Alright. Let's get this party started. Tonight I'm chiming in with another classic film that was shown during the Big Muddy Film Festival. Also, I take a look at a film some are calling an instant classic. I still have a lot to get done including reviews of the festival's shorts. Let's quickly run through the list. My Architect, Spellbound (2002), The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, The Dreamers, Starsky & Hutch, The Laramie Project, Party Monster and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Gee...is that it? Come back often.




The Passion of the Christ
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

Most of you know the story of Christ. This film follows him during the end of his life. We watch the arrest, the punishment and the eventual death of the most inspirational figure in history.

I’ll probably be approaching this review differently than most. In my reviews, I tend to focus on the technical side of movies and try to illustrate why certain elements do and do not work. This film’s subject matter makes doing this tougher, but here it goes.

First, I want to talk about the acting. The film is shot in the Aramic language. Although I can’t tell how accurate the dialogue is spoken, I can say that the actors recited their lines with great confidence in their delivery. They all brought out the emotions of the story. Had the film been released without subtitles, it still would have been entirely possible to understand everyone.

Now, that could also be due to the fact that many people out there are familiar with this story. I have to tell you that if you don’t even know the basics, you will be lost. There is no explanation of who Christ is. For that matter, none of the characters are given a background. This is a pretty safe assumption, considering “The Bible” is the best selling book of all time. But, just to warn anyone unfamiliar that nothing will be explained.

The film is shot well. Mel Gibson (director and co-writer with Benedict Fitzgerald) knows how to make movies. The biggest problem I had with it was all the slow motion. I felt that it didn’t add any weight to what was going on, partly because of its overuse. Also nature of the story is inherently intense and slowing down every fall and every knowing look to the side made the movie drag somewhat. It felt more like time filler than dramatization.

I warned about knowing somewhat what’s going on before seeing the film. Also, I should warn that the movie is very graphic. Those that are squeamish about blood and pain should avoid the film. Christ’s body is covered with blood and cuts, from the severe beatings, for most of the film. It really pulls no punches as far as showing the lengths in which Christ suffered.

I think the film does a great job of reaffirming existing faiths. I’m not sure if the film was intended to be used as a promotional tool for the Christian religion, but I don’t think it will really cause a flood of conversions. No matter what your religion, the film has great acting and is full of incredibly powerful emotions. I don’t think it was the best movie in the world, but it is still a great film and deserves to be seen.


++++++


East of Eden
Review by Jon Waterman

****

Troubled youth Cal just wants to be accepted. His mother disowned him and the rest of the family when she left to become a madam in a nearby town. His brother grows weary of the close friendship that has formed between his fiancée and Cal. His father seems to disapprove of everything Cal does no matter how good his intentions may be. It’s all starting to build up. Will Cal ever find the love and affection he needs to survive?

Director Elia Kazan does a phenomenal job with this film. It’s truly cinematic in every sense of the word. He captures the moods and emotions well through the canted angles during conversations with the father, the pivoted swing shot, shots of Cal riding on top of a moving train, the fun house mirrors shot, and hiding the characters underneath the tree during a key emotional moment. The movie is a beautiful sight. The lighting is darker and moodier than what audiences are used to seeing. Cinematographer Ted McCord gives us an interesting mix of centered composition along with dividing the frame into thirds. There are a lot of lingering, one-perspective shots that would never be used in contemporary films, but those shots carry the weight and emotion and pacing of the scenes extremely well.

The most interesting aspect of the movie was the character of Cal and the environment surrounding him. What seems to make him the “troubled youth” is that he goes about doing things the wrong way. For instance, he steals a chute so that the lettuce from his dad’s business can be loaded up onto the train faster. It’s a good idea, but with a little bit of mixed morality. I found it interesting that he always wore white. If you think about a troubled youth of today, you’d find them completely ignoring the family and sometimes even trying to sabotage them. Cal sometimes acts like he doesn’t care, but he cares more than most people, He doesn’t take the love of another person for granted, because he hasn’t been shown that love. Instead, everyone calls him crazy for trying to do well. The film does well to follow only his perspective throughout.

