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 Video Clicks, Part IV Bad films go stale, but the pleasures of good films never end. They stickify your memory like the reminders of a jam and honey sandwich. They adhere to the roof of your mind like peanut butter. Second helpings via video can be twice (or half) as satisfying as you hoped. And in among the broken crackers and cheese rinds of aged titles on TV, we sometimes discover the unexpected petit four. So here they are: the good dinners kept warm, the delicious last dollop of ice cream from the freezer . . . and a few cold leftovers. Yum! flickchick@freelookbookstore.com

On to the Video Store

The Pledge

     Well, he surprised me again. For a number of years Jack Nicholson specialized in playing a certain kind of wild and (literally) crazy guy. And it got old. Although he did it extraordinarily well, I began wanting to not-see his movies. So I quietly boycotted As Good As It Gets, even though it also starred the beautiful and talented Helen Hunt. Even after he and she both took an Oscar to wild applause, I continued sulking, because I thought the film award belonged to Smoke Signals. (My solid gold attaway still goes to that great indie film. As always.)
      Then one of the friends who had been nagging me go see it actually bought a tape of As Good As It Gets, and presented it to me as a unbirthday present. So I watched it and — behold! — Jack had expanded his repertoire.
      Good. Even so I never bothered to see The Pledge until it was on tape. Matter of fact, I just got around to it.
     And know what? He's done it again.
     During the precredits, which so often set the scene or the pace, I did not even recognize him! That sure set the pace all right. Here he plays a low-key under-control character who, a little at a time is subjected to greater and greater pressure by the dreadful murder of a young child, just on the day he is to retire as the officer in charge. He does retire, but the crime haunts him, and he struggles throughout the film to find the fleeting shadow of the criminal. Been done? Yes, but he makes it live. It's dark and saddening, but if you have not yet done so, see it now. You must not miss this one. (8/01)

Pollock

      There's still some debate about whether or not Jackson Pollock was a great painter, but there's no debating Ed Harris' splendid acting and his directing of this film depicting Pollock's life and creative energy. I was especially impressed by the attention that was devoted to actually portraying the continual effort — the agonizing and recurring struggle toward creation. Most bio-pix content themselves with love'em-and-leave'em, tantrum-and-tribulation views of an artist's life. Of course, there was certainly plenty of that in Pollock's life and also in the film, but Art itself is the real focus of this very beautiful and effective work of art.
      Also note that all the supporting roles were well handled, especially that of Pollock's long-suffering wife: Marcia Gay Harden really deserved her Oscar.
      Bravo, Ed Harris! (04/01)

The Road to Perdition

      It's okay. You can stop worrying. Tom Hanks, perhaps the most quietly accomplished actor of our time, has not dimmed his lustre with this one.
      And truthfully, the Chick was worried. What if he was so good at being a bad guy that she learned to hate him? What would she do then? Yet, as the world knows, she detests films in which she has to root for the bad guy. But it's cool; all's well. With a larger eye, we see how this line of work could come to such a troubled soul.
      The film was great to look at, filled with suspense, and satisfyingly complex. And the Kid did well, Paul Newman was swell, and gorgeous Jude Law was so mean and ugly that he blew me off my tree. Moreover, it seems to be doing well at the box office, so the Hanks/Newman/Law pocketbooks are as safe as their reps. Good! (7/20)

The Royal Tennenbaums

     I was prepared to love this film. After all, it stars Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Stiller, Danny Glover, and my personal fave, Bill Murray, all of whom gave engaging performances as a set of quirky oddball misfits. (Liked Paltrow in this role better than in any I have seen her do in some time.) It had cute dialogue and a giddy, amusing plot, complete with the necessary dark moment or two. There were even a hunting falcon and a Beagle to charm us animal lovers! It had so much flash, so much charm, it was so much of a good thing . . . how could it fail?
     And it didn't fail . . . exactly. Only —
      It was so pleased with itself! So slyly, tongue-in-cheek, Look-ma-I'm-dancin' campily precious that I was, myself, ever so slightly put off by it. The theater audience laughed. I laughed too. But not quite enough. Guess I expected more than it delivered.
      By the way — "Royal" because the Dad's name is Royal. (1/16/02)

The Score

     It is always a delight to see a great professional at work, and Brando is one of the topmost, foremost, utmost professionals of our time — even in his present state of corpulence (Webster II: (n) - excessive fatness ). And it's a pleasure to see Robert De Niro looking fit and competent and vicariously doing stunts that would make a much younger man blanche. And Edward Norton is a pleasing young person, as is Angela Bassett doing a star turn as De Niro's luscious chick. And it was an enjoyably maze-like tale, and it featured plenty of dazzling gadgets and incomprehensible computer forays. There was even the now-required hysterical nut-cybermaven to supply a crucial bit of data.
      Yes, masses of good stuff, including the obligatory sting and countersting at the end. So sure, pal, see it. Absolutely great stars, swell puzzle, gadgets, computer wizardly, the necessary stings — who could ask for more?
      Well . . . I could. Despite all those lovely bells and all those shrill whistles, despite the exquisitely artistic photography, despite the intense enjoyment of watching Brando improve on Truman Capote and De Niro dally over a Harry Palmer-in-the-kitchen imitation . . . the ending had a certain up-in-the-air quality to it. It did not quite satisfy.
     Not wanting to tip over the whole pot of beans, here, but when you have seen it, ask yourself this: Would the ending have been quite the same had it been pitched to the Baby Boomers some 20 years ago? I don't refer to unformed taste, you understand, I mean when they themselves were not yet De Niro's age? Sad, friends, sad, but I think the years have taken their toll.
      Added Chicknote: You'll notice that I haven't even bothered to rail about rooting for the bad guy in this one. When will those HollyWoodenbrains give us some classy good guys to empathize with, hmmm?(8/01)

Serendipity

      I admit to loving movies. No — more than that — I love going to the movies. Not just to films, but to popcorn-greasy sticky floors, and climbing over people in the dark, and watching the teasers and nudging the person you're with and saying "Oh, I just have to SEE that!" and also, "Oh I just NEED to miss that one!" And does your theater have the here-we-go-on-the-roller-coaster intro? And did you know that if you stare fixedly at those blue tracks as they whizzzz past you, you can induce a sensation of vertigo on the second and third-from-the-last turns? At least I can. All of which is to say I am simply nuts about going to the movies!
      During the promos and the settling down silence, you begin hoping, really hoping, that this hour-and-a-half-plus will radically alter your mental weather and send you home filled and satisfied... so tonight I saw Serendipity. But alas! What an improbable premise! What a stale concept. And ugh! they meet cute. Aren't you really tired of cute meetings by now? And (yawn) this is too, too much like every romantic comedy you've ever seen, and — but wait! What's this? The dialogue is absolutely delightful. And John Cusack delivers it with perfect conviction. And he (and also by the way his never-to-be-forgotten best friend) are both utterly charming, and marvel of marvels, the stars and the dialogue doctors among them have spun the thin straw of this story into a confection of pure 24-karet gold!
      It was all I hoped. It made me happy. Made me remember how much I love going to the movies! (10/20)
     Addendum: It has been suggested to the Chick that she is "going soft" on chick-flicks! Worse, that she has always had a partiality for male actors over female ones! Now be the latter as it may, let us set the former matter straight at once: after consulting more than one gentleman viewer of this film, the consensus is that it is perfectly enjoyable for guys as well. I share with you the opinion of my neighbor, John. "I really liked it. It was a good movie!"
      There, you scoffers! Be silent!

Seven Years in Tibet

     Okay, you're right. The one is several years old, but although this review is based on the video, it was a first viewing. If you've not seen the film before — take heed and go for it, because it's far more than an opportunity to see Brad Pitt look stunning. It's an extremely interesting and well-structured story, and although some reviewers have pronounced it slow, but that's not the case. As with Meet Joe Black, it simply moves at its own pace, in this case, one that is appropriate to the great, desolate mountains of Tibet.
     The development of the central character was very much like that of a novel. It's unusual to see such an ambitious change carried through so effectively in film, and Pitt made a very good job of it. The relationships among the characters were fascinating: the restrained courtship of the two lovers, the conflict between the two men, and the growing friendship and affection between the child-lama and Pitt's character. But the film did not rest at this point, and it was exciting to see it climax — not with the tragic Chinese invasion, but how Pitt himself was eclipsed by the Lama's superior moral strength and higher calling. Impressive!

