The Critics Speak

Capote

Critic: Steph Lewis
On a scale of 0 to Awesome, I rate this: Gotta See It
Released: September 30, 2005
Director: Bennett Miller
MPAA RATING: R, for some violent images and brief strong language

Synopsis: In November, 1959, Truman Capote (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the author of Breakfast at Tiffany's and a favorite figure in what is soon to be known as the Jet Set, reads an article on a back page of the New York Times. It tells of the murders of four members of a well-known farm family—the Clutters—in Holcomb, Kansas. Similar stories appear in newspapers almost every day, but something about this one catches Capote's eye. It presents an opportunity, he believes, to test his long-held theory that, in the hands of the right writer, non-fiction can be compelling as fiction. What impact have the murders had on that tiny town on the wind-swept plains? With that as his subject—for his purpose, it does not matter if the murderers are never caught—he convinces The New Yorker magazine to give him an assignment and he sets out for Kansas. Accompanying him is a friend from his Alabama childhood: Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), who within a few months will win a Pulitzer Prize and achieve fame of her own as the author of To Kill a Mockingbird.

Though his childlike voice, fey mannerisms and unconventional clothes arouse initial hostility in a part of the country that still thinks of itself as part of the Old West, Capote quickly wins the trust of the locals, most notably Alvin Dewey (Chris Cooper), the Kansas Bureau of Investigation agent who is leading the hunt for the killers. Caught in Las Vegas, the killers—Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr.) and Dick Hickock (Mark Pellegrino)—are returned to Kansas, where they are tried, convicted and sentenced to die. Capote visits them in jail. As he gets to know them, he realizes that what he had thought would be a magazine article has grown into a book, a book that could rank with the greatest in modern literature. His subject is now as profound as any an American writer has ever tackled. It is nothing less than the collision of two Americas: the safe, protected country the Clutters knew and the rootless, amoral country inhabited by their killers. Hidden behind Capote's often frivolous façade is a writer of towering ambition. But even he wonders if he can write the book—the great book—he believes destiny has handed him. "Sometimes, when I think how good it could be," he writes a friend, "I can hardly breathe." -- © Sony Pictures Classics --Taken from Rotten Tomatoes

My Take: Well, it was good enough that Josh has been impersonating Truman Capote all week (it's hilarious), and that I've gone out and bought his book, In Cold Blood. That, and Philip Seymour Hoffman reminds me way too much of Neal sometimes. Other than that, the movie gives us a good insight into a man who is as selfish as all of us are capable of being. Yet, despite his desire to make the most amazingly written non-fiction book ever, he still has strong human needs to reach out to others. He feels pain to the point of depression. Like a lightswitch, he is "on" when entertaining others at parties, but is "off" when facing the death of a now-friend. The movie plods along slowly (which I like) and helps us to develop an empathy and love for most of the main characters, while also having them thoroughly creep us out.

Psycho

Critic: Steph Lewis
On a scale of 0 to Awesome, I rate this: Awesome
Released: 1960
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
MPAA RATING: Not Rated, but I'd say R because it's darn creepy

Synopsis: Credited with inventing the genre of the modern horror film, PSYCHO has had its share of sequels and imitators, none of which diminishes the achievement of this shocking and complex horror thriller. Alfred Hitchcock's choreography of elements in PSYCHO is considered so perfect it inspired a shot-by-shot remake by Gus Van Zant in 1998. However, Hitchcock's black-and-white original, featuring Anthony Perkins's haunting characterization of lonely motel keeper Norman Bates, has never been equaled. Bates presides over an out-of-the-way motel under the domineering specter of his mother. The young, well-intentioned Bates is introduced to the audience when Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), a blonde on the run with stolen money, checks in for the night. But Momma doesn't like loose women, so the stage is set for this classic tale of horror--and one of the most famous scenes in film history. PSYCHO was initially received by audiences with shock and amazement--and it still terrifies today. Though it is now considered prototypical Hitchcock, its setting, pace, and emphasis on terror were major departures for the director at the time, coming after the more classically grand NORTH BY NORTHWEST. --Taken from Rotten Tomatoes

My Take: I don't know what I'm going to say about this film that hasn't already been said. It's good enough to be number eighteen on the American Film Institute's list of America's 100 Greatest Movies. It's good enough to get remade. (Although... why on earth would you recreate a classic, awesome film that redefined the Horror genre? REDEFINED A GENRE!?! Anyway...)

