Movie Review: The Devil Wears Prada

Okay, there was this one time, ages ago, when my best friend (straight) and I were watching the Oscars in his apartment in Omaha, NE. The show goes and he squints at the red carpet preshow I was forcing him to watch. The day before he had been bitching about how he didn't care for Joan Rivers and how he found the whole thing to be quite fake and gregarious.

And as he watched now, he leaned back and said something that I still laught about today.

"She looks like crap in the dress."

Here he was, straight as an arrow--and all his education and straightness--and he knew what looked good and what doesn't.

And we think gays are shallow? Seems to be universal.

But our obsession with beautiful manifests itself in slick commercials, ongoing programs of self-improvment and reality shows of the pressures of said art. Now there's a movie too.

The Devil Wears Prada is a formula movie. I noticed novelty is far and few between this year. Must be because last year was so full of duds, they went with easy crowd-pleasers. This is one of them. Girl gets glossy job, starts to join their ranks of elitism and then decides it's too fake of a life. Yep, heard it before.

The film is decent, but far from a hit. Every one nails down what they are supposed to do and the plot meaders from expected experience to expected experience. But whereas TransAmerica uses it to teach lessons, Prada seems to just be going through the motions.

Where the film will appeal to many is Meryl Streep. She plays the villianous boss to the hilt and when she's not on screen, you keep finding you wish she was. Is this supposed to be comedy? If it is, it's not very funny. If it's supposed to be a drama, then more angst needs to grace the screen.

What bothered me is the interactions the characters had. I've read Dr. Deborah Tannen's collected works, and I do believe that women speak in a manner that is different from men. Especially at work. So when Streep's boss insults the protagonist's shoes with a crude (but perfect!) stare, why does the youth merely kowtow into a new pair of heels? Why doesn't she quit?

For we wouldn't have a movie without it happening. I just felt that if Anne Hathaway's young office assistant is so intelligent that her boss sees it on her resume--how can she be so dumb as to merely accept her position as underling? And worse? She improves herself by being more fake.

In the end, of course, everything fixes itself in the manner I'm describing, but still...I have more faith in today's youth. It shouldn't take a year and trip to Paris to figure out your boss is so wrong.

So this is fair-to-middlin' movie. See it for Streep. See it for the clothes. See it for the air-conditioning. But don't keep you hopes up too high. This is merely high fashion, after all.

Movie Review: TransAmerica

I used to hate when they lumped my issues with that of bisexuals and transgendered individuals. I really did. I was younger and could not understand how my travials were equal to theirs. Surely, discrimination is fairly universal, especially with the current government, but me--who loved men with men--could not possibly understand what it was like to feel like a woman on the inside and want to be different.

As time passed and my wisdom grew, I realized that, they too, have only a handful of films to show the world their situation in a manner that is uplifting and approachable. Gay movies, when made into the mainstream, ended with violence and saddness--and films about transgendered individuals were even smaller in number--I mean, Silence of the Lambs? Not a good example of transgendered experiences.

This is the first film, as a matter of fact,that opened my eyes to several points that I have to mention. An art film of sorts, the movie stars Felicity Huffman from Desparate Housewives fame. I use the term fame, for choosing an out of the way title like this says volumes about her. Her husband is William H. Macy, also an actor of profound merit, who chooses work that are also unique and highly challenging---Mrs. Huffman is cut from the same cloth it seems. Here she is a pre-op transexual who recieves news that she fathered a son many moons ago and he's in trouble.

The film then moves into the comfort zone of the usual 'road/buddy' picture as she bails the young man out of jail and they begin a cross-country trek to her home. The choice of formula is important. Like many, I'm sure we don't understand the transgendered experience but we know the plotline. We know they will get to know each other better in the process, and we can breathe a small sigh of relief in that there isn't too much new information.

And really, because of this plot, the theme is, by far, more approachable to a wider audience. Couple it with a performance that was outstanding, and you learn much, even if you didn't intend to. Mrs. Huffman doesn't play the part for yuks or curiousity. She really plays her as a woman of self means and energy that carries the movie. Kudos to her.

As you watch, too, the story is very adaptable. You see that her problems are fairly similar to any outsider, her issues are just as crazy as any other family's. I was impressed.

Maybe you should pay this a visit. I know feel I might understand a bit better than before...I know I don't have any issue with trasgendered people sharing billing with gays, lesbians or bisexuals as much any more.

