FreeLook BookStore

Home

Our Picks

Classics Club

E•Zine

About Us

-Find A Book- Cookbooks Fantasy Mystery True Life Historical Kids Books Romance E-Zine Categories Search Site

COVER  •  Contents  •  < PREV Page  •  NEXT Page >

The Flick Chick's Archives - Part I Some films age gracefully. Some less so. If you share the Chick's opinions about other films she has reviewed, look over this list on your way to the video store. And of course, if you disagree with her picks fairly often . . . avoid what she recommends and hunt up the stuff she hates. See — there's something here for everyone! flickchick@freelookbookstore.com

Adaptation

     It's been said that inside every writer there is a madman struggling to get out. Others have described the creative process as a bowl of jello that is occasionally struck by lightning. It's doubtful that either one of these definitions applies to any specific writer, but neither is far off the mark in describing Charles Kaufman, the main character of this fascinating, formless film — that was created, interestingly enough, by a writer named Charles Kaufman.
     In very general, it is about the creation of a film adaptation of a book. And as we watch the adaptation itself unfold before our eyes, viewers do indeed feel that they are inside the desperate mind of the writer, and that they are watching a creative process as the narrative moves forward.
      Nicolas Cage and Meryl Streep, two stars great enough to have put vanity behind them, show the dissolution of one character and the re-creation of another. Watching, we experience passion, anguish, desolation, pathos, and a hand-in-hand wedding of violence and slapstick comedy. When the lights come up, you may be asking yourself what it was about. Here's the answer — the making of a classic!
      To the best of anyone's knowledge, however, Charles Kaufman never had a twin brother. (1/17/03)

A-I

     Haley Joel Osment, who singlehandedly carried this film, did so with his best performance to date. He was believably robotic at the outset and at the moment when he bonds with his surrogate mother, his expression changes so subtly, yet so radically, that it was thrilling to watch! The robots were brilliantly conceived, the scene in the "robot graveyard" had the same rich impact as the bar scenes in the first STAR WARS episode, and Jude Law's makeup and performance as Gigolo Joe were absolutely faultless. All that having been said . . . although I was glad I saw it, and although I recommend it, the film as a whole never supplied me with that indispensable click-through of emotion. No matter how good the elements, they must add up to a whole we can care for. Even the standardized Spielberg elongated, featureless glitterdusted humanoids could not save the day for me. (7/01)

Bad Company

     What's not to like about Tony Hopkins as a smooth, world-weary superspy training wildman Chris Rock to play a smooth, world-weary superspy in a storyline that features double dealing, doubletakes, and a wealth of snappy comebacks. See this one for a fun evening. (6/10/02)

The Banger Sisters

     Who can resist Goldie Hawn? Ans. No sane human.
      Is there anybody in the world who doesn't think Susan Sarandon is a first-rate actress? A no-show of hands indicates you all agree, so you see, you're way ahead before you start.
     So although this is billed as a feckless chick flick, that does it a huge injusice. It is also about compassion. And choices. And the results of those choices. And growing wiser as we grow older. Every character in this film shows real emotional growth — and that's no small accomplishment. Although there are some wildly improbable moments, we are willing to go along with the fantasy as well as the versimillitudes of reality. And perhaps best of all, to quote someone who is speaking of Goldie Hawn's character: "You look like a flower." Fairly true of the character. Entirely true of the no-longer-quite-young actress. We believe in her completely; she's a real, true star. (9/02)

Barber Shop

     Even though this has been a big box-office winner, you may still be surprised at how much you like it. Although most are stock characters, they are well played in three dimensions. The interactions are warm, the jokes and dialogue made my audience laugh, and Ice Cube has real presence. We sympathized with him, were willing to be patient with him while he worked out his problems in his own mind, and enjoyed his far-fetched success. One big criticism: take ear plugs. The sound track is WAY too loud.(9/02)

