Hi, folks... With the last of the Girl Power Flick reviews in the can, we are on to our Scuba Diving/Underwater Movies for this week.
Also, I wanted to let you folks know right now that I've chosen a film to review for our Half-way Point (Review # 183). I know I said I'd give you folks until Friday to get your suggestions in, but one suggestion jumped out from all the others. And it was like when you meet that person you want to be crazy with for the rest of your life: you just know that nobody or nothing else will compare...
Our movie for Review # 183 is... 127 HOURS starring James Franco.
We just got back from seeing it, at the suggestion of someone who knows who he is (thanks, T.). And words are just not enough to describe how wonderful and harrowing this film is, and the fact that it's based on a true story is even more heart-rending. And if James Franco doesn't get an Oscar nomination for his performance, I will go on a hunger strike.
Well, maybe not... but I'll be even more pissed off than when Russell Crowe got snubbed for Best Actor for A BEAUTIFUL MIND.
127 HOURS will be the centerpiece of next week's Wilderness Survival Movie theme. And what a breath-taking centerpiece it is. See the trailer below. Then see the whole thing. Soon. Because, as 127 HOURS makes painfully and unforgettably clear, life is short.
I will release the full list of films for next week on Sunday. For now, get a taste of 127 HOURS:
THE RING (2002 - HORROR/MYSTERY/REMAKE) ***½ out of *****
(This is what happens when you don’t upgrade to DVD…)
CAST: Naomi Watts, Martin Henderson, Brian Cox, David Dorfman, Jane Alexander, Lindsay Frost, Shannon Cochran, Daveigh Chase, Rachael Bella, Amber Tamblyn.
DIRECTOR: Gore Verbinski
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and killer static coupled with long-haired ghosts in dire need of a trim - straight ahead…
There is a sub-genre of the Horror Genre known as J-Horror - or “Japanese Horror.” J-Horror became popular in the late 90’s and most of the last decade. Titles like KAIRO, SHUTTER, FENG SHUI, JU-ON, PHONE, DARK WATER, TALE OF TWO SISTERS, and ONE MISSED CALL, just to name a few, made their way across the Pacific and became instant sensations among horror-philes on this side of the world. Most of these titles wound up getting American remakes.
J-Horror films are characterized by several striking characteristics that make them stand apart from your basic American horror flick: (1) a brooding, clammy atmosphere that you can almost taste; (2) bleak and ominous cinematography; (3) scares that depend more on silence and the unseen rather than blatant “boo!” tactics; and (4) generally downbeat endings that leave a lot of plot threads chillingly unresolved.
The J-Horror film, however, that first exploded in Japan, got America’s attention, inspired many Asian rip-offs, and eventually scored its own highly successful US remake (our latest review) was RINGU. Which is the Japanese word for “ring.”
RINGU’s plot is brilliant in its elegant simplicity: a female reporter in Tokyo doing a story on urban legends is shocked by the sudden death of her niece from a heart attack. Digging into the death, she discovers that it might have actually been caused by an urban legend: a tape that kills the viewer exactly seven days after watching it. During her investigations, she comes across the tape, views it herself - and finds herself ensnared in the curse. Worse, her young son accidentally watches it, and gets pulled into the nightmare, too. With the clock now counting down to their deaths, the reporter teams up with her ex-boyfriend to try to unravel the mystery behind the tape - and hopefully break the curse.
RINGU was such a worldwide hit that an American remake became a no-brainer. Released in the fall of 2002, THE RING (as it was titled) defied expectations and went on to gross over $129,000,000 in the U.S. alone - making it one of the most successful horror films ever.
THE RING’s plot is basically an Americanization of RINGU. Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) is a Seattle reporter whose niece Katie (Amber Tamblyn) mysteriously dies without conclusive cause. Just as with RINGU, Rachel digs into the mystery and learns about a “cursed tape” that might have been behind not only Katie’s death, but three of her friends, as well. Rachel eventually watches the tape - and it’s all uphill from there. Even more so when her son Aidan (David Dorfman) really asks for it by watching the tape himself. Now, with the help of ex-flame (and Aidan’s Dad) Noah (Martin Henderson), who has also watched the tape, Rachel must unravel the mystery before all of them find out first-hand what killed Katie.
Presumably, it wasn’t the knowledge that by 2002, most cool people were using VCRs as doorstops - and not actually using them to watch anything.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: While RINGU was a masterpiece of gradually escalating dread that purposefully left a lot of things unexplained, THE RING take great pains to try to explain the genesis of the deadly tape. So much so that you almost feel at times like you’re watching a Powerpoint presentation.
Fortunately, director Gore Verbinski masterfully creates a thick atmosphere of doom that permeates every scene of the film. This unsettling aura is so potent that it makes you forgive the film for over-explaining its plot points. Put it this way: if SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE encouraged people to move to the Emerald City, THE RING will likely inspire folks to stay the hell away - and might even persuade Seattle residents to move to San Diego. However, for the purposes of a horror film, it’s entirely appropriate. And for the purposes of THE RING, it actually saves the film from being less than good.
THE RING also has one significant advantage over RINGU: its portrayal of its heroine. In RINGU, Reiko Asakawa (Nanako Matsushima) was a generally competent lead. However there were many moments in the film where she basically just tagged along behind her partner Ryuji Takayama (Hiroyuki Sanada) while he unraveled the mystery with inexplicably Yoda-like power.
In THE RING, Rachel Keller is a much more pro-active and sharp-witted heroine. Part of the reason the film over-explains the plot is to correct RINGU’s over-reliance on Ryuji’s bizarre “a-ha!” moments. Naomi Watts’ steely-yet-human performance also does a lot in staying in step with her as she pulls apart the threads detailing the tragic backstory of the cursed tape. MULHOLLAND DRIVE might have gotten Naomi Watts noticed in Hollywood, but THE RING proved that she could carry a movie on her shoulders with her unique blend of spunk and softness.
In the role of Noah, this version’s Ryuji, Martin Henderson is also refreshingly fallible and human. In RINGU, Ryuji was such a confident bad-ass bordering on superhuman psychic that you became a little indifferent to whether he lived or died. In THE RING, Noah is definitely just a regular guy trying to cope with his situation. When he unravels vital clues, it’s through good old-fashioned detective work and not “visions” like Ryuji received on near-continuous basis. Henderson makes you do something that Sanada didn’t - care about the character he’s playing.
The rest of the supporting cast is solid. David Dorfman is the right mix of odd and vulnerable as Rachel’s equally-imperiled son. Lindsay Frost is touching in her small role as Rachel’s sister who begs her to look into Katie’s death. Brian Cox and Jane Alexander are memorable in their vital roles as, respectively: (1) a rural horse breeder who may hold the key to the mystery; and (2) a rural doctor who gives Rachel vital info on the tragedy behind the tape.
In summary: THE RING is a good, solid remake of the very good, but also somewhat flawed, RINGU. There’s atmosphere to burn here, and for an American film, that is something to be proud of.
THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT (2010 - COMEDY/DRAMA) ****1/2 out of *****
(The parents are all fabulous…)
CAST: Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Mia Wasikowska, Josh Hutcherson.
DIRECTOR: Lisa Cholodenko
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and decidedly unconventional relationships - straight ahead
James Franco (pictures above) once gave an interview with LGBT magazine “The Advocate” and had the following to say about the current state of romantic films in Hollywood:
“In this history of cinema, there are so many heterosexual love stories. It’s so hammered, so done. It’s just not that interesting to me. It’s more interesting to me to play roles and relationships that haven’t been portrayed as often.”
I should probably mention that Franco is as straight as your average red-blooded hetero Italian-American man, which makes the above statement all the more remarkable.
Contrast Franco’s “out-of-the box” viewpoint with other actors who avoid gay roles (which Franco has had at least two of) as if taking one on will give them the crabs. Or worse: kill their career. Franco’s fearless and open attitude hasn’t hurt his career one bit. In fact, today it was announced that he and Anne Hathaway will be hosting the Academy Awards in February. Also, Franco is said to be a front-liner for a Best Actor nomination for his unforgettable performance in 127 HOURS.
I wonder if he will be handing the Best Actor trophy to himself? If so, it couldn’t happen to a nicer - or more deserving - guy.
Franco’s quote about unconventional love stories has a direct bearing on our latest review. The love story at the heart of THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT is most definitely not your garden-variety one. Revolving around a lesbian couple (Julianne Moore and Annette Bening) who have had two kids via a sperm donor, the movie chronicles what happens when the children, now teenagers (Josh Hutcherson and Mia Wasikowska), decide they want to know the identitiy of the guy that, uh, provided his, um, seed to Momsies. To put it mildly, this not a relationship that has been exhaustively explored on the silver screen.
Nic (Bening) is the breadwinner of the family, a by-the-book doctor who heads straight for the wine rack whenever she gets home. Clearly, she wears the pants in this union. If you know what I mean. Her partner is Jules (Julianne Moore), a sort of stay-at-home hippie chick who is just starting a home business - another one - which Nic ain’t exactly over the moon about. In other words, the only difference between Nic and your basic chauvinist husband who believes a woman belongs at home is Nic doesn’t have a dick.
And speaking of dicks, guess how this lesbian married couple gets kinky in front of the TV at night? Well, if you respond “They watch lesbian porn, of course!” allow me to respond by saying: “I wouldn’t have written ‘speaking of dicks’ if we were dealing with lesbian porn, Einsteins…” Yup, believe it or not, our gal-gal couple gets their rocks off by watching… man-porn. Yes. Porn with men fucking and sucking each other. Don’t worry. You’re not the only one who possibly might have blown a synapse over this plot twist.
To make matters more bizzare (if that‘s possible), Nic complains that “the men in this one are too shaved.” Now while I completely agree that a hairy male chest is right up there with carbohydrates and protein as a vital food group, I don’t expect a couple of lesbians to share my views. In fact, I actually expect them to actually disagree vehemently with me and extol the virtues of muff-diving - not join me in my protest against “man-scaping.” What. The. FUCK?
Fortunately, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT is more than just about Nic and Jules’ curious taste in dirty movies. It’s also about the, well, kids. And they are Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and Laser (Josh Hutcherson). Joni is Nic’s biological daughter, and Laser is Jules’ biological son - from two batches of the same, uh, spunk. Joni is every bit as together and focused as Nic, while Laser is just as flighty and sensitive as Jules. And since we don’t know who donated the spunk, we can’t really say what traits they inherited from the spunk-donor. AKA Dad.
That doesn’t remain the case for long, though. Evidently, Laser has been growing more and more curious about their sperm donor and eventually persuades Joni to call the sperm bank to find out. Joni eventually caves in, and in the grand tradition of people not quitting while they’re ahead, she find out the name of the Spunkmeister. AKA Dad. Then they meet up with him.
He is Paul (Mark Ruffalo), some sort of organic local food purveyor/restaurateur. Paul is one of those guys that anthropologists and sociologists clinically refer to as a “Stone Cold Pimp.” Or as one of Joni’s pals says when she sees a pic of Paul, “Stone Cold Fox.” Either way, he’s not what the kids expected. Especially Laser, who was probably hoping Pops would be someone a little less of a green freak. Joni, though, gives Paul a total “thumbs-up” rating - and can’t wait to see him again.
As you can imagine, Nic and Jules take this news in about the same manner they’d react to the revelation that the whole world knows they secretly like to watch man-porn. In other words, not well. However, realizing that the kids have the right to know the human being from whose loins they (sort of) sprung from, our lesbian couple does the gracious things and allows Paul to ingratiate himself into their lives.
Is this a smart move? Will Nic and Jules get along with Paul? Will the kids, especially Joni, find themselves loving Paul more than their two moms? Will Paul tear their family apart? What happens when Paul hires Jules to landscape his backyard? Why do they seem to have some sort of sexual tension between them? Why are they giving each other googley eyes like that? I thought Jules was a lesbian? If so, why is she letting Paul pile-drive her like that? Why is she sucking on his nipples and flossing her teeth with his chest hair? Is she no longer into pussy? What in the holy hell is going on here?
Whatever. Let me close with a short note to Mr. James Franco, the actor whose wise quote began our review:
MEMORANDUM TO JAMES FRANCO, ACTOR AND “OUT-OF-THE-BOX" PIONEER…
Dearest James,
I just saw THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT. And, dude, if it’s unconventional love stories you want, then trust me - this is the movie for you. I never thought a hetero man could make a lesbian come that hard. Wow.
Good luck with the Oscars in February, by the way. Heard you got the hosting gig along with Anne Hathaway. About time they hired some hot people to liven that fucker up. If I had to watch Billy Crystal or Steve Martin mug shamelessly one more time, I'd fashion a noose from a bunch of Twizzlers and hang myself.
Oh, and we’re all pulling for you to win Best Actor for 127 HOURS.
Laterz,
S.
P.S. If you decide to do a guy-guy version of THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT, I am more than willing to be the Jules to your Nic. You can use this blog’s email to reach my agent - which is me. Saves me the 15% representation fee. More money for vodka, you know?
P.P.S. We’ll call our version THE KIDS ARE FUCKED UP.
P.P.P.S. Seriously, Jimbo. Email me. Toodles…
BUT, SERIOUSLY: To say the least, you don’t see many movies like THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT floating around. Oh, sure… you can peruse the schedule of movies for any Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in any major city, and you’ll find a long list of lesbian-themed flicks. Most of those films, though, are about “girl-meets-girl” and don’t deal with the challenges of keeping a long-term relationship going or the hurdles with raising children in an unconventional family. In that regard, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT is virtually unprecedented.
There’s been a lot of Oscar buzz for Annette Bening and Julianne Moore’s performances - and it’s thoroughly deserved. The actresses, just like any excellent thespian, portray Nic and Jules as human beings first, and lesbians last. While their characters’ sexual orientation is a significant plot point, Bening and Moore never let them be solely defined by it. Nic is cool, controlling, critical, but also unexpectedly caring. Jules is warm, needy, vulnerable, reckless, unsure of herself - but also surprisingly wise. They communicate with a whole array of non-verbal and short-hand gestures. Just like any other couple - gay or straight. And Annette Bening and Julianne Moore not only make Nic and Jules a believable pair, but also a memorable one.
Despite appearances, Mark Ruffalo actually has the trickiest role as Paul, a very complex guy - to say the least. Paul’s character arc is like a winding road. In the beginning, when Paul is new to Nic, Jules, Laser, and Joni’s orbit, he’s like a breath of fresh air. But then that air gradually turns less and less fresh, especially when he and Jules begin their highly unexpected and ill-advised affair. Their sexual connection springs from the unexpected kinship that forms when Jules, feeling neglected and underappreciated by Nic, reacts to Paul’s gentle sympathy and interest. But, as we and Jules find out, Paul is just as lost as she is. And he may not be as honorable as the kids initially thought him to be. Jules' impulsive fling with him not only underscores the fluidity of sexuality - but also emotional need.
Speaking of the kids, both Mia Wasikowska and Josh Hutcherson hold their own just fine against their older and more experienced co-workers. Wasikowska ably portrays Joni as a smart girl who will definitely make something of herself, but for now is trying to balance level-headed common sense with the need to be more spontaneous - such as wanting to see more of Paul and forge a relationship with him. As Laser, Hutcherson is similarly conflicted. Clearly, this kid will also do just fine in life. For now, though, he needs to balance the sensitive nature that he inherited from Jules with the pragmatic outlook that Mia inherited from Nic. Hutcherson, just like Wasikowska, is impressive.
Director (and co-writer) Lisa Cholodenko deserves credit for crafting an entertaining, intelligent, and offbeat story about an unconventional family whose bonds are tested by the very person that made it possible for them to be a family in the first place. To paraphrase Franco, there should be more movies exploring relationships that don’t fit neatly into the usual boxes.
By thinking and feeling outside the box, we create new boxes. THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT does exactly that. And when the Academy Award Nominations are announced soon, I expect to see Julianne Moore and Annette Bening’s names under the “Best Actress” category…
… and James Franco’s name under the “Best Actor” category for 127 HOURS. Don’t worry, we’ll get to review that movie next week when we do our Wilderness Survival Theme Week…
Review # 185 is our halfway mark - and it's just around the corner. Last day to send in your suggestions for that slot is this coming Friday (12/3/10). I have some interesting suggested flicks to choose from... Let's see which one gets picked.
Hope everyone had a great weekend. I know I promised to get the last two Girl Power Flick reviews in tonight. But I had to choose between blogging and keeping my social life alive. Guess which one I chose. As I've said before, nothing beats good conversation over cheap drinks...
Anyhow, we're only two reviews behind schedule, so that's not bad at all. Please expect THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT and THE RING to post sometime tomorrow night...
Then we're on to next week's Scuba Diving/Underwater Flicks theme... Please expect the list of movies shortly...
CRUSH (2001 - ROMANCE/DRAMA/COMEDY) **** out of *****
(Welcome to Cougartown…)
CAST: Andie MacDowell, Kenny Doughty, Imelda Staunton, Anna Chancellor, Bill Paterson, Josh Cole, Joe Roberts.
DIRECTOR: John McKay
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and surprisingly compelling May-December romances straight ahead…
“When I saw you, I fell in love. And you smiled because you knew…”
- Arrigo Boito, famous Italian poet
In my review for GROWN-UPS (review # 22), I wrote that certain films are not done any favors by their trailers. In fact, if you were to go by the trailers for GROWN-UPS, you’d think you were in store for another sub-Judd Apatow rip-off involving developmentally-disabled dipshits. While GROWN-UPS does center on five men behaving like boys during a reunion, it is also so much more than that - something the trailers conveniently skip. I suppose trying to market GROWN-UPS as a sweet, borderline-mature comedy about the importance of friends, family, and - yes - water parks would scare off the Judd Apatow demographic. And you know it isn’t a Judd Apatow movie because there isn’t a single marijuana joint in sight. GROWN-UPS is more evolved than that and actually lives up to its title.
Same goes for the 2001 Andie MacDowell romantic drama, CRUSH. If you go by the trailers and poster (see above), you’d be forgiven for thinking that it’s yet another entry in the “Sistahs Doing It For Themselves” genre that SEX AND THE CITY popularized. Showing stars MacDowell, Imelda Staunton, and Anna Chancellor cavort around rural England with apparently nothing more on their minds that devouring anything with a penis in a ten-mile radius, the trailers paint CRUSH to be anything other than what it ultimately turns out to be.
And what CRUSH turns out to be is an exquisite love story about a shy school headmistress pushing 40, Kate Scales (MacDowell), who runs into a former student, Jed Willis (Kenny Doughty), and almost immediately begins an affair with him - despite the gap of almost fifteen years between them. CRUSH chronicles the attempts of Kate and Jed to build a real relationship, amidst the growing disapproval of her best pals, Janine (Imelda Staunton) and Molly (Anna Chancellor), as well as the local community at large.