Perhaps what makes the character so interesting is the performance by James Dean. All of the actors were very good, but Dean is outstanding. He exudes awkwardness. His nervous, shy mannerisms make him a lovable character and you truly feel like he’s just misunderstood. Dean does a wonderful job of slowly building the character to the point he reaches at the end. Since he was nearly always on camera, he needed to carry the movie. This turned out to be no problem at all. It was a very powerful and timeless performance.

I was amazed that so much happens without any real subplots. There’s not a time when we switch over and follow another person’s story for a while. Everything that occurs is from Cal’s point of view. Yet the story is extremely full of events and the supporting cast gets fleshed out nicely.

If I have any complaint about the film, it’s that the music doesn’t always fit. Bringing the piccolo in when the mood should be a somber one didn’t quite work for me. Other than a couple of unusual musical cues, the film is astonishing. It’s a great story of a young man, struggling with good versus bad, on a quest of self-discovery through others. Great acting, a great story and great visuals produce a great film that is not to be missed.

I'm back again. If you missed it, I wrote three reviews yesterday. Check back often. I'm slowly getting caught up. Here's an older movie, but it's still quite good and relevant. Enjoy.



Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media
Review by Jon Waterman

****

The documentary follows professor, author and master linguist Noam Chomsky as he discusses his thoughts and views on the media. Mixed in with much archival footage we hear him enlighten and argue his positions on how the media is controlling society. He states that the United States essentially brainwashes the majority through covering only specific stories. The main example is how Khmer Rouge got much more coverage from the press for being a genocide in progress while at the same time more people were dying during Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor. Chomsky claims that wasn’t covered because the United States was supporting Indonesia’s efforts.

I don’t completely agree with some of his views. I can understand where he’s coming from, but at times, he doesn’t seem practical about it. For instance, he faults the local news outlets for using the Associated Press and other wire services. It would be nice if every newspaper, radio and television station could afford to cover the entire world, but it’s just not feasible. What he should say is that he wants them to look in more unusual places for their stories. They should take from alternative press materials and bring it to a largely unknowing public. He claims that media thrives through ads and not the audience (A newspaper is 60 percent advertisements). Financially and technically yes, this is true. But without an audience, the ads would not be coming in. It’s a two way street. Both of these points are ignored – at least within the course of this film. There are other points, but this review is more about the film itself. Overall, Noam proves himself over and over again to be an incredibly reliable and credible source of information. His opinions and viewpoints have a lot of backing and he relates them to us intelligently and eloquently.

Those not politically inclined (such as myself, actually) may not believe this, but the movie is actually pretty fun. Watching Noam get passionate about what he believes in and hold his own in debate after debate and argument after argument is a kick. Not only that, but the filmmakers make it enjoyable, too. And at a running time of 167 minutes (there is a built-in intermission), it better not be boring.

Directors Mark Achbar and Peter Wintonick make this movie just as much theirs as it is Chomsky’s. They go to great lengths to reinforce the points Noam makes through animation, transitions, time lapse and other silly/goofy manners. When he’s in a debate, they edit in classic footage of a boxing match. The directors go into surgery to illustrate how the media picks and chooses what they want society to see. Despite the goofy spin they put on it, everything still comes across, as it should. It’s not hard when your subject is widely regarded as one of the most intelligent people alive. For a long time watching the film, I thought it was flowing without structure. As it began to wrap up, I discovered the structure. It was just more hidden and fluid than most documentaries. The speeches, interviews and public engagements are shot nicely as well. What it comes down to is that the directors know what they’re doing. A lot of thought and effort was put into the film to make it work as well as it does.