A Beautiful Mind

      What constitutes genius? We hardly know, because we can't see the lightning as it strikes. All we have is a whiff of ozone when it's come near. So if we can't even recognize it when we're looking at it, it's understandable that portraying genius would present a few problems. But it's fascinating to see them try: Amadeus (Tom Hulce as Mozart); Infinity (Matthew Broderick as Richard Feynman); the very powerful Thirty-Two Short Films About Glenn Gould (in 1993), which actually included substantive examples of his work; Pollock (with Ed Harris in the title role, reviewed earlier in this column); and now Russell Crowe portrays the tormented mathematician John Forbes Nash.
      Lots of good stuff here. Ed Harris is craggy and dangerous, Jennifer Connelly is appetizing and enduring. As a film buff, I relished the many examples of first-rate throwaway business: e.g. when Nash's friend and sometime tormentor acknowledges his success, Nash silently offers him a glass; the friend hesitates before taking it. And Nash wordlessly reaches out to him just as the camera leaves the scene.
      Okay. You've already guessed that I really liked this film. It engaged my emotions and my mind. It raised, very powerfully, the eternal questions about reality and our perceptions of it. Russell Crowe turns his potent charisma inside-out, so that it merely glints beneath the surface of Nash's driving, driven character. It was an exceptional performance, in which I frequently lost track of the actor within the man he portrayed. We went inside him. Struggled with him. But did we see Nash's genius? . . . well, lightening is notoriously hard to see.
      A suggestion: although troubled lives generally make better copy, how's about a salute to a relatively untroubled genius or two. Starting with, say, director Ron Howard? (Jan.'02)

Blow

     Blow it off! Even Johnny Dep can't save this loser-flick that tries to make you feel sorry for a heartless, worthless, pusher. (4/15/01)

Cast Away

      It missed an award, but pretty much all the good things they say about this film are true. Although it's a little late for this advice, try not to read too many reviews before you see it — knowing too much beforehand may take the edge off your enjoyment of Hanks' (and Hunt's) excellent performances. (1/01)

The Cat's Meow

     Sure, it's been out a while, but sometimes even the Chick slows down. Despite Peter Bognanovich's big rep, this is not a dazzling film, but it's fun for us movie buffs. It's really doubtful that William Randolph Hearst actually shot Thomas Ince, but Edward Herrmann was convincingly besotted with Kirsten Dunst (as Marion Davies), who looked 95% better than she did recently in Spider-Man — and almost as cute as she looked in Interview With The Vampire all those years ago. (How come she's grown up now and Tom Cruise is still a kid, hmmm?) Eddie Izzard, who played Chaplin, did not do any Chaplinesque acrobatics, such as the Little Tramp was reputed to perform on all occasions, but the real surprise was the hitherto fatally attractive Cary Elwes (Princess Bride?) playing the mean guy. Oh, the heart is broken! (7/9/02/02)

Chicago

     Well, that toddlin' film won a lot of awards. I do think the Zeta-Jones' hoofin' legs were worth every Oscar in the lot. And Queen Latifa's an absolute crackerjack. (Wotta solo song!) But much as I like the Rene' — and willing as I am to add that any chance to look at Richard Gere's male beauty is welcome — and although it was an amusing film, with some sparkle and a workmanlike try at a plot, hmmm . . . stellar? Sorry. Not.

Chocolat

      Sorry romance fans, but I thought it was punko. And as unconvincing to me as the book, although in a different way. I do believe in the struggle between good and evil . . . and I like stories about magic, as stories, but neither the GVE nor the enchantment jelled for me. Wonder whether I would have liked the film better if I hadn't read the book?
     Saving graces: The gorgeous Juliette Binoche, who makes looking like an adult look really good. Judi Dench. The cinematography and the French countryside. But the real pleasure came in sitting there and looking at Johnny Depp — who is as beautiful as Brad Pitt any day, and with a countenance far more expressive of thought and pain. (03/01)