Since it's a classic I hadn't seen, except for the shower scene during a film class way back when, I figured it was about time I payed my proper homage to Hitchcock. It was SWEET! Beautiful shots, great acting, classic Hitchcock crazy camera zooming and creepy heights, interesting script, psychological issues.... All around good. Because I'm so used to modern-day effects, however, those of Psycho seemed really fakey and even hilarious at times. I totally cracked up at the ending because it was so bizarre. All in all, it's AWESOME, and you have to see it if you have any small speck of an interest in films. I love the details and symbolism Hitchcock puts in films. I feel like he actually respects his audience and wants to include all kinds of neat details to really get us going.

I, Robot

Critic: Steph Lewis
On a scale of 0 to Awesome, I rate this: Fun
Released: July 16, 2004
Director: Alex Proyas
MPAA RATING: PG-13, intense stylized action, and some brief partial nudity

Synopsis: It's the year 2035, and the community now has the help of robots. These robots have three laws integrated into their system. One, they cannot harm a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Two, they must do whatever they're told by a human being as long as such orders don't conflict with law one. Three, they have to defend themselves as long as such defense doesn't conflict with laws one or two. One day, the writer of the three laws, Alfred Lanning, apparently jumps out of the tenth-floor window of U.S. Robotics. The majority of the Chicago Police Department believe that he committed suicide, but Detective Del Spooner (Smith), who hates robots, thinks he was murdered, and the number one suspect is a Nestor Class-5 robot who calls himself Sonny. However, if it was Sonny, then that means he would've had to have broken the three laws. With the help of Dr. Susan Calvin, Spooner must now discover the truth before it's too late. --Summary written by Ridley Lavine, Taken from imdb.com

My Take: This movie had sweet special effects and tolearable acting. The only trouble was that Josh and I predicted the entire plot before we watched it. We had never seen a trailer or even read a review of it. We just knew it was called I, Robot, was starring Will Smith, and had seen the cover of the DVD. That was enough clues for us to guess the main points of the plot. Josh even guessed that there would be a moment where Will Smith had to confront an evil robot, the evil robot would do something, and Will Smith would say something like, "Oh no... you did not just do that!" And then blow the robot up. Well... that happens. So, the movie is neat to watch, there's just no special story twist or anything like that. You get what you expect.

Walk the Line

Critic: Steph Lewis
On a scale of 0 to Awesome, I rate this: Gotta See It
Released: November 18, 2005
Director: James Mangold
MPAA RATING: PG-13, for some language, thematic material and depiction of drug dependency.

Synopsis: Primarily the story of the love that grew between country stars Johnny Cash and June Carter during the early years of Cash's career, WALK THE LINE is the result of intense collaboration between director James Mangold, co-writer Gill Dennis, Johnny Cash, and June Carter Cash. Though both Cashes died in 2003, they oversaw the script’s development for seven years. Mangold and Cash’s insistence that the film’s stars would actually sing paid off. Witherspoon’s singing (as June) is lovely, and Phoenix’s contains the raw energy and soul that defined Cash’s sound. Even as a child on a cotton farm in Depression-era Arkansas, Cash shows a strong interest in music, escaping from his no-frills life and strict father (Robert Patrick) through hymns and listening to the radio. When his brother dies in a freak accident, young Johnny feels responsible, and worries that he will never live up to his brother’s goodness. The film follows Cash through his first marriage with Vivian Cash (Ginnifer Goodwin) and into the early stages of his touring career alongside such musicians as Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins, Roy Orbison, Elvis Presley, and most importantly, June Carter. As Cash’s success grows, so does his relationship with drugs, alcohol, and Carter, putting a strain upon his family life. From his initial audition with Sam Phillips of Sun Records on through his legendary 1968 concert at Folsom Prison, Cash is transformed from a hesitant singer riddled with demons to a man whose uniquely bold style would make music history. WALK THE LINE never attempts to paint a full picture of Cash's prolific career, but instead focuses on the passions that drove his music and on the woman who gave him strength. With magical performances by Witherspoon and Phoenix, a haunting and inspiring American romance is brought beautifully to life. --Taken from Rotten Tomatoes

My Take: The best part of this movie is that Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon do a phenomenal job not only acting the parts of Johnny and June, but in singing the parts. Wow! Though several critics complained that the movie was too long, I loved the length. See, most directors would probably cut the long drawn out songs and give us some kind of cheesy "look at all the songs they did" kind of montage. But, Mangold shows us long stage shots of Johnny and June in concert. In fact, the movie felt more like a concert with interwoven dialogue. That was a unique and spectacular choice since that's essentially what their life and love was about -- the music they made.

