. Struggling as a boxer who works as a bodyguard to his stripper girlfriend, Bobby (Favreau) tries to move up in the criminal world by travelling to New York for his boss, Max, played by Peter Falk.
Hoping to take care of his loud-mouth, paranoid friend, Ricky (Vaughn), he convinces his boss to allow him to tag along. The two then set about one misadventure after another when they arrive in New York City to help a local gangster (P. Diddy) work a deal with a Scotsman with a penchant for beer and coke.
Famke Janssen in ‘Made’
There are a lot of laughs in this film, as well as some tense moments and strong dramatic scenes. Well written, well acted, I enjoyed it immensely.
Having said that, I did have a few problems with it. First and foremost was the editing, which at times felt forced and jarring. It wasn’t MTV, headache-inducing, but some of the cuts were inappropriate and misplace, pulling your attention from the story to remind you that you’re watching a film.
There are also a few lighting errors, such as when the two are seated on the plane heading for NYC. A light on Favreau’s should slightly washes out the right side of the shot. Plus, some of the framing in certain scenes were questionable, but not stick out in my head as particularly offensive.
The dialogue is fun and lively, just like Swingers, which may be a result of the open improv Favreau encouraged on set.
The DVD offers a lot of extras, chiefly several deleted scenes — many of which would not have been missed — and “alternate takes” which allows the viewer to watch how the movie could have been (these are the result of the improv most of the actors took part in during each scene).
There are also a large selection of outtakes which are very funny, even though most consist of Favreau or Vaughn unable to keep a straight face.
The audio commentary, featuring Favreau, Vaughn and co-producer Peter Billingsly (remember little Ralphie from A Christmas Story?), is terrific. Favreau offers insights into the filmmaking process, as well as behind-the-scenes highlights. Vaughn also discusses the process of making the film, as well as writing the script and improving the scenes. By far, one of the most interesting commentaries I’ve heard, not only for the detail, but for the honesty.
Three “featurettes” also accompany the film offering a few into the making of the film. These were well done, and proved more insightful than most docs added to DVDs.
They were especially good compared to the STUPID and EMPTY HBO behind the scenes documentaries, which are nothing more than promotional pieces that are filled with people saying how wonderful and brilliant (insert name here) is, and how they are such a joy to work with—however some people do gush a bit over Favreau, which bordered on annoying but came in just under the “acceptable” wire.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is the one, true ‘Conan The Barbarian’
I was seven years old when I first saw Conan the Barbarian. I was shocked when I learned this, actually. I remember seeing it in the theater, but didn’t realize that I was only seven. Blood, nudity, what on Earth was my father thinking when he took me and my brother to see it?
Anyway, I thanked him then and I’m grateful now. It’ has always been one of my favorite films. The music — one of the production’s highlights — always stuck with me to this day. And, before getting this DVD, I hadn’t seen the film complete and uncut in years. Sadly, the edited version on TV completely butchers the soundtrack.
Upon receiving my DVD player for my birthday, I collected about 12 DVDs in about three weeks. This would probably be higher, but they’re expensive, so I had to calm down a little. Anyway, when I saw that Conan the Barbarian was on DVD and it had some cool bonus features, I had to get it.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is ready for battle in ‘Conan the Barbarian’
First, as I usually do, I watched the film. Seeing it wide-screen was terrific (something I had not seen since first viewing it in the theater). For those not in the know, the film is about a boy whose parents are killed by a leader of a snake cult. Conan, a skilled and powerful warrior, seeks vengeance, glory and women as he eventually comes face to face with the man who murdered his folks.
This story may sound familiar. This is because almost every major — and minor sword and sorcery film that followed during the 80s had a similar theme (chiefly, Beastmaster), which a few differences.
The movie is full of blood and violence, action and adventure. Some have complained that it move very slowly and that the action scenes are few and far between. While this isn’t exactly false, the movie isn’t a really a balls out action film, and I don’t think Milius intended it to be. Unlike it’s sequel, and other copycat films that followed, it’s more about Conan’s journey than action. The hero’s quest to find revenge for the death of his parents.
The DVD offers more than just a great quality viewing of the film. It also features a few deleted scenes, a terrific behind the scenes documentary, a slew of production photos and artwork, as well as the all important audio commentary, featuring John Milius (director) and Arnold Schwarzenegger (actor).
Sandahl Bergman, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gerry Lopez in 1982’s ‘Conan the Barbarian’
Milius offers some interesting insight into the making of the film. Schwarzenegger offers the comedy relief. This is mainly because he remarks several times during the first half of the film how he doesn’t remember much from the production. In the end, most of what he says is “yeah” to things that Milius points out. He also interrupts Milius a few times, which gets annoying. But, by the second half of the film, he begins to recall things about the productions and sounds less like a dingbat.
The documentary is also really interesting. I didn’t know much about the making of Conan, and always wondered what Oliver Stone’s contribution to movie was. As it turns out, his script — which was more sword and sorcery, monsters and demons, compared to the final product — was all but completely abandoned. I’m not sure why they gave him credit. Milius decided to make the film more grounded in reality, abandoning more elaborate fantasy elements.
The gallery of images is also pretty cool. Some amazing Conan artwork.