Movie Review: Prarie Home Companion

Ever hear of culture shock? I mean, really powerful stuff, the kind where you enter a strange land with even stranger people? Happened to me once, when I went away to college. It started small enough. My friend had sent me a book called, "How to talk Minnesotan." I thought it was a joke. The kinda thing you send to people to create a sense of identity over the holidays or special situations. I read it, but I didn't really understand it.

Then I arrived in Moorhead, Minneasota.

Culture shock. No one hurried. Nothing was a yes/no answer--everything was a tale. And they laughed at the weirdest things. Every Sunday, my idiot roommate, blonde as the Norweign sunset would be glued to the radio, the radio, listening to Prarie Home Companion. Since he liked it, and I hated him, I refused to like it.

Time passed, and with it came wisdom. I discovered that culture can be a very strong thing--and helps with pride. Think of a gay teen, struggling with his own identity, realizing that he is part of something larger than himself. Pride building. Think of the adopted Korean tyke, learning her countries vast history and knowing, she too, is part of a bigger whole.

Prarie Home Companion does that for many people of the upper midwest. I'm refering to the radio show. As the internet and technology separate people from their origins farther and farther is provides a refuge for a kinder place and time. Now you have to understand the presentation in Prarie Home Companion. It's format is simple humor, borderline English, born out of the complexities of life--and how humor is, literally everywhere. The best comparison I can make is a Woody Allen movie. It's humor is angst and urban and you aren't really sure if you should laugh unless you are from New York. Such is the gaffaws of Prarie Home Companion.

The show has been on for 30 years. I guess that would be the reason to turn it into a movie. They have such a successful format, I was confused as to the reason of the choice. Personally, I think it would have fit better on public television, but no matter.

The film is really only good if you know the world of PHC. Garrison Keillor's delivery is his standard, plain drawl, without emotion, full of wit. Here, a storyline is introduced, if only to give a reason for characters to interact backstage. Seems the show is being closed and this is it's last night.

That simple.

Garrison goes ahead and does his usual schtick, but adds some touches in the screenplay that are a bit odd. He has the angel of death come for a visit. The juxtaposition of her walking around and no one being bothered by this is, I guess, slightly humorous, but it adds a darkness that doesn't normally come with show.

It is a typical Robert Altman film, if you know this auteur. Frankly, this is one of his better efforts, and not nearly as long. Here, his bickering and realistic way of filming dialogue (the actors are not improving, but do speak over one another and are always on eye level, as if you were evasdropping on their conversation) fits well. The characters talk, chat,fight and then all the overlapping tones clear as they head out onstage--emphasizing the clear, crisp sound of the radio show.

The skills of the big name actors are also emphasized. Radio is difficult. Emote with only your voice. Sing. Be clear. You can tell each performers background in this regard.

I, frankly, liked the film, compared to my early college years. I've grown, as I've said and thought this to be a nice diversion. But it isn't recommendable. If you like PHC, go see it. Otherwise, unless you have a stake in it (you like Bob Altman, some of the actors or art films in general), it won't do you much.

Movie Review: In Good Company

Before I really get into the crux of this review, I have to say something about it's stars. This movie has four major actors in the pivotal roles. Dennis Quaid, Topher Grace, Scarlett Johanssen and Marq Helsenberger. I've heard of them, I know that. If you've not, well, I think you might be dead. My question?

WHY AREN'T THEY FAMOUS YET?

Okay, so Scarlett has done a crapload of blockbusters and noisemakers, but what of those other three? I don't know about you audiences, I really don't. Yes, I blame you all. I can't blame the filmmakers. They are just following the money. And these actors don't bring in the bucks. So why splash their names on a marquee? Because it isn't worth it to them.

Here's my example. I watched In Good Company. Now in order to prove my point, I have to elaborate on the plot. It's a comedy/drama, not unlike Terms of Endearment in the approach department. Instead, you have a good man (Quaid) a pitchman for a good magazine. He uses clout to get people to buy ads for the periodical. Sadly, the Sport Illustrated title is bought out by a big coporation (not very surprising--they are in the government's pocket as it is) and many jobs are lost. His isn't--instead, a new boss is installed. A young yuppie, Topher Grace, is placed above poor Quaid. Now, get this, he's dating Quaid's 20 year old daughter! And the whole time, Marq, Quaid's wife is pregnant--giving Quaid's character a reason to put up with this crap!

Now, let's flesh this out a little.

It sounds so contrived that when I read it, I thought I was reading a episode of a sitcom.

But here's the thing. All four of these performers are so real, that they never once let it go spinning out of control. There's a skill present that these four hold onto that keeps the film based in a reality we can relate to.

Excellent performances by all.

But movies are a group piece and, really, the fault lies in the filmmakers. Well written, the movie isn't really funny. It's a bit of a downer--with a small message about 'the old ways are still the best ways.' But it's such a long drawn out narrative that we grow bored.

Thank God for Quaid and Grace. We'd be asleep if it weren't for them.

But why, oh why aren't they famous yet? Get Marq OUT of CSI and onto the screen! Quaid? I want to see 20 more of your pictures, stat! Scarlett and Topher? The Spirit Awards are waiting for you guys!

Movie Review: Cars

I just had to go to this conference in the mountains this past week, and I was alright with going. Sure, I was alone, but the drive was through some of the most beautiful terrain, so I had zero concerns as the roads twisted and turned, attempting to make me barf with motion sickness.

See, I hate driving. Three hours stood between me and the meetings. I stacked up on CDs and the portable DVD player for when I got there.

One hour in, I looked over and saw what I referred to in the past as a 'creamer truck. A long, silver cylinder being hauled by a Mack or a Peterbilt through the narrows of I-70. Behind it, I knew for sure, a bright red Mack followed.

And my mind flew back to seeing this title last week, when a Mack truck was doing the same thing...only making faces in the rear end of the silver cylinder.

Yes, after seeing this movie once, I memorized everything.

You see, in our neat little nation of ours, the car-culture rules. That is why this gas problem hits us so profoundly; this is why Europe giggles at us so.

We cannot help it, we love our cars. I hate driving. I LOVE my truck. My family's heart orders like this: my partner, my dog, my truck. Why is this?

The debate would be long on the philosophical, but I will point to this little movie that could. Cars exists because of our car culture; Cars streamlines that love into something just as magicial as every other Pixar title.

Pixar. As you know, Disney imploded it's feature animation unit and bought out this tiger of a studio. Six pictures later, the energy has not waned, keeping Disney in the limelight--and will probably keep doing so. Disney's older studio was just as good. With it's feature animation unit, Disney chose famed tales of different cultures, tooled and edited them and gave them a zing and spit them back out for the masses. The masses did not mind, for the stories were streamlined and highly creative on various levels.

Pixar was formed outside of their jurisdiction, and as such, was given a creative leeway that the feature animation unit could not enjoy. Not that it mattered--the themes picked by then-enfant studio were just as deep and meaningful as the main features. They each had a deep felt theme (some amoung them? Toy Story's undying friendships, the use of creativity in A Bug's Life, the famed 'quest' of yore becoming the focus of Finding Nemo) that was conveyed through the audiences ability to relate to the characters on screen. How does a human relate to bugs, toys, monsters and in this case, cars?

Damn good writing, that's how.

Remember that car culture comparison I noticed before hand? The authors of the screenplay must have noticed it too, for the people watching this film really do relate to the talking vehicles onscreen. In this Pixar outing, a young hotshot racer pulls a three way tie with an old retiring machine and another upstart. Having to move the race to California, the three board their trucks and head west on the Interstate. Our hero, with nods to Steve McQueen, is named Lightening McQueen accidently finds himself on the old Route 66 passage--and in the old town of Radiator Springs. He destroys the cities main throughofare and is sentenced to fixing it. The forced time forces him to slow down and realize that life in the fast lane does pay off as much as he wishes.

Okay, that's pretty deep for what has become, for many, a kids format for film. But Pixar pulls us in by starting first with a slam-bang opening sequence that, to my brain and eyes, was so photo realistic, peeling my eyes from the silver screen was not an option. From there, it, as Disney has trained them to do, relies on the actor's to truly act their parts--and by having big names this becomes the result in their entire bevy. Paul Newman came out of retirement to play a Hudson Hornet, dangnabit, he really does look like car, I'm afraid to say. Poor guy. His voice, all gravelly, even carries the sound of engine dying. Whoa.

The only drawback is that by showing what life is like 'in the slow lane,' the picture also slows--and with all the high energy in pictures beforehand, the audience loses that spark for a bit. It does return, but the pace is uneven.

Lastly, even the credits are good. Yes, entertainment even pops up during the credit. But with movies this satisifing, why would you want to leave? No one does, so they even give you fun stuff to watch then as well.

If we had more movies like this, boring summers would not exist.

