KUBRICK GOES SLOW ON HIS FINAL PICTURE Eyes Wide Shut ***

The important thing is, we’re awake now, and hopefully for a long time to come Nicole Kidman as Alice Hartford





It explores the sexual ambivalence of a happy marriage, and tries to equate the importance of sexual dreams and might-have-beens with reality Stanley Kubrick





Movies always portray sudden passion and rushes of blood in the elevator, but they never deal with married sex. Kubrick to Friedric Raphael(?)





That just about sums it up. When Stanley Kubrick died in March 1999, Eyes Wide Shut became condemned as a razzie classic. The audience hoped to get some nice Tom and Nick porn and instead got a ridiculously boring epic about a high society couple hiding many romantic and erotic pathologies. Based on Arthur Schnitzler’s Traumnovelle (1926), Eyes Wide Shut examines a New York couple as played by Tom Cruise as Dr. Bill Harford, Nicole Kidman as Alice Harford, and Madison Eginton as Helena Harford.





Ostensibly, the plot is about Kidman admitting to some bizarre sexual desires that sets Bill on an almost endless journey through orgies and hookers bearing even odder sexual tastes. But Kubrick is cleverly haing fun ith the audience and himsel. This movie isn’t really about sex or even love but the illusions about sex and love. Both Bill and Alice seem to have everything but they do? Does any couple?





On one point, Kubrick can be faulted and that is for concentrating too much on Bill’s phobias. He has many. One possible consort, Marion (Marie Richardson), the daughter of the elderly patient, tells him she is madly in love with him. Another, a college-going hooker, Domino looks suspiciously like … his daughter To top all that, he attends a masquerade ball that has a mysterious woman sacrifice herself to save him from the clutches of a secret society led by a masked man, the Red Cloak.





There’s no point to look or a simple narrative logic. The audience is supposed to get lost in Bill’s maze. The conclusion – such as it is – has Bill confront a superb Sydney Pollack revealing that he, too, had been at the party and knows all about Bill’s secrets. But does he?? Or is he bluffing?? Pollack’s Ziegler says to us: “Please, Bill … no games.” But it appears this scene like the others is meant to be maze-like and baffling.





There is no good or right answer. The ending has Bill admit everything (?) to Alice and they travel to a Christmas shop at F.A.O. Schwarz – in another maze-like pattern – to have an interesting but odd conversation. There’s a lot to comment but let me brief. Most commentaries note the only conspiracy messages in the film. Those are plausible but I think this misses the dominant motif here which is humor. Like Lolita, Kubrick sees sexuality as a power game but also something else: downright hilarious. Especially hilarious is conversation Bill has with Alan Cumming as a desk clerk poking not-so-subtle fun at Tom’s (alleged) homosexuality.





The jokes may not work on most since scenes have to look at repeatedly to pick up the subtext. This isn’t to say there isn’t a lot of seriousness at play either. Like The Shining, imperialism and the Holocaust are major running themes as are class difference, prostitution and money.





Aesthetically, the movie has many rich layers including the music and costumes. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is Kubrick’s utilizing light in many scenes like blue lighting to frequently used to convey dread or sorrow. The movie also looks back on Kubrick’s films (Fear and Desire, Killer’s Kiss, The Shining, 2001: A Space Odyssey) and stylistically nods to them. This movie is probably only going to satisfy Kubrick addicts since the scenes are meant to have multiple readings. A first-time viewer is no doubt going to be overwhelmed or underwhelmed but more long-time film buff are going to many unexpected treats here.





Lastly, the film credits Julienne Davis as Mandy, and Abigail Good as the Mysterious Woman. Davis is NOT the girl at the mansion. Many people including professors get this incorrect. Recommended only for mature audiences.

EVEN IN SPACE NICK CAGE CAN SCREAM Con Air *1/2

Nick Cage must like to rile critics. Con Air is a polarizing pic as any. On the surface, it’s a high-octane adventure. Or, it’s an atrocious promo pastiche of much better films. On the plus side, the movie is only rarely confusing. But the premise is too silly to sustain itself. Cage is a Marine wrongfully imprisoned – he used lethal force on some rednecks. He turns himself into a muscular Jesus-like ass-kicker and has the double misfortune to be coerced into joining a daring escape attempt by a group of convicts hi-jacking a plane.





John Cusack head-scathingly comes along for the ride. There are too many good moments in Con Air to condemn it as a piss-poor clone of Michael-Bay scripting.





Any movie that dares to call its baddie Cyrus the Virus – who, by the way, hates rapists – is, at least, going for the glory. And, one has to admit, Ving Rhames and Steve Buscemi are especially good as crazed convicts.





But there’s just nothing hold this baby up and the supposedly satisfying final confrontation in Las Vegas feels overdone. More effective as a comedy than an action film but, at least, sel-consciously aware of its silliness. A one-and-half star vehicle but still recommended as a howler. A guilty pleasure all the way through.

But Is IT Any Good It (1990) **

Stephen King on the big screen has been almost always awful. Is the small screen better? A decided no has to be said. King’s IT is arguably his Magnus opus. The adaptation not surprisingly can’t match the sheer bigness (it’s about 1,100 pages!) or even allusiveness in the book – King slyly name checks himself using a Christine-like a 1958 Red Plymouth Fury and young Dick Hallorann. And, admittedly, it could have butchered King even worse but, as it stands (no pun), this adaptation is too unremarkable to merit praise.





In many ays the book is a severe indictment o the 1950’s and lashes out at the Puritanical repression during that time. The film misses that but it does capture some of the alleged innocence during the time. Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, IT originally aired on ABC Network television and TV censorship really neuters a potentially great movie. Not much explicit material is needed here but the direction is too tame by half. Easily, the best highlights are when the music comes on.





Like the book, the story is told in nonlinear as the camera move back and forth beteen 1957 and 1984. The cast includes Stuttering Bill Dengbrough, Eddie Kasprak, Ben Hanscom, Richie Tozier, Stan Uris, Beverly Marsh, and Mike Hanlon in their younger and older selves growing up in Derry, Maine. Almost no one remembers or cares to but the Losers’ Club as they dub themselves comes across a ferocious monster called IT, killing the local children and absorbing them. It calls itself Pennywise, the Dancing Clown but Pennywise is just an alias (the book has it take on several names).





Tim Curry as Pennywise is electrifying – though perhaps derivative in taking a lot of cues from Freddy especially. Though much of the terror comes from Curry’s sharp accent. He sounds scary telling the children: “Oh you are priceless Brat! I am eternal, child. I am the eater of worlds.” But, again, the adaptation is only a minor slice of the book.





In the novel, It, cleverly, mutates into many old monsters – many from 1950s monster movies. The book has IT become the Creature from the Black Lagoon, Frankenstein, a mummy, and even hobo with leprosy and leeches. The movie sadly features only some of these mutations but, at least, those it does has are incredible. Easily the most terrifying scene in IT has Richie encounter It wearing a Letterman-like high school jacket and imitating the werewolf in I Was a Teenage Werewolf (1957). Characters in a movie like this are going to be constrained so that can’t be the main problem the adaptation doesn’t cohere.





Three major dilemmas come up that the poor direction doesn’t help. One is the sheer production value. Although money is well spent in many places in many other places the film just looks bad and cheap. Another is there is no sense of genuine building of terror. Only a handful of scenes are genuinely scarily – like the mid-point journey to the sewers. Another is the sheer unstable focus. At times, it looks like It is the major villain but, at others, the local bullies, the Bowers gang (Henry Bowers and “Belch” Huggins) takeover.





This is more a rent-it than see-it film with a standout role by Annette O’Toole as Beverly as an adult. John Ritter also does a capable job. But, alas, the film merely floats (no pun intended) and only rarely hooks onto the rich material King has provided.

GIVING WATERWORLD WHAT IT DESERVES Waterworld (1995) **

Given my recent pillaging it might seem odd to cut Waterworld (1995) a break. To be sure, the canonical consensus is correct. It's a thoroughly lousy film. But it ISN'T as bad one may have thought. The problem is not that it's a bad film but just an average one and truly average despite the massive efforts being made. Kevin Costner is a weird kind of fishman calling himself the Mariner (a very cool name) in an apoclayptic future where the Earth is covered with water. The story idea is potentially great but Kevin Reynolds' poor direction and a so-so script by Peter Rader and David Twohy keep managing to trap the film in Battfield Earth stupidities.





A post-apocalyptic science fiction action film is not a tough genre to make either but Costner's heroics here have been done to death and his performance is nice but no great surprises are in store. More critically, there is no great villain which kills any narrative momentum. The action scenes and special effects are spectacular and the story never bores you. But it never grips you either.





The real tragedy is Jeanne Tripplehorn who offers up another stellar performance and could have been a potential Jennifer Connelly - this film sadly destroyed her career.





An average, sub-par movie that could've easily been a three-star delight with just better editing and writing.

THE BIGGEST WHIMPER OF ALL Dark Knight Rises (2012) Bomb

Since Christopher Nolan experienced such a sharp rise it's only right he receives his proper downfall. But such rise-and-fall narratives are tiresome (as this movie shows) and I'm going to resist hating Nolan because it is the current trend. Granted, Nolan was never and probably is never going to match Kubrick or Hitchcock or Scorsese. But let's put aside his modest talents. He did a fairly good job on the first two Batman films despite this.





Moreover, he can't be entirely blamed. The death of Ledger truly distorts the film aa the Joke was clearly meant to be here and he is sorely missed. Dark Knight Rises is Batman's confronting his true opposite, Bane. Let us be clear: Nolan's Bane isn't Schumacher's monstrosity. But this isn't Batman's Bane either and the changes made to Bane are puzzling - to begin with it's almost impossible to HEAR Bane which in a MOVIE IS a problem.





The other dilemma is that Bane's entire style - ideology, custome, and strategy never add up. WHY is he torturing Batman? The logic escapes me and the explanation given borders on the ludicrous. Catwoman is thrown in and she looks lovely as does the Batbike and huge "Bat plane" at the end. But the Batman trilogy resisted these easy - and mindless - pleasures. This film is needlesssly long, tedious, boring, illogical, comical, and, jus plain, confusing.





I know Nolan is TRYiNG to tell us something deep and profound about terrorism, fascism, class warfare, and Batman's mythology but this is, basically, a really bad sci-fi plot made worse by poor pacing and even poorer twists. Adding characters to an already bloated cast just makes one wonder if Nolan has truly lost his mind or is unable to deliver any film without pretensese of being some Joycean novel. A final problem and its HUGE ONE is Nolan's lack of anything resembling a good sense of humor. Batman Begins had a few dry laughs but this film tries to deliver the dumbest, longest jokes in film history OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.





This isn't Def Jam comedy. It's as if a deaf is TRYING to direct a horror/comedy and manages to make a bad version of the Sixth Sense and Mad Max together and those were hardly the classics everyone thinks they were. A truly awful movie by Nolan and all the more puzzling that it is considered the best in the trilogy. Some people have no taste or just sharper hearing than me.

MOORE GOES FOR LESS AND GETS MORE Sicko (2007) **1/2

A big complaint from even the left is filmmaker Michael Moore's tendency to showboat and play for the cameras. Apparently, some memos got to Moore since he is almost completely absent in Sicko, a documentary that investigates health care in the United States, focusing on its health insurance and the medical paradoxes and insanities. This proves more effective than the usual set-ups Moore has. Essentially, people are left to tell their own endless tales of horror of waste and mismanagement. If anything, the film is rather generous since the US system really is almot bottom-of-the-barrel and indeed in terms of what people pay for - it's a disgrace and deserves a pounding. Still Moore is Moore and can't help himself by pulling a stunt that is going to infuriate even friendly critics (I count myself here).





He "ends" the film with an incredible trip to Cuba where all the patients he brings are given superb care. The problem is not the obvious propaganda being done but Moore once-again playing stupid as if he doesn't know that things are not what they appear to be. In fact, the Cuban system IS a model in many ways but, to be fair to Moore, he skips over the pathologies in other systems (Canada, Cuba, England, etc) to contrast the US badly.





But point a may be true - the current US system is intolerable. Point b - everyone else does it better needs more argumentation. But focusing on point a the film delivers the laughs. But point B is going to require more seriousness - and the fact that no such documentary has emerged is a challenge to critics of Moore who hate him to do his type of politicized reporting even better.





None, unfortunately, have done a better job - yet.

DENZEL AND RUSSELL TEAM UP!!! (MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE) Virtuosity (1995) BOMB

Something happened to Denzel Washington in the mid-1990s - it's as if he decided to do his best and worst work simultaneously. Co-starring with a (then unknown) Russell Crowe in Virtuosity (1995) has to count as one of his worst efforts. it's tempting to put all the blame on Brett Leonard, who had done The Lawnmower Man (not exactly a good sign of what's up ahead). Crowe is a vicious serial killer named SID 6.7 but SID is a computer program used by the police to train themselves. Given Crowe's future brilliance what happened??!??





Here I can only offer a two-prolonged attack that MAY explain this disaster. One - apprently Leonard - notice this are the sheer PHYSICAL problems in having Denzel Washington face=off against Sid. This is not Gladiator and Crowe (because he is) looks SMALLER and WEAKER than Denzel's more muscular and taller character making the conflict seem absurd - like a midget fighting a heavy weight champ. To be sure, SID has more power but, cinematically, the film doesn't look good - literally, the colors, costumes, and the like don't meld nicely.





Secondly, and no one can be blamed here but the major problem the film is genre. Thanks to Silence of the Lambs, the studios went beserk in pumping out serial-killer movies that soon lost any novelty. Unless one has a brilliant script there's no point in trying. It's painfully obvious the movie is trying for some edgy, cross-genre of sci-fi and serial killing but this is not Total Recall or even Robocop, it's just an empty thrill-fest and Crowe's SID brings nothing to the table.





My own guess is that Denzel and his people thought the script was OK and any problems could be hammered out. Big mistake. Not a total waste of time but given he talents present, it's a crime that Washington and Crowe couldn't be given something better to do. Still, it's not a complete disaster. Crowe looks OK in a kimono. And that's all there is to say about this lamentable exercise.

NEVER TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY Bravehart (1995) **

Braveheart is a 1995 epic historical drama war film directed by and starring Mel Gibson that is (ALLEDGEDLY) about 13th-century Scottish warrior William Wallace. ‎William Wallace certainly existed but he wasn't the heroic guerilla fighter portrayed here. Gibson gets the British side, at least, correct. They were unimaginably evil and grotesque. But by pitching his film so fantastically one wonders what's the point. Except for some stunning (and bloody) battle sequences, the fascist posturing is unbearable here.





Gibson is a talented director and the plot twists are interesting enough. But the hypermasculine, anti-homophobic, and ethnic stereotyping are so strong one might imagine Gibson is a communist trying to parody war movies. But nope he really means it. Great propaganda for war lovers. But as a film it has diminishing returns.

NOT CONTROVERSIAL BUT FUNNY Lolita (1962) ***

"How did they make a movie out of Lolita?" Well, simple ... they didn't. Stanley Kubrick's Lolita is not an adaptation of the infamous Nabokov novel but it has its charms - especially about sexual humor. James Mason is Humbert Humbert who is trying to lodging from Charlotte Haze, a widow,(Shelley Winters) when he meets her daughter (Sue Lyon). The plot focuses on Humbert's obsession with Lolita but that's the least of the issues Kubrick is having fun with.





He's mostly making fun of himself and Hollywood films that deify young beauties. The acting is top-notch though many of the jokes may seem dated. Given censorship problems, the script had to be incredibly discreet. But those with a more historic background are going to be thoroughly amused by Mason and company as Humbert finds, conquers, loses, and then regains Lolita in a two-hour-plus epic.

DON'T CATCH THIS IF YOU CAN HELP IT Catch Me If You Can (2002) *

Catch Me If You Can is ostensibly about an interesting cat-and-mouse chase. But really its a Spielberg hommage to the 1960s. That's fine insofar as it goes but this film just has no real anchor to it. Some sharp dialogue and flashy visuals can't save a pretty empty picture.





The main character is so infuriating unsympathetic that one wonders if Spielberg is trying for some bit of modernism. No such luck. It's a deadly serious bit of overexpensive fluffery that wastes its budget on a minor figure.

A CURIOUS BIT OF HORROR The Fly (1986) ***

There are actually very few horror films that are terrifying as opposed to just grotesque. This is one of them. You'll FEEL the pain of these characters. Seth Brundle is a mild-mannered scientist in Cronenberg’s (remake of) The Fly and his obsession with perfecting some transportation technology.





After a heated dispute with a lover, Seth accidentally mutates himself into a fly-man. Things actually seem pretty good at first as he gains spectacular new abilities. But soon his body begins to degenerate and the film goes into a wrenching descent. NOT RECOMMENDED for the squeamish as Cronenberg pulls absolutely no punches in this sick but philosophically-powerful dissection on the body.

PLEASE! STOP MAKING THESE Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) *1/2

Even for Halloween fans this is a doozy. Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers is a 1989 film directed by Dominique Othenin-Girard and starring Donald Pleasence as Dr. Sam Loomis. Unless you see part 4 tis will be extremely confusing but essentially Michael has blown to bits and is floating on a river. He briefly becomes comatose and reawakens a year later to retun to a killing spree. As in part 4, he shares a bond with his niece Jamie Lloyd (Danielle Harris).





There's not much to see here except the inclusion of bizarre elements of a cult apparently protecting Michael. This leads to a sequel but depending on the version you get certain scenes may have been cut out. A disappointing, continuing degeneration of a once-proud series.





On an added note: Michael is supposed to be "unmasked" and unless you have extremely good editing machines you won't see this - but Michael had been unmasked in any case in part one.

Apt Pupil (1998) **1/2

"And once they were in the chamber, how long did it take? Like a minute? Five minutes?"





Todd Bowden





Apt Pupil is a quirkly little number made by Bryan Singer after 1995's The Usual Suspects. It's wrong to put him in the same category as Kubrick, DePalma, or Cronenberg but then perhaps that isn't the point. The story revolves around a teenager (Brad Renfro) stalking an old man (Ian McKellen) who turns out to be a major Nazi war criminal. As Todd Bowden, he blackmails Dussander (McKellen) into divulging his secrets and tell him what it was really like in the camps. that, at least, is what Todd says he wants. "I want to hear about it," he says. "The stories. Everything. Everything they're afraid to tell us in school."





Apt Pupil adapts a Stephen King novella but Singer turns into a much more frightening allegory about the seduction of American power and privilege. “It is a privilege of boys to be truthful,” Dussander tells Todd's parents. “A privilege that men have to sometimes give up.” Not as deep as the film believes itself to be but a very fine film nonetheless. Some of the supposedly horrifying scenes come off as more silly than anything. Still the ending is a potent one though it diverges largely from the book's ending.

ARNIE IS BACK!!! The Running Man (1987) **1/2

The Running Man has Ben Richards (Arnold) forced onto a fake TV game show to survive. This is really on watchable thanks to Arnold's endless one-liners - "I’m a quick learner" - usually against his opponents Buzzsaw ("He had to split"), Fireball ("What a hothead"), Sub Zero and Dynamo ("He was a real pain in the neck").


This is strictly paint-by-numbers thriller that leads to Ben taking righteous reventge on his tormentor Killion.


A satisfying and, ironically, potent 1980s satire of fascist/corporate tyranny. But a very shallow and unfaithful adaptation of the short novel.

Prophecy (1995) **

Viggo Mortensen’s Lucifer in The Prophecy sports a devilish goatee and hairstyle. The trope surrounding a fallen angel has been used before. But this takes that logic to an extreme and horrid conclusion. The devil actually seems rather sane compared to Gabriel, an angel out to avenge … actually, his rage isn’t clarified. Does it need to be?





The human drama involves some humans as they attempt to block Gabriel killing a small girl. The devil helps them out. One of Walken's best performances but intended only for the strong.

The Usual Suspects **1/2

“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”





Verbal





The Usual Suspects is that rare film that is going to be infuriating and pleasing all at once. Shot in an amazingly short time this is a breakthrough film visually and performatively for the director and actors involved. That said, the ending is truly hard to swallow. Roger “Verbal” Kint (Kevin Spacey) is our ostensive narrator who tells us a long tale about a group of cut-throat criminals maniupalted by the legenday underworld figure, Keyser Söze.





But nothing is as it appears in this tricky thriller. The revealations are too preposterous as they come. Still, this is a film to keep debating if not necessarily love.

The Ninth Gate ***

Roman Polanski’s The Ninth Gate, Boris Balkan’s attempt to get The Nine Gates of the Kingdom of Shadows written by Torchia in 1666 has Dean Corso (Johnny Depp), a book detective, run all over the world to find the book that supposedly allows one to conjure up the devil. The Ninth Gate is unfairly compared to Polanski's allegedly superior, earlier horror films. But one has to recognize he is going for something deliberately comedic. This isn't to say there is just shallow entertainment. For those willing to look a little further, the film offers some interesting treats in terms of plot and character.

END OF MEIN CAREER? End of Days (1999) **

Gabriel Byrne in the End of Days plays the Devil as a modern cynic. Arnuld, in contrast, is so sincere that you’d think he never heard of the seven sins. Arnie is Spartan, a disaffected cop, harboring a dark past, that happens on a strange crime to leads him to battle Satan.





This should be called End of Career since it nearly destroyed Arnold’s. This actually isn’t a bad pic.





But assuming a generous paycheck as always and a huge budget it seems like an uneven effort. The title and year are a play on the infamous eighteen - 999 is 666 upside down.

Dolores Claiborne ***

Dolores Claiborne is a bit hard to describe. The term feminist horror film seems like an oxymoron. To be sure, there is little to no gore here. But horror there is a aplenty although what kind is hard to understand. The film has Kathy Bates return as the title character. Dolores is under arrest and charged with murdering her employer, Vera. Her daughter, Selena, returns to stand by her side. But Dolore and her have unresolved issues.





Without giving too much plot twists away, the drama is on our believing Dolores, as tough and unlovable as she is, is no murderer but director Taylor Hackford provides some cunning and subtle clues that Dolores has a more complicated past than she lets on. A tough-as-nails cop, Detective John Mackey (Christopher Plummer), doesn’t buy Dolores claim to be innocent and makes us genuinely wonder just who can be trusted in this murder mystery.





No ghosts or ghouls in the explicit sense are here. Instead King has us concentrate on existential terrors as communicated by deep class and regional divisions.

CAN KEANU BEAT THE DEVIL?! The Devil’s Advocate ***

The Devil’s Advocate is going to anger Al Pacino admirers. Pacino gives yet another over-the-top performance as John Milton. Initially, the movie has Keanu Reeves as a slick, up-and-coming lawyer summoned by Milton to join his legal team. The title indicates the obvious.





Pacino is the devil and is set on corrupting Reeves. But why?? The payoff is a bit debatable. Still the stages in getting to the ultimate revelation are better than anyone might suspect. Reeves' usual, laid-back style serves him ell here as he bit by bit pieces together the intertwining of his life and Mr. Satan’s. To be sure,





some parts seem to have been done better than others. Several sub-plots are needlessly added and The Shining is shamefully ripped of.