Try gleaning all that from the frighteningly giddy trailer above. You’d have to be psychic to intuit that behind the bubble-gum advertisements lies a surprisingly affecting May-December romance.
Our story begins in a lovely rural English village where transplanted yankee Kate works as the headmistress (principal, to us Americans) at the local school. We first meet Kate berating a student for smoking. Then, not even a second after the students practically runs crying from her office, Kate snatches up those smokes and begins puffing away herself. This is our first sign that Kate is seriously needing her world rocked.
Kate’s closest buddies are: (1) Janine, the local Chief of Police who is surprisingly sweet and gentle and not at all the ballbuster you’d expect, which would be (2) Molly, the predatory local doctor who has scorched through three marriages and is on the prowl for Poor Bastard # 4. These two lovely ladies are Kate’s sisters-in-arms, and all three of them gather every week to slam back gin tonics and trade sob stories about their love lives - or lack of them.
Sorry, but I have a hard time believing that a woman who looks like a L’Oreal spokesmodel would have a hard time bagging a guy. In reality, Kate would have them lined up at the door. It also helps that Kate is played by Andie MacDowell, who is actually L’Oreal’s spokesmodel. And looking like that, she’s sure to have some, ahem, sausage in her life very soon.
Sure enough, while attending the funeral of an acquaintance, Kate finds herself moved by the soulful playing of the, um, organist. She doesn’t get a good look at him because of the crowd, but his music moves her to the point of tears. I wish I could say that she was sad over her acquaintance’s passing, but nay - it’s the music that makes her bawl.
Later, Kate inquires about the, uh, organist, and is introduced by the reverend to the man who rocked Kate’s world with his music. Actually, make that young man. He is Jed Willis (Kenny Doughty), a smoldering hunk with green-brown eyes who epitomizes “tall, dark, and handsome.” And he’s about fifteen years younger than Kate, which would put him at the tender age of, oh, twenty-five.
But what is age when the chemistry is right? And, trust me, the chemistry is absolutely right between these two. In fact, I bet if you tossed a hymn book into the space between them, it would explode into flames. Sizzzzzzzzzleee…. Anyhow, all Jed has to do is point those green-brown eyes and that dazzling smile squarely on Kate’s face - and she’s pretty much toast in his hands. Her heart is no longer hers, folks. And he knows it.
Or as the famous Italian poet Arrigo Boito once wrote: “When I saw you, I fell in love. And you smiled because you knew…” He could’ve been writing about Kate meeting Jed.
Next thing you know, Kate and Jed have run off to the cemetery next door - and are doing the “rumpy-pumpy” on a tombstone. Afterwards, Kate wanders about in a daze - as any pushing-40 person would do after getting relentlessly pounded by a 25-year old. Unfortunately, she makes the colossal mistake of sharing this tidbit with Molly and Janine, who act as if Kate just told them she sold crack to a bunch of fifth-graders.
Now, folks, here’s the difference between men and women. If a 40-year old dude banged a 25-year old chick and told his buds, they would pretty much build a shrine to him and take copious notes on how they could do the same. On the other hand, if a pushing-40 chick like Kate who looks like a L’Oreal model bangs a 25-year old hottie who is the textbook definition of “tall, dark, and handsome” and tells her girlfriends about it, she get the “tsk, tsk” treatment and a slap on the wrist.
Kate, my dear… take it from someone who knows the “Down Low” very well: keep your orgasms to yourself. Let them wonder why you’re smiling so much.
At any rate, Kate and Jed soon meet up again. For their second fuck session, they fog up the insides of her car and nearly bust the windows with their cries of ecstasy and swinging limbs. Afterwards, Kate does the “woman” bit and asks Jed if they are in a “thing” now. To which our stud-puppy replies (and I’m quoting): “Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a thing.”
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that Kate slides ‘em knickers right off again and Jed dives in there like he’s Indiana Jones raiding the Lost Arse. So I guess it’s official now: Jed and Kate are now officially sailing on the HMS May-December.
But is it going to be smooth sailing? Can a nearly-40 woman and 25-year-old stud puppy really have a true relationship in a small town that just loves to gossip over the smallest thing? And what about Janine and Molly? Will they meddle out of genuine concern? Or are they just jealous that they don’t have a 25-year old of their own to milk on a thrice-daily basis? Will they throw obstacles in Kate and Jed’s path? Don’t our lovers have enough to deal with? What’s wrong anyway with having a Sugar Mommy or a Boy-Toy?
What, I ask you?! What!?!? WHAT!?!?
I need a drink. A really strong one…
BUT, SERIOUSLY: Watching CRUSH is like pulling on a tall glass of iced lemonade: it’s a little tart, a little sweet, completely refreshing, and is exquisite to look at. It is two things at once: (1) an examination of female friendships; and (2) a tender account of an unconventional romance. And it succeeds beautifully as both.
While there are quite a few critics who rate CRUSH fairly high (as I did), there are also just as many who don’t think favorably of it. While I respect everyone’s opinion, I have to wonder how anyone can not see this film for the wonderful gem that it is. I do have my suspicions, though; a couple of negative reviews that I read highlighted the fact that the film abruptly changes tone about two-thirds of the way in, and these critics felt it never really regains the warmth it built up in the first two acts. I agree that the plot twist that occurs at the start of the third act is extremely devastating, but I disagree that it weakens CRUSH. If anything, I think it actually strengthens it and makes the story resonate all that much more. I will not spoil anything for you. Suffice it to say that this plot twist really drives home the lesson that life, and love, are fleeting gifts that we should never - ever - take for granted.
CRUSH is a multi-layered film. On the surface it is a chronicle of the lives of three successful women who are at a point where they ostensibly have everything they need - but are still missing something: a meaningful relationship with a significant other. This is evidenced by the little get-togethers they have every week, where they exchange their latest “man stories.” These scenes are tartly humorous, and the three leading ladies have a great dynamic that make them believable as friends.
Andie MacDowell is, without a doubt, one of the top five most beautiful women I have ever seen. If L’Oreal is smart, they will continue to use her as a model. As an actress, she hasn’t always been quite as effective. She certainly delivered strongly in SEX, LIES, AND VIDEOTAPE. But while she was okay in FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL, you ultimately couldn’t understand why Hugh Grant’s character would be so enamored by her. This was mainly due to MacDowell playing the role as little too reserved and subdued, when it should’ve been played more passionate and energetic. This was the same problem that plagued her performance in GREEN CARD.
In CRUSH, however, MacDowell is perfection. Her cool, distant beauty is well-suited to the role of Kate Scales, a woman who has pretty much closed the door on love and seems to be fine with that. As she tells her friends in one scene, “I don’t know if I’ve been single for so long because I’ve been unlucky - or secretly I like it that way.” Kate is a very likable mix of down-to-earth sweetness and slightly ethereal aloofness, but MacDowell never lets her become opaque. She’s always fathomable and transparent, and we’re with her every step of the way as she embarks on her unexpected adventure with Jed. Kate’s exhilaration, uncertainty, trepidation, and, finally, conviction that she truly loves this guy are all vividly played by MacDowell. She engages us emotionally in Kate’s odyssey, and we surrender ourselves willingly. It could very well be the best performance of Andie MacDowell’s career.
As Kate’s best pals who may or may not have her best interests at heart, Imelda Staunton and Anna Chancellor are equally terrific. Staunton makes Janine into a very intriguing character: a woman in a formidable position of authority (police chief) who is sweeter than Grandma moses. Or “PC Empathy” as Molly derisively calls her. It’s this empathetic quality that really humanizes Janine and makes her see both sides of the story. We also sense that Janine doesn’t really object to Kate’s romance with Jed, but is more intimidated by Molly’s vehement reaction to it. In the end, all Janine cares about is Kate’s happiness, and Staunton effectively puts forth the character’s great decency.
Speaking of Molly, Anna Chancellor has the showiest role in CRUSH - and she runs with it. Smart, sassy, with a formidable wit capable of leveling anyone in its path, Molly is clearly the ringleader of the three women and used to bossing Kate and Janine around. But the role is also very tricky, as Chancellor has to make Molly intimidating but not so much so that she scares off the audience completely. She manages this by emphasizing Molly’s delightfully sardonic wit and brazen confidence. While we may not always sympathize with Molly, especially when she’s meddling in Kate and Jed’s relationship, we are always engaged in her antics, however questionable. Chancellor suffuses the character with acid charm that keeps us, if not on her side, then at least concerned for her.
As I mentioned above, CRUSH is a story with two layers. The first and most obvious one is the friendship between Kate, Molly, and Janine. The second and most heartfelt one is the romance that blooms without warning between Kate and Jed. Without it, CRUSH would’ve been emotionally hollow. This romance feeds into the friendship plot thread, and it needs to work if the whole movie is to remain cohesive. Cast the wrong actor as Jed, and everything could come crashing down. After all, if we don’t believe that what Kate feels for Jed is more than just lust, or a “crush” as Molly puts it, then the romance wouldn’t work.
Fortunately, writer/director John McKay made the right decision in casting Kenny Doughty. Darkly handsome, with sensitive eyes and a smile that always hints at some hidden mischief, Doughty is the perfect actor to bring Jed Willis to life. As written, Jed is a young man who is still finding his way through the world and looking for his own niche. While he is certainly mature and sensitive in some respects, which makes his attraction to the worldly Kate understandable, part of him is most definitely still developing. McKay wisely doesn’t idealize Jed or turn him into an unbelievably evolved being at the young age of twenty-five. Instead, we get a young man who is both wise beyond his years, but also still trying to get a handle on certain things. In other words, a normal twenty-five year old. Doughty vividly captures all of Jed’s various shadings: cocky, but sweet; lustful, but also loving; wise, but sometimes immature; gentle, but also surprisingly stubborn; simple, but unexpectedly complex. In short, we understand completely why Kate would find herself falling for him. And him for her.