Happiness

Critic: Steph Lewis
On a scale of 0 to Awesome, I rate this: "Creative" or "Unique"
Released: June 3, 2003
Director: Todd Solondz
MPAA RATING: Unrated, but it involves pedophelia and masturbation so I wouldn't run out and watch it unless you're well aware of that

Synopsis: Building on the darkly comic angst of WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE, Todd Solondz's HAPPINESS conveys suburban desperation and frustration on a larger scale than his previous film. The ensemble cast of characters centers around the lives of three sisters: Joy (Jane Adams), an awkward, naive, and unlucky musician; Helen (Lara Flynn Boyle), a beautiful, self-obsessed writer; and Trish (Cynthia Stevenson), a conservative housewife who is married to Bill (Dylan Baker), a psychiatrist harboring an unhealthy fascination for young boys. Other dysfunctional characters include the sisters' unhappy parents, Lenny and Mona Jordan (Ben Gazzara and Louise Lasser), and the lonely, sex-obsessed Allen (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who lives next to Helen and goes to Bill for therapy.

At once both scathingly funny and shockingly bleak, HAPPINESS addresses subjects that most films are afraid to touch, including pedophilia and masturbation. Unapologetic and unflinching, Solondz's film features bold performances from the entire cast and makes for uneasy but intriguing viewing as it peers behind the fragile facade of the American dream. --Taken from Rotten Tomatoes

My Take: I loved Welcome to the Dollhouse, also directed by Solondz. But, this one didn't quite have the same magic for me. It felt like a typical "indie" film - covers controversial topics with a somewhat deadpan format. Only, this one didn't really flow right and I got bored several times. It had some interesting shots and decent acting, so it wasn't all bad, but it just didn't have the same energy as Welcome to the Dollhouse did.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe

Critic: Steph Lewis
On a scale of 0 to Awesome, I rate this: Gotta See It
Released: December 9, 2005
Director: Andrew Adamson
MPAA RATING:PG, For Battle Sequences And Frightening Moments

Synopsis: Director Andrew Adamson gives a new dimension to C.S. Lewis's enchanting story with this long-awaited Disney adaptation. As the story begins, Mrs. Pevensie--in order to keep her children safe during World War II--sends Lucy (Georgie Henley), Edmond (Skandar Keynes), Susan (Anna Popplewell), and Peter (William Moseley) off to stay at a professor's country estate. Away from London and under the care of a strict housekeeper, they are instructed to stick to themselves and stay out of trouble. But when an innocent game of hide-and-seek leads young Lucy to a spare room containing a large wardrobe, she discovers something that will change their lives forever.

Inside the wardrobe there is a world frosted with ice and filled with magical beings. Known as Narnia, the land is stuck in eternal winter at the hands of the cruel White Witch, played with great force by the pale, strong-featured Tilda Swinton. When she steps back into reality, Lucy struggles to convince her skeptical siblings of the things she's seen. After much disbelief, the others finally enter the world as well, learning that the creatures of Narnia have long been waiting for humans like themselves to appear and break the witch's spell. But in order to be of any help to the lovable talking beavers, fawns, foxes, and centaurs that they meet, the four will have to face betrayal by one of their own as Edmond cracks under the witch’s tempting offer of unlimited Turkish Delights. Under the leadership of the great lion Aslan (voice of Liam Neeson), can Lucy, Edmond, Susan, and the oldest, Peter, prove themselves heroes in the ultimate battle of good vs. evil? High-budget special effects, impressive performances by the film’s young newcomers, and beautiful set design move this film far beyond previous television adaptations. --Taken from Rotten Tomatoes

My Take: I read The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe back in 4th grade along with the rest of the series. When I heard that it was being made into a movie again, I read the series just so I could be more irritated when the movie strayed from the book. :-) I tried watching the BBC version several years ago and just couldn't get past the slow pacing (typical of British productions); the mediocre acting, lighting, and set; and the crappy technical aspect of it. So, I was pretty excited that it was being redone. Even though the movie probably wouldn't be what I hoped it would be (ah-hem! DISNEY ah-hem!), I figured it would be better than the BBC one at leas in effects. The most important thing to me was that Aslan be portrayed as a strong character, and I thought he was. The kids were well chosen (thank you for choosing NEW actors instead of Haley Joel Osment and Dakota Fanning) and did a decent job. I had issues with several places where the plot strayed from that of the book. I guess I'm a purist - why would you want to change any bit of the plot of such a perfectly crafted book? And the changes they made didn't make sense or add anything to the plot itself. But, I won't get into all of those here because you probably won't notice them unless you're a fan of the book. Overall, pretty good movie with some depth of character and stayed mostly true to the book.