Cold Mountain

       Did you read the book? Great book. And the film closely follows the storyline, though the war scenes are much more graphically depicted. (After a lifetime of horror-packed war movies, I feel like a battle-hardened veteran: WW-II, Nam, WW-I, the War of 1812, tge Alamo, the Battle of the Roses, Star Wars, the Pelopennesian War, the Battle of Hastings, Troy, the Cold, and now again the Civil . . . I've about supped full of horrors — yeah, Will Shkspr.)
       Jude Law is one of the most gorgeous men in film today, rivaling even the hitherto unrivaled Daniel Day Lewis, and Nicole Kidman was breathtakingly lovely, so we could be in no doubt as to why those two might fall in love with each other . . . but one wonders whether that overpowering combination of beauties is truly in the best interest of the story. Although it is a given that the requirements of film and literature differ, it was the dogged, desperate attachment of the lonely literary characters, clinging to their love like a life-raft in the face of their raging seas of difficulties that stirred this reader. Film viewers, more likely may believe that the lovers had been beguiled by the considerable pleasures that met their eyes, rather than a blind hunger for love's light in the darkness.
       Oops! A little too poetic there, maybe. Sorry about that.
       Anyhoo, it was a compelling film, very dark (lotsa dark films this season), and pretty sad. If the holidays have depressed you, maybe you should go back to work before seeing this one. But do, indeed, see it. It's a fine film.(12/03)

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

      Okay: it was a ninja movie.
      It was also gorgeous to look at. The characters were gorgeous, the costumes, the landscape, the closeups, the staging, the wirework, the props — everything: A feast for the eyes. There was more subtlety and character development than I have ever seen in any film of this kind. (But remember, it's a ninja movie.)
      Stars, Chow Yun Fat (the only member of the cast really familiar to me), Michelle Yeoh, Zhang Ziyi, Chang Chen, and Cheng Pei Pei were all effective. Example: the scene in which the ninja master and the powerful-young-woman-ninja-student are standing in the treetops, supported only by leaves, air, and their powerful wills. She snarls at him, "What do you want of me!" Chow Yun Fat reaches softly forward and answers, "To teach you," and touches her forehead — the moment was so beautiful, and he was so beautiful that I actually caught my breath! And when the woman-ninja master forgives the young-woman-ninja-student, it was as gentle and moving a moment as anyone could ask for in any film of any kind. The character of the woman was especially well-rounded. She comes across as a real human person.
      Nevertheless, Oscars notwithstanding, it was a ninja movie from front to back, and you have to be able to tolerate that in order to love this perfectly beautiful film! (2/01)

Curse of the Jade Scorpion

      Yes, Fans! This is what a Woody Allen film is supposed to be like. It's the best since "Everybody Says I Love You" — funny, witty, charming, and even tender in spots. The Woodman has put rubber to the road this time.
     I also appreciate his giving himself a sympathetic part, because really, after all these years it's an insult to our intelligence for him to pretend to be anything other than the elegant sharpshooter he obviously is. Allen and the lovely-and-talented Helen Hunt trade insults and lightning wisecrackers, the funny stuff is Marx Brothers quality, and pretty nearly every loose end gets tucked neatly into place by the end of the film. (Except for the silent brunette accomplice. Who IS she? And hmmm, I don't think girls began wearing tight, short-sleeved sweaters until those Betty Grable's pinups in the 'forties.)
      I'd also like to add a personal thank you for the great pleasure it gives this Chick to see Dan Aykroyd get a serious smooch of his own. (And you, Woodman. Yes, and you too!) Thank you also for giving us the opportunity to bask in the beaming benevolence of Wallace Shawn's wonderful smile. And vicariously enjoy the warm loyalty and good will of all the office workers — who needs realism in such a charming fantasy, anyway!
       Sixteen stars on this one, film fans! And bravo, Woody Allen: those Firecrackers and Skyrockets went off for us at his command! (9/01)

E-T

     Not kitsch. Not cloying. Not overdone. Not resistable. If you haven't seen it, see it. If you haven't seen it again, see it again. To be truthful, the Chick has never been wild about the flying-bicycle scene (it strained the willing suspension of her disbelief) but she's sufficiently wild about the rest of this wonderful film to make up for it!(3/21/02)

The Emperors' Club

      Prep School. Brilliant teacher. Rebellious, but brilliant student is saved by dedicated educator . . . only not quite. And then, of course . . .
      Kevin Kline's performance saves this otherwise predictable picture. Rather than playing it as a way-too-perfect Mr. Chips, Kline (or maybe the screenwriter who created the character) gives us a slightly pompous, slightly stuffy, and humanly vulnerable character with enough compassion and good will to retain our sympathy. It's also beautifully mounted and shot, with excellent performances by the young actors who play the preppie kids. If you hate this kind of film, stay home by all means. But if you see it, you'll find it sound, and it will hold you throughout its entire 109 minute length.

Far From Heaven

      Set in 1957-58, this lushly shot film pulls out all the stops on a story that deals with the emotional tangles of both gay (Dennis Quaid's) and interracial (Julianne Moore's) love affairs. Told very much from the woman's point of view, it movingly portrayed the cruelty that marked race relations at the mid-century point. However, according to what little I know about the social stigma evoked by gay behavior in the fifties, it downplayed the difficulties that would have been faced by the typical "Organization Man" that Dennis Quaid portrayed.
      But bring along your handkerchiefs; the acting was powerful. Moore was both voluptuously beautiful and eerily accurate in the almost Stepford Wife perfection of her good manners and control. Quaid was so thinned down and buttoned down as to be almost unrecognizable. Here, he turns a corner from his hitherto wild man character. Very effective. If you like this sort of film, this one will be a keeper for you. (12/29/02)

The Fast and The Furious

     Not long ago, I got tired of not knowing what the word jejune means, so I looked it up. I'm glad I did because that knowledge now provides me with the perfect descriptive adjective for this film. Plot development, characterization, motivation, and story resolution were uniformly, yes, meager and unsatisfying. Its saving graces were few: good-looking cars; good-looking ingenues (male and female); and the very compelling star presence of the appropriately named Vin Diesel. See it only if you are mad for cars. (7/01)

Final Fantasy

     Curiouser and curiouser — there were moments when you almost forgot it was an anime you were seeing. It was a very beautiful production and visually compelling (and I do have a weakness for fantasy), but the characters were (pardon the obvious) entirely bloodless, the plot was same-old same-old SF Nebulous-fantasy-evil and Save-the-world-with-Soul stuff, complete with the gunner who dies fighting. And the final World-is-saved-now scene was obviously patched together out of leftover graphics from The Fifth Element. See it? Sure. Enjoy the aesthetics. Pay no attention to the story. (7/01)

Gladiator

      Russell Crowe, you'll remember, played the cig. company stoolie in The Insider, in a poignant, low-key performance. And of course he Oscared in L.A. Confidential, as he did in this role. He is Gladiator's appealingly buff protagonist. The contrast between the Insider role and the others shows his impressive versatility. As to the flick itself, I' m a sucker for the strong silent type — but history this ain't . And there's lots of blood, of course. Bit too much for my taste. Others complained of that, and said they disliked the slow-mo & blurry treatment of the violence during the battles. That aspect of it didn't bother me. I would think that kind of fighting might truly seem blurry & slow-mo, in retrospect.
      Overall I liked the film (saw both film and video) and found it moving each time I viewed it, but I must add some strongly felt criticisms of its historical accuracy. For one thing, the Emperor Commodus did not die in the arena. More importantly, Emperor Marcus Aurelius was one hellova warrior as well as one of the greatest philosophers in history. Here he comes off as a wimp. Pity. His own story is better that the film's plot. And, unlike the fictional Maximus, Marcus Aurelius really existed! The FreeLook Classics Club has a copy of Aurelius's book "Meditations" — Good stuff to read on an airplane (. . .especially during severe turbulence!) (8/00)

Gone in 60 Seconds

      Ah, the Great Nicholas Cage; elegant, prolific, and accomplished. (And speaking of versatile!) I enjoyed this, even though I'm not a big car nut. Nor a car-thief nut. But I fault it for the same reason I fault Gladiator: it's immoral. I just hate rooting for the perps! True, our hero is a Good Guy. And the plot makes a case for his being Forced Into doing this Bad Stuff. But the whole time these flicks are decrying violence, they keep serving up bigger and bigger dollops of the very Bad Stuff they pretend to abhor. That's a no-no!

Gosford Park

     Altman has a winner here. It's not M*A*S*H, but it is certainly a charming, bitchy, three-dimensional and sometimes poignant film that keeps you scrambling to maintain mental contact with a broad cast of memorable characters. Everywhere you look, there's a star: Maggie Smith, Alan Bates, Jeremy Northam, Kristin Scott Thomas, Clive Owen, Kelly MacDonald, and the splendid Helen Mirren, to name a very few.
     One literary convention after another is overturned in this story. The English-country-house-murder frame, complete with a corpse that has been both stabbed and poisoned, appears at first to be no more than a clever setting — yet it is the crux of the film. The greatest no-no for the budding playwrite, that of carrying the plot by means of servants' dialogue, is brilliantly employed. And although there is hardly a single sympathetic character, the watcher must empathize with them all, both upstairs and down.
     No doubt this film will win prizes. Whether or not it will win the big-grosser gold medal is still in question. In the Sunday afternoon crowd who saw it with us, there were many gray heads and few young people. Maybe the teasers should be featuring the constant intrigues and dozens of sexual encounters that make this plot run. Hey guys — Sex and violence at Gosford Park! Come and get it! (1/13/02)

Hannibal

     Miss it! Tony Hopkins is just as ravishingly seductive as billed — but do you really want to go around rooting for a cannibal serial killer? (2/01)

High Crimes

      Heyyyy. It's fun to eat hamburgers. And fries. Masses of chocolate chip cookies. Even though you know they aren't particularly good food, and not especially good for you, and you may feel vaguely embarrassed about it later? Okay. Then you know how you'll feel about enjoying High Crimes. Like you're a little embarrassed to have enjoyed it — but you did.
     Ashley Judd turns in a good performance: not Ruby in Paradise, maybe.Not Double Jeopardy. But she's perky, and pretty, and convincing. And Morgan Freeman is his own magnificent self. There are good-enough supporting players, the timing is good, the dialogue is plenty good enough. There's lots of action and some pretty good suspense. Nice satisfying tweak at the end. Even a nice tweak to the tweak — although that very final scene is cute enough to make you gag.
      But unfortunately (yeah, I already telegraphed this) the basic premise is pathetic. I'm not talking about the X-files paranoia, or the original Terrible Incident. Sadly, terrible stuff does indeed happen, and far too often. (Although the circumstances explained in the film seem pretty farfetched.) But when it's all over, you have to ask yourself — why the devil did they indict the young man at all?
     My movie buddy had the best answer: "Because otherwise there would have been no film."
     Yeah! But maybe the film makers should go a little easier on the junk food.(4/15/02)

In the Bedroom

     I expected a whole lot from this film — after all, how often does Sissy make herself known to us, her adorers? (And of course, she is marvelous. And marvelously beautiful. Goes without saying.) And after all, any film that hinges on the loss of a beloved child is pretty much guaranteed to deliver a terrific emotional wallop. The character of the son is shown in three full dimensions. There is a tiny, added click at the end of the story. Tom Wilkinson's portrayal of the anguished father and husband, was absolutely brilliant.
      But . . .
     Yes, there's that terrible qualification: But the relationship between the parents did not quite ring true to me. I have not read the book, and that emotional chemistry may have been present on the printed page, only to evanesce in the transition from print to film, nevertheless I simply did not hear that perfect chime of reality — the ringingly different note of the silver coin striking the hard surface of the waiting mind. I wanted it to be there, but it was not there.
      Ah well, maybe that's what happens when we expect too much.(3/23/02)

Jurassic Park III

      Oh yeah, attack of the cyberdinos again. Same lush jungle. Same decrepit city-of-the-future. Same dinosaur-poop jokes. The velociraptors mostly mutter among themselves and Sam Neale looks thoroughly weary of it all, but the birdcage scene caught me up for a while, and I liked the resourcefulness of the kid. (Although — would he really have recognized Sam Neale by sight, even in the unlikely event that he had read his book? Sounds like a bit of author-fantasizing is going on there.) The upshot: If you love this sort of thing, you'll love this. If not, not. (8/01)

Life or Something Like It

     You know, happiness is one of our greatest gifts. Film after grim film in the past few months has sent us the message that you can't win, that death is the best answer, and that you can't trust nobody, nohow. Well my buds, don't you believe it. This sweet little flick is, admittedly a bit of fluff, but it speaks the life-affirming words that you can win after all, and that the game really is worth the candle. Angelina Jolie is improbably beautiful (and convincing), Ed Green is craggily attractive, and when "prophet" Tony Shalhoub opens his arms to Heaven . . . strange happenings follow. There's also a splendid cameo of Stockard Channing sending up Barbara Walters.
     Happiness is one of the greatest gifts. Go see this film and be happy afterwards. 5/8/02

