|
 |
|
Capsule Reviews
Cinema
Releases - November/December 2003
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
- ***1/2
138m, d. Peter Weir, 35mm at Sheffield UGC, 2.35:1
Despite Peter Weir, it looked like it was gonna
be just another big swashbuckler -- Stirring Grandeur made to studio order.
Yes, it's a movie that rouses us with big epic shots of the great outdoors,
and crowds of soldiers, and reverberating noises of swishing sea and clunks
against the sides of the boat. But the characters are deeply involving: Russell
Crowe plays Capt. Jack Aubrey, a British seaman determined and strong in
his mission to track down a particular French battleship. The movie picks
apart his obsessiveness, and while it admires the way he leads his men, it
questions his growing ego and what the quest means to him the longer it goes
on. In contrast, there's the Paul Bettany character, a scientist who in one
extraordinary sequence collects nature samples on the Galapagos Islands,
but has to decide what to leave behind as the ship is called once more into
searching for battle. The arguments between him and Crowe don't seem like
typical leader-and-subordinate confrontations, but have real philosophical
edge, and are beautifully played.
Mystic River - ***
137m, d. Clint Eastwood, 35mm at Sheffield UGC,
2.35:1
It's not the masterpiece people have been claiming,
but Eastwood does set up a gripping moody atmosphere and get some fine
performances out of Sean Penn, Tim Robbins and Kevin Bacon. The screenplay,
by Brian Helgeland, is a mess -- clunky dialogue, more than one occasion
of someone telling a story that we've already seen happen onscreen, an ending
that solves the murder-mystery aspect of the plot clumsily and doesn't make
clear the thematic resonance.
Peter Pan - *1/2
113m, d. PJ Hogan, 35mm at Sheffield UGC, 2.35:1
Lord, here's hoping that P.J. Hogan never gets
to direct a "Harry Potter" movie. This new adaptation is full of an ugly
sub-Potter glow; it's not colourful, it's not fun, it's just a gaudy mess
of bad aesthetic choices and cruddy CGI. The kid who plays Peter is dead-eyed
and smug, and Hogan makes his actors pause and annunciate all the key
catchphrases. ("To die would be an awfully big adventure" -- funny, at that
point I was thinking the same thing.) He's also played up the sensuality
that was in J.M. Barrie's novel, but I don't think he should be proud. The
children don't seem genuinely attracted to each other; they're not tender
or tingly, they just play scenes with flirty eyes and emphases that capture
the rhythms of adult actors in similar romantic scenes. It doesn't convert
well, and to me it was awkward and sleazy. Plus point: Richard Briers has
a supporting role as Smee; he gets about ten lines in the whole thing, and
every one of them earns a big laugh.
Seabiscuit - *1/2
141m, d. Gary Ross, 35mm at Sheffield Odeon, 2.35:1
There's a scene in this movie where we learn the
troubled history of a racehorse, and it's more emotionally powerful than
any of the human scenes. Awful sentimental music, a Jeff Bridges performance
that basically consists of looking deep in thought before the filmmakers
cut to the next scene, and a pretty lame story to boot. It takes place during
the Depression, and I think it's supposed to be about how horseracing took
the mind of the nation's troubles, or something. Toby Maguire is a half-blind
jockey who will conquer obstacles by winning the big race, Bridges plays
a millionaire who thinks he can get over the loss of his son by putting all
his energy into horses, and the historical context is shown to us in PBS-style
slideshows of still images with a reassuringly croaky grandpa type narration
that attempts to evoke mythic Americana. This thing is getting critical raves
and Oscar buzz, but Kevin Laforest has the right observations:
http://www.montrealfilmjournal.com/review.asp?R=R0000747
Touching the Void - ***
104m, d. Kevin MacDonald, 35mm at Sheffield UGC,
1.85:1
Not as politically charged as the same director's
"One Day in September", and once you know it's a documentary about two mountain
climbers who got stuck in the Peruvian Andes and faced death-defying ordeals,
you more or less know what to expect. The movie should play on television
rather than cinema -- it's the sort of thing that's best at sucking you in
when you had no idea what was coming, and the shots of mountains in the
reconstruction footage are beautifully composed, but look too digital on
the big screen. Still, this is an involving picture; the physical details
of the ordeal are gruelling, and there's something amazing about looking
in the eyes of the guys telling this story.
COPYRIGHT©
2003 Ian Waldron-Mantgani
2003 Reviews
(alphabetical)
2003 Reviews (by star
rating)
Archive of all cinema reviews
(alphabetical)
Review Archive
Index
UK
Critic main page
|
|
![[Image]](http://www.ukcritic.com/posbanr2.gif)