The Family Stone

Critic: Steph Lewis
On a scale of 0 to Awesome, I rate this: Lowest Common Denominator
Released: December 16, 2005
Director: Thomas Bezucha
MPAA RATING: PG-13, for some sexual content including dialogue, and drug references.

Synopsis: Destined to be a Christmas classic, Thomas Bezucha's dazzling dramedy, THE FAMILY STONE, manages to be both warm-hearted and sentimental while possessing a razor-sharp hilarious mean streak. The fairly conventional story centers on Sarah Jessica Parker's uptight career woman, Meredith, and her run-in with the eponymous Stone family (one wonders which came first, the title or the script). With her permanently pursed lips and severe bun, SJP looks and acts the anti-Carrie Bradshaw here as, armed with cell phone and business suit collection, she gears up to meet her fiance's oddball family, a tight-knit, colorful clan who border on bohemian. Matriarch Sybil (Diane Keaton) and patriarch Kelly (Craig T. Nelson) are a loving couple whose diverse children are clearly intimate and respectful progeny. When Meredith's humorless aura infects the homestead, it is mom Sybil and sister Amy (Rachel McAdams), sensing a romance mismatch and attack her venomously, sparking a tete-a-tete-a-tete between three fiesty females. While this Battle Royale wages, dramatic subplots brew in the backdrop, one involving the deaf and gay brother Thad's desire to adopt a child, and the other a rather devastating secret on the verge of exposure. It is in the emergence of Meredith’s refreshingly calm and breezy younger sister Julie (Claire Danes), entering the film with a dramatic fall from a bus exit, that brings all conflict to a head. --Taken from Rotten Tomatoes

My Take: I was so disappointed in this movie because I love Sarah Jessica Parker, Diane Keaton, and Luke Wilson. How then, can a movie with such a funny cast, be so... not funny? Because the script was shallow. Because the passing of time was poorly handled. Because there were too many characters not allowed to develop properly. If Robert Altman directed this, then I'd bet he could pull off properly developing all of these characters, but he didn't and they aren't. Anyway, I laughed because I was watching it with my mom over Christmas and was already in good spirits. The jokes were all obvious though and weren't really that clever. The ending was obvious. Basically... it was your typical "Gee, I want to laugh but I don't want to think" movie.

Fun with Dick and Jane

Critic: Steph Lewis
On a scale of 0 to Awesome, I rate this: Good!
Released: December 21, 2005
Director: Dean Parisot
MPAA RATING: PG-13, for brief language, some sexual humor and occasional humorous drug references

Synopsis: Dick (Jim Carrey) and Jane (Teá Leoni) are a typical suburban couple. They have a nice house in a development, she works as a travel agent to supplement his white-collar income, and their son’s first language is Spanish thanks to spending so much time with nanny Blanca (Gloria Garayua). Things change in the blink of an eye when Dick is promoted to vice president of communications at Globodyne, where he has worked for years. His first order of business: to appear on a popular news show about business and money and lend his magic touch to news of Globodyne’s earnings. But Dick doesn’t know that Globodyne is about to tank, and in the midst of his interview the situation goes from bad to horrendous and he becomes the scapegoat. In the blink of an eye he is unemployed, his pension is bust, and he can’t find a job to save his life. Their front lawn is even repossessed. To make matters worse, Jane quit her job as soon as Dick was promoted, their house has lost value, and their savings was in Globodyne stock.

Months later the Harpers find themselves in increasingly dire straits. They resort to paying their nanny with appliances, selling all of their possessions and are facing foreclosure on their house when Dick has a brainstorm: he’ll start to steal. Jane joins him, and soon the duo is dressing in elaborate costumes and robbing local businesses and homes. When their final job goes bust, they decide to go for the big heist: scamming Globodyne president Jack McAllister (Alec Baldwin) out of his stolen fortune. Dean Parisot (HOME FRIES) directs this remake of the 1977 film of the same name, which has been cheekily updated to incorporate the phenomenon of white-collar crime. Richard Jenkins and Carlos Jacott round out the cast. --Taken from Rotten Tomatoes

My Take: The critics lambasted this movie on Rotten Tomatoes, but I actually really enjoyed it! Jim Carrey wasn't annoying. Tea Leoni is hilarious and does a stellar job in a leading role. Some of the scenes were totally hilarious. It wasn't lame bathroom humor... but bizarre humor. And, that's what I like. I love when Dick stays up all night to get his lawn back. Some parts are hokey, but I wasn't really able to predict the plot, the characters evolved, Carrey & Leoni were funny... what else do you want for this type of movie? Loved it.