Film Week

A review of the films I’ve seen this past week.

LITTLE CHILDREN (2006)
This is the movie everyone thought was so great? Wow. I really hate these movies about suburban angst. They never have anything new to say, yet they always act like even the mere fact that some people are unhappy in the suburbs is some kind of brand new revelation. It was tired long before American Beauty got to it. I don’t know where to start with this one. I will say this: I loved Kate Winslet in it, and I really like Patrick Wilson, it’s just that, with the exception of Angels in America, I hate every movie of his I’ve seen. I think he’s such a good actor, and I hate seeing him in things that are beneath him. The same goes triple for Winslet; every time I’m looking forward to whatever she does next, it’s a Life of David Gale or Little Children where pretentious moral posturing leads absolutely nowhere. Everything else about this movie–the screenplay, the one-dimensional characters, the oh-so-precious and completely unneccesary narration, the genteel art direction–I absolutely hated. And when it ends, all I could do is just wonder what the fucking point of the whole thing was. Todd Field directed this movie, and all I could think was Well, at least this is better than “In the Bedroom”…and then the last 20 minutes happened. Wow, what a shitty movie. Thinking that it’s making points about connection, and beating you over the head with them, but really saying nothing. What was with that whole scene of Jackie Earle Haley at the pool? The was as overplayed as anything in a Douglas Sirk movie. I cannot believe the amount of critical acclaim that he’s garnered for playing the most over-the-top child molester I’ve seen in a movie that wasn’t made for Lifetime. He should’ve been running around in a cape and shirt with a giant letter M on the front, twiddling a ridiculous moustache and sneering into the camera. “No stereotypical suburban ritual is safe from…The Molestor!!!!” Seriously, he played that role with the kind of delivery style you usually don’t see outside of people playing the Riddler. Terrible, terrible movie. * star.

IMAGINE ME & YOU (2005)
Once you look past the fact that it’s about lesbians, it’s basically your typical British wannabe Richard Curtis romcom. I don’t know if that’s the whole point or what. Piper Perabo (looking the prettiest I’ve ever seen her) falls for Lena Heady at her own wedding to Matthew Goode. And cue romantic comedy. Quirky parents? Check. Quirky support cast? Check. Romantic montage set to Britpop music? Check. Last ditch break for the airport with the quirky cast in the car, leading to a reunion set to whatever oldie the title is taken from? Check and check. No surprises, but an appealing cast, and it’s a nice enough movie. *** stars. One thing I kept thinking about: why is it that a movie where a woman leaves her husband for a woman is a triumph, but if the roles were reversed, it would be some kind of tragedy? Nothing against the movie, but most gay romances between men tend to play out like Jeffrey, where things are tragic and people are oppressed. Most movies about romances between women tend to err on the side of triumph, where we’re glad that two pretty girls end up together. There should be more movies about gay men where people just accept that they’re gay and are happy even if a guy leaves his wife for another man, because he needs to follow his heart. More boy-boy romcoms! And if they star Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, that’s something I would go see. Someone get those two together again for a remake of Bringing Up Baby.

SPIDER-MAN 3 (2007)
Personally, I just don’t get the negative reviews. I didn’t find the movie overstuffed; far from it, in fact. I loved it as much as I loved the other two movies. The criticism that there are too many coincidences just seems like a profound misunderstanding of the comic book genre to me, and the criticism that taking away Peter’s guilt over his uncle’s murder makes Ben’s death meaningless seems like immature thinking. Another criticism I hear is that this movie has too many villains in it, but I disagree. I see why they’ve done what they’ve done; I mean, Venom was always going to have to be a third-act device, because you need the middle act to be about Peter’s self-doubt and the elevation of his aggression with the alien costume, and who’s the villain going to be for the first two-thirds of the movie? I didn’t have a problem with any of it. I remember Roger Ebert, in his negative review for the first Spider-Man, summing up his problems with the movie by saying “Imagine a Batman movie where Bruce Wayne is more interesting than Batman and you see the problem.” But actually, that’s the whole point of Spider-Man. It’s always been about Peter’s attempt to lead a normal life and deal with the responsibility of his powers; that’s what every Marvel Comic is about. There should be more Peter Parker than Spider-Man in these movies. Anyway, after the movie, I was thinking about what the Spider-Man movies do so well that makes them work.

1. The filmmakers are always taking away any change Peter Parker has for being smug. Something bad happens whenever he gets too full of himself, and I like that. It’s the opposite of what you usually get in action movies; Peter never gets the change to congratulate himself for being such a hotshot.

2. They’re just so unashamed to be comic book movies. They were their emotions on their sleeve and revel in this sort of old-fashioned sensibility. In Spider-Man 2, when Spidey saves some kids from being run over by a bus and tells them they shouldn’t play in the street, it seems a world away from most comic book movies that don’t have the time to deal with such little things. But it’s just exactly right. I love that about these movies. And it’s done in such an unironic, straight manner, too. It’s not a joke to be a little outdated.

3. The villains in these movies are never just evil. Green Goblin, Doctor Octopus, and Sandman are all people caught up in something because of bad decisions or terrible accidents or shitty circumstances. I like that they’re more rounded. Honestly, I could’ve done with more Sandman in the third movie, which is the only time you’ll ever here me saying there should be more of Lowell in something.

4. Rosemary Harris. She’s my favorite part of all three movies. The whole supporting cast is great, and the scripts for these movies don’t forget about them, but also don’t try to shove them into more of the movie than they need to be in (think Joe Pesci in Lethal Weapon 3).

5. No fear of fanboys. Too many movies based on comics (the X-Men series leaps to mind) are constantly looking over their shoulder, hoping that the fans don’t get pissed off about their ever-pedantic complaint of faithfulness to the source material. That’s not a legitimate criticism. A movie doesn’t have to be more like something in another medium, it just has to be good on its own. Movies aren’t supposed to have a manual. In this movie, they make changes to Spider-Man’s origin story. They’ve given all of the villains different motivations so they can be sympathetic characters. I don’t care that it’s not the way it was in the comics; they’re good movies. Great movies.

I just love these movies, and I didn’t think this one did anything insanely wrong. Yes, the jazz club scene is a bit of a clunker, and Peter with the Hitler/emo hair when he was “bad” was pretty silly, but the other movies were just as sublimely dorky as this one is. And I loved Bryce Dallas Howard, looking her cutest ever; putting her next to Kirsten Dunst was a little dangerous, because Kiki didn’t look anywhere near as good as Bryce–though I was pleased to see Kiki still looks like a woman now, like she did in Marie Antoinette. Topher Grace was underused, but he was kind of shallowly written (and, frankly, shallowly acted–this was the first time I ever saw Topher Grace in a movie and really felt he was falling back on a lot of what he did on That 70s Show). Tobey Maguire…well, he’s Tobey Maguire, and I’ve never liked him outside of a Spider-Man movie anyway. And there are two wonderful cameos, one by Bruce Campbell, and one great little moment with Stan Lee. I’m calling it **** stars; I laughed, I cried, and when it was over I’d had a great time. I could see a fourth one. Although maybe Sam Raimi should make another movie first, and then get back into the groove, because a formula could easily start to set in here. There are signs of it already.

THE GARDEN OF EDEN (1928)
Frankly boring Lewis Milestone film about a poor girl who falls in love with a wealthy playboy. Corrine Griffith was absolutely wonderful, the film would’ve been much poorer without her, but her love interest, Lowell Sherman, is just a sleaze. I didn’t care if she ever saw him again, frankly. ** stars.

LAYER CAKE (2004)
I think the British do crime movies better than anyone else, and this is a good example. Daniel Craig plays a man who wants to retire from the drug trade, only to get caught up in a whole scheme of double-crossing and betrayal. Excellent cast (yay, Colm Meany! Kenneth Cranham! Michael Gambon!), excellent technique, brilliant ending, and I actually thought Sienna Miller was sexy in this movie. I did in Alfie too, and those are the only two I’ve seen her in. Fuck, why does she look so unpleasant in real life? Anyway, gorgeous movie. **** stars, easily on a par with The Long Good Friday, Mona Lisa, and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels.