review: Benny and Joon

This movie is what I would call "darling." And it is. It's more than cute - it is precious.
The story revolves around Benny (Quinn), a man who has been taking care of his mentally ill sister, Joon (Masterson), since their parents were killed in a car accident. Things always border between just fine and complicated for Benny, and everyone is convincing him that putting Joon in a group home would be the best thing for her. In a random twist of fate, one night at a get together of Benny's friends, Joon loses a poker game with a pal of his: What was in the pot? A cousin named Sam (Depp). So, Depp comes to live with the two and things are never the same after.
I don't know if this is a good thing to say or not - I mean, PCwise - but I have always had a soft spot in my heart for stories of people who deal with, or have mental illness or challenges (whatever the current PC term is now) - or simply people that I guess you could call "innocents." (I may not have expressed that very clear - so I would like to point out that in any concievable way I do not mean to ridicule, criticize, demean, or disrespect people like those listed above.)
It is a good, touching story with more than a few lessons to be learned. The acting is supreb; Aidan Quinn is a great medium man, or gobetween guy - and as a side note, my gosh those eyes! Masterson gives a ... understated performance of a person who is dealing with mental illness. There are hints of it here and there, but the great thing is her performance is not mental illness - it's a side factor, which seems appropriate since the character probably sees her mental illness as a side factor to who she is too. Depp is delightful - well the character is delightful, and Depp does a good job playing him. You never quite know how he is mentally. I mean, he is simple (I know, bad word) in a sense because he hasn't exactly had an education, but I can't help but wonder if there is more there or not. Either way, it doesn't matter because he is magic, in a sense. His character has a freedom, and the comic ability of those old greats that he imitates so well. He is also kind, understanding, and free-spirited.
And whoever did the drawings for Masterson in this movie is pretty good - particularly the sketch of Sam sleeping. Incredible.
I'll say it again, all in all, a darling film!
4 out of 5 stars

review: Lost in LaMancha

This has to be one of the most depressing Show Biz documentaries I have ever seen.
It started out well enough, with a humor about the whole project - even its downfalls. But then it just stops - and everyone seems to give up.
The story is about the making of a movie: 'The Man Who Killed Don Quixote' or rather, the non-making of it. From the very beginning things do not go smoothly, and it just gets worse from there.
This is a film I would have loved to see. But not so much the movie about not being able to make it. Like I said, the beginning is very wonderful and there is humor there and art and enthusiasm. I guess like life, that just goes away. On one hand, I can understand why they did that- because that is the story of 'Don Quixote' and the parrallel they wanted to make, but on the other hand (my personal preference), it made it a heck of a lot less interesting.
1 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

review: The Libertine

This is one of the ugliest films I have ever seen.
I mean that as a compliment.
The opening line of the monolougue stands for the entire film. By the way, the opening and closing of the film is ... perfect. For a movie that centers a lot of its plot around the theatre, it is a perfect thought to have a prolougue and an epilougue. Not to mention, that they are delievered flawlessly by Johnny Depp.
The story is about the last great leg of the short life of John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester (Depp). He was ... unconventional. This tells the tale of his meeting Elizabeth Barry (Samantha Morton), the play he wrote for King Charles II (John Malkovich), and his subsequent downfall.
This movie is steeped in mud, piss, rain, fog, candles, sex, and theater. That about sums it up, except to say that it is brilliantly seeped in those things. I think this movie is to be a guilty pleasure. It is full of the debauchery that I usualy really dislike in films - but this movie needs it.
Like I said, it is not a beautiful film. I encourage the young to see it as part of a sex-ed class. Kinda of a warning. Compliment to the make-up crew of this film - Rochester with syphillis is a disgusting sight.
But for all of it's vices, there are just as many virtues. You don't feel as though you are watching a costume drama. This movie is so real, it's disturbing. The acting is fantastic, the direction and cinematography is key, and the artistic design is so perfectly done. Oh, and the writing. Oh yes, the writing. This movie has some of the most intricate and witty writing. A perfect reflection of the wit of the Restoration period. People don't think that the past is as steeped in sex as we are now, but the Restoration was marinaded in sex. Overt, yes, and certainly grotesque.
Of course, my very favorite parts were in the theatre. What I wouldn't give to step on to a stage like that. What was most drawing to me was Rochester's admirtation for the theatre, which is interesting because he likes nothing else - not even the whores and wine he is so fond of. He carries a distaste for almost everything he does with him. Both the character and the actor. Depp is once again, fascinating in his role. A perfect measure of sex, disgust, wit, honesty, and treachery. As he says in the opening, you do not like him, but you, like everyone else, can not help but be fascinated by him - you can't look away.
Malkovich is as interesting as he is in all of his roles. Again, like Depp, here is an actor of great variety. I haven't seen a lot of his works, but what I have seen I admire, if I do not like. He doesn't always play the likeable character, in fact, usually the opposite. His characters usually seem hard, but somehow endearing... no, endearing is the wrong word, but I can't think of what I mean, so you get the just of the idea. Morton is perfectly apt for the role. I don't know what to think of her as an actress. Something tells me that I have seen her in something before, but I can't place it. She is fitting to the role without being extraordinary. It could also be that I am blinded to her by her character, because I REALLY did not like her character. As much as she loves the theatre, and is good; she is also a selfish artist who wants nothing but her fame, and she is also a traitor, although not a very successful one. The one person that really caught my eye was the person who played Rochester's wife (Rosamund Pike). Later I realized that she was in the new Pride and Prejudice movie. She was quite powerful - but again, I might have been mostly taken by her character. Small though the role is, the character is one of the few "good" things in the story. And her devotion (despite her hatred of her husband's vices) for her husband is so touching (and a little raunchy, considering their beginning).
All in all, I praise the film, but it really isn't my type of thing. Again, brilliant, but ugly.
3 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

review: Ed Wood

A movie about the worst director of all time. Directed by the most eccentric director of our time, starring one of the most eclectic movie stars of our time, as well as a really interesting ensemble.
You can't go too far wrong actually.
I really like this movie. The acting is pretty darn good (except for the acting that is supposed to be bad). Depp is again, a completely unique character. He is totally commited and perfectly wonderful. Corky, odd, and endearing all at the same time. I guess I like him the most because I can see so much of in the character. He genuinely loves what he does. It doesn't matter that things don't always go as planned or that there's no money. He does what he likes and he makes films that he likes. No matter how bad everyone might say they are. He is content. And I love that about the character. It's kinda how I think many people feel. I mean, I think in terms of theatre, so this is a little different. But there are a million little companies putting perfectly hideous plays, but they're working hard and they are having fun, and that really is all their purpose. Sometimes it is hard to remember that in a time when we get so judgemental and critical about everything. OKay, that was a complete aside, but I think it is a thing worth mentioning.
Landau (as Bela Lugosi) is FANTASTIC! I'm not kidding, I was enthralled by his portrayal of the aging star. He is not a copy of Lugosi, but it is a great imitation. Especially the accent. Oh my gosh, he's just amazing! He also brings the power of Lugosi to life. If you have seen any of his work, you know - he is a classic trained actor, and he has such power in his speech. It has become iconicly corny, but seeing the original do it, it looses corny and becomes genius. Landau captures that. He also shows the side no one ever saw on film, including his addiction and his struggle.
Bill Murray (as Bunny) is something I wish I would have seen more of. I love Murray in this bit parts because he is fantastic in them. A little bit off the movie topic, but I have to include this: In Bunny's obituary in the paper he was quoted as saying "I was a little bit wild when I was young, darling, but I lived my life grandly" Isn't that gorgeous?
Everyone else is just fine. Sarah Jessica Parker and Patricia Arquette are wonderful as Wood's love interests. Parker is delightfully bad in her "bad acting" moments, but there is an interesting tug between her real life portrayals. At times, she seems like a stereotypical 50s housewifey, with just as much fake enthusiasm, but then you turn around as she becomes more and more irritated with Wood and his escapades, and she has this amazing break scene in the meat packing plant. So, I don't know if that was direction, or if she really wanted to be that way, or if it was the character putting on the act as well as she could, and then losing it with her patience.
Art wise, the B&W of the film is just perfect. It helps lend a classic horror and nostalgia to the film. I don't know how accurate the portrayal of the movies in the film are, but I'm okay with not knowing that. I love it. The costumes are wonderful, the sets are amazing, and there is a wonderful quality to a film that is all about bad quality films.
3 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

Review: Public Enemies

For the most part, I love this movie! Holy Cow, do I!
Story: basically a somewhat fictionalized view of the final days of John Dillinger - a famous Bank Robber during the Depression and "Public Enemy No. 1" Since he is a historical figure, I don't think I will be giving too much away by saying that.
Dillinger is played by Johnny Depp - and I can't tell you how amazing he is. I love Johnny Depp because he is a bit of a chameleon. He is known for these wierd Tim Burton roles, but if you look over his entire span of work, he has a wide variety of experiences under his belt. He's just brilliant, that's all.
Melvin Purvis is played by Christian Bale, and it was nice to see him outside of the Batman movies. I haven't seen much of his work outside of those, but he seems to be also very good. Very meticulous about portraying a character, down to the mannerisms and habits. He's the "bad" guy, but he's not, and you can see the lines that he doesn't want to cross as he crosses them.
Cinematography in this movie is AMAZING. There are some really beautiful shots and quite interesting ones too. The artistic team did an amazing job recreating both the high class and the low desperation of the 1930s. I'll say it again: we need to bring back those fashions (and many other things), at least them men's fashions. There is something about it that is so suave. I will say that the modern love of violence, bullets, and action is quite present. I can't really complain, because this is a more realistic way of portraying these stories, and this is probably what it was really like, but for me anyways, I just get riddled from the constant noise and the fast action of those longer shootout sequences. That was really my only real complaint. Also didn't need the sex scene in there. But that is a whole other thing, which will be this whole other paragraph.
Okay, so I don't want to slam on the recent generations fascinations with sex scenes, but most of the time, I find them unnecessary. Don't get me wrong, I like romance, and I understand that sex is a natural part of the human existence as well as an expression of romance (sometimes), but (sometimes) its more ugly than it is beautiful, and again, most of the time, a waste of screen time. I'm old fashioned, but I like the old hints into the fade out into the morning after. You don't have to show it, we know what goes on in between. And we used to be satisfied with that too. Plus so many movies now use it as a cheap device. I just think it is an easy way out now. Back in the day, directors/writers/actors could make the audience feel the "sex" (as a feeling, not the action) without having to show it. Have we deteriorated so much that this is not possible anymore?
Back to the movie: It was great!
4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars