The eyes have it.

"At First Sight"
Overall Rating: ***½

Though the phrase "based on a true story" is most associated with TV networks' "movie of the week," lately, it seems to be popping up a lot on the big screen. Recently, we've had "Patch Adams" and "A Civil Action." Now, "At First Sight" joins them.

Amy Benic (Mira Sorvino) is a stressed-out architect who goes to the Bear Mountain Inn--a health spa--to relax. There, she falls in love with her masseur, Virgil Adamson (Val Kilmer). Virgil is handsome and charming; he has also been blind since he was three years old, and has one visual memory (of "clouds he could touch"). When Amy reads about a new treatment that is able to restore his sight, the questions become can Virgil learn to use the vision he has never had, and can he cope with Amy's desire to help?

The premise is interesting. Throughout the film, you're wondering whether either the romance or the treatment will work. The two play off of each other nicely. You get involved with the story on a personal level; I found myself hoping things would work out for the characters throughout. One thing which helps build that sympathy is a significant use of subjective camera--including blurs and blackouts, that help show what Virgil is going through.

"At First Sight" probably would have been a disaster had not Val Kilmer successfully handled the part of Virgil Adamson. Kilmer had to play scenes where Virgil was blind, and even more difficult (because, as the movie points out, it's unusual), the scenes where Virgil is learning what to make of his new sense. His performance is star caliber--the true highlight being the scene where Virgil first sees his reflection in a mirror. Even more important, he does not make Virgil into a pitiable character; with his performance, you can understand the conflicts caused when Amy wants to help Virgil see, despite the fact that Virgil doesn't feel the void. Though not as outstanding as Kilmer, Mira Sorvino and Kelly McGillis (who plays Virgil's sister Jennie) are good, and are able to pull off the wide range of emotions their characters experience. Nathan Lane also has an interesting small part as Phil Webster, a man who runs a school for the blind and tries to help Virgil--though as he points out, Virgil must learn to interpret what he sees on his own.

The real problem with "At First Sight" is that it never completely lives up to its potential. As intriguing as the story is, it does drag a bit in places--particularly in the beginning; in the very early stages of Virgil's and Amy's affair, the pace is just too slow. The cinematography, also, is good but not great; though the subjective camera shots work well, "At First Sight" isn't the most spectacular film to watch. "At First Sight;" is enjoyable and interesting, but just about everything is good without being great.

I wouldn't recommend "At First Sight" for children; there is some bad language and a significant number of nude scenes--several sex scenes and a scene in a strip club, though practically all the nude shots are from the back and waist up. Children will also probably be bored by the film's emphasis on the romance. Teenagers may appreciate and enjoy "At First Sight," but young children will probably think it's "schmaltzy."

"At First Sight" is a movie that tells a story. Whatever else is good or bad about the film, it's a good story. "At First Sight" is definitely a film to see.

Title: "At First Sight"
Release date: January, 1999
MPAA rating: PG-13
Overall rating: ***½
Aprox. run time: 129 min.
Director: Irwin Winkler
Writers: Steve Levitt, Oliver Sacks, M.D. (story)
Stars: Val Kilmer, Mira Sorvino, Kelly McGillis

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/reviewsbyjohn/1stsight.htm
Added to blog site: 7/26/09

If you find four million dollars, is it bad luck to pick it up if it's face down?

"A Simple Plan"
Overall Rating: ***


About two or three years ago, I heard a news story describing the "lottery's dirty secret." Apparently, there is an extremely high divorce rate among lottery winners, as well as numerous other family problems. Many families are destroyed by the sudden transition to wealth. As stressful as a lottery win might be, it isn't a huge stretch to imagine that a plundered fortune would be worse. That's the premise of "A Simple Plan."

One winter day, Hank Mitchell, his brother Jacob, and Jacob's best friend Lou (played by Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, and Brent Briscoe respectively) are driving through a remote area when they wreck the truck while trying to avoid hitting a fox. Jacob and Lou's first reaction is to track the fox through the snow and kill it. In the course of tracking the fox, however, they stumble across something worth more than a fox's pelt: a plane wreck with four million dollars in it.

The protagonist's gradual progression to worse and worse actions taken to keep their found fortune is perfectly believable. Slowly, they become criminals, constantly asking the question "Wouldn't you?" None of them start out bad, but they end up that way. The story is interesting, and holds your attention. The actors are what really make "A Simple Plan" work; all the performances are quite good. Best of all is Billy Bob Thornton--the mildly retarded Jacob; he is as convincing as the others, but the nature of his character makes his a much tougher role to play.

The film also has nice touches. The one that comes to mind immediately is shot of the fox breaking into the chicken coop. This shot conveys the idea of theft--reinforcing the idea before the money is ever found. It also helps establish the setting. Finally, it explains why the fox was running across the road--which leads into the main plotline.

Yet, as believable and realistic as "A Simple Plan" tries to be, it does strain credibility in a few places. There is no explanation for why Hank returned to his hometown, for instance: with a reference to his having been an accountant, one wonders why he's now working in a feed store. The setup for the climactic scene also strains credibility--without giving away the end, I'd simply say that several people miss several things they should have caught. The biggest problem with "A Simple Plan" is that I don't think it quite works as a whole. Aside from the fairly minor problems with the story, on examining any specific aspect of the film, I'd say "yes, it's well made;" but as a whole, it's not particularly satisfying--it doesn't completely come together. Maybe I'm not as convinced by the frequently asked "wouldn't you?" as the filmmakers want; maybe the characters aren't as sympathetic as the filmmakers want.

"A Simple Plan" is not a good choice for children; there is a great deal of strong language and violence, and some nudity. As for myself, I found "A Simple Plan" interesting the first time around, and not bad at all; but I'm not in a hurry to go back and see it again, and I probably won't even rent it when it comes out on video. "A Simple Plan" certainly is not as good as finding a million dollars.


Title: "A Simple Plan"
Release date: 1/22/99 (nationwide) / 12/11/98 (limited)
MPAA rating: R
Overall rating: ***

Aprox. run time: 121 min.
Director: Sam Raimi
Writer: Scott B. Smith (novel and screenplay)
Stars: Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, Brent Briscoe, Bridget Fonda (plays Sarah Mitchell)


Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/simplan.htm
Added to blog site: 8/5/09

War is Hell--but this movie is no picnic, either.

"The Thin Red Line"
Overall Rating: *½


War is confusing--but war films don't have to be. Last summer's "Saving Private Ryan" is a good case in point--we see the chaos of battle, but the film makes sense. "A Thin Red Line" fails where "Saving Private Ryan" succeeded. One minute, the battle seems to be over, the next, they're fighting again--and the audience is left to wonder what happened. I'm not sure whether one of the characters was killed, taken prisoner, or went AWOL. The filmmakers don't even explain the title.

"The Thin Red Line" focuses on Guadalcanal. Guadalcanal would be an idyllic tropical paradise--except World War II finds its way there. In the movie, we see a private who only wants to get home to his bride; and a sergeant who sits on a grenade to save his men. We see Lt. Col. Tall (Nick Nolte)--a veteran in search of glory. We see Capt. Staros (Elias Koteas)--a fairly rational soldier in himself, but one who has to deal with Tall's desire for insane frontalassaults.

What we don't see is a movie that makes sense. In a big way, "The Thin Red Line" is a movie destroyed by editing. Much of the Guadalcanal story is apparently told in flashback--or not; it's not completely clear. Soldiers' thoughts drifting to home don't help matters, either. There are plenty of things on screen that are never explained: many actions of the native islanders are never explained, nor is an explanation offered for why some soldiers put cigarettes up their noses. Jerky, short cuts attempt to convey the confusion of battle, but are nothing more than an annoying cliche. The sound editing is not immune to problems; half the lines are almost or completely unintelligible. Some cutting might have helped: the movie's three hours feels more like three weeks.

Of course, what the editing hacked to bits didn't seem all that stellar to begin with. The script is pretty much uninspiring. In all the frequent soliloquies dwelling on what's wrong with war, there is only one moderately memorable line--something to the effect that "war is not ennobling, but rather that it makes men into dogs." Nor is there much about the acting to make it worthwhile. Most of the actors seem to blend in with each other; coupled with the editing, I found it hard to keep the characters straight. As for originality, "The Thin Red Line" seems lacking in that area too; the battle scenes (which make up the bulk of the film) feel like the first twenty minutes of "Saving Private Ryan;" as for the plot overall, based on the screenplay credit, I'd say that the film is a new adaptation of the novel rather than a remake of the 1964 version of the movie.

Unlike the majority of the actors, some are pretty good. Woody Harrelson--a heroic Sergeant--and John Travolta--the brigadier general who sends Lt. Col. Tall and his men into battle--are both good in their parts--though their cameo roles are limiting. Nick Nolte is the real star. He's wonderful as Lt. Col. Tall--the man who spent his army career being passed over for promotion and waiting for a war; he is driven, though he's close to insane. "The Thin Red Line" also does have some pretty spectacular special effects. If you really like battle scenes, it might almost be worth it to see this version of Guadalcanal. (Though, like most battle scenes in recent films, expect copious violence and profanity.)

In the end, most of the movie is both confusing and irritating. To be fair to both sides, the film has gotten what seems like numerous accolades from others--though I can't figure out why. However, I noticed at least a dozen people get up and walk out during the course of the film, and I was sorely tempted to join them. Are there good movies out there to see? Yup. As for "The Thin Red Line," that's what you should use to cross this one off your list.

Title: "The Thin Red Line"
Release date: January 15, 1999

MPAA rating: R
Overall rating: *½

Aprox. run time: 171 min.
Director: Terrence Malick
Writer: Terrence Malick, James Jones (novel)
Stars: Sean Penn (plays Pvt. Welch), James Caviezel, Nick Nolte

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/RedLine.htm
Added to blog site: 8/5/09

A civil movie

"A Civil Action"
Overall Rating: ***


I was expecting the worst going in to "A Civil Action." I'm usually skeptical when it comes to environmental horror stories, and the previews made it clear that was the subject. Even worse, the description on the Internet Movie Database (www.imdb.com)--which turned out to be completely false--made the movie sound truly horrible. I paid my $6.50 expecting to hate it, but I actually enjoyed "A Civil Action." Alright, it's not among--or even close to--the top films of all time; but it's still worth a look.

Jan Schlichtmann (John Travolta) is a calculating personal-injury lawyer. While he's on a talk radio show denying that he's an "ambulance chaser"--even though we see him hand his card to a man at the scene of a traffic accident--it's not surprising that when Anne Anderson (Kathleen Quinlan), a disgruntled client, calls the show, he writes "save me" on his note pad rather than her name. Forced to address the issue, he isn't moved by her desire for an apology for the death of her son due to contaminated water, but he pursues the case only when he learns the defendants are multi-million dollar companies.

"A Civil Action" is dominated by Travolta; he plays the central character and is in the majority of the scenes. Fortunately, he's pretty good, gradually becoming obsessed with a case he took only for the money. Indeed, most of the performers are good, though a couple truly shine. One is James Gandolfini, who plays Al Love, a man who works for the responsible (or irresponsible) chemical company, witnessed some dumping, lives in the neighborhood where the cancer cluster was, and has seen some health problems in his own family. Robert Duvall is also magnificent as Jerome Facher, a defense attorney who seems more interested in the Red Sox than the law, but who actually is a Machiavellian manipulator who knows what to offerand when.

"A Civil Action" also has many nice touches. The meeting in the Harvard Club, for instance--which is an inept attempt to impress a man who went to Cornell--works very well. Then there are the scenes that show us Schlichtmann's transformation in character--such as the scene where he visits the place where one of the plaintiff's children died and imagines the death--a scene that contrasts nicely with the scene I mentioned earlier where he gives his card to the accident victim. Perhaps best of all, throughout the film, the camera focuses on glasses of water--reminding the audience what the case is supposed to be about.

As much as the film has going for it, however, it doesn't completely work. It may be based on a true story--at least, that's what they say at the beginning--but its theme of big business doing the little guys wrong is pure cliché. The main problems stem from the film's mixed messages. There are subtle hints that the scientific evidence for the case is weak, which undermines the film as a whole: does Schlichtmann's small law firm lack the resources to find the evidence, or is it just not there? The movie also asks the big question about the justice system: does it work, or doesn't it? These questions are thrown up in the air, but never answered satisfactorily. Perhaps most frustrating is the way the ending is structured; "A Civil Action" tries to be a tragedy with a happy ending, and it doesn't work either way.

Looking back on the movie, I have a hard time trying to figure out why it was rated PG-13: there is a moderate amount of strong language; Schlichtmann throws a couple of temper tantrums--ransacking his own office, for instance; and the thematic content--which includes allusions to the deaths of children--is very strong. All totalled, I imagine that this film would be less harmful to children than the evening news, though probably less interesting as well.

As for adults, it may be worth a look. As many contradictions as the script has, the overall effect creates a new one: the film is wishy-washy in the extreme. Still, the movie isn't half bad as a courtroom drama, and my judgement is that many aspects of "A Civil Action" make it a civil effort; unlike some court cases, this film should not be dismissed.

Title: "A Civil Action"
Release date: 12/25/98 (limited) / 1/8/99 (nationwide)
MPAA rating: PG-13
Overall rating: ***
Aprox. run time: 115 min.
Director: Steven Zaillian
Writers: Steven Zaillian, Jonathan Harr (book)
Stars: John Travolta, Robert Duvall, John Lithgow (as Judge Skinner)

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/reviewsbyjohn/CivilAct.htm
Added to blog site: 7/27/09

"...'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide [in appeal] as a church-door; but 'tis enough, 'twill serve"

"Shakespeare in Love"
Overall Rating: ***


Shakespeare with writers' block? Shakespeare with money problems? Shakespeare trying to sell someone on a new idea? It almost certainly happened--it happens to all writers. Did it happen as depicted in "Shakespeare in Love?" Almost certainly not, but as a work of historical fiction, "Shakespeare in Love" is not bad.

The movie tells the fictionalized story of Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes). Shakespeare is the stereotype of a contemporary neurotic writer. Far away from his wife, he carries on with other women shamelessly--though lately his extramarital romantic episodes lack zing. This frustration leads to a terrible writers' block, which is exacerbated by a cash problem--or more aptly a lack-of-cash problem. That financial dilemma is shared by the owner of the Rose theater--who desperately awaits the forthcoming Shakespearean comedy "Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter." As fate would have it, Shakespeare will find his muse in Viola de Lesseps (Gwyneth Paltrow); an aspiring actress in an era that won't permit it, Viola is a wealthy and devoted theater fan--who is also pledged in marriage to Lord Wessex (Colin Firth).

The movie is intriguing. Anne Hathaway is mentioned, so from the start, you know Shakespeare and Viola's romance is doomed, no matter what else happens. With the theme of doomed love, it beautifully echoes the story of "Romeo and Juliet"--which is the play Shakespeare is writing throughout the film.

Though the film is enjoyable on the whole, most everything is a mixed bag. Most of the actors are good. Gwyneth Paltrow and Colin Firth are good. A number of the less central roles shine. Judi Dench is regal as Queen Elizabeth. Imelda Staunton is wonderful as Viola's nurse. Probably best of all is Ben Affleck, who plays Ned Alleyn--the egocentric actor playing Mercutio; he is so full of himself that it is perfectly credible that he takes the part because he believes the play will be called "Mercutio."

On the downside, as much as the movie feeds on the period, there are some distracting anachronisms intended to be funny--unless William Shakespeare really did wear one earring and go to a psychoanalyst. Though the script is partly to blame, Joseph Fiennes plays Shakespeare as a beat poet--the poet part works, but the beat part doesn't. The movie leans on the Elizabethan period in many ways, but also tries to modernize Elizabethan England a la "The Flintstones;" the result is occasionally jarring. The story also fails with a couple of the subplots that fall flat.

"Shakespeare in Love" is not for children. It is a work of fiction, so it has little or no real educational value, and with its heavy emphasis on romance it will probably bore most children. It also has nudity (several scenes show Gwyneth Paltrow topless), fairly graphic sexual content, and some moderate violence (some of it is the stage violence in "Romeo and Juliet;" but there is one scene where a boy feeds a live mouse to a cat, and there is a scene where someone is tortured for having bad debts).

On balance, "Shakespeare in Love" is enjoyable. It's a clever movie. Shakespearean purists will probably hate it for the inaccuracies (though what seems the most obvious mistake, "the Rose Theater" may not be--the Globe Theater wasn't built until 1599). As the bard himself might have said (but probably wouldn't have):

"some far better movies may play here,
but decent is this one about Shakespeare."


Title: "Shakespeare in Love"
Release date: December 25, 1998

MPAA rating: R
Overall rating: ***

Aprox. run time: 123 min.
Director: John Madden
Screenplay: Marc Norman, Tom Stoppard
Stars: Joseph Fiennes, Gwyneth Paltrow, Ben Affleck, Colin Firth

Original URL: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Mansion/7045/S_Love.htm
Added to blog site: 8/4/09