edouard_monpetit

Some films seem "long" because it demands the audience's attention at all times, others are so because the audience is bored. "Broken English" falls comfortably in the latter.

I have a feeling, in making Broken English, Cassvetes sticks with "safe" grounds. The topic, the set, and the characters are nothing new to those familiar to the "chick flick" genre. Being an independent film, she could have been a little more bold in her story, but she was too worried about pleasing the judges than the audience.

Instead, it is reduced to a "checklist" independent film. Lead role with obvious personality flaws - CHECK! Cheated by playboy celebrity - CHECK! Man in "sexy" accent - CHECK! Nice guy and gay friend - CHECK! Ethnic representation (Jewish, Hispanic, Asian, etc) - CHECK! Friend has secret psychological problems - CHECK! "Romantic" location for ending - CHECK!

The interesting thing is, the broad brush Cassavetes used to paint the "typical" American woman: perpetual depression, distorted reality, aimlessly looking for "happiness" in the wrong places, fear disguised in a sense independence. Is this the message she is trying to convey?

To sum up, "Broken English" tries to be groundbreaking, or topical, or both. But it ends up being a paint-by-number independent festival film. The distinction comes not from the satisfaction of the audience, but from the tick marks on the judges' evaluation forms. I hope films such as "Broken English" is not indicative of the trend in independent film making, but I am probably wrong.

I saw this film at the Vancouver International Film Festival. While sitting through this film, I had a distinct feeling that it was intended for the typical "international film festival" audience.

This film is designed to be minimalistic, so minimalistic, that it can be adopted to any demographic group with minimal effort. The result are dialogs without nuance, characters without identity, and a film without depth. For this reason, everything became very repetitive and stagnant; sitting through this film became a chore.

After the film, the filmmaker was invited to answer some questions from the audience. He made some interesting points, such as the incidental music, that was play on-the-spot by a pianist, and the process of making this film. But I did not think the film was groundbreaking, entertaining, or thought-provoking as some of the audience would believe.

But, most interestingly, I would never thought that there is a niche for such kind of films, let alone a market.

Having no prior knowledge about the "what the bleep" series, I picked up this film with the following two assumptions:

1) It is an in-depth exposition of quantum mechanic principles and how it relates to everyday life.

2) It is *not* an attempt of some obscure occult movement trying to link the "spiritual" and the "physical" worlds.

The first 30 minutes or so was a barrage of ideas that may or may not have to do with quantum physics or to each other. Then it got a little more weird ... when they talked about how meditation could influence electronics and crystal growth, and how basketballs can be at one place and everywhere (may work as an example, but not in reality). I started skipping sections after sitting for about an hour. When I heard something about some Atlantic warrior God ... okay, that's too much ... I wonder if the meditation is doing something to my DVD player.

I really wonder how they get a line-up of all these doctors and professors. (Okay, one was a priest-turned-physicist, and a couple of them got their degrees at on-line universities). I can only imagine that, the physicists and doctors, at least those who were reputable, were somewhat deceived when they signed in for the interviews.

In the end, I felt cheated, to see that, this is nothing more than a propaganda for some new-age occult religious movement, based totally on misrepresented scientific principles. I wish they were a little more up front about their film, or at least put a disclaimer on it, to let the viewers be aware its purpose.

In my opinion, the whole film was meant to confuse the viewer with sound bites from all the interviews, while a "message" slowly builds up with the Amanda plot line. The leaders of the cult probably assume that they fan easily manipulate the viewers' intelligence the way they do to their own followers. Sorry, I am not a physicist, but I know enough to say that it is all rubbish.

Out of ignorance, incomplete understanding, many of these so-called philosophers and religious practitioners claim that Einstein's theory of general relativity and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle are the missing links between the scientific and spiritual world. To quote the words of Prof. Dick Feynman, "as always ... when philosophical ideas associated with sciences are dragged into another field, they are usually completely distorted." Indeed, this film distorts what is quantum physics and the filmmakers feel no qualms about it.

My first reaction after watching Marie Antoinette ... shallow, empty, and annoying. There is little plot or character development. Scenes are meshed together like an extended music video. The music is redundant and inappropriate (we will come back to it later). Obviously intended for the MTV audience, Marie-Atoinette really tried my patience.

However, I can argue that Sofia Coppola was right on the money with that. Marie-Antoinette is most likely to be a 18th century rich party-girl, with all the fixings and cake. Her life was likely to revolve around gossips, shopping, and keeping the royal bloodline. Her life prior to the Revolution was likely to be shielded from the rest of France. On those points, I think the film hits the spot.

On top of that, Kirsten Dunst was suited for the role. The lack of dialogue (again, probably true in those days, not much dialogue aside from gossip and the superficial) was made up for with her expressions. The character may appear shallow, Dunst captured every emotional nuance without uttering a word.

But in the mean time, Coppola somehow didn't think that the audience would catch that. So she made the most annoying decision. She used "modern" music to express M-A's inner thoughts. The film was already very fine without music at all. The introduction of the music made it simply unbearable to watch. This approach was somewhat successful in Knight's Tale (remember the medieval "We will Rock You"?) because the Ledger/Battney duo were never meant to be taken seriously. Marie-Antoinette was branded as serious drama, and was treated so. The idea just backfired.

Finally, after watching Godfather III, I had a feeling that Sofia Coppola was playing herself. Afterall, she accepted the role in very short notice. Without committing libel, I believe this film about Marie Antoinette is a reflection of her personality. I just hope that Sofia didn't have the Strokes playing in her head when she was with Spike Jonze.

There is something wrong with Hard Candy.

The acting was solid, the direction was intelligent, the script was intense, and the topic is controversial. All these elements, however, didn't quite converge to something that was coherent and compelling. It lacks the premise, credibility, and balance that any good film should process. This may be a result of difference of expectations that originate from the actors, the director, the writer and the audience.

Let's start with us, the viewers. Despite the topic, I believe "Hard Candy" is simply a film that entails a two-hour power struggle between two individuals. Pedophilia set the plot in motion, but did not tightly define the roles, which were purposely left ambiguous from beginning to end. No one knows if Jeff is really a child molester, and Hayley may either be a vigilante or a psychopath. The shift in physical and psychological domination between the two should have been our interest. Instead, our judgment on the characters were tainted, either as a result of the controversial topic, or by the Liongate marketing department. So, when the film started, we already charged Jeff guilty of pedophilia.

This could have been compensated with a strong screenplay. However, Nelson managed to ignore natural and reasonable character development in the script. He did so mostly to strengthen Hayley's character. In the end, Hayley became the preacher, and Jeff the violated alter boy. Hayley's lines consisted mostly of monologues on quoting national statistics and degradation of social morals. Jeff, on the other hand, was only allowed to utter incomprehensible verbal jabs when Hailey takes a break from one of her soliloquies, provided that he wasn't on a gag. Maybe working with such a controversial topic, one has to play the party line to what is politically correct. Nelson really wanted the audience to be on Hayley's side, regardless how sinister her character is, but this does not justify a totally lob-sided screenplay.

And the acting amplified the imbalance of the roles. Page and Wilson are no stranger to acting. I think their performance stand very well on their own, especially considering how little Wilson has to work with in his portrayal of Jeff. The disparity between the two characters made their efforts futile in salvaging the script. Page, convicted and energetic, dominated every scene in the film, whether she was in or not. On the other hand, Wilson, being tied up and gagged for most of the film, was reduced to acting scared. Sandra Oh's brief appearance was a reminder how contrived the whole film has become.

Finally, there was the direction. Spade's background in directing commercials clearly showed. Most of the scenes are static, and transitions were limited to fade-in, fade-out, and panning across a black wall. He also had the propensity of using bright color everywhere. He certainly knows how to capture my attention for 15 seconds, but I felt comfortable after prolonged exposure. To his credit, he had made the best out of what he had to work with, namely, a lob-sided plot line, a minimal head count, and a confined space.

In summary, Hard Candy started with a good premise, good casting, good direction and a keen audience. Page and Spade could chalk one up for this film, but the film itself has failed to become bigger than the sum of its parts.

Some people reading this review will almost certainly brand me uncultured and insensitive. For the record, I know by heart every Oscar Wilde work, all his quotations, and where they came from.

Oscar Wilde was a genius, and these hacks who tore apart "Lady Windermere's Fan", changed the title to "A Good Woman", and passed it off as their own did nothing but to tarnish Wilde's reputation.

Those who read or saw the original play would have a good idea what is going on in the film. So I am not going to say much about the plot, since there is little deviation between the two versions. What's different, are the time (from the late 1800s to the 1930s), the setting (in Italy instead of in England), and the nationalities (the Windermeres are now Americans). Maybe, the filmmakers need an excuse to hire Italian hand (since it is also a British-Italian co-production) and so, the easiest way is to set it on Italian land. This is where the problem starts.

The whole dialog was rewritten so that they would sound more "working class", and more natural to our supposed untrained ears. The new lines are nothing but artificial and trite. It sounds like everyone has a sock in their mouth. For a good measure, the writers threw in as many recognizable Oscar Wilde quotes as they possibly can. Sorry, no dice. I know where they came from, and I don't find their use particularly deep or witty, and I definitely don't feel cultured listening to them, no matter how heavy a British or Italian accent there was.

Helen Hunt comes across as blend and had that "whatever" attitude. She made a whore of out Mrs. Erlynne, not a seductress that she was meant to be. Scarlett Johansson appeared too immature for the role and didn't have the kind of strength that a Wildian heroine would usually demand. The male leads, Mark Umbers (as Windermere) and Stephen Campbell Moore (as Darlington) had little opportunity to shine. This is disappointing, especially for the latter. In short it's awful. Even the actors knew it, so they just took the, "what the hell, it pays the bills" approach.

The marginally redeeming factor was Tom Wilkinson. He did his part exactly what was entailed. It would have worked in the original play, because he was the only one who saw right through the seductress (a factor that eventually won Mrs. Erlynne's affection). Here, he is just another man who sympathized with her (mostly due to the fact that Mrs. Erlynne's role was demoted to a hair short of a whore).

Overall, the flow of events and lines were just thrown right at the audience with little sense, or expectations, or both.

Finally, if you don't like this movie someone tells you you're an uncultured brute, you can tell them this. The tag line, "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future" came from "The picture of Dorian Gray."

In making "The Wild Dogs", Thom Fitzgerald made no pretense in his sentiment towards a number of his associates. This is very evident in the portrayal of Victor (the diplomat) and Colin (Geordi's boss). As much as people would like to say or think otherwise, Fitzgerald's intentions of making "Dogs" were purely reactionary. He wanted the whole world (okay, the viewers) to see how frustrated he was, that people at the right places -- the Victors and Colins in real life -- weren't stroking his ego the right way. So, here is something a hair short of slander.

Fitzgerald wants to send a powerful message, but he confused power with shock. Shocking, this film is, but powerful it is not. He wants to show how we, the supposedly civilized people, behave no better than a pack of wild dogs. After he switched back and forth from people to dogs, I couldn't help myself but wonder, "Thommy boy, I get your point, but, you know, so what? Do you think you're going to make your point stronger by rubbing it into my face harder?"

Besides, on the parallel between the dogs and the humans is the weakest link of the whole film (hence the need to rub it in the audience even harder). It almost seemed that the subplot of Bogdan and the strait dogs was some kind of afterthought, hastily put together to make the film "feature length" (for one I am not convinced by Bogdan). Most of the characters are so one-dimensional, that they are better made out of cardboard.

The only redeeming factors are (1) the relationship between Brenda (Victor's wife) and Dorutu (the human torso), (2) Radu (the midget) -- man Radu rules, and (3) the final meeting between Victor and Geordi in an undisclosed location. If Geordi were truly a representation of the real Thom Fitzgerald, I somehow lost any sympathy towards him. "Dogs" was reduced to an excuse for Fitzgerald to vent his anger. Too bad, he didn't keep his ego on a short leash. We, the viewers, had to take his bite.

No, I know this is the user comment section for Runaway Jury. It is a successful thriller, though you probably have known that Gene Hackman will not get his way when you see him. It's like Rocky and Ivan Drago.

This is where the problem is ... the movie industry muddling with politics, in the guise of entertainment. Thanks to Michael Moore other so-called "documentarians" like him, it has become clear to see that every film has a subliminal political message.

This, of course, does not preclude the possibility that it is a good film. But let the viewers be aware, because the message is smoother to swallow, when it is done in an entertaining way. And it is a very entertaining movie. I hope they show more of Dustin Hoffman.