|
The PianistDirected by Roman Polanski Starring Adrien Brody Running Time: 160 Minutes Rated R for violence and brief strong language Focus Features Review by Shawn Elmore The Plot... A brilliant pianist and Polish Jew, Wladyslaw Szpilman (Adrien Brody), witnesses the restrictions Nazis place on Jews in the Polish capital, from restricted access to the building of the Warsaw ghetto. As his family is rounded up to be shipped off to the Nazi labor camps, he escapes deportation and eludes capture by living in the ruins of Warsaw. (Plot explanation courtesy of IMDB.com) My Review... This is a hard movie to review. One of the reason's why is because it is so good, you just want to tell people to see it and find out for themselves how good it is. Not only one of the best, this is one of the most important movies of the year. This is definitely the best movie about the Holocaust made since the brilliant Schindler's List. Many movies about the period have tried so hard to be like that movie that they failed. This one does not. It is a very true-to-life story about the Holocaust and the rebellion and survival of some of the Jewish people. It is also an accurate portrayal of the slaughtering of Jewish people. It is brilliant in the way that it all fits together. I like it too because it focused on how the Jewish people in Poland lived directly before the slaughtering began. There are no scenes in concentration camps. You just see the Jewish being taken to them. In Warsaw, some Jews were not sent and Szpilman was one of them. It's good to see a story about a Jewish person being left behind, struggling for his survival, instead of delving too much into the camps. Those stories are important too, but I think the number of stories of those left behind are too few, and it's time to see those very important stories as well. About a fourth of the way through the movie, I was wondering why the movie was titled The Pianist. Sure this lead character was a piano player, but there were times when I wondered why it just wasn't named something more accurate to the Holocaust altogether instead of naming it for one character and his passion. However, at the end of the movie, you realize why it's titled what it is. I don't want to give anything away, but it all comes clear in the end. This movie is held together by the achievements of the director, Roman Polanski. I honestly believe no other director could have made this movie this accurately and precise like him. He lived in Warsaw when it was attacked, so he did have a hands-on experience in what went on. It is very obvious of that experience because of the way the movie is shot.  It is one of the most beautifully made movies in recent memory. It is simplistic, and that is what makes it so amazingly successful.The star actor in this movie, Adrien Brody (shown left), also makes this movie great. Brody really did not have a lot of dialogue. You saw the pain on his face and in his presence. This is definitely an Oscar-bound performance, and deservedly so. Brody is amazing and the perfect actor to play this potentially difficult role. He shines in every minute of his screentime. Other great performances come from the actors playing the members of Szpilman's family. Particularly great is Maureen Lipman, who plays Wladyslaw's mother. I wish she would have had more screentime, but with the screentime she did have, she blew me away. This is a very emotional movie. And in some scenes of the accuracy of the brutal and mass murdering, people will be disturbed. I myself, a nineteen year-old young man, sobbed in one of the scenes, and in many others I cried as well. I tend to get a bit emotional at some movies, but with this one it was different. I cried because of the fact that I knew this all actually happened. There are many scenes in which you are overtaken with emotions. They are countless, but I believe it is important to see these scenes to know that this happened and to know that it was one of the hugest mistakes and travesties of all time. Many think that this movie borderlines a documentary, and it I think it straddles the line. But the story is about survival, and it's about surviving to do what you are called to do. Wladyslaw Szpilman was a pianist. He was that before, during, and after the heartbreaking and tragic events of the Holocaust. This movie shows that. And the balance between the pianist and the Holocaust as a whole is a reason this movie works. This true story needs to be seen. It is one of the most important of the year. Score for The Pianist: A -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- 
The HoursDirected by Stephen Daldry Starring Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore, Nicole Kidman Running Time: 114 Minutes Rated PG-13 for mature thematic elements, some disturbing images, and brief language Paramount Pictures/Miramax Films Review by Shawn Elmore The Plot... Based on Michael Cunningham's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, The Hours draws on the life and work of Virginia Woolf (Nicole Kidman) to tell the story of three women: Woolf, who is portrayed in the throes of writing Mrs. Dalloway and contemplating suicide; Laura Brown (Julianne Moore), a young pregnant wife and mother in the suffocating confines of her tidy little life in Los Angeles in 1949; and Clarissa Vaughn (Meryl Streep), who is giving a party in the present in New York for her closest friend, Richard (Ed Harris), an award-winning writer dying of AIDS. (Plot explanation courtesy of Movies.com) My Review... The basic plot of the movie above seems pretty simple but it's very deep. It may seem like there's not a lot to the story, but there is more than you think. This is the reason I go to movies. Because of masterpieces like this. And that's exactly what this movie is; a masterpiece. It's the story of three different women living different lives. There's the author, Woolf; the reader, Brown; and the character, Vaughn. The way the three women intertwine is amazing and quite surprising. They all have one thing in common: they are living not for themselves, but for other people. In the end, they each learn something drastically important.  You really can't say anything else about the story without giving something away, so skip straight to the reason why this film works the way it does; the acting. This is the most beautifully acted movie of the year, and arguably of all time. This is a knock-out cast that will knock your socks off. This is what acting is all about. First, there is Streep (shown right), who beautifully and hauntingly plays in the current day. Her screen time is so real and true that it makes it look easy, while at the same time you know no one could do it but the wonderful Streep. Then there's Moore (shown left), who I think is a lead player in this story as well as the standout performer. How ironic that in both of her roles for different movies in 2002 she plays a troubled housewife in the 1950s. This is a character who is totally different from the lead in Far From Heaven, and her work in this movie exceeds that of her brilliance in Far From Heaven. She is THE actress of the year, hands down. Then there's Kidman behind the controversial prosthetic nose. Some people point out that the nose distracts and doesn't let you take in the brilliance of Kidman's take on Virginia Woolf. The nose did not distract me, and I took in the full brilliance of this perf. Kidman not only transforms her face, but her whole presence is transfigured as well. This is groundbreaking material for Kidman. All three ladies are perfect in these roles and no three women could have captured these characters the way these three do.So what about the supporting players? First is the standout Harris, who plays his role to perfection. As does Stephen Dillane, Virginia's husband. Alison Janney, Claire Daines, and Jeff Daniels all tie into Clarissa's story while John C. Reilly, Toni Collette, and Jack Rovello tie into Brown's story. Miranda Richardson ties into Woolf's stane. All of these short appearences and perfs. in this movie are great and with all of these names, it's clear this is the ensemble of the year. True, the brilliance of this movie is held with the acting, but not far behind is the adaptation of Michael Cunningham's brilliant novel. It was said this could never be a movie, but the screenwriter David Hare saved the day writing an all-out stunning and fantastic screenplay. Credit is also due to the sheer brilliance of the director, Stephen Daldry. The way he shoots this film is riveting. The make-up and film editing are also standouts and so is the haunting score composed by Philip Glass. The music speaks for no dialogue in many portions of this movie and it does so beautifully. So with all of that said and done, The Hours is the best movie of the year. From the minute it starts to the minute it ends, you are mesmerized by a movie that could have very easily failed drastically. The meaning of the story is what it's all about. No, this is not a story about suicide. It's not a story about lesbianism. It is a story about the time we have; the hours we are given and we live. It's what we do with that time that counts. And it's knowing that you can be happy with what you have. Live the hours the best you can, and make sure you spend a couple of hours watching this utter brilliance. Score for The Hours: A -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- 
AdaptationDirected by Spike Jonze Starring Nicolas Cage, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper Running Time: 114 Minutes Rated R for language, sexuality, some drug use, and violent images Columbia Pictures Review by Shawn Elmore The Plot... It's two odd stories in one. The plot follows the attempt of screenwriter Charlie Kaufman (Nicolas Cage) to adapt Susan Orlean's (Meryl Streep) nonfiction novel The Orchid Thief for the big screen. As Kaufman tries to work with the book's true story — the tale of John Laroche (Chris Cooper), a Florida plant dealer who works with Seminole Indians to create clones of rare orchids, which he sells to collectors for huge profits — he nearly goes mad. Enter his fictional twin (also Cage), a more successful version of Charlie. Charlie finally manages to finish the script, finding that in the process, he's incorporated himself and his writer's block into the story. (Plot explanation courtesy of Movies.com) My Review... Let me start off in saying that I know this review will sound scrambled, choppy, and mixed up, but that's how the movie is and it's hard to put this review into a formal format. The plot explanation above pretty much sums up this underwhelming and disappointing movie. The story in the end pokes fun of predictable screenplays and plot points in movies, and that's what the story is supposed to do. But most everyone is making this story out to be one of the best of the year, and I think it's one of the most riduculously overrated. The movie acts upon what it is making fun of. It is so full of itself, and it's supposed to be, but it doesn't work for me. I don't buy it.  The director, Spike Jonze is known for making some odd movies (Being John Malkovich), and this one is odd as well. It is not as confusing as say last year's Memento or Mulholland Dr., but the meaning of the story doesn't come to you right off the bat either. The movie is satirical to Hollywood and about screenwriting and how it's all 'do what you're told to do' in writing a screenplay. It's the frustrations of the screenwriter that we see the most, and sometimes all that amounts to is accessive, annoying whining.What doesn't work for me is how the movie doesn't really come to anything. It's too choppy and much of the story is unexplained. Sure we know plenty about the characters on a personal basis, but that information is not enough for us to know why these characters want change and want something different. We aren't shown enough of the hidden meaning of human adaptation. The story never comes together. Onto the much talked about acting. Nicolas Cage does an outstanding job here as Charlie Kaufman and his twin brother Donald. Cage is highly successful in playing a double role. I never thought he had it in him. This is one of the standout perfs. from an actor this year. Chris Cooper does a good job, but I found his perf. to be entirely underwhelming. I was expecting so much more since he is winning all these critic awards. The same thing goes for Meryl Streep. Her perf. was not the stellar act everyone is making it out to be. Both of these perfs. are good, but by no means great. There are many other performances from 2002 that will be overlooked when these two make the cut. Again, they are good perfs., but NOT Oscar worthy. I kept checking my watch during the duration of this film. It was going nowhere, and it ultimately went nowhere. I respect this movie for what it is, a movie that shows some of the behind the scenes work in screenwriting and making a movie. Many are hailing it because of what it points out, but I actually already knew what it was trying to point out. I was just sitting through another predictable movie, and that's what this movie used: what it was saying it was against. That just doesn't add up. Score for Adaptation: B+ (this review and grade don't match b/c the review was my initial reaction. The grade is after repeated viewings. Just know it grew on me.) -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- 
About SchmidtDirected by Alexander Payne Starring Jack Nicholson, Kathy Bates, Hope Davis Running Time: 125 Minutes Rated R for some language and brief nudity New Line Cinema Review by Shawn Elmore The Plot... Warren Schmidt (Jack Nicholson) has arrived at several of life's crossroads all at the same time. To begin with, he is retiring from a lifetime of service as an actuary for Woodmen of the World Insurance Company, and he feels utterly adrift. Furthermore, his only daughter Jeannie (Hope Davis) is about to marry a boob. And his wife Helen (June Squibb) dies suddenly after 42 years of marriage. With no job, no wife, and no family, Warren is desperate to find something meaningful in his thoroughly unimpressive life. He sets out on a journey of self-discovery, exploring his roots across Nebraska in the 35-foot motor home in which he had planned to drive around the country with his late wife. His ultimate destination is Denver, where he hopes to bridge the gulf between himself and his somewhat estranged daughter by arriving early to help with her wedding preparations. Unfortunately, he hates the groom-to-be Randall (Dermot Mulroney), a profoundly mediocre, mediocre, underachieving waterbed salesman. To make matters worse, Warren is appalled by the free-spirited nature and boorish behavior of his soon-to-be in-laws (Kathy Bates and Howard Hesseman). Warren grows swiftly convinced that his new purpose in life is to stop his daughter's marriage. During this darkly comic and painful odyssey, Warren details his adventures and shares his observations with an unexpected new friend and confessor -- Ndugu Umbo, a six-year-old Tanzanian orphan whom he sponsors for $22 a month through an organization that advertises on TV. From these long letters filled with a lifetime of things unsaid, Warren begins -- perhaps for the first time -- to glimpse himself and the life he has lived. (Plot explanation courtesy of New Line Cinema) My Review... Warren Schmidt is a sad man. He's retired, his wife dies, his daughter's marrying trash, and Warren's just sad inside. Due to all the sadness, he ventures out to try and live for and take care of himself. Sometimes he fails, but in the end he succeeds. Coming out of this movie I was thinking that Warren Schmidt found himself. But it's not that he finds himself, he just realizes who he's always been. It's almost as if he has never been allowed to live out who he truly was. He has always been taken care of and when his wife and job are gone, he focuses on his daughter. He first asks her to take care of him and when she refuses, he realizes he must learn to take care of himself. The only person he can truly be himself with is his child sponsor, Ndugu. He pours out his soul and the way he really feels to this little boy, and also to us, the audience. These are the times we see the real Warren Schmidt. These are also the times when there is comedic yet very dramatic dialogue and action. He ventures to his daughter's wedding, and in the process he tries to get better aquainted with his future in-laws. These people are the free-spirited objects that Warren simply cannot be, and it drives him nuts. He learns to deal with them and move on, still in search of who he is.  This movie is very slow-paced, but I am not complaining about that, and audiences shouldn't complain about that either. This story is meant to be slow-paced. In this manner, we see what Warren sees, we feel what he feels, and it all sinks in perfectly. It's also in Alexander Payne's very smart direction job that we see this connection as well. This is a movie that some teenagers won't necessarily want to see. When I saw it, the theater was packed, but there were about 4 teenagers there, including myself. But this is a movie EVERYONE needs to see. For teens, it shows that the perfect job, the great paycheck, and material things aren't what define life, it's finding who you are that matters, and what you can do best with the time you have. Granted, the movie is not a 'cram it down your throat' sentimental movie. It plays the sentimental field right to the rim, before it overflows. This is another reason why the movie is so enjoyable.This movie would not work if it wasn't for Jack Nicholson. First of all, this is a role that is totally different from himself. And secondly, it's a role that he plays to a tee. We connect with Schmidt very much so, and I don't think we could have connected with him this way with any other actor. Another perf. to point out is that of Kathy Bates. Her turn as a mother-in-law who loves her son with all of her heart is perfect. And her portrayal of a very free-spirited person is great as well. Bates and Nicholson connect wonderfully on the screen. Especially in the controversial hot tub scene. There are also great perfs. from Hope Davis and Dermot Mulroney. I cannot define what genre About Schmidt should be placed in. Is it a comedy or is it a drama?? I think it is the perfect mixture of both. There were moments in this movie I laughed so hard I couldn't hardly breathe, and there were times when I was practically moved to tears. I think that's why audiences are falling in love with this movie. It mixes in comedy and drama in a way that makes you wish more movies would follow in the future. Go spend time with Warren Schmidt at the movies. It will be one of the most enlightening times you spend there, especially after you get the final last minutes of this smart film. Score for About Schmidt: A- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- 
ChicagoDirected by Rob Marshall Starring Renee Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Richard Gere Running Time: 113 Minutes Miramax Films Review By Shawn Elmore If you can't be famous, be infamous. That's the sidenote of this brilliant adaptation of the stage musical (written by John Kander and Fred Ebb) of the same name. Boy, is that a correct statement, especially for a film like this. When going into this film I was expecting to be impressed, but a little disappointed. I have always been a fan of musicals, and this is one special treat. I was blown away by this amazing and outstanding spectacle. When I go to the movies, I go to get away from life and have a good time seeing something fictional (or in some cases, non-fictional). In short, I go to get away from real life for awhile. This was the funnest time at the movies I have had this year. And the reason is because much of this movie is like a dream. And in fact, most of the musical numbers ARE a dream.  They're the dreams of Roxie Hart, played by Renee Zellweger. All Roxie wants is to have her own act and be a star. At the first of the movie, we see Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones), the renowned powerhouse starlet, come into the club without her sister, the second half of the Kelly Sister Act. Velma goes out and performs the jaw-dropping number by herself. Roxie is at the club and imagines herself in Kelly's shoes singing on the stage and performing her own act. Hart could care less about anything or anyone else escept getting on the stage. She doesn't even give a flip about her husband Amos, played by John C. Reilly. When Roxie is betrayed by a man who says he has the right connections to help Roxie get on the bill, she shoots him in a rage of anger. Next stop is the slammer, where Roxie meets up with her idol and the current 'jazzkiller' of the moment, Velma Kelly. We're also introduced to Matron 'Mama' Morton, played by Queen Latifah. She informs Roxie that she needs the hottest attorney around, Billy Flynn, played by Richard Gere. Suddenly Velma becomes old news and Roxie becomes the new famous jazzkiller. Jealousy consumes the characters. Competition does as well between Roxie and Velma. That's enough about the story; I don't want to give too much away. The outcome of Marshall's turn at turning this into a motion picture is astounding. He undoubtedly deserves an Oscar nod. Let's just hope they don't do this year what they did last year, which was not nominate the musical director. The way in which he combines the narration of the story to the musical numbers is wonderfully done. The editing is great, and should earn an Oscar WIN, without a doubt. Technically this movie is a masterpiece.It's also a masterpiece because of the outstanding cast. First there's Zellweger, in a role that is SO different from what she's done in the past. She is very believable as the girl who wants fame and to be performing on the stage. She can also sing and dance, two things I had no idea she could do. Granted, her singing isn't breathtaking, but it works, very much so, it works. Then there's the standout of the movie, Zeta-Jones. She'll win the Oscar. I have a hunch on this one. She is definitely the show-stopper in the movie for me. She got her start with theater, and she is the one actor in the movie that is the most comfortable and natural at this line of work. And the musical numbers "I Can't Do It Alone" and "Cell Block Tango," just to name a couple, are perfect examples of what I am talking about. As much as I enjoyed Gere's acting and dancing, his singing was annoying. That is the ONLY complaint I have about this movie. He was believable as Flynn, but I don't think they got the best choice for this role. There are also great supporting perfs. from Reilly and notably Latifah. When I heard she would be in the movie, I laughed. I didn't think she would work at all, but she did, and she did it wonderfully. The moments of the movie that you rememeber the most are of course the musical numbers. They are amazing and so much fun! The transitioning from the musical pieces back to reality wowed me. The catchy songs will get stuck in your head, and I can already tell the soundtrack will be a hot seller. Overall, Chicago is a masterpiece in filmaking. The acting, story, editing, directing, musical numbers all work splendidly. With this and Moulin Rouge!, it's apparent that musicals are coming back and they are sure to be better than ever. Oscar, get ready.....Chicago is coming your way. Score for Chicago: B+ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- 
Catch Me If You CanDirected by Steven Spielberg Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks, Christopher Walken Running Time: 140 Minutes DreamWorks Pictures Review By Shawn Elmore This is a story of Frank Abagnale Jr. (DiCaprio). When he was still a minor, Abagnale started forging checks and posing as a pilot, doctor, lawyer. Between his 16th and 19th years, Abagnale became one of the most sought after frauds in the world, and of all time. He wrote over $4 million in fraudulent checks. His life is truly captivating. The story starts when we see Frank with his parents, and all of them living this 'perfect life.' Things turn around shortly thereafter though. Frank's mom starts to cheat on his father, and Frank Sr.'s problems with the IRS get deeper and deeper. Frank has to choose who to live with when his parents file for divorce. He instead runs away. This is when the fraud starts. I like how the story shows how easy it was to become and be a fraud. How to get a pilot uniform, how to make the fake checks, how to be believable as a fraud. All of that works very well with this story. We are introduced to Carl Hanratty (Hanks), the man working for the government trying to catch Frank. Many times the story is so cat and mouse that it seems cheesy, but it works. Many times Hanratty gets Frank in his hands and he still manages to escape. Those scenes are very fun and the acting from DiCaprio is the best there when he is trying to escape. Then there's Frank's father, Frank Abagnale, Sr. (Walken), who is in huge debt with the IRS. We see few scenes between Frank and his father after Frank becomes a fraud, and I think those scenes are the highlights of the film. Walken and DiCaprio play father and son very wonderfully and believably. The acting altogether is top-notch, with the exception of Hanks' annoying and overdone Bostonian accent. This is the biggest flaw I have with his film. Hanks does a great acting job, but the accent was forced and just degrating. The two people that shine though are DiCaprio and especially Walken. This is Walken's best work to date. I found his perf. to be very chilling at times. It was so believable it was chilling. He's got the Oscar buzz and deservedly so. A great job is performed too by DiCaprio. I have never taken him seriously as a dramatic actor. But this year with this film and Gangs Of New York, DiCaprio has proven that he can act. This is a definite Oscar calibur perf. He shines in every minute of screen time he has in this film. I have already mentioned one problem I had with the film in Hanks' accent, but I also had a problem with how many times Frank escaped from being caught. It happens around 4-5 times, and after the third, you get the feeling that you've seen it before and you don't want to see it again. It gets overdone a bit, but that is a minor flaw. Another flaw I had with the film is how the relationship between Frank and his mother seems unexplained. We also find out that Hanratty has family problems of his own, but we never see or really truly hear what those problems are about. Too many things are left unsaid about some of the relationships. One other thing worth noting is that this is a Steven Spielberg film. If you were to see the movie without knowing who directed it, you would never guess it was Spielberg. This isn't your typical Spielberg movie. Most of them are action-packed, jaw dropping, eye popping spectacles. I like though that this movie isn't like that. It works that it's not like that. This is just a fun film about a fake. It's a film that I am glad Spielberg made, even though it is out of his basic filmmaking. I'm glad I know this story. It's not too emotional, but at the same time you feel for the characters. In some ways, I think I was supposed to feel more emotional about the story, but I did catch the most emotional part of the story. No matter what you do, whether it be a fraud, a lawyer, a pilot, a doctor; if you have no steady friends or family, you feel alone and want to be needed. That is told quite well in the story. The life of Frank Abagnale, Jr. is worth checking out. Although the movie is not really Best Picture material, it is still one of the very good movies of the year. Score for Catch Me If You Can: B+ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- 
Lord Of The Rings: The Two TowersDirected by Peter Jackson Starring Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellan, Andy Serkis, Liv Tyler Running Time: 179 Minutes New Line Cinema Review By Shawn Elmore Let me start off in saying that last year after I saw The Fellowship Of The Ring, the first chapter of this epic, I was highly impressed but left feeling like I didn't fully understand everything in the story. I 'got it,' I just wasn't familiar with everything. I then saw the movie about 7 more times after it released on DVD (I then understood everything in the story) and was more impressed those times more than I was in the theater. It ended up as my #3 movie of 2001, and this second chapter will be up there for 2002, maybe even higher. This chapter takes off where the last one left off. Frodo (Wood) and Sam (Astin) are carrying the Ring Of Power to Mt. Doom and Mordor; Aragorn (Mortensen), Gimli (who adds some funny and appropriate humor this time around), and Legolas are on a hunt to find the orcs who kidnapped Merry and Pippin; while at the same time the enemy grows, the enemy led by the spirit Sauron and the wizard Saruman.  I don't want to go too much into the story, because you simply HAVE to see it. It is too long to go into. In the middle of the story, we are introduced to two new characters. The first is Treebeard, a walking and talking tree that will help Merry and Pippin get home. Many think this character brought the film down a tad, but I really believed the character and liked him a lot (we also see a lot more live trees during the movie). We also are introduced to, IMO, the highlight of this whole film, Gollum (Serkis). We find a lot out about Gollum and finally get to see him. This CGI creature is outstanding and unbelievably realistic. We find out he was once a hobbit, named Smeagal. There are a few scenes where his two different personalities battle each other with conversation. The directing is outstanding, and Serkis is in line for an Oscar nod. Gollum is helping Frodo (who is becoming more vulnerable to the ring's power and being consumed by it) and Sam get to Mordor, by the way.We are also introduced to more mankind in this movie. These figures help Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas find shelter and fight the mighty Uruk-Hai, Saruman's army, which is well over 10,000 in count.That's enough about the story. You need to see it to see how it all turns out until the next and final chapter. This is one of the most entertaining movies of the year, by far. The look of the movie is unbelievable. This is one of the most amazing technically made movies I have seen in my life. The acting is great as well, notably from Mortensen, McKellan, and the star of the flick, Andy Serkis. If he's not nominated for an Oscar, something's wrong. I have to point out the battle of Helm's Deep, fought between the Uruk-Hai and the armies of King Theodan and part of the former Fellowship. It is quite possibly the best fighting scene I have seen in a movie. It left me breathless and completely in awe of Peter Jackson, the director of the movie. This scene alone is worth the money to see this movie over and over and over again. Also worth pointing out is the way the story is told of how Gandalf (McKellan) survived the fall into shadow. His scenes sparkled as well. The Two Towers is one of (if not THE) best movies of the year. Anyone who says otherwise is not altogether sane. I don't mean that rudely, but this three chapter Lord Of The Rings franchise will go down in the books of motion pictures as one of the greatest epics ever made. I can't wait until I have kids and they ask me about my seeing these movies when I was younger. This second chapter achieved taking off where the previous chapter left off, and leading you into the third and final chapter, The Return Of The King, which will release in December 2003. The release date for the final chapter of this great tale is already marked on my calender. Don't miss this movie. It is a masterpiece. Score for The Two Towers: A+ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- 
Gangs Of New YorkDirected by Martin Scorsese Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Leonardo DiCaprio, Cameron Diaz Running Time: 168 Minutes Miramax Films Review By Shawn Elmore I've never gone to a movie expecting so much, and end up getting so much less. Say it with me: overrated and overhyped. This won't be that nice of a review. So all you Gangs lovers, just skip the review to see the grade. I have been excited about this movie for a few months, and when I went to see it, I was expecting what everyone said it was; a masterpiece. Far from it. I have no problem with the acting or the technical ways of this movie, the problem is in the story. This is a story that was supposed to make you feel warm and feel for the characters and care about the story. None of that happened with me. The story is about a young boy (later named Amsterdam, played by DiCaprio) who views the murdering of his father. The culprit is Bill "The Butcher" Cutting (Day-Lewis). The little boy runs away and grows up, seeking revenge for the murder of his father. He then befriends Bill and protects him on many occasions, because he wants to be the one to finish him off. Along the way we meet Jenny (Diaz), a pick-pocket lady who falls for Amsterdam.  In all honesty, that is about it with the basic premise of this story. It was supposed to mean more and did to many people, but not for me. During the course of the film I kept looking at my watch wondering when the movie would end. I think there are two big reasons why this happened to me. First of all, I thought the movie was entirely too long. Second, due to it's unnecessary longness, parts of the movie dragged horribly. It was actually boring and painful to sit through for me. It was also very predictable. I knew what would happen in the climax of the film. And the end of the movie was actually HUMOROUS. Going through the different ages of New York and ending it with the WTC towers was IMO very corny, cheesy, and unnecessary. Another notable miss was the editing. It was flat-out horrible and isn't award-worthy at all.However, there are good things about this movie. From a technical standpoint it is amazing. The sets, the costumes, the score, it's all great. But what really stands out is the acting. Day-Lewis is in line for the Oscar, and I think he'll take it home. DiCaprio proves he can be a serious actor and do it well. Diaz shows that she can do anything. This wasn't a must-have role, but it was a fresh role for an aspiring actress like her. Now about the directing? I think it was very well done, however, I saw better this year from all three Todd Haynes, Peter Jackson, and Rob Marshall. Scorsese did a great job, but I don't think he should win the Oscar, but rest assured, he will. It's his to lose. One thing I did like about the humdrum story was that Amsterdam started looking up to Bill as a father figure, and that complicated things and brought more pain. I also liked the conflicts that were shown in the Five Points of New York. And the supporting roles from John C. Reilly and Jim Broadbent were enjoyable as well. So mixing in everything, the lacking story, the stellar acting, the technical achievements, I think this is an average movie. It is by NO means a masterpiece. It was entirely too hit-and-miss for that classification. The so-called epic in Gangs Of New York is worth seeing for the acting and technical reasons, but it's not worth seeing for the story. This was supposed to show that America was born in the streets. Too bad it wasn't shown on a more successful level. Score for Gangs Of New York: C -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- 
Far From HeavenDirected by Todd Haynes Starring Julianne Moore, Dennis Quaid, Dennis Haysbert Running Time: 120 Minutes Focus Features Review By Shawn Elmore Far From Heaven is arguably the most critically acclaimed movie of 2002, and for very good reason. This is a movie with all the looks and feels of the 1950s movie genre, but with issues that could only be hinted about in the movies during that time period. You would think that this formula might very well fail, but it doesn't. It succeeds massively.  The story is set in 1957 in Conneticut. We meet the Whitakers. Cathy (Moore), Frank (Quaid), and their two children. The movie depicts their life as the perfect one, as did every other drama of the '50s; great family, successful job, great social status. Their life does have a few problems though. One of them is that Frank is an alcoholic, and he also (this is the big one) has homosexual urges. Cathy and Frank try to keep living the perfect life but it just doesn't work. His urges are too strong. In the meantime, Cathy befriends their African American gardener, Raymond (Haysbert). The townspeople find out about their relationship and blow everything out of proportion. The problem is, Cathy truly does start falling for Raymond, so it seems. Now the perfect life seems to be over, especially for Cathy.One of the most successful things about this movie is that is shows that life in the '50s was not as perfect as film and television make it out to be. People had problems. People battled with some of the same things we do today. The film shows that life was perhaps close to perfect if you weren't black, gay, or a woman. If you had those things going against you, odds are you weren't happy, because you couldn't live your life to what you might truly want it to be. The movie doesn't make fun of '50s movies, either. It just battles with those three areas in a way that could not have been in a movie 50 years ago. It shows that movies from that time are beautiful, although they aren't necessarily correct with realism. Technically and musically, it is a masterpiece alone. The way the film captures the look and feel of the '50s is breathtaking. Most of that credit goes to the movie's director, Todd Haynes. This direction job is one of the best of the year, for sure. No question about that. Haynes stays true to the '50s while, at the same time, including areas of life from the '50s that were always kept silent. He keeps the cheesy aspects of the '50s movies, so it's not like he's saying that that area should have been taken out, he is just getting across that a lot of things were unnecessarily left unsaid.  The cast is astonishing. This is Julianne Moore's movie. She is pitch perfect for this role and in her performance. I have heard some complain that her work here was too cookie-cutterish, too cheesy. In all honesty, that is how it is supposed to be. But on top of that, in the scenes where she is alone and weeping and crying in her solitude are the moments where Moore really shines. If she doesn't win her very much due Oscar come March, I will be shocked. One of the biggest surprise performances of the year for me is in Dennis Quaid's work in this flick. I never knew that Quaid could play a role like this, and I never knew he could be this great at it. He plays this role to a tee. This too is an Oscar-worthy performance. Although I found his acting to be okay, I had a problem with Dennis Haysbert's character. It seemed like he didn't have any problems at all. His character should have been dealt with a little better. That's the ONLY problem I had with the movie.Something else that sticks out from this movie is the amazing and true to life score, arranged by the brilliant Elmer Bernstein. The music in the movie is true to the '50s and is quite possibly the best score of the year. Far From Heaven is one of the most powerful and brilliant movies of the year. It shows the lives of families in the '50s that deal with true to life issues. It is the movie that should have been made in the '50s but couldn't have been because of the subject material. The performances are immensely successful and riveting, particularly those of Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid. It's also a visual masterpiece that sadly isn't doing very well at the box office. That's sad because this is a movie that everyone needs to see. It's one of the most important movies of our time. Score for Far From Heaven: A+ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- TO SEE REVIEWS OF 2004 MOVIES, CLICK HERE!!! TO SEE REVIEWS OF 2003 MOVIES, CLICK HERE!!! |