As with any very good romance, the whole is enlivened and enriched by the beauty of its individual scenes. Some gems to look out for: (1) Jed and Kate alone in the church, demonstrating to her how he makes people cry with his music; (2) Kate freaking out when she (mistakenly) assumes that her faculty board knows about her affair with Jed; (3) Kate going off on a mini-vacation to Paris for the weekend with Molly and Janine, then rushing back to England because the time apart makes her realize just how much she loves Jed; (4) Kate closing the school impulsively so that the kids can enjoy a beautiful day - and so that she and Jed can go running in the fields; (5) Jed drunkenly confessing his love to Kate in front of a stunned dinner party; and (6) Jed surprising her with a “Fourth of July” serenade to honor her American roots.
All these scenes play out in a way that is both tender and quirky, and is very much in keeping with the offbeat, romantic tone of CRUSH. I must emphasize again that this tone changes two-thirds of a way into the film, and like a lot of other critics, you may find yourself unable to get back on the track. Trust me - you should. You won’t regret it. it’s all part of what makes CRUSH an unforgettable movie.
What CRUSH ultimately tells us with a moving eloquence and passion, is that the only thing predictable about life and love is their unpredictability. We either hide from them - or roll with the punches, go with the flow - and see where they take us.
With Kate and Jed, life and love took them someplace grand….
THE INTERPRETER (2005 - SUSPENSE/THRILLER/DRAMA) **** out of *****
(Pretty strong argument for speaking and understanding only one language, eh?)
CAST: Nicole Kidman, Sean Penn, Catherine Keener, Sydney Pollack, Yvan Attal, Hugo Speer, Earl Cameron, Kyle Kusatsu, George Harris.
DIRECTOR: Sydney Pollack
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and interpreters who look more like supermodels - straight ahead…
Anyone who follows this blog knows I’m simply mad about Alfred Hitchcock. Our boy Hitch established, cemented, then refined the tropes that the suspense genre lives by. By and large his thrillers spring from one compelling formula: an ordinary person inadvertently thrust into an extraordinary situation. Films like THE THIRTY-NINE STEPS (1935), NOTORIOUS (1946), REAR WINDOW (1954), VERTIGO (1955), NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959), and PSYCHO (1960) vividly and brilliantly illustrated this concept.
THE INTERPRETER is a film that is very Hitchcockian, revolving around a beautiful South African/British interpreter who inadvertently overhears a conversation about an assassination plot - and finds her life endangered because of it. One thing that THE INTERPRETER does, though, that other films influenced by Hitchcock haven’t really done is tweak the “ordinary-person-in-danger” concept a little. You see, while our heroine is indeed sympathetic, she may not be completely innocent. I shall explain…
Our heroine is Silvia Broome (Nicole Kidman), an interpreter with the United Nations who is half South African, half British. She originally hails from the fictional South African nation of Matobo, and is one of only a handful of people at the UN who can speak and understand its language. Despite looking like this month’s cover girl for Vogue, Silvia actually lives a fairly humdrum life. She spends most evenings chilling at home, playing the flute - which is how she gets shoved, ears-first, into some serious international intrigue.
See, there’s a surprise building evacuation at the UN one day, and Silvia ends up leaving behind her flutes. This turns out to be a bad move because: (1) the evacuation pretty much lasts all day, and everyone ends up going home except (2) Silvia, who has to go back for her flutes because of a lesson she has that evening, and (3) while collecting her stuff in the interpreter listening booth overlooking the General Assembly room, Silvia hears (4) several unseen men discussing an assassination attempt on Matoban president Zuwani (George Harris) who is scheduled to visit the UN in a few days, then (5) gets spotted by them when the lights in the booth come on, leading Silvia to (6) get the fuck outta there - fast.
I hope you folks don’t think I’m being a cold bastard by pointing out that if Silvia had just brought her shit with her during the building evac, she’d probably be, uh, playing her instructor’s flute right now, instead of worrying about being stalked by assassins.
Eventually, Silvia reports what she heard to UN security, who immediately call in the Secret Service. Agents Tobin Keller (Sean Penn) and Dot Woods (Catherine Keener) show up to assess the situation - and Tobin’s assessment is that Silvia is lying. Why the fuck would she lie about something like that, she basically asks him. He basically shrugs and says, “People do.” This is our first sign that we have yet another cinematic couple that will fight like cats and dogs before they finally realize how perfect they are for each other. Jeeez.
Anyhow, turns out Tobin’s got some baggage of his own. See, his wife left him a few months ago for a dancer (wouldn’t you?) and was recently killed in a car accident. All in all, not the best year for Agent Tobin Keller. But does that mean he needs to take out his shit on Silvia. Not in the least, which is why it’s a good thing he’s partnered with the more cheerful Dot, who basically mothers the shit out of him. He needs it.
Meanwhile, the head of President Zuwani’s security team, Nils Lund (Jesper Christensen), arrives as part of the advance team to scope out the security situation. And being told that Silvia allegedly overheard an assassination plot on the Prez is not what he wanted to hear. While Lund grapples with this situation, Tobin is slowly discovering some rather disturbing things about our dear Silvia, such as: (1) she used to be part of an armed rebel group back in Matobo; (2) her brother Simon (Hugo Speer) is still living there and may be in involved in some anti-Zuwani activities; and (3) Silvia herself may have a personal grudge against Zuwani because her parents were killed by his troops.
In other words, is Silvia a victim… or a suspect? Can Tobin protect someone he can’t trust? And what happens when Silvia begins to open up to him - and he finds himself doing the same? Will their growing bond survive international politics? Is there really an assassination plot against Zuwani? If so, is it someone from within the UN? Or someone else? Someone… unexpected?
Find out for yourselves. I’m just thankful I decided against going to work for the UN as an interpreter. It’s bad enough dealing with gossip in English, let alone 50 other languages….
BUT, SERIOUSLY: Watching THE INTERPRETER is like being reminded of a film that is a lot rarer now than back in the 70’s: a thriller that has equal parts brains, heart, and action. This movie reminds me of such classics as THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR (1975), THE PARALLAX VIEW (1974), and THE CONVERSATION (1974) - yet another film that was about an overheard conversation with deadly implications.
Director (and actor) Sydney Pollack’s presence almost assures us that we will be dealing with a movie with a certain gravity. Actors Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman in the leads are further guarantees that we’re not going to be stuck with pop-corn fluff. That’s not to say that THE INTERPRETER isn’t commercial entertainment; it most definitely is. It just cleverly combines thrills and suspense with deeper themes about loss, family, and human connection.
The emotional fulcrum that this film pivots on is the growing relationship between Tobin Keller and Silvia Broome. Both are damaged souls with baggage to spare. They dance around each other like two porcupines unsure of how to approach one another. Only by letting their guards down in little increments do they begin to move towards each other. The best example of this is the scene where Tobin questions Silvia in the empty General Assembly room. Silvia tells him about a Matoban custom involving forgiveness - the only act that can really release grief. It’s a lovely scene that forms the turning point for these two prickly characters who are more alike than they realize. Kudos to the script and director Pollack for refusing to make their bond second to the mystery plot, as a lesser director might have done to amp up the thrills.
Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn are absolutely terrific in their roles. Each is assigned to play a character that is complex and multi-faceted. Each has to play a gamut of emotions and reactions ranging from fear, mistrust, tenderness, conviction, confusion, loyalty, and - ultimately - something almost approaching love. And each pulls it off beautifully. The final scene between Tobin and Silvia, where he finally tells her the name of his dead wife, is one of my favorite scenes ever. And it’s due primarily to Sean Penn and Nicole Kidman’s lovely acting.
Bottom line: THE INTERPRETER is the kind of thriller that I wish they would make more of these days: challenging, without being confusing; entertaining, without being insulting; soulful, without being false; intelligent, without being abstract. In other words, it’s a perfect combo of brains and heart.
I dedicate this review to the late Sydney Pollack, a talented director who gave us some unforgettable films. Including this one.
Just a quick post to let you know we are on track for getting all the Girl Power Flicks posted by tomorrow night. Then we're all caught up and on schedule - and then on to our theme for next week. Which will be... Scuba Diving Movies!
Yup, in honor of my favorite past time (besides tying folks up and smothering them in whipped cream and Neutrogena Body Oil) we will review films that take place underwater. The pluses of these movies are they usually involve: (1) smokin' hot people in (2) wet suits who are always (3) wet. With me on this?
Anyhow, the list of Scuba Diving Movies will post tomorrow night after the last of the Girl Power Flicks post.
Also, we just came back from seeing the wonderful animated movie TANGLED, which I will be adding on Tuesday as Bonus Review # 3. This movie is awesome, folks. It's like someone made me the hero of my own cartoon. Yikes. Trailer below:
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and extreme examples of sisterhood - straight ahead…
In 1955, French director Henri-Georges Clouzot released his thriller DIABOLIQUE. Revolving around a cruel and sadistic headmaster at an isolated school for boys, as well as the two women who share his bed and ultimately conspire to murder him, it would go on to be regarded as one of the finest entries in the suspense genre - right alongside Alfred Hitchcock’s output. In fact, there are those that regard DIABOLIQUE 1955 as even more effective than some of Hitch’s flicks - especially its sucker punch of an ending. As you can imagine, that’s kind of like saying that someone is better than Kevin Smith at dick-and-fart jokes.
I never saw the original DIABOLIQUE in its entirety (mostly the last half), but did catch all of the very good 1974 American television movie that it spawned, REFLECTIONS OF MURDER. Suspenseful, atmospheric, classy, and even more lethal in unraveling that famous ending as the French film that inspired it, REFLECTIONS was quite the experience. It made me wonder why no major studio had considered remaking DIABOLIQUE for the big screen.
Well, in the mid-90’s when I was still living in L.A., I got my wish. The industry rags blared that DIABOLIQUE was going to be remade by director Jeremiah Chechik who helmed Johnny Depp’s quirky BENNY & JOON and… NATIONAL LAMPOON‘S CHRISTMAS VACATION. Hmmmmmm….
Danger, Will Robinson?
At least the casting was impressive, which offered great hope. Sharon Stone, then hot off her Oscar nomination and Golden Globe win for CASINO, was to take on the role of the headmaster’s icy mistress. French legend and dazzler Isabelle Adjani would play his long-suffering wife. And the scumbag whom Stone and Adjani’s characters would eventually kill off together? The awesome Chazz Palminteri, hot off BULLETS OVER BROADWAY, A BRONX TALE, and… JADE. Okay, well at least he was hot off BULLETS OVER BROADWAY, which is one of my favorite films and the best of Woody Allen’s output, and A BRONX TALE, which showcased some of Robert De Niro’s finest work.
Anyhow, all that by way of saying that I really looked forward to a remake of DIABOLIQUE. Stone had already shown great proficiency at playing steely and intimidating (BASIC INSTINCT, THE SPECIALIST), vulnerable and complex (SLIVER, CASINO), and even dryly funny (INTERSECTION). With her in the lead of DIABOLIQUE, sure-to-be able support from the talented Adjani and Palminteri, and source material as flawless as the original film, how could anything go wrong?
We’ll discuss that in the BUT, SERIOUSLY part of this review. Suffice it to say, something did go wrong. Very wrong. And it’s not the fault of the cast.
Anyhow, our story starts at the St. Anselm School For Boys. Make that troubled boys, as the movie soon makes clear. Evidently, we’re not exactly looking at the future leaders of our country among the student body. In fact, as mathematics teacher Nicole Horner (Sharon Stone) acidly points out, they’re more like “the future Lee Harvey Oswalds.” Me-ow.
Turns out Nicole has a good reason to be bitchy. The headmaster of the school, Guy Baran (Chazz Palminteri) is a complete dick who: (1) serves grade-Z food in the cafeteria; (2) rules with an iron hand; and (3) likes to humiliate his wife at every opportunity. She is Mia (Isabelle Adjani), and is also Nicole’s friend. Which makes the fact that Nicole is fucking Guy even more intriguing. And the added fact that Mia knows all about it - but accepts it - makes thing even more noteworthy. Or just very European.
Now is it clear to you folks why the students at the school are troubled? Apparently, the teaching staff is far more occupied with their sex lives than the curriculum.
This doesn’t stop Nicole and Mia from schtupping Guy. Separately, of course. I don’t think Mia is forward-thinking enough to try a threesome with her husband and friend. Her loss, I guess. Anyhow, it’s obvious that while these women can’t stand Guy, they obviously love his dick, which must be the size of the Empire State Building. That would be the only logical reason these chicks would continue to put up with his douchebagery. Anything smaller than that would just not be worth the trouble.
But I digress… yet again. Anyhow, the last straw is when Guy forces Mia to down some slop at the lunch table. “Go ahead. Swallow it. Swallow it for once in your life…” coos the sleazy guy. I half-expected one of the other teachers to lean forward and ask, “I’m sorry, but are we still talking about food, here?” Fortunately, Nicole is actually a decent person under all that icy sarcasm - and accidentally-on-purpose pours a shitload of salt all over the slop that Mia is enduring. Which prevents Guy from forcing Mia to swallow it even further. But that smirk on his face indicates she’ll be swallowing something else that night: a nice little delicacy called Tube Steak. Italian Tube Steak is the best, closely followed by Irish. Then German. Well, actually, maybe Norwegian. Then there’s Hungarian, which is really…
Wait… where was I? Oh, yeah… enough about Tube Steaks. Anyone who’s seen the original DIABOLIQUE or REFLECTIONS OF MURDER knows that Mia and Nicole go on to kill Guy by drowning him in a bathtub - and then dumping his body into the school swimming pool, which has been closed for years. They hope to make it look like Guy got too drunk and fell into the slimy water - and drowned. Too bad these chicks are more of a literary type of broad, because if they would have watched even just one episode of CSI, they would’ve realized they have a greater chance of finding oil on school property than passing off Guy’s death as accidental. But that’s their problem…
At any rate, our two murderous heroines go on about their daily business pretending to be shocked about Guy’s disappearance. All the while patiently waiting for his body to float to the surface of the pool - so they can act all “heartbroken” and “sad.” Let me just say right now that I, for one, would like to see Nicole try to pull off “heartbroken” and “sad.” The woman has more acid in her system than someone who just got done eating ten bowls of jalapeno peppers, for God’s sake.
It won’t come as a great surprise that Guy’s body never surfaces. And when Mia and Nicole have the pool drained as an excuse find Nicole’s keys, they discover it’s empty. As in, there’s no dead body at the bottom. Just a lot of dead leaves, slime, and what looks like a bunch of used condoms. But no Guy - dead or otherwise.
Oh. Shit.
To make matters worse, the following strange things happen: (1) the suit that Guy wore when Nicole and Mia drowned him turns up from the dry cleaners; (2) a roll of film found in the suit pocket shows pictures of our heroines lugging the trunk with Guy’s body in it; (3) the shower curtain they wrapped Guy’s body in turns up in Mia’s bathroom, nearly giving her a heart attack; (4) the two video geeks (Donal Logue and J.J. Abrams) shooting promotional footage for the school catch someone on tape who looks like Guy standing in one of the upper windows; and (5) a nosy detective named Shirley Vogel (Kathy Bates) shows up and starts inquiring about Guy’s disappearance. This last bit, as you can imagine, is received by Mia and Nicole the same way they would receive the news that they both contracted gonorrhea from Guy.
Is Guy still alive? Or did someone steal his body? If so, who is it? Who saw Mia and Nicole dump the body? One of the students? One of the staff? Is someone going to blackmail them soon? Or are they going to die next? Has Guy’s ghost returned from the dead for revenge? Will Shirley discover what Nicole and Mia did? Will they confess? Or will they continue to try to tap-dance around the fact that something very, very fucked-up is going on in their midst? Will they end up killing Shirley, too? Is someone else pulling the strings? Are Sharon Stone and Isabelle Adjani really that fucking gorgeous? And why does Chazz Palminteri get to be the lucky schlub who schtups both of them.
It’s all so diabolical. So very diabolical, I tell you. Ahem.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: I mentioned above that something went wrong in planning the remake of DIABOLIQUE 1955, a film so perfect a thriller that when that famous ending came along, you just couldn’t believe you never saw it coming. Like I wrote earlier, I’ve only seen the last half of the original film, but that was enough to sell me on it. And REFLECTIONS OF MURDER was a more-than-worthy American TV remake that actually improved upon that classic ending by making it even more sinister and ominous.
So what went wrong? With a cast like Sharon Stone, Isabelle Adjani, Chazz Palminteri, and Kathy Bates, how could anything fail?
Well, for starters, you can start by hiring a director who has experience in directing thrillers. No disrespect intended to Jeremiah Chechik, but while I love BENNY & JOON and have been amused by NATIONAL LAMPOON’S CHRISTMAS VACATION on occasion, they are a far cry from the sinister and ominous world that DIABOLIQUE inhabits. The film needed the assured touch of a born purveyor of suspense. I can only imagine what someone like Phillip Noyce (SLIVER, PATRIOT GAMES, THE BONE COLLECTOR) or Brian De Palma (DRESSED TO KILL, SISTERS, OBSESSION) would’ve done with this. Hell, even Wes Craven.
To be fair, DIABOLIQUE 1996 opens promisingly, with a significant shot of the school swimming pool buffeted by a rainstorm. This shot foreshadows the sinister role the pool will play in the unfolding story. We quickly meet Guy, Mia, and Nicole - and absorb the twisted relationship the three of them share. As Guy continues to humiliate Mia, we slowly start to understand the women’s hatred for him. When Mia and Nicole begin to finalize their plans to murder him, it’s almost believable.
Then they kill him, and just when the movie should take off and turn into an unbearably suspenseful exercise in dread, paranoia, and fear like DIABOLIQUE 1955 and REFLECTIONS OF MURDER, it just meanders without energy through the next two acts and stumbles awkwardly to a thoroughly misguided revamping of that famous ending. It would be very wrong for me to spoil anything tied in to the endings - old or new - but I will say this: in trying to update the ending for DIABOLIQUE 1996, director Jeremiah Chechik and screenwriter Don Roos basically killed any hope that the remake would be able to even stand close to its predecessors. The biggest disappointment of all.
Speaking of the direction, Chechik works hard to create atmosphere and tension. For the first act before Guy’s murder, he more or less succeeds. After that, though, he doesn’t quite know how to sustain the tension. When it should be rising, it simply flatlines. And for a thriller, there is no greater sin than that. The mid-section of the film is simply too slow, even with the introduction of potentially-suspenseful plot threads as Kathy Bates’ inquisitive detective who quickly realizes something is very wrong at the school - and that Nicole and Mia know more about Guy’s disappearance than they’re saying. I don’t know what other reason to posit than Chechik simply was not right director for this film. Again, I would have loved to see a version directed by Phillip Noyce or Brian De Palma - someone who knows how to create, sustain, and unleash a suspenseful symphony.
The cast is good. Sharon Stone has some amusingly acerbic quips, and plays up Nicole’s hard edge without failing to also show some of her softness. Stone brings a larger-than-life quality to the character that accounts for what little energy there is in this movie. Isabelle Adjani matches Stone scene for scene by being the diametrical opposite: shy, tentative, and reticent - but with a backbone of steel when you least expect it. Palminteri is appropriately oily and cruel as Guy, a man who actually smiles when he realizes that he’s hurting someone. If anyone deserves a watery death, it would be this character. You have to believe in Guy’s hissability, otherwise Nicole and Mia’s motivations make no sense. Palminteri makes it easy for us to believe.
Finally, honorable mention should go to Kathy Bates for her portrayal of Shirley Vogel, the detective who walks into the scenario thinking one thing - then slowly realizes she doesn’t know anything at all. Watching Shirley slowly put things together is a pleasure to watch, and Bates makes the journey worthwhile, providing some of the little energy at hand. With her participation and the rest of the solid cast, DIABOLIQUE almost reaches the average mark. Almost.
Unfortunately, as a thriller, DIABOLIQUE 1996 is simply lacking. Despite a game cast that tries its best, the movie ultimately fails because the folks behind the camera simply don’t know how to effectively tell the story. For anyone wanting to see just how sinister and terrifying this movie could have been, go see DIABOLIQUE 1955 or REFLECTIONS OF MURDER, instead...
... you may not look at bathtubs the same way ever again.
CAST: Jennifer Aniston, Kevin Costner, Shirley MacLaine, Mark Ruffalo, Mena Suvari, Richard Jenkins, Kathy Bates.
DIRECTOR: Rob Reiner
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and more Unpleasant Love Triangles straight ahead…
There’s a solid romance struggling to escape from the unpleasantly smothering confines of RUMOR HAS IT. It’s a love triangle between a hot older man, a hot younger woman, and the woman’s more age-appropriate boyfriend.
Unfortunately, because of some rather bizarre plot twists associated with film’s main premise, the triangle turns into yet another example of the ULT - or “Unpleasant Love Triangle” syndrome. In my review for PROOF OF LIFE (review #159), the ULT was caused by the leads (Russell Crowe, Meg Ryan) being less sympathetic than the third point of the triangle (David Morse).
In RUMOR HAS IT, however, all three points of the triangle (Jennifer Aniston, Kevin Costner, Mark Ruffalo) are reasonably likable. What makes it a little unpleasant are the circumstances that create the triangle in the first place. I shall explain…
Our heroine is Sarah Huttinger (Jennifer Aniston), a neurotic NYC journalist traveling back home to Pasadena with her boring fiancee Jeff Daly (Mark Ruffalo) to attend the wedding of her dingbat sister Annie (Mena Suvari). We know Jeff is boring because in the opening scene of RUMOR HAS IT, he and Sarah are on a plane enroute to L.A. Sarah asks him to, ahem, join the Mile-High Club with her. And he refuses. If that’s not a lousy candidate for a husband, I don’t know who is. And we know Annie is a dingbat because instead of greeting guests with “Hello. How are you? Thanks for coming.” she basically jumps up and down as if the hydraulics in her ass have gone haywire, all the while yapping like a schnauzer on crack.
At the wedding rehearsal dinner (or whatever the hell you call it), Sarah runs into her lush of a grandma, Katherine Richelieu (Shirley MacLaine). And if she’s not a piece of work, I don’t know who is. To wit, Katherine: (1) slams back vodka-on-rocks like it’s made by Evian; (2) walks around imperiously like she’s the Queen of the Lushes (which, I guess, she is); and (3) slams every single person she encounters with some not-so-well-chosen cutting remarks.
Katherine, dear, my nieces verbally-destroyed the other kids on the playground with far better zingers. Now that they’re adults, I hope to hell you never run into them. They just might school you on the art of sarcasm - then eat you alive. Yes, I have created monsters.
Anyhow, Sarah learns from Katherine that her mom had a fling right before marrying Sarah’s fuddy-duddy Dad (Richard Jenkins). I should mention that Sarah has always felt out of place in her family. That is, all her life she’s apparently felt less dull than her father, and less idiotic than her sister. So, as you can imagine, being told that her mom had one last happy-fuck before throwing away the key, is enough to make our neurotic heroine think that… she has a different father. And he just might be this mystery guy that Momsy banged six ways from Sunday right before saying her wedding vows.
Oh, but it gets better… See, there’s been this persistent real-life rumor running around Pasadena that the novel/film THE GRADUATE was based on a real-life family. And somehow, through a thoroughly WTF chain of illogical events, Sarah begins to think that her own family is the basis of THE GRADUATE. Meaning her father might actually be the real-life version of Benjamin Braddock.
Now, if you haven’t seen THE GRADUATE, none of the above and certainly none of what follows will make a goddamned difference - so I suggest you skip on back to some other reviews. But, if you have seen it, then you already know that THE GRADUATE was about a college dude who fucked both a college girl and her lush mother. And the college girl went to marry someone else. Now, from Sarah’s apparently rather warped perspective, the college girl was her mother, the someone else was her father, and she is possibly the daughter of the mysterious college dude.
That’s when Sarah turns into Nancy Drew, and starts digging into her mother’s past to find out her mystery lover was. She starts with her Aunt Mitzi (Kathy Bates), who makes Katherine look like a model of sobriety. Having Bloody Marys for breakfast, Mitzi basically slurs out the info that Sarah needs: (1) the college dude is someone named Beau Burroughs, (2) he indeed rocked her mother’s world (or at least her clitoris) just a few days before the wedding; and (3) he’s one hot Mo-Fo in their 1962 yearbook who looks like a young Kevin Costner.
Now that she has a name, Sarah basically turns into a heat-seeking missile. Or, more accurately, a Beau Burroughs-seeking missile. Sending Jeff back on his own to NYC, Sarah rushes up to San Francisco where Beau, who is evidently some sort of media tycoon now, is speaking at a convention. In Frisco, Sarah finally gets a first real look at the man who just might be her real father.
And he really does look like Kevin Costner. I guess that’s because Beau is actually being played by Kevin Costner. Who, as we know, is one hot mo-fo.
After some rather unsettling scenes of Beau coming on to the chick who just might be his daughter, we are finally relieved of our discomfort when he reveals that Sarah couldn’t possibly be his daughter. Why? Well, evidently, when Beau was in high school he was a soccer player (football to you folks on the continent) and suffered some, uh, blunt testicular trauma. English translation: he got his nuts smashed in. Which resulted in him, uh, shooting blanks from then on. Meaning he can never have children.
Now, guys, lets pause for a moment in silence as we cradle our “boys” and pray that never happens to us. I hope to hell Clark Kent protects his nuts when playing soccer because his future wife is going to be pissed if he loses the ability to breed - and a world without little Clark Kents running around in it would be a bleak one indeed.
Okay, back to the review… So, as you can imagine, the knowledge that Beau is not her father is such a load off Sarah’s mind that she celebrates by… fucking him.
Okay, folks. Let me ask you a question: would you sleep with someone that just a few hours ago you were convinced was your parent? For Sarah, apparently, the answer is: “HELL, YEAH! IF HE LOOKS LIKE KEVIN COSTNER!!!” Anyway, Sarah and Beau end up slamming pelvises a few times, blissful in the knowledge that when Beau yells, “WHO’S YOUR DADDY?” he’s not asking literally.
So… Will Sarah and Beau embark on a May-December thang? What about Jeff, who’s back in New York spazzing out about Sarah not calling him back? Does he stand a chance against the smart, handsome, accomplished, and debonair Beau? What about Katherine? What happens when she discovers that, in addition to fucking her and her daughter, Mr. Burroughs has also now bagged her granddaughter? Is Beau a stud or what? Should he give lessons? Where do I sign up?
BUT, SERIOUSLY: As I mentioned earlier, there’s a solid romance at the core of RUMOR HAS IT. Unfortunately, it gets muddled by the various plot elements competing for attention. Ultimately, the clever conceit of the “true rumor” that the story is based on runs out of gas halfway through the film, and the interesting relationship that develops between Beau and Sarah is shunted aside just when it starts to take off.
I suppose RUMOR HAS IT is really more of a character study of Sarah Huttinger: a successful, beautiful, smart woman who still feels something is missing from her life. Feeling dislocated from her family and fiancee, she flails about for a life raft - and thinks she finds it by investigating the “rumor” that finds its way into her life. The problem with this, though, is that when Sarah finally meets Beau and finds out he’s not her father, the movie doesn’t know where to go. The cleverness of the premise can only go so far.
This isn’t to say, though, that nothing of interest happens after we realize that Beau isn’t related to Sarah. In fact, the sole reason this film doesn’t rate lower is because of the very interesting dynamic that Beau and Sarah have. Sarah is clearly someone who needs to mature and appreciate what she has in life. Beau is someone who has seen a lot and has attained a lot of worldy sophistication and life wisdom, while still holding to a haunting kindness. One of the best scenes in the film is when he shares some of his beliefs with Sarah. It also helps that Costner and Aniston seriously click together. Once you get past the initial unpleasantness of the fact that she used to think he might be her father, you start to realize that these two make a wonderful pair. He’s an older man who likes to take care of someone, and she’s a younger woman who needs to be taken care of. It’s a great potential May-December romance.
Costner once again proves how easily he can hold the screen. He turns Beau Burroughs into something of a glamorous and studly dork. Slouching, self-deprecating, stubborn, and gentle, this is a guy that you would love to have for a father - or a lover. You can see why Sarah would be drawn to him in a more romantic way, so soon after clearing up the whole paternity issue.
I’ve always liked Jennifer Aniston. Much has been made about her ability (or purported lack of) to hold the silver screen, with her presence allegedly more suited for the smaller one, as with the FRIENDS series. Personally, I have always found her compelling to watch. Beautiful in a girl next door way, but relatable in a sisterly-buddy way, Aniston’s strength has always been playing everywomen, which Sarah is. In essence, RUMOR HAS IT is about Sarah’s “quarter-life” crisis, and Aniston’s performance (in addition to Costner’s) is what keeps us engaged.
Unfortunately, the film has an agenda of its own, and it is to milk that connection to THE GRADUATE as much as it can, at the expense of good ground it has made in the interim. As I already mentioned, that premise can only hold so much water before it starts leaking. It also doesn’t help that, aside from Costner and Aniston’s engaging performances, almost everyone else in the movie is not as effective.
Shirley MacLaine overplays Katherine’s bitchy insouciance, and her delivery of some her character’s cutting dialogue falls flat. Then again, that might be the fault of the dialogue itself. Still, I found myself wishing they would’ve cast another actress like Meryl Streep. Mark Ruffalo is merely okay as Jeff, but then again that might the fault of the character himself. Compared to Beau, Jeff is such a vanilla bore that you can’t help but pray Sarah goes the May-December route instead. Mena Suvari as Annie is, again, adequate but not compelling. In fact, she's kind of irritating. Not sure if Annie was written this way or if Suvari, just like McLaine, went over-the-top with the character to ill-effect.
The only member of the supporting cast who almost rises to the level of Aniston and Costner is Richard Jenkins as Sarah’s real father. He has some nice scenes with Aniston towards the end of the film that remind us of what an expressive actor he is. It also helps that his character is given more opportunities in the script to shine - and he doesn’t fumble them.
All in all, RUMOR HAS IT is an average film that is saved by Kevin Costner and Jennifer Aniston’s lovely chemistry and performances. While its premise may be very clever at first glance, it is ultimately not enough to sustain the film. Thank goodness for the two leads’ charms. Otherwise, this would’ve sank like a stone…
SOMETHING’S GOTTA GIVE (2004 - ROMANCE/COMEDY) ****½ out of *****
(A little story about Jack and Diane…)
CAST: Jack Nicholson, Diane Keaton, Keanu Reeves, Amanda Peet, Frances McDormand, Jon Favreau, Rachel Ticotin.
DIRECTOR: Nancy Meyers
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and refreshingly wrinkled (literally and figuratively) romances straight ahead…
As the very rare version of SOMETHING’S GOTTA GIVE’s trailer states above, Harry Sanborn (Jack Nicholson) is the Luckiest S.O.B. on the planet. Make that the Universe. No, sorry… make that the Luckiest S.O.B. in Multi-Verses. How else to describe him? To wit, he is: (1) a super-successful music producer who owns a label called (and I’m not kidding here) Drive-By Records; (2) looks like Jack Nicholson; and (3) even though he is in his early 60’s, he is catnip to women young enough to be his grand-daughters.
That last part is significant to our story. See, Harry has never dated a woman older than 30. I wouldn’t describe his romances so much as “May-December” but rather “January-December.” Suffice it to say, Harry has never seen an “older” woman naked. But that, folks, is about to change. Big time.
As our story begins, Harry and his flavor of the week, Maren (Amanda Peet) are dashing off from the Big Apple to spend a weekend in the Hamptons. Turns out Maren’s mom is a famous playwright and has a house on the beach (make that a famous, successful playwright). Somehow I get the feeling that Momsy wouldn’t approve of her little darling romping through her lovely home with someone who has to take BenGay and Viagra at the same time.
Turns out I’m right. While Maren is off changing into something even more trampy, Harry raids the fridge in nothing but his boxers and unbuttoned-down-to-there shirt. Which is the state that Maren’s Mom, Erica (Diane Keaton), and her Aunt Zoe (Frances McDormand) find him in. Which understandably freaks them the hell out. I mean, don’t get me wrong: Jack Nicholson is an attractive guy for someone in his 60’s. But I sure as fuck wouldn’t want to come home to find him in his underoos in my kitchen. Give me Chris Evans. Give me James Franco. Give me Mike Vogel. Just not someone that wouldn’t be out of place at a retirement home.
Rightfully mistaking Harry for a geriatric perverted burglar possibly high on Ecstacy and glue, Erica calls the police. Which Harry interrupts - by telling her that he’s dating her daughter. Folks, if you thought Erica looked crazed before, you should see how that revelation rings her bell. Kind of like thinking a serial killer is standing in your living room - only to find out he’s actually the babysitter. Talk about a “lose-lose big” situation.
After some initial awkardness and embarassment (to say the goddamned least), our foursome decide to get over the fact that: (1) Harry is not a burglar, but is in fact (2) dating Maren despite the fact that he is (3) older than dirt. They decide to act like sophisticated adults who see this kind of thing everyday. Personally, if my daughter was dating someone 100 years older than me I would ground her for life. Which is probably a good thing I will likely never have children.
At any rate, all this “blasy-blah” attitude goes out the window when Harry fools around just a little too much with Maren after dinner - and winds up getting a heart attack. I think this is the point of the movie where I actually called out “bullshit!” in the theater. I mean, come on… an unrepentant cradle-robber like Harry should have had the stamina to fuck one lousy 30-year old, right? What better exercise is there than fucking someone's brains out and making them cum like New Year's Eve in Rio De Janeiro? After all, we all know it’s the 25-year olds that will wear your ass out. I should know.
Hmmm, somehow that didn’t come out the way I intended.
Whatever. The point is Harry winds up in the hospital where we discover that he had a mild heart attack. After some supremely cringe-worthy moments of a dazed Harry wandering around the hospital corridors with his bare ass peeking coyly (and rather frighteningly) through the back of a hospital gown, we meet Harry’s doctor, Julian Mercer (Keanu Reeves). Turns out Julian is a huge fan of Erica’s work, and is instantly smitten with her.
Erica, for her part, is kind of shocked that a sizzling young piece of smokin’ hot ass is enamored with her. Fortunately, she doesn’t have much time to ponder this conundrum because, in a turn of events more incredible than the plot of AVATAR, she finds herself having to care for Harry under her own roof. Don’t worry… I was flabbergasted, too. Ostensibly, Julian wants Harry to be close by in case he has a relapse. And since Harry refuses to stay in the hospital, the only solution is… to stay at Erica’s place? I’m sure that even the Hamptons has a Days Inn or something, right?
Once again - whatever. So… stuck with one another in a confined (if luxuriously appointed) space, Harry and Erica unsurprisingly begin to snipe at each other like a couple of barracudas in a bucket filled with chlorinated water. Their first night is a disaster. To wit, the following happen: (1) Harry smokes up a chimney, which is a huge “no-no” because (2) Erica is fanatical about her house looking and smelling clean; and (3) Harry stumbles upon Erica while she’s undressing to take a shower; which leads to (4) Erica, once again, freaking the fuck out.
Harry himself is not exactly unscarred by the sight of Erica’s not-so-nubile bod, either. He probably went to bed curled up into a fetal position, having nightmares about what he considers vintage tits. Fortunately, there’s someone else in Erica’s orbit who is totally into cougars - and he is our dear Julian. After a particularly spectacular first date, it starts to dawn on Erica that a young hottie is actually nursing a boner for her.
Unfortunately, this doesn’t seem to set her on fire the way it should. Personally, if I was Erica and a younger man had the total hots for me, it wouldn’t be a question of whether or not I’d go to bed with him, but rather what kind of knots I’d use to tie him to the bedposts. I find that sheepshanks are the best because they’re tricky enough to keep someone restrained, but easy enough to untie quickly if there is an emergency like an earthquake, fire, or someone in your building accidentally setting off the sprinklers in the garage, forcing the whole building to evacuate. Talk about awkward.
But I digress… Anyhow, the unexpected happens rather, uh, unexpectedly. See, Harry and Erica begin to discover that they actually like each other’s company. After a wonderful late-night pancake session that reminded me of one of my own funner bootie calls, our two senior citizens (let’s face it - they are) realize they are - oh, holy shit - falling in love. Now they’ve done it.
Do Harry and Erica have a future together? Can someone like Harry who has a Pavlovian response to chicks younger than 30 really have something genuine with a woman who is older than most buildings in downtown Seattle? Or will Erica get her heart broken? Is Julian a better choice for her, despite being nearly 20 years younger? Will Harry fight for Erica and make the leap for her? Or are they doomed to share nothing more than some midnight pancakes and some seriously hilarious “December-December” sex? Is it enough when Harry says to her, “Erica, you’re the funniest person I ever had sex with.”
Shit, if I had a dollar for every time someone said that to me…
Whatever. I still think Erica needs to do the following: (1) forget about Harry; and (2) tie Julian to a bed with sheepshank knots and harvest his sperm for the next, oh, twenty years or so.
Can you tell I’m horny?
