Rezensionen von Bmovie

There are attractions to this film. One, it proceeds at its own pace specific to the revelations the main character achieves. Some would say it moves too slowly but, I think, this is only in contrast to recent genre films that rush to exploit thrills, sometimes fun, sometimes silly. The pace is more like that of classic mystery movies with a little film noir mixed in.

The atmosphere is somewhat reminiscent of recent Japanese horror films and remakes though the narrative is much more structured. This is emphasized by the "washed out" look of the photography even in direct sunlight. Of course, parts of Texas where much of this was shot appear a little washed out in reality. While this is not especially flattering to the actors, it underscores the uncertainty the characters must endure. (Congratulations to Ms. Gellar for acceding to this when most actresses are looking for every cinematographic advantage they can get!)

The film is more about character and the discovery of destiny than about complex plot or even surprises. As in many Hitchcock movies, the audience is supposed to know more about some things than the characters. Most horror and mystery fans will have a pretty good inkling of the answer the heroine is seeking well before all the loose ends are tied up. (As the "Robot Chicken" version of M. Night Shyamalan might say, "What a twist!")

Ms. Gellar must portray a repressed young woman suffering from more than one trauma from the past. She conveys effectively that her character is confused, haunted, resolute, scared, brave and smart enough to make her way in a good ole boy business world. She cannot accept help even from the few who are closest to her. Her premonitions (memories?) lead her to out of the way places and a man with a past as tormented as her own. There is solid support from the reliable Sam Shepard and from J.C. MacKenzie in a performance that is quite a departure from his usual roles.

Infamous has a difficult comparison with the earlier "Capote." Still it is a different view of the same story and characters and is written with more emphasis on the perspectives of those who knew, or thought they knew, Capote. Toby Jones may not fully match the nuanced performance of Philip Seymour Hoffman but he does, possibly, a better imitation of Capote. Infamous has a better known cast of supporting players and they do a creditable job. Sandra Bullock's Harper Lee isn't the quite same as that portrayed so well by Catherine Keener in "Capote" but her character blends perfectly with the tone of "Infamous." Daniel Craig adds another fine acting turn as the "In Cold Blood" killer who receives the most attention. Even Gwyneth Paltrow makes an excellent impression in a brief opening scene as, apparently, singer Peggy Lee. (In the showing I saw, she was introduced as "Kitty Dean???") I wondered why another version of this story was filmed and it may not do well after the success of "Capote" but I was surprisingly entertained and intrigued by this movie.

It is worth the watching just to see David Strathairn channel Ed Murrow. Good cast all around with Frank Langella as William Paley, for instance. It uses a lot of real archive footage of McCarthy and others to add authenticity. Aside from being in black and white, it also goes to some effort to portray live television of the era in the CBS studios. It certainly tries to address the larger point of whether mass media will only dumb us down or help to inform us that there are matters that are truly important. The Murrow speech which begins and ends the film may or may not resonate with audiences today but the subject is more timely than ever.

The series is a rare example of a TV show that represents young people who demonstrate unsentimentalized commitment, loyalty, caring for others, courage and self-sacrifice. What is so vital to its audience, especially its young audience, is that it does this with wonderful writing and acting. It is first and foremost great entertainment that is not "dumbed down" for teens and it does not condescend to the audience. (I'm way past the teen years!) There will come a time, perhaps years from now, perhaps sooner, when people elevate Buffy the Vampire Slayer to the status of a classic. It won't just be thought of as one of the best fantasy shows ever, it will be considered one of the best series of all time, regardless of genre. (That TV Guide's panel picked it as one of the top 50 all-time TV series is a start.) Episodes such as "The Body," "Hush" and (one of my favorites) "Invisible Girl" from the first season have been extraordinarily insightful. One day I think the series will be regarded with the kind of respect reserved for exceptional series like the original Twilight Zone, also "genre-handicapped". (I know Rod Serling is a tough act to follow but I've been around long enough to have seen the original broadcasts and his teleplays so I claim the right to compare!) Joss Whedon, Sarah Michelle Gellar, the rest of the cast and the production staff should take pride in their accomplishment.

Just saw a preview of this film (opens June 3) and as shamelessly emotional as it is, I liked it very much. It provides a more visceral view of the Great Depression era than did another fine film, Seabiscuit. Call it Seabiscuit with even more heart!

Ron Howard teams with Russell Crowe (James J. Braddock) again and shows they can repeat with a winner. Like him as a person or not, Crowe puts forth another finely tuned, very convincing performance. Unlike in real life, he can be quite humble and sympathetic while beating the heck out of people. Really, his character is affecting, especially in his scenes with Braddock's children, and may be fairly reflective of the actual person of Braddock. (The fight game at that time, or any time, was not for saints but, whatever.) Renee Zellweger, who is not my favorite except for a brilliant portrayal in Cold Mountain, plays the wife effectively and mirrors the emotions for the females in the audience. (If my observations at the showing are typical, women fans will spend time alternately heading their eyes and virtually cheering out loud for Braddock/Crowe.)

There are a number of good supporting actors but Paul Giamatti strikes again! He plays the manager who supports Braddock through thick and thin and his character recalls the era better than anyone in the film. I don't know what kind of research he did for this role but his Joe Gould is the archetypal boxing manager of the time or, at least, our cinema image of one. Here's hoping he pulled some big bucks for a role for once.

(You will certainly recognize Bruce McGill, as the seemingly hard-hearted fight promoter who could care less about Braddock but really doesn't want to see him get killed in the ring, from many movie and TV appearances where he is always reliable and who may be remembered from an early exposure as "D-Day" in Animal House.)

Sam Raimi recognizes talent when he sees it (and provides good work for this brother sometimes). He has done both here as he "unleashes" Shimizu, the director of the original Japanese film (and its various film and TV sequels) and as he chooses actors who bring a presence to the screen right away. The latter is necessary since this film is all about atmosphere. It is not character driven and, though the plot - more accurately, the story - reveals itself, it does so in the time sequence the director chooses. He chooses well as you see in a sequence involving Bill Pullman and Sarah Michelle Gellar late in the film.

Clearly, the actors purposely subordinate themselves to the director's vision. He counts on them to help create the atmosphere he is creating as much or more than on special effects and scary moments. This couldn't have been easy for the actors since they have to react to things they can barely imagine in often claustrophobic settings. Gellar and Pullman prove particularly adept and manage to bring a humanity to their roles that helps frame the scares.

There are plenty of scares but they are mostly not of the cheap variety even though the traditional black cat is around to pounce out occasionally. These scares are real but they also tend to be somewhat cerebral. You may think and jump at the same time.

I would judge this to be better than the original film. Shimizu second guesses himself successfully. This may be because he has had a lot of practice or because Raimi was the producer a film like this needed or because he had a better budget. In any case, The Grudge turns out to be a very good example of the latest trend in fright movies.

OK, as far as violence, vengeance and virility go, this rivals any Charles Bronson flick. It also has a grittier ending than the first attempt at filming this novel back in 1987. (That movie also had a great cast at the time, even though it may have been made in Italy, and was headed by Scott Glenn. I like Glenn and almost all his work but Denzel Washington brings something extra even to roles that may not be that sparkling.)

DW plays the same "hero" as in the first film since the two screenplays are based on the same novel. This one is set in Mexico City, presumably because Latin America now has the kidnapping reputation that Italy once had. Again, the bodyguard Creasy looks after the young daughter of a rich local. The daughter, of course, brings out the lost humanity of the bodyguard with a past. Surprisingly, the screen pairing of Washington and the currently ubiquitous Dakota Fanning works, even for a curmudgeon like me. (I'm sure she is being regularly injected with anti-growth hormones, even as I write this, in order to keep her kid/star power mojo and paychecks at their peak.)

Once a kidnapping goes very wrong, Creasy recovers in record time from his wounds and, lacking any other avenue than just returning to his formerly empty life, goes on a meticulous journey of revenge/vigilante justice. It is implied here, as in the previous film, that this is the only justice available and, therefore, justified in its way. This justification is validated by a brave reformer reporter and a high police official (the Italian Giancarlo Giannini, coincidentally) who seems to have no other way to fight the widespread corruption in the police and the kidnapping-as-business of organized crime. More entertaining help is provided by old comrade-in-arms or comrade-in-atrocities, Christopher Walken. He underplays here, but it is true as Roger Ebert, I believe, once said that he enlivens a movie just by showing up!

Objections? Mercy or due process are missing altogether and some could argue that it reinforces racist or elitist approaches to justice by a lone American. There may be some truth to this but given the set up of the plot, novel and movie, the people Creasy hunts down are about as mundanely evil as it comes and as well-protected in official circles as they can be. (Essentially the same situation is propounded in the 1987 film in Italy so the same arguments would have to be made there, as well.) The movie is lengthy, especially when you divine very early the identities and motives of some of the "surprise" bad guys. No, I'm not giving anything away. What do you think when you see Mickey Rourke as a lawyer?! If you were watching almost anyone but Denzel Washington during all this time, you might begin to tire. It is far from a perfect film or premise but it is stylish and it is Denzel Washington and it is compelling within the world it conjures.

I must admit it has been a long time since I saw the original Alec Guinness version so I do not remember it all that well. This new LK can't match the casting of the original once you get past Tom Hanks and Irma Hall, wonderful in the character of "The Lady." After all, the 1955 version has Peter Sellers and Herbert Lom among the criminal plotters.

Clichéd as it sounds, you will probably either love it or hate it and that may depend a lot on what you think of the performance by Hanks. Is his accent spot-on or irritatingly contrived? Is his "professor" over the top or just the eccentric you would expect in the role (in the original the character may have been deranged) and in a universe populated by the Coens? Are the mishaps and ironies dry wit and nicely tuned dark humor or is it all too self-conscious?

Hanks arrives dressed as nearly as I can tell more like a southern gentleman out of a movie based in the 19th century. His alternately preternatural calm and edgily nervous affectations seem to suit his E. A. Poe-admiring, politely charming sociopath. His pathology is a very patient one, though, and it drives him to thoughts of actual violence only when pushed beyond his powers of persuasion.

The high point other than Hall is the fine use of gospel music, nearly equal to the excellence in the Coens' "O, Brother, Where Art Thou?" It is particularly effective during the robbery sequence itself. I might like to see this again to see how it holds up on a second viewing but, for now, I am coming down on the side of positive interpretations of the questions above. If you are a Coen fan, it is worth seeking out when it opens. Even their flawed films usually have more than a little to recommend them.

Secret Window is a real treat. Not much I can say without giving away plot points. Yes, you begin to suspect the eventual ending fairly soon and about half way through you see it coming but that is not the point. All the supporting roles are well cast and well played, Turtturro and Hutton among the best, but they are just footnotes. The movie is Depp's from beginning to end and it doesn't matter whether you guess the story twists; it is Depp's subtle revelation of his character that keeps you watching.

The Philip Glass music is a good fit. This deserves validation at the box office but who knows?

Sarah Michelle Gellar is absolutely charming in this film and gives far more than she gets from screenwriter, director and the rest of the cast. The rest of the cast can't be blamed too much, though. (Lawrence Gilliard, however, stands out as the sou chef and confidante to Gellar's character.) This story that should have been a magical romance similar to some classics of the genre from the 40's and early 50's is never given a chance by the writer(s?), director and even the editor. Some well-known critics even gave it favorable reviews, presumably because they viewed it through the prism of Gellar's excellent efforts. In fact, because of her performance, I think it is worthwhile and very enjoyable if you concentrate on that and just let the rest roll on by.