The film is extremely effective. Even if you don’t agree with his views, this will give you an insight into how the other side thinks. It could be a great conversation starter, as the three-hour movie doesn’t touch all the bases. There is a chance some of the material will go over the heads of certain people. If you find that happening, just stick with it and all will be made clear. The film will open your mind and fascinate you if you let it.

I'm back for a new week full of new reviews (I hope). I bring you three right now. One for the so-so comedy Club Dread, one for the fantastic documentary Rivers and Tides and for the upcoming PBS mini-series The New Americans. Thank you very much to Steve James for bringing that to the Big Muddy Film Festival this year. It was a huge success and as you read you will see why. Don't miss it. A link to broadcast info is at the end there. Keep coming back. I have a lot to cover still including Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Party Monster. You don't want to miss it.




Club Dread
Review by Jon Waterman

**

Coconut Pete’s resort is a place where college kids can come and party to the extreme. The staff is instructed to sleep with the guests to make their visit more enjoyable. They even have fun police on duty. It’s a hedonistic island with no escape, so you might as well enjoy the festivities. Enjoyment becomes more difficult, because there’s a killer on the loose. One by one, the masked serial killer is picking off the nubile youth. Can he be stopped? Will we laugh as they try?

Comedy troupe Broken Lizard hopes you will laugh. Aside from the opening half hour or so, the jokes get killed pretty steadily. The film starts off with the first deaths. A guy and two girls that escape to do some drugs and have a three way in the jungle. We are treated to a bunch of funny jokes and unusually creative insults (which can’t be repeated here) before the plot even gets going. However, later on, after the scene with the maze, all of the intelligent yet vulgar humor dies down. They get too caught up with the story and don’t focus enough on keeping the oddball comedy feel to it.

Although the laughs pretty much stop after thirty minutes, the parody is consistently good throughout. Not great, but good. Unlike a movie such as “Freddy Vs. Jason” where the movie may or may not be making fun of itself, “Club Dread” is definitely satirizing the horror genre. In fact, sometimes it does a better job with it than the “real” scary movies. You may jump a couple times. And I was honestly surprised when I found out who the killer was. I expected something more quirky or unbelievable from this group. The ending was overdoing it and everyone could tell where it was going. Other than that, the film did a good job of sticking with the conventions and precedents set while at the same time exploiting them.

The acting of course is pretty bad, but part of that is on purpose. Occasionally the comic timing is off, but it’s still more effective than a lot of comedies in that respect. All in all, though, it just doesn’t have the same rapid-fire feel that “Super Troopers” has. The jokes don’t come very quick and they get lost near the end. The story is there, but not enough was done creatively to make it gut-bustingly funny. We know they’re capable of it, which makes the film more disappointing. I’m sure there are going to plenty of people that disagree with me on this, but I just wasn’t feeling it.


+++++++


The New Americans
Review by Jon Waterman

****

This new seven-part documentary series tells the story of five people over four years as they attempt to leave the homes they?ve known all their lives and start over in the United States. They come from all over the world and land in different cities. A Palestinian woman gets engaged to an American she met on his vacation. Nigerian refugees from the Ogoni tribe escape persecution as they make their new home in Chicago. Two young kids from the Dominican Republic hope to use baseball to gain a better life for their mothers. A Mexican immigrant tries to bring his family north so they can be together again. A man from India attempts to strike it rich in Silicon Valley.

The details of the stories may be different, but the underlying themes are consistent. All of them must deal with families and those that are left behind. All of them must deal with the immense differences in culture. Everything is new to them. Instantly they are bombarded with confusing paperwork. The food is unlike anything they?ve tasted. They find out how difficult it can be to make ends meet. It is culture shock caught on tape. Not all of them are excited about it, however. Sometimes it?s just what has to be done for love or for money or for safety.

The series does a great job of keeping our interest. The kinetic opening titles and the theme song jump-starts each episode, preparing you for the great visuals and fascinating storylines. In fact, sometimes the shots are composed so well, that you may ignore the subtitles. There are plenty of obstacles that come about along the way from visas to schooling to families to health problems. We want to see them succeed. Even though only a short time is spent on each story, we grow with them quickly. The personalities draw us in. We laugh at their silly problems and at the same things they find funny, which really shows the similarities of the entire human race.

Despite being about a potentially touchy issue like immigration, the series isn?t really politically charged. There is some in there, since it?s unavoidable. Most of the political discussion is about what is going on in their homelands. Even those back home that see the move abroad as a betrayal of their country is essentially glance over. Perceptions of immigrants in the United States become an issue, especially in how the Palestinians are treated after September 11. Largely, though, the movie focuses on how the various people adjust and adapt and become American. Some of the stories bring babies into the world and to me, these are the true new Americans raised by their American families.

The paradox is interesting. Normally those already in the United States move to another town or state whenever it?s necessary. Here the instinct is to move out of the country entirely. It?s a wonderful study of other cultures and traditions. It teaches us how ignorant we are of what is going on around us, but it does it in such a way to avoid making us look stupid. In the end, I felt there were either too many stories or too few episodes. I?d rather see more episodes to get an even better feel for them. The epilogue is too quick and it would be nice to see more closure.

All the series asks of you is seven hours of your time. This seems like a lot and it can be. I say watch the first episode or two and go from there. Most likely, you?ll be hooked and wanting more.

For show times or purchasing information visit http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/newamericans/index.html


++++++


Rivers and Tides
Review by Jon Waterman

****

This documentary shows artist Andy Goldsworthy doing what he does best. Andy works in nature. He uses things found (usually) in his home country of Scotland and creates various sculptures and other living art pieces. Some of them will be around for decades and centuries to come; others last only a few hours. They all exist in isolation, hidden from the civilized world, possibly never seen in person by anyone else?s eyes.

The film starts off with an ice sculpture. Andy takes pieces of icicles and weaves them ?through? a rock. We immediately get a sense of how painstaking the process is. He carefully connects the ice together with his bare hands, which appear to be frost bitten from the work, because gloves would prove to be too bulky and not intimate enough. When it?s all said (or not said as I?ll say later) and done, we see the result of the time, effort and pain. The ice seamlessly flows through the rock to create a piece of art that combines various aspects of nature in an absurd, yet magical way. As the sun comes up, the ice melts away and the toils of the morning disappear.

It is not unusual for his work to be taken apart. Many pieces are created for that specific purpose. Pictures are taken of each one for memory sake as well as to reassure those that provide grants to him. There are many instances in which the art melts, washes away, gets blown by the wind or dissolves back into the earth. It?s all part of nature correcting itself. Director Thomas Riedelsheimer does a wonderful job showing not only the beauty of the art created with nature, but also the beauty in nature that inspires Andy to begin with. We see the beautiful landscapes as well as close up shots of the lush vegetation.

Just like Andy, the film is not afraid of patience, but they both know their time limits. Often we get lingering shots of the art. From one still position, we see the art fade away over a period of hours. In one instance, we see weeds growing around cone made of rocks that was built in a field of dirt. Some of these shots seem impossible or just foolish to attempt. However, these shots not only represent the patience of the artist and showcase his work, but they also define a clear artistic value to the film itself and separate it from more conventional documentaries.

Movement is key not only in the art, but also in the film. Nature is ever moving and growing and flowing. Andy incorporates that into his work by working with the wind and the rivers and tides and everything else around him. He even uses wool from sheep and stretches it across a rock wall. No medium is out of bounds for him.

The film uses relatively little dialogue. Mostly it?s about watching him create things out of leaves, rocks, water, etc. The work doesn?t really need explanation. The visuals speak for themselves. When he does speak, it?s always insightful and very useful in understanding why he does what he does. The most he talks is during the brief sequence at home with the wife and kids. I got the impression that he has a disdain for his home life. Not necessarily because of the people, but because he is not out in nature. He knows how to manipulate nature, because he has studied it and worked with it for many years. His passion is truly with his art and the world around him. When his structures collapse in front of our eyes, it is heart breaking for us as well. His emotions are plain as day without so many words.