Sunshine State

     Take a pack of greedy developers, add a town full of seedy landowners, mix in a family drama and spice up with a romance and an attempted suicide, stir into some singularly flat and sunny Florida landscape and . . . there you have it!
     By and large, this is well acted, but these are fairly stock ingredients, and the message (that we all lead lives of quiet desperation) is not new by a long shot. It's not bad, but it's not Altman, either. (9/8/02)

Signs

      Saw this at the picture show last night. Have you yet? If not, do. It's got enough jump-factor to make you clutch hands and maybe shriek a couple of times — and you also get to feel great at the end.
      Mel Gibson is not as beautiful as in days of yore, and is still learning to act, but his repertoire of anxous/fierce/ nervous looks (he has only the three) worked well here. Time was, of course, when his male gorgeousness was all that was required, but lately there has been time to notice that his in-love look is the same as his fierce look, and that while he is waiting for whatever-girl-is-in-the-current-film to love him back, he alternates his anxious and nervous looks to indicate his eagerness for her to get on with her affirmative decision. And of course the fierce look and the anxious look work fine in pretty much any action scene. This really good film, however, gave him the opportunity to use all three looks at various times, and they fit perfectly into the story line.
     There's lots of good stuff here: satisfying monsters, touching moments, heartbreak, first-rate suspense, and real uplift. Joaquin Phoenix was absolutely splendid — now there's a young man who can act! The young kids were excellent. The cop and the aliens and the dogs were also excellent, and you'll come out exhausted and satisfied when it's all over. Worth seeing even if you don't always like scary movies . . . although it's helpful to like science fiction. (8/19/02)

Small Time Crooks

     This is fair-to-good Woody Allen. But not vintage. He plays his usual nerdy-person/crook. Tracy Uhlmann is his vulgarian wife. I really admire her work and want her to get great roles, but this was an unappealing part. Hugh Grant, of course, did what he does well i.e. acts English & looks great. But (Whoa! Am I ever the amateur.) I never knew the dopey broad was Elaine May until I read somebody else's reviews. What a performance! What a performer!
      Overall, though, I miss the casual elegance of Mr. Allen's prime, as in Manhattan, for example, and Play it Again, Sam. (10/00)

Something's Gotta Give

       Okay, here's the skinny: Diane Keaton was fine, Keano is cute as ever (though his part was a Nothing), Frances McDormand is always super, and (ready for this) Jack Nicholson gave the first unconvincing performance of this life!
       This is a classic trash-the-guy story, a genre which, as you know, leaves the Chick massively cold. Tell me, what is the attraction of this new-style chick-flick?
        Long ago, in the twenties, say, the fad was: "Wicked-Older-Woman breaks young hero's heart and his innocent love reforms her" (think Camille.) And naturally the reverse English on that one (think The Sheik.).
        In the forties, the fad was "Ruthless, mannish career woman competes with niceguy hero and his manly love eventually softens her so we see that all she really wants in life is to wash his socks." (Think Rosalind Russell. Think Katherine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy.)
        In the fifties film lovers were watching "Too-pure-to-be-true poor girl is not seduced by older worldly-wise richguy so he falls in love and proposes." That one spanned a range from Gigi to Doris Day to Audrey Hepburn and from Bogart to Cary Grant to Peter O'Toole!
        Then in the sixties it was every person for him/herself.
       Greed came in during the eighties and nineties, boys loved Money first, last and always, and boy-girl films were pushed to the sidelines.
        And now . . . here we are at the Millennium, and — hoopla! — we're touched bottom: Trash-the-Guy flicks. Is this what they call progress? What gives here, socially, I ask you! Because this Chick feels . . . well, gee! She likes guys. What? You'd noticed? (12/03) Spider-Man

     Of course we knew what was coming. Spider-Man's my nerd-hero — swooping through the city canyons, leaping the rooftops, delighting in his new-found roller coaster power. Although lacking quite the spidey expertise of some of my informants, I myself am charmed by the superstrong superman who speaks softly, who ducks instead of leading with a bone-crushing punch, and whose sense of social responsibility rises from thought and experience, instead of being "written in" by the author before the fact. He doesn't pretend to be mild mannered, he is mild mannered. Here at last is a thinking person's comic book protagonist.
     For those who attend such films solely to savor the computer pyrotechnics, there are both pros and cons. If some of the animé does not quite meet your expectations, there may be a reason. Although not a Hollywood Insider, I'd heard that this flick was due for release last December, and that by last summer's end, beaucoup bucks had already been laid out in promos (some of which I had seen). The most dazzling of the teasers was of Spidey and the Goblin playing tag around — oops! — The Twin Towers. But after 9/11 it was back to the drawing board for the hottest action scenes. Let's be realistic; this kind of film is staggeringly costly to create, and we want these guys to be able to pay their bills, and come back to make more films. I think what we have here is a darn good save.
     Sure, this is stock comic book fare we're talking about. But it was fun. And some of the characters are pulp-paper stereotypes (most of the villians and the entire newsroom, for example), nevertheless Toby McGuire is a fine actor who can do no wrong in my book. He gives a wonderully warm and appealing performance, and Cliff Robertson (yes, that's who it was!) in cameo, is a nuanced and in-depth uncle. Of course if the only cinema you enjoy is the noir, stay home. But if you ever get bored with that, come to the picture show with the rest of us and enjoy yourself. (5/12/02)

Star Wars/Clones

     This may be one of the most splendid sights you'll ever enjoy on film — it's like all the most wonderful Galaxy Mag-covers rolled into a single visual set. Breathtaking cities literally rise through the clouds. The high-speed air traffic that whips through the urban canyons is reminscent of the chase scene in Fifth Element, but it takes place after dark, with our jedi heroes leaping from aircar to aircar. Aliens as long-legged and graceful as vicuñas stalk through the manicured halls of their city-in-the-sea. And the music, not intrusive, is excellent; the adventure scenes are full of sternum-vibrating subsonics that you'll miss if you wait for the video version.
       But alas, nobody took a single coffee break to work out a viable story-line, and the stunning-looking actors generally go through their aerobic exercises without directoral help. Ewan McGregor gives a sound performance despite inadequate dialogue and vanishing motivation, but Natalie Portman (although a constant credit to her hairdresser) never gets beyond melting sweetness, and Hayden Christensen's range is limited to bland good looks, occasionally tempered by waves of adolescent petulance.
      While carping, let me add that the clones don't actually attack. They counterattack. And the jedis casually expend the lives of gazillions of clones who march off to die fighting gazillions of robots. Robots don't bleed and die; clones, presumably do. Yoda should be ashamed.
       Nevertheless and however, the new Star Wars is a blast. Go for it! (5/25/02)

The Sum of All Fears

     Maybe an impending nuclear holocaust is not the sum of all fears, but if it's not, that's a pretty good substitute. Ben Afflek makes a very effective young Jack Ryan — smart, a little brash, and massively well-informed. Morgan Freeman is his omniscient boss. (My guess: the writers have been watching West Wing, and have learned that brain-power is the foremost razzle-dazzle of all.) I expect you already know that the bad guys blow up Baltimore and that our hero saves the world, but the charm is in the details, the throwaway business, and the dialogue. (You also speak Chechen? Sure — don't you?) (Mr. President, don't over-react. Over-react — they not only blew up Baltimore, they tried to blow up me!)
     If you like this sort of thing, you'll like this a lot.
     One helpful note: my escort, who happens to be 16, commented, "You know, they do those kind of things in High School...people get together and make something up about another group and tell everybody it's true. And they cause a lot of trouble." Yeah. And some of those people never learn. (6/12/02)

Traffic

     Didn't enjoy it; wouldn't have missed it! The hype says "riveting" and "stunning," but to me, the words "gritty" and "grim" seem more appropriate.
     As most of the world already knows, "Traffic" follows three aspects of the drug trade: production, distribution, and consumption, narrated through largely unrelated plot lines. The quick cuts from one to next — from unresolved scene to unresolved scene — were made more intelligible by the sunny brilliance that illuminated the world of Don Cheadle's dogged stake-out man and the fetching (if unprincipled) Catherine Zeta-Jones, the dust-filtered sepia tones of all the Mexican episodes, and the grim blue of Michael Douglas's DC scenes. Douglas, not my idea of anybody's good Dad even at his most winsome, is massively wooden and chill, even for him, and that serves the plot very well. Splendid (Oscar-winner) Benico del Toro was the only character I ever warmed up to, and we never know which side he's on until the last moments of the film. In sum: Absolutely do see it, but don't expect to walk away smiling. (3/01)