Lord of the Rings

      Okay, before we get started, we might as well get this straight: what you're dealing with is, at least, a semi-pro LOTR crazed-enthusiast. Read it four, maybe five, six times. So no "here's the-story" intro stuff. Just now, we're addressing only like-minded crazed persons, fellow travelers, and open minded sympathizers. Ready? Okay:
      A: It's good.
      B: It's beautiful.
      C: Elijah Wood has created a Frodo who is even better than the one my imagination had painted; I salute him. Ian McKellen's Gandalf is excellent, although for me the battle between him and Saruman (Yes, that really is Christopher Lee, would you believe it!) had a little too much throwing of each other against walls, but it was appropriately wizardly. And when Gandalf plunged into the gulf with the Balrog, we wept for him right along with Frodo and Legolas.
      Sean Astin is a sturdy and lovable Sam, and has been graduated from servant/companion status to full companion. I was ever so slightly disappointed that Strider/Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) never actually got cleaned up to look "like a young elf-prince" while he was at Elrond's Last Homely House. After all, he was a ranger by trade, and a good one, but he knew who else he was. However, toward the end of the film, he did look intense and noble, and we'll continue to love the character. And as he is revealed ever more deeply in the books, maybe they will develop him as we go along,. (Two more to go! Yay!)
      A fascinating aspect was the camera magic. Plenty of wonderful things were going on all the time, but it was all so smooth that I was never thinking, "Gosh what great effects!" Matter of fact, having been very careful not to research the film in advance (and not having seen "The Bad Son" ) I thought maybe Frodo really was a seriously-elevation-challenged person. Turns out his height is in the normal range & it was tech-wizardry that turned him Hobbit-size. I had to ask one of my film-partners that night in order to get the skinny on that item.
      Although the film is deeply faithful to the books (not word-for-word, and there are many omissions, but the true spirit is there) an interesting addition is that the Ring itself is treated as a central character, rather than as a mere talisman. And it is given the same kind of camera-play that a human character would receive. That it lived independant of its bearer was hinted at in the books, but here in the film that characteristic has been intensified — very, very interesting.
      It's tempting to go through every scene but time and space press us all. I do, however, want to take special note of the lovely visual change that takes place in our/Frodo's perception when he puts on the Ring. He appears in another world, an eerie other dimension, unable to touch the "normal" world at all. For me, that other-worldly sense is mirrored during the scene in which Sam is drowning. You can see him yielding to that green viscous reality, ceasing to struggle, giving himself up to it, and only then does an unearthly hand reach into the depths — with it, a thrilling ghostly memory of the Lady of the Lake whose hand lifts Excaliber from the depths . . . You did read the books? Yes? This is not gibberish to you? Am I alone here?
      No. A Florida correspondent e-mailed this: ". . . a great movie. I had nightmares last night about Orcs and being tossed into the great fire. Whoa. I hardly ever have nightmares.
      "I'm reading the Fellowship [for the first time]. It's very good! I just hope though that these things live up to the movie. *sigh* that was quite possibly the best movie I've ever seen . . . my knees were shaking for half of it. I have never been so excited or moved before at a movie. And hey, being "moved" is what they're all about isn't it? It makes all the other movies I've seen before be pale in comparison."
      Pretty much says it.(12/24/01)

LOTR-III

       Well of course, if you have read all the books repeatedly, as the Chick has done, you may have a correction or two in mind. (Personally, the Chick wishes we had seen Aragorn heal Merry in the House of Healing, and Faramir gently wooing Eowyn.) And of course, if you don't like this kind of film, you may not adore every aspect of this one. And of course . . . it is dark. No denying that if you trek into Mordor and get stung by a giant spider, and starve, and fight in terrible battles, and see your buddies get killed in terrible ways, and watch the elves sail off to the Fair Isles (sniff), and get trampled by mammoths, (whimper) and Struggle with Evil . . . you're going to spend a certain amount of time in the Dark. On the other hand, when you see Legolas bring down one of those mammoths single-handed, and Sam and Frodo make it to the pit of fire, and the Sword that was Broken is re-forged, and Aragorn challenges the minions of darkness at the terrible gate of Minas Morgol, and the good guys win, and the King of Middle Earth is crowned . . . you're going to feel a whole lot better.
        And you're going to want to see all three all over again, Of course! (12/03)