The film is fascinating. He is able to find incredible spots to conduct his efforts. Sometimes the work is not very complex, but it is always interesting and always incredible to look at. The music is unusual, but fun and the quirkiness adds a little something to the overall mood. I had never heard of Andy Goldsworthy before this film, and from what I?ve heard this film doesn?t even show his best work. But if this is the mediocre stuff, then I may not be ready for the cream of the crop. The art is incredible. The filmmaking is stunning and mind blowing. You can?t go wrong.

One week later, I'm back. Here are my reviews for the foreign films Nine Queens from Argentina and The Day I Became a Woman from Iran. I still have a lot to work on. See you soon.




The Day I Became a Woman
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

This Iranian film tells the story of three women in three different sections. The first part focuses on Hava whose ninth birthday means she is officially a woman now. She’s supposed to stay home and help with preparations, but all she wants to do is play with her friend that is suddenly considered (by her grandmother) too immature for her. Next we follow Ahoo as she rides her bicycle in a race. Various family members and friends come along and try to convince her to stop riding and go back to her husband. Lastly, Hoora’s story is told. She is an old woman that goes on a large shopping spree to by a house worth of appliances: something she’s never had before.

First time director/writer (dialogue) Marzieh Meshkini does an astonishing job on this film. We are instantly on the side of each of the three leads and instantly captivated by what’s going on. The cinematography, story and acting are all great. The camera work is fantastic. It combines well-composed static shots with very nice moving shots. The ride-away shot at the end of Ahoo’s story was very long and very powerful. The film is powerful, yet sparse.

There’s no lighting that I could really find. Most of the film is shot outside along a beach setting. The indoor shots are shot naturally at the mall while Hoora spends her money. Even when she gets the stuff for her house, it’s all placed on the beach. Now, this isn’t to say that the lighting doesn’t enter into the film. It does. In fact, the first sequence relies on it. Hava is allowed to go out and play until noon. She’s given a stick to watch the shadow of the sun. The continuity and consistency in this sequence is much better than most American films would care to produce.

Marzieh wrote the dialogue, but didn’t have much to write. The movie is not afraid to go silent. There are long sequences without dialogue or music. In fact, I don’t recall hearing any music at all, even though it was there (by Ahmad Reza Darvish). Either way, both are relatively minimal which makes the movie both daring and more effective. You know to pay attention when people speak. They don’t just rattle off about whatever for two hours. It all has a purpose.

I recommend seeing this if given the opportunity. It is powerful and emotional and not in a men are scum way. There are a lot of sweet moments like when Hava shares her candy with her friend through a window. The movie is strong, empowering to women, intelligent and technically very well made.


+++++++++


Nine Queens
Review by Jon Waterman

***

After a chance meeting, Marcos the old pro and Juan the charming young newbie come together to work for the day. The two conmen start off slow, but then get a call to pull a major deal. They combine forces and techniques to try to sell a forged set of valuable stamps called “The Nine Queens” to a wealthy collector. Soon, what should have turned out to be a simple deal increasingly becomes more complex as the time to execute the sale dwindles.

Written by Fabián Bielinsky (also his directorial debut), this Argentinean film shows a clever structure. Just when you think the story has nowhere to go or is in danger of slowing down to a tortoise’s pace, a new obstacle comes along. The conflicts presented, for the most part, avoid clichés. It’s pretty rare to find a movie where one of the problems conmen come across is having to sell his sisters body in order to sell a sheet of stamps.

Despite the unforeseen twists, there are some more predictable moves that come along with this type of movie. There’s always the issue of are they just trying to con each other. For the longest time, it seemed as though this were not the case. I would have preferred it to stay that way. All these con guy movies think they’re so clever when it’s about the conman getting conned, when really it’s just repeating everything the genre has already produced. Is this film different? Yes. Because it avoids that for a long time and the ending truly is unpredictable. I thoroughly enjoyed the way this film came together. Very smart.