Treasure Planet

      What can I say — Disney. Treasure Island set in space: Space ships with no air problems, shaped like Spanish galleons; Motorized peg legs; Robot eyes under the sailors' eye-patches; Cute anthromorphised globs for pets; Marooned Ben Gunn is a dilapidated zany robot. Japanese-anime-adorable faces with extra-big eyes and no noses to speak of, except in profile. And plenty of schmaltz. Other than that, it was not bad, with a nicely thought out and sort of appropriate ending. But mostly for ten and under. Be warned. (12/02)

Vanilla Sky

     Be warned that there are head games in continuous play throughout this film. This is more than the "Fatal Attraction" that the teasers promise. Tom Cruise, always an aesthetic pleasure to watch, is apparently trying to graduate from his long-lived ingenue status to something more solid. Not quite there yet, I think, but this is a noble effort. He hides his distracting good looks in a variety of ways, and this film plays on that theme: its repeated mantra is "Open your eyes," as it asks how much are we moved by what we see and how much does the visual image influence our thinking? Placed slightly in our immediate future (full laser image of Satchmo stands among party guests as he horns into its musical theme, for example), it may be a stretch for those who actively detest any hint of SF, but I enjoyed it. (1/2/02)

What Lies Beneath

     In answer to that question — Very Little! Creaky plot, Michelle Pfifer looks like she's dying of anorexia, and Harrison Ford is off his form. Too bad, HF fans! (9/20/00)

You've Got Mail

      Rented this the other night. It's a very sweet little film. Meg Ryan is as adorable as ever — Tom Hanks gave a very sensitive, nuanced performance. Tough but touching. From time to time, little flickers of expression cross his face that allow you to read the mind of his character. Toward the very end of the film, he says to her, "Couldn't you forgive me for putting you out of business . . . I wish you would." That last phrase is delivered with a very eerie, very pleasing change of tone. I've also seen Dustin Hoffman do that light-and-shadow expression change and tonal shift so very well — maybe better than anybody. Older & wiser they say. (Was I the older person who said that?) (9/00)

Ya-Ya Sisterhood

     Well, it was swell to see all those wonderful mature actresses at work Ellen Burstyn and Maggie Smith especially, to say nothing of the superb Ashley Judd and Sandra Bullock. The Chick was not the greatest fan of that book, but the performances are first-rate, it is extremely beautiful to look at, and how wonderful it was to see our beloved James Garner again, here acting the part of your favorite golden Lab! If you love this sort of thing, It's guaranteed you will love this one. And even if you don't, it's well worth seeing. (Note that there was one-count'em-one guy in the sea of chicks in the theatre when I saw this film. Brave man; he got his own round of applause when he entered.) (6/24/02)

Zoolander

     I have to admit that it was, well, a ZOO! Long legged and skinny Ben Stiller does indeed look like a model-type, and the airy and brainless Owen Wilson is more delicious than Fabio any day. (Fabio, by the way, does one of the numerous star cameos in this film. Haven't seen so many famous faces at one go since The Player!) The pleasantly silly plot revolves around Stiller's being too dim to recognize that a nefarious conspiracy aims to murder the saintly prez of — surely it wasn't Indonesia! — and intends to use him as their semi-trained assassin.
     Although the jokes are hoary, much of the humor is aimed well below the IQ level of the model-heroes, and the models' fancy clothes are seriously awful, Stiller actually manages to carry the picture through. Not all the good bits went into the teasers, and to my own amazement, I found myself accepting that such a quasi-brainy, aggressive pretty girl could actually fall for a good-hearted moron with a sufficiently pretty face.
     And I must add that the climactic scene, which I will not spoil, was part Crouching Tiger, part Matrix and really very funny. (10/11)