Movie Review: X-Men 3

I read an interesting article in the Advocate a few days before seeing this movie. It talked about why people like my partner and myself have such a liking to comic books and their many facets of television and movies. It was an editorial, but it made a good point--super heroes tend to live a double life like many gays and lesbians.

Not mention, they are hot, but we don't need to elaborate there.

Still, that's why so many of my kin ran to the movies when "X-Men" opened up. The whole story line of being 'different' and having to survive in a discriminatory world was profoundly (and sadly) too easy to relate to. I took "X-Men" probably more strongly than most.

I knew I was going to see this movie. I was nervous, being a cineast and knowing from my sources some of the changes they were making (Juggernaut as a mutie? Where's Bryan Singer's style? Why did James Marsden leave?). But I had no choice in those matters.

This film, like others I've seen this summer--is slightly better than most, but really doesn't have the power or skill of the first two. First off, as mentioned, characters are toyed with. They show up, like friends at a graduation party, but don't do much else then eat the dip and leave early. The first storyline involves the return of Jean Grey. Only now, she's evil. So evil that she destroys things. ALot. Why? I'm not sure, other than she's angry.

See what I mean? The story isn't quite right. The main protagonists flit between all the violence but don't become anything more by the end of the story. No one changes in their attitudes.

And they are given such great opportunities to send a message during this movie. A second storyline involves finding a cure for all of mutantkind. Imagine that and the impact it has on gay culture. How many of us hear the tales of 'ex-gays?' How many of my friends have wanted to not be what they are born to be? That's heady stuff and gives this film some gravitas.

But it is not played out. Merely mentioned to give both sides action sequences as they fight over it. So the concept is there, but the execution is not.

I so wanted to like this movie, and, in many ways, it is decent--but far from the end of a trilogy. I am very open to adaptations--I totally understand the need to play with storylines. But I have a problem when the plot detracts from the overall theme of a piece. There's a great message here, a way for nongays to understand something that they might not experience. It is as if the filmmakers did not have confidence in the message they were sending and decided to go for the gut with one more fight scene.

Unfortunate. So, yeah, it's good. But my heart kinda ached a wee bit after seeing it.

Movie Review: The DiVinci Code (warning: spoilers)

Sorry it took so long to post, friends. The blogsite's been having troubles uploading my posts and I decided to just write at home. Hopefully, we're back in business--especially since I sent some of you all emails!

Like answering a question with a question, I'm going to start this review with a book review. I hated the Divinci Code book by Dan Brown. I'm really surprised I read it cover to cover. Complicated and completely devoid of adjectives, Mr. Brown's text reads like a Grisham novel---it reads like a movie adaptation. 'You've seen the movie, now read the book!' is it's attitude at the time, even tho there was no film yet. You could practically see the camera angle comments and editing remarks between the dialogue. He wanted to make a movie. Worse, he deals with art for goodness sakes, but lacked the ability to create said art in the reader's brain. I had to keep running to the internet to see exactly what he was describing.

So, as I read, I believed that it would make a good movie.

I was right.

The glaring drawbacks of the hack job of a book are greatly reduced on the big screen. The tale is a complicated one, but luckily, also facinating. Seems that the Holy Grail of old was really not an object but a secret. The secret being that Jesus of Nazareth was more mortal then we can ever think--to the point that he got married and fathered children. It also seems that a secret cabal knew this and did their best to hide the lineage from the church. The church, if this information got out, would be called a liar and might collapse--so they intend on keeping it as quiet as possible.

Enter Tom Hanks character, a symbolgist from Harvard. He has the skills to decipher hidden clues created by DiVinci and others in their works and possibly open this story wide. Hard to make a bookish professor exciting, isn't it? You do what you can, but it's another blow to the tale. At least his cohort was a cop. A small, geeky cop with no gun. Go figure.

Sounds complicated, right? It is and that is the problem. If I were to tell you, merely just tell you these secrets, you'd be asleep after the first paragraph, even if you were pious. But if, as Mr. Brown probably thought, I hid it in a work of fiction, well, you might be more interested. Most likely. But the fact of the matter is, this is heady stuff. Good stuff, but not for the faint-of-brain, for lack of a better discription.

If you like to think during your tales, this might be for you. It's also a fairly passive story. The protagonists merely move from situaition to situation, reacting instead of acting on what is happening around them. It's as if they are kidnapped the entire time by the legend floating about them. Such passivity doesn't make for engaging work. If either of them were shot, I wouldn't care, for they weren't all that interesting to begin with.

Actually, I think the film did so well by the very church that snubbed it and asked others not to see it. YOu would think a church after so many years would have learned the ins-and-outs of the movie machine. There is no such thing as bad publicity. Remember Mr. and Mrs. Smith of last year? Medicore film propelled to the top of the heap due to the well-timed romance of it's beautiful leads? Same goes for this movie. The mere fact that this title was repeated again and again from various pulpits made individuals take note and want to find out what the big deal was. Aint' nothing better for Hollywood then a request for a boycott. Many crappy films have found power this way.

But DiVinci, like Over the Hedge is better than average, but not great. Seems to be a reoccuring theme this year. Last year, the movies were just bad. This year? A step up, slightly.

Please, dear God, bring me a good movie! This is a start, but I'm still waiting for more.

Movie Review: Over the Hedge

You know, it has been a long time since I published anything on this blog. Seriously, it's not that I've not wanted to write; oh you have no idea how much I've wanted to write--but situations being what they are, life gave me a hand this past school year. Not only a hand, but one, very strong, finger. How did it happen after being a teacher for 13.5 years and a writer all my life did both things go to pot so quickly? Luck, perhaps. Situational ethics, maybe.

Whatever the situation, movies and weekend escapes of that sort took on a new meaning this school year. Now they weren't merely 'diversions.' Now they carried a weight to them, a weight that made mistakes appear more profound; a consequence that made successes even more joyous. I was cursed with very few 'awake' hours with my significant other. So those few hours became precious. When I went to the movies; I WENT TO THE MOVIES.

The school year had ended and, quite thankfully, so has my partner's vicious employment. So when the summer films opened, I could see the light of relief just out-of-touch, if only I could reach it...

It was from this standpoint that I attended my first summer movie, Over the Hedge. You don't have to read all of my previous reviews to know my feelings of animations and why I selected this title to celebrate with. I, for one, detest TomKatt and secondly, Disney and offhandedly, animation--is where I met my partner. So cartoons, if you will, are something I needed to survive. And since I was going to have hold onto until the dog days of summer arrived, this picture won the cointoss.

Not that it gave me much to hold onto. Disney may have perfected the art of animation, but others, most likely animators who once worked for Disney, have caught on. Adults like animation as much as the tykes, if it's done well. Since cartoons can be created with a computer at home, that means that something of substance has to be up there on the screen.

A story. Not just any story--a story that is universal enough that both children and adults can enjoy it, but specific enough that every single audience member feels like it is a personal experience. Look at Shrek for an example. Those jabs at the Disney Parks? Classic and something none of the youngsters could understand, but every adult could. Wallace and Gromit? No child in England or America is going to get horror movie stereotypes--

--oh wait, considering how many kids are permitted to see R movies, I should probably take that back.

It's with this tidbit that Over the Hedge misses the boat. Without the political commentary, it becomes a standard kid movie. That's alright, I suppose, but even then, the tales misses some really good opportunities to let the movie fly. The story is about Raccoon, voiced by Bruce Willis, who finds he is in debt to a very large bear, voiced by Nick Nolte, for gallons of food. Nature being what it is, food is scarce--so the Raccoon, working on a timetable, tricks the local fauna into action. They are a bit dimwitted, it seems, since their interactions have only been with each other. They are taken for a con job and collect food for the Raccoon and the bear.

As directly as I tell you here, that is the long and the short of it. It was mildly entertaining, but there was zero risks involved. They have a great list of voice over work--but not once is the cork pulled out for these performers. Don Bluth (An American Tail, Titan A.E.) learned from Disney some time ago that you have to let actors act...and from there, develop your storyboards and animation. You can see it up there on the screen, for each character is given a vivacity you can feel.

But the filmmakers here, it felt like, told the performers to stick to the script. There are zero zingers; nothing feels alive in the movie. Since there is nothing to connect to--the characters become mere computer creations. I didn't find them cute, cuddly or want them to succeed. I kept thinking I was watching a Warner Bros. short. Fun--but not really deep.

So, I suppose, I'm glad it was short. The kids will like it, I'm sure, but I'm sad it was the first 'big movie' I had to see this summer. For if this is what they plan on opening with--I wonder what the rest of the summer is going to be like.

Yeah, I might be putting to much weight on this, like I started this work with--but seriously, I have seen many movies carry that weight without burden. And yes, it IS a good movie, that was somewhat evident. But I might recommend renting a video instead for now.

Movie Review: Brokeback Mountain