I have a little bit of a problem in the writing in that it tries too hard to be funny sometimes. It’s ok to want to put a few jokes in, but it doesn’t have to be a laugh fest. Concentrate on the strengths, because the humor was predictable. Luckily, this doesn’t detract from the picture or the enjoyment.

The acting is pretty good. I don’t really have much to say about it other than each character played their part. There’s not a lot of depth to any of them, but the lines are delivered naturally and smoothly. The camera work is functional and relatively basic. It starts to get fancier near the end and although that was appreciated, it seemed out of place and inconsistent.

If you have the opportunity to see Nine Queens, then I’d say go ahead and do so, because who knows what the American version (“Criminal”) will be like. Besides, it’s a fun, solid movie from a different country and you can’t go wrong with that.

Three in one night. Now I'm rolling. Check below for 50 First Dates as well as for the long list of reviews to come. I'll be busy, so check back often.




The Wizard of Oz
Review by Jon Waterman

****

Dorothy lives in Kansas. If that’s not enough reason to want to escape (just kidding people of KS), a mean lady wants to take her cute little doggie away. That can’t happen. So, she packs her dog Toto in a basket and runs away. When her mind changes, so does the weather. She rushes home to beat the approaching tornado. Inside the house, she’s whisked away and transported to a fantastical land called Oz. Now, to return home, she’ll need the help of several new friends.

We all pretty much know the movie. It’s a musical that starts off in a sepia tone then switches to color once Oz is involved, then back to sepia. Along the way, Dorothy gathers new friends in the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion. Together they must find the Wizard of Oz who has the power to bring her back home.

The movie has a huge production value. The costumes and makeup needed for hundreds of characters (mostly munchkins – good citizens of Oz, flying monkeys – the wicked witch’s henchpets and the witch’s castle guards). All of that combined with the thorough suits designed for all the main characters equals one extravagant production. It seems overly ambitious in many respects, but it’s all worth it. I doubt something as adventurous as that would be approved today. Of course it doesn’t stop there. The special effects look great. The tornado moving in the background across the painted backdrop. The witch appearing and leaving magically behind a wall of flame. The set design looks incredible. I’m not only talking about the magical, decked out cities within Oz, but also the built sets and landscapes of Kansas. The farm in which the Gale family resides shows great detail as they try to avoid any stage look or feel. And despite the painted backgrounds (which I still prefer over contemporary green screen effects most of the time), they accomplish their goal.

In fact, the only stagy aspect of the movie is the acting. Acting in the thirties tended to be overdone and overly projected. It was a transitional period where actors were slowly learning to tone it down. But in this particular movie, the roles were played in full force. Making sure the dialogue was heard took precedence over how it was delivered. Just as long as the jokes had their zing and the songs made you listen, the rest was secondary.

And the songs do make you listen. Not only do they further the plot, but they’re fun and whimsical and easy for kids to learn. Since the film has become a childhood classic, that’s an important aspect to keep in mind. The musical is successful, because whenever a kid hears a song, they relate it to the movie and may want to see it again. The two become inseparable. This film also incorporates existing classical pieces at certain moments as well, which seems unusual today, but also sounds like a pretty good idea.

It’s a great children’s story full of great characters (good and evil). Parents can enjoy it with their kids. Adults can enjoy it on its own joyful merits. Filmmakers can enjoy it for its techniques and surprisingly dynamic and well framed cinematography. Most of us have seen it, but for those who haven’t…why not? It’s a classic for a reason. Sit back and enjoy the whirlwind. For those that know the film well, I ask you this. Where does the red brick road lead?


+++++++


Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
Review by Jon Waterman

****

The hermit candy king is finally letting people see not only himself, but also his entire factory. The catch: you have to have one of 5 golden tickets found only in his own candy bars. The group of five children (accompanied by adults) all go inside to behold the wonders of the magical factory.