BUT, SERIOUSLY: I reviewed Nancy Meyers’ IT’S COMPLICATED (review # 12) at the very beginning of this crazy adventure - and found it seriously lacking. On the surface, IT’S COMPLICATED looked like it couldn’t miss: (1) a top cast featuring Meryl Streep, Alec Baldwin, Steve Martin, and John Krasinski; (2) a love story that promised to further explore the territory that SOMETHING’S GOTTA GIVE so wonderfully explored a few years earlier; and (3) a writer/director who knows who to deliver entertainment not geared specifically to audiences too young to know what the term “Baby Boomer” means.
Unfortunately, IT’S COMPLICATED turned out to be (to me, anyway) a rather facile and disappointing affair (no pun intended). Those expecting something as terrific as SOMETHING’S GOTTA GIVE (including me) were monumentally let down. IT’S COMPLICATED isn’t even a tenth of the overall quality of SOMETHING’S GOTTA GIVE. And given Meryl Steep’s involvement, it’s simply mind-boggling.
The problem with IT’S COMPLICATED is that we never get a sense of the love that Jane (Streep) supposedly feels for Jake (Alec Baldwin). The script never fleshes out their relationship beyond the clandestine affair that they end up having. While sex is indeed an intrinsic part of love, it is not the only thing. Love is also about friendship, trust, sacrifice, kindness, understanding, honesty, vulnerability, laughter, tears, anger, forgiveness, and loyalty. We see all these things in Erica’s relationship with Harry in SOMETHING’S GOTTA GIVE. In IT’S COMPLICATED, all we see is the sex. And that is not enough, folks. Not in a real relationship.
At its core, SOMETHING’S GOTTA GIVE is a story about two people who are blindsided by the connection that suddenly springs up between them. Life is not the only thing that happens when we’re making other plans - love happens the same way.
I remember an older friend once saying to me that love knows no rules. His actual words were something like, “It might be someone who knocks you over the head the minute you see them - that ‘first sight’ kind of thing. Or it might be someone you’ve known for awhile, someone you never even considered. But one day, even though you’ve seen them a thousand times before, you suddenly can’t take your eyes off them. Either way - it’s going to happen when you least expect it.”
And he was right. His words also perfectly capture the conundrum that Harry and Erica find themselves in. Neither is what the other ever considered they would love. And yet, here they are…
While Keanu Reeves, Amanda Peet, Frances McDormand, and Jon Favreau all nail their vivid supporting roles, this story belongs to Keaton and Nicholson - and the characters they play.
As Harry Sanborn, Jack Nicholson turns in a fantastic performance that combines rakish charm, self-deprecating humor, and touching sincerity. You have to believe that Harry would be able to bag women as young as a third of his age. Otherwise, the movie just won’t work. With Nicholson in control of the role, you buy it completely. In the hands of another actor, Harry might have come across as a pompous, sleazy asshole. Fortunately, Nicholson constantly emphasizes Harry’s tendency to poke fun at himself just as much as Erica and Zoe do. Nothing is more attractive and winning than someone who knows how to laugh at himself - and Nicholson smashingly sells the character this way.
Diane Keaton is simply a revelation. She received an Academy Award Nomination for Best Actress for the role of Erica Barry - and deservedly so. As written, Erica is always cool and in control - until her carefully planned-out world is upended by the arrival of Harry in her life. Keaton movingly conveys the sadness and vulnerability beneath Erica’s no-nonsense and composed surface. The scene outside the Manhattan restaurant where she and Harry have their first fight as a couple is simply heart-breaking, and deserved to be used as an Oscar clip during the Academy Awards to showcase Keaton’s bravura performance. I can watch this scene a thousand times and still be affected immensely by it. It's that beautiful. As is Keaton and her performance.
But that isn’t the only scene in SOMETHING’S GOTTA GIVE that deeply resonates. Others include: (1) Harry and Erica bonding over midnight pancakes, when they first begin to open up to one another; (2) Harry and Erica talking in her bedroom, with Harry telling her he thinks of her as his “soulmate”; and (3) Erica and Maren having a soulful mother-daughter talk on the beach, when Erica tells Maren that she can’t go through life hiding her heart for fear of it getting broken - basically telling her that love is always a chance we take, the biggest leap of faith of all.
All these scenes are deeply-ingrained in my memory, and is a testament to the power of this story. It doesn’t hurt that Hans Zimmer (composer for GLADIATOR, BLACK RAIN, HANNIBAL) delivers one of his most hauntingly romantic music cues, composed of a few mournful piano notes. When it comes to movie music, sometimes less is more - and Zimmer’s themes for SOMETHING’S GOTTA GIVE perfectly symphonize that.
Contrast this with IT’S COMPLICATED, which doesn’t have a single scene of emotional honesty worth remembering. As I wrote in its review, the only thing at stake for Jane was the quality of her sex life. In SOMETHING’S GOTTA GIVE, the only thing at stake is the well-being of Erica’s heart. Which, really, is everything.
I simply love this movie… and I think Jack and Diane are spectacular in it.
Hi, folks. The last of the Russell Crowe Reviews has posted, the wonderful A BEAUTIFUL MIND. And I can't think of a better film to post on Thanksgiving Day. It's a movie that celebrates the importance of family and the power of love - things that we should be grateful for today.
Regarding Russell Crowe, I hope this past week's reviews have affirmed for a lot of you what a great actor he is - and allowed some of you to discover that fact, as well.
Don't worry, we'll have another Russell Crowe Week before the year is up. For now, let's move on to this week's Girl Power Theme. We've got a good mix of thrillers, romances, comedies, and horror films. The unifying factor is that women are at the heart of the stories.
As a reminder, the list is below. There's one change: I'm pulling MORNING GLORY and substituting it with THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT. You'll thank me later...
A BEAUTIFUL MIND (2001 - DRAMA/ROMANCE/RUSSELL CROWE FLICK) ***** out of *****
CAST: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ed Harris, Josh Lucas, Paul Bettany, Adam Goldberg, Anthony Rapp, Judd Hirsch.
DIRECTOR: Ron Howard
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and a misunderstood genius played by a misunderstood genius actor - straight ahead.
“Perhaps it is good to have a beautiful mind.
But an even greater gift is to discover a beautiful heart.”
- John Forbes Nash, Jr. (Russell Crowe)
The great philosopher Aristotle once opined that there is no genius without a hint of madness. If that is true, then the brilliant mathematician John Forbes Nash Jr. was certainly a genius. While still a student at Princeton University in the early 50‘s, Nash did important work in the field of governing dynamics and game theory - concepts which would have important effects on the military and global economics many years later. Eventually, Nash would receive the highest form of recognition for his work in the Nobel Prize - approximately 45 years after he first broached his theory.
The path to being a Nobel Laureate, unfortunately, was not as smooth as it sounds. You see, John Forbes Nash Jr. was also diagnosed as a schizophrenic, and he claimed to hear voices and directions from people no one could see but him. His mental troubles led to a professional and personal fall from grace. His wife Alice divorced him in 1963, then returned to his side in the 70’s. She was at his side when he received the Nobel Prize as an old man.
A BEAUTIFUL MIND is based on the biography on Nash written by Sylvia Nasar, and it is a heartbreaking one. It is three things at once: (1) a character study of a man whose endless brilliance was also tainted by a certain madness; (2) an account of that man’s tumble into the depths of despair, and then his eventual redemption because of one woman’s loyalty; and (3) an examination of the nature of love - and its transformative power.
I could break down the plot, but that would be doing the film (and you folks) a great disservice. See, A BEAUTIFUL MIND is something to be discovered on your own. Its surprises and revelations aren’t so much of a “Gotcha!” nature, which would be cheap, but rather of a more real and devastating variety. I haven’t read the book that it’s based on, so I can’t say how faithful the movie is. Suffice it to say, though, that on its own, A BEAUTIFUL MIND is a cinematic masterpiece.
BUT, EVEN MORE SERIOUSLY: I will say only three things before I leave you folks to discover this film: (1) Russell Crowe delivers his best performance; (2) Jennifer Connelly is finally given a role that she can sink her teeth into and deserved the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress that she received; and (3) why Russell Crowe was not given the Academy Award for Best Actor for that year is all the proof that I need that the Oscars are seriously flawed and based on politics rather than merit.
While Denzel Washington certainly turned in a great performance in TRAINING DAY, it is simply not on the level of Russell Crowe’s performance as John Nash in a BEAUTIFUL MIND. One can’t help but wonder if Crowe was being paid back by the Academy members for his outburst at the BAFTAs (British Oscars) right before the Oscars that year. If you folks will recall, Crowe had an altercation with the show’s director for cutting off his speech.
If that’s the case, all one can do is shake one’s head. How else to react to what is essentially a blatant snub of one of the best performances ever by an actor? Very, very disappointing - to say the least. The thing about Crowe as Nash is that I forgot I was watching Russell Crowe. Crowe became Nash. But with Denzel Washington in TRAINING DAY, as good as he was, I never once forgot he was Denzel Washington. You folks do the math.
The award should be about the performance. Not the actor, or his off-screen antics.
One good thing that came out of it all, though, is that Jennifer Connelly deservedly got recognized for her breathtaking performance as Nash’s wife. You folks have heard me describe certain performers with having “eyes that have a language of their own.” Well, Connelly is the epitome of that. She delivers one of the most emotionally transparent performances I’ve ever seen, and reminds us with it that the true meaning of love is sacrifice.
If I had do to pick just one word to describe A BEAUTIFUL MIND, it would be… beautiful.
Just like the performances of Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly.
