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 II 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

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)

Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone

      What's not to love about Harry Potter? The young actors are excellent and very good looking. The adult actors are warm (or appropriately cold) and involved, and they never put their tongues into their cheeks and descend into camp. The visuals are gorgeous. The story line deviates hardly an iota from the book. And once the feature appeared, the noisy theater audience became silent as stones themselves. (Except for occasional cheering!) What more could a Harry Potter fan ask? 11/16/01

Harry Potter II

      Harry is taller now. He looks a little more mature. He has learned a couple of new spells, and he's a little braver. Otherwise, he is still the same blue-eyed noble-hearted, innocent, earnest, honest, thoughtful-jock-enchanter he ever was. The good guys are still good-clean-through, and the bad guys are still distinctly ba-a-a-a-d. And there's the same gorgeous castle of a school, the same moving staircases, the same ghosts and talking pictures, even the same Dumbledor as before. (New Dumbledor next time, I guess.) And Harry wins at Quidditch again. Why are you not surprised?
     The flying car is new, however, and you get to meet Ron's family. Kenneth Branagh (as in THE Kenneth Branagh) does a comic guest bit that is worth the price of the ticket. Also Hermione's hair looks nicer, and at one point she throws herself into Harry's arms, at which point they both stop and look embarassed. The monster is a great monster, and the spiders made even the Chick's skin crawl. So overall, if you want more of the same, you'll be as wild about Harry II as you were about Harry I. Even if not, you may as well see it and enjoy the phenomenon. (HP fans will be glad to note that earlier spelling errors have been corrected, thanks to contributing writer, Amanda Meredith. Sorry HP fans; even the Chick is fallable.) (11/15)

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)

The Hours

     It's hard to criticize a film that includes Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, Julianne Moore, West Wing's Allison Janney, and the great and spooky Ed Harris.
      This one was brilliantly acted throughout.
But . . .
Hmm . . .
Too brilliantly acted, somehow. One could never lose sight of the fact that the three-count'em-three leading ladies were Movie Stars, all Brilliantly Acting. Ed Harris did convince me that he was nuts. Allison Janney, what we saw of her, did look wonderful with curly hair. The Big Three really Showed their Stuff. But Virginia Woolf, that strange, splendid, cruel, tender, and tortured writer, never made it to the silver screen that day. Good movie, but I only saw Stars. (2/03)

House of Sand and Fog

       Brilliant performance by Ben Kingsley — he should walk away with an Academy Award. Jennifer Connelly was excellent. First-rate supporting performances. Wept like a baby. Beautiful film. Don't see if you are at all depressed.(12/03) Identity

     Not your everyday mystery-thriller. Not your everyday mystery-thriller-slasher flick. Not even your everyday mystery-thriller-slasher-psycho flick. Not, certainly a picture you'd kill to see twice — although John Cusack is always worth watching, no matter what film he is playing in. (Both for competence and for cute.) And yet . . . and yet . . . yes, this certainly is a movie you want to see at least once. Just don't ask anybody about it before you go. You don't want to know.
     Nuff said.

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)

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

     Nothing puts Sean Connery in the shade — nothing! Not playing the voice of a world-weary but self-sacrificing dragon; not playing a secondary role (consider his Incorruptable Untouchable sidekick for Kevin Costner, consider his role as Harrison Ford's dad in Indie Jones III, consider (choke) Highlander); not playing a bad-guy maniac (consider (gasp) The Avengers); not playing James Bond as male-chauvinist-pig to a host of panting baby-boomers; not playing a western sheriff in a low-budget quality SF flick (think Outland). Not even his current romp, playing opposite such literary nonentities as Captain Nemo, the Invisible Man, the Bride of Dracula, Dorian Gray, and Dr. Jekyll & Mr Hyde! Nothing can quell the Sean Connery-ness of this absolute Star of Stars.
     It's a blast, and if you like this sort of thing at all, you'll adore it.
     And what's more, this time he gets to wear Indie's hat, too! (7/03)

Life as a House

      First I must say that I really admire Kevin Klein as an actor. He was wonderful in Dave, hilarious in Soapdish, incomparable in Wanda. He's also extremely handsome. So it couldn't have been Kevin Klein. And Kristen Scott Thomas, Hayden Christensen, Mary Steenburgen et al were fine, just fine. And there were lots of star-quality actors scattered through the bit parts — although to tell the truth, there were so many that it was a little distracting. And the film looked good. And it had a guaranteed-to-draw-tears plot, full of love and lovemaking, and broken promises mended, and noble behavior, and a touching collapse or two. I had genuine tears in my eyes several times.
      So why didn't it quite ... convince me? Why did I repeatedly find myself recoiling, as if the coloratura soprano had hit a sour note?
      Because it didn't ring true, that's why. I really wanted to like this film, but not just once, not just twice, but many times the responses were off-key, and in spite of myself I kept thinking, "But he wouldn't do that!" and "She would never have said that — not that, not then!" Maybe those answers and responses play okay in Southern California, but they don't go over in Dubuque. And not here.
      Of course, it could just be me. Other critics liked it.
      But then again they live in New York and Southern California, don't they? 11/12/01

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 - The Two Towers

      Yes! LOTR-2 is here at last. And through this darkest of the three films, the characters and the story continue to grip the viewer. Purists may fret over favorite scenes cut and some slight changes in sequence. (Sam's long speech should, by rights, have appeared in episode 3.) But Strider/Aragorn is coming into his own; Gimli's character emerges; Legolas continues to be dazzlingly etherial; Wormtongue is delightfully slimy; the Ents are . . . just wonderfully entish; and Gollum's struggle between his better and worse natures is made touchingly clear. The battle scenes move us strangely, because we have the persistent feeling that we are seeing a battle between real evil and genuine good. Well, by now there's no need to urge you to see it. Doubtless, you have seen it. So let us celebrate it together. Frodo lives! 1/9/03 Lost in Translation

        Happiness. That's an item that's always in short supply, it seems. Oh, once in a very long while you hit a motherlode, but mostly you have to eke it out in poverty on very small change. Everybody wants it; everybody needs it; everybody's entitled to pursue it (so they say); some of us never seem to catch it. And would you even know it if it bit you on the ankle?
       What? Oh, I thought you wanted to know what Lost in Translation was about. You did? Then pay attention, I'm telling you. A man and a woman meet, solitary and bereft of happiness, strangers in a grand hotel and in a strange land. Sounds kitsch, huh? You think you can take the storyline from there, huh? So, you say, they hop into the sack together and live unhappily ever after. Well, okay, you're partly right on that one, but not the way you think.
       Because, for starters, the man is played by Bill Murray. He was always The SNL Man, so far as I was concerned. Chevvy Chase was the nutberger, Belushi had the flash, Aykroyd the solemn weight and madness, but somehow Murray was the one who always felt like the winner. And slowly, through the years, he keeps proving it. This is his best serious performance to date — and there have been very, very few bad ones, once you think about it. Only The Razor's Edge (and that was a long time ago) has fallen short of perfect pitch. But perfect pitch is exactly what he shows us in Lost in Translation, in addition to great maturity and a deep, deep well of tenderness.
       So what happens in this movie? Nothing much, really. Everything, really. I guess you could say this film is simply about happiness. And how much it takes to make even a little of it. And how little it takes . . . if you start with the right guy.
        Oh yes, directed by Sophia Coppola. Talented people in that family. (10/03)