The movie is sort of divided into two halves. We follow the young London boy Charlie (played by Peter Ostrum in his only acting part) as he desperately searches for a ticket. He doesn’t have many chances as his family is too poor to even afford a second bed for four grandparents. His hope of finding the “most sought after prize in history” is dwindling as kids around the world unwrap millions of bars. The second half shows what happens inside the factory as the irresponsible kids are being weeded out, one by one. It makes for a nice contrast between the drab but cheerful outside world to the magical yet somewhat creepy factory. Let’s talk a bit more about each half, shall we?

The search for the golden tickets sets the mood for the whole movie. It makes the audience anxious to get inside and see what all the fuss is about. Luckily, Wonka doesn’t disappoint. The world is placed in such a fervor over these passes that they’ll do anything to find one. Some buy a box of bars in an auction. One woman refuses to pay kidnappers the candy ransom in hopes that she has a winner. The contest is what’s happening throughout the world and the news reflects that. The jokes are rather screwball, but also satirical and sketch like. The film also manages to weave in straight forward jokes as well. The mix is unlike most comedies of any era and the various comedic directions never step over each other. Like I said before, the scenery is drab and lifeless. The children keep a good attitude and are still very sing-songy. I guess they have to be, what with this being a musical and all.

The cheeriness and the faded backdrop are left behind when the final golden ticket is revealed. On we go to Wonka’s factory. Here we find an astonishing place full of brightly colored rooms and scenery like no other. The sharp contrast between the two settings brings to mind Dorothy opens her door in “The Wizard of Oz.” The only bland thing about this seemingly utopian location is the lighting which offers no depth or added character to the scenes. The boat ride seems to be the only planned out lighting set up. The color scheme isn’t the only thing that changes with the new surroundings. The mood turns more cynical and jaded. Wonka himself (played brilliantly by Gene Wilder) effectively quotes famous literature to support his eccentricities and the nuances of the happenings around him. Wilder’s matter of fact, yet enigmatic delivery is genius.

The structure of the two halves isn’t a new thing, but rarely does it work as well as it does here. Oddly, though, once we reach the second half, the conflict in the storyline rests more with all the other kids, rather than the main character. The alien like Oompa Loompas provide a lesson in song each time a child is removed which reinforces the anything can happen, surreal nature of the factory.

It’s a very unusual, very trippy movie. The quick pacing leaves no time to soak in anything that’s going on. The tour moves from one room to the next, showing off all the incredibly inventive devices and contraptions and confectionaries created. Everyone’s literally in awe of this secret world that Roald Dahl created. The music by Anthony Newley is fantastic. It’s catchy and fun and always appropriate. If you’ve never seen the movie, then you owe it to yourself. If the last time you saw it was when you were it kid, then give it another look, because it’ll be better than you imagine. This movie deserves a quality sequel. Not a remake.


+++++++++


Mystic River
Review by Jon Waterman

***

When they were kids, Dave, Jimmy and Sean were playing in the street. After finding wet cement to write their names in, they were stopped by two old men claiming to be cops. They took Dave away in a car and left the others. Dave finally escaped a few days later, but the trio never really talked to each other after that. Many years later, the three are reunited in unusual ways through the death of Jimmy’s oldest daughter.

Now remember, it was Dave that was taken away in the car. I found the strongest points of the film were in the story and with most of the acting. Sean Penn and Tim Robbins are scene stealers, but it’s easy to forgive them, because you can tell how involved they were with their characters. They don’t miss a beat. The eyes tell all. Robbins as older Dave (who was taken away in a car) with his wide eyes and piercing stares. Penn as older Jimmy with his narrowed, beady glances exuding a variety of emotions from pain and betrayal to confidence and determination all at one time. Bacon as older Sean is much more subdued and matter of fact, not letting anyone know what he’s thinking until he speaks. He puts his guard down only when he knows it will help him even more. The women do a fine job, but their characters are so underdeveloped that they verge on two-dimensionality (including the non-contributory side-story of Sean’s silent wife…ugh.).

Other than the lack of a female presence, the story works wonderfully. The murder mystery includes some good twists and new information throughout. The motives and personalities of the three leads blend and clash nicely, providing a sustained interest in what happens to all of them (including Dave…the kid who rode away with those strangers in the car). The story is mostly solid, but the script is pretty weak. The dialogue is sometimes pretty hokey and it tends to beat the point of the movie into your head. Remember when I told you about Dave? He’s the one who was taken in the car. Yeah. That got annoying, right? Well, imagine two and a half hours of that. Also, the ending was way too random. After the resolution, a series of pointless events occur. The parade seemed utterly useless to me and should have at least been mentioned somewhere prior. One of the characters does a total 180 on what we had seen and goes on some tirade that makes it sound like we’re being set up for a sequel. The whole mess could have been cut out and I wouldn’t have cared and probably would have loved the movie because of it.

On the plus side, director Clint Eastwood paints a lovely neo-noir portrait of Boston. The acting and story is such that you don’t feel the 140 something minute running time. On the negative side, director Clint Eastwood also provides the repetitious score, which does nothing more than add to the minor annoyances.

The movie had it’s problems and there is much room for improvement. However, it’s not a terrible film. It’s pretty good, but not great. It’s not all it’s hyped up to be. As a kid, Dave was taken away in a car by unknown men.

Hey, wow. A new review!! Check below to see what all I have lined up. And in addition to that mountain of work, I'll hopefully have reviews of Broken Lizard's Club Dread, The Laramie Project, The Passion of the Christ and Spellbound (the documentary, not the Hitchcock...yet.). So keep on checking in and I'll keep writing and watching.



50 First Dates
Review by Jon Waterman

**

Henry is a player. Living in Hawaii, he uses vacationing women to live out his fantasies and have multiple flings with myriad girls. Soon, he meets his dream girl in Lucy. The problem is she’s a local. The good news is, it turns out she can’t form new memories. Henry may be falling for Lucy, but in order to see if anything can come from their relationship, he needs to start the relationship all over every day.

This film has all the elements of an Adam Sandler (Henry) movie. It has the wacky premise, the love interest and oddball characters. But, it’s not written by Sandler…or Tim Herlihy. Instead it’s penned by this new guy named George Wing. It’s sort of surprising that neither Sandler nor Rob Schneider (who plays Ula) had a major hand in the final product. The script is very well thought out in terms of the reality of what the situation would be like. They show the intense process Lucy’s brother and father go through to reset the day for her so she doesn’t awaken upset or startled. It thinks out what needs to happen every day in her private world and shows what happens when it collapses.

Despite the thought, a lot of the jokes end up collapsing. The gags are telegraphed or set up to be this hilarious thing, but just falls flat on it’s face. I don’t know how they thought some of that would be funny. This androgynous coworker of Henry’s gets sprayed with various things at various times. Also, s/he’s a sex freak (of course a character of mistaken sexual identity would be) and thus disgustingly talks about sex all the time.

The movie tries to squeeze some life out of the quirky characters. Ula is a native who has super-talented kids. There’s the old man in the diner that makes the witty remarks. The chef, the aforementioned coworker, the steroid abusing brother of Lucy, and all the animals at the aquatic park Henry works at. The walrus and the penguin are, undeniably, adorable. Obviously, they are there just to get “awwwws” from the audience. But it works. They’re cute.

And that’s the best way to describe the film as a whole. It’s cute. As a romantic comedy, there could be more Hawaiian Punch to the lines. I’d say it’s romantic enough, though. Overall, it’s an alright date movie. I’ve seen better and I’ve seen worse. If you get bored with the tightly constructed story, which most likely won’t happen, then sit back and enjoy the scenery of the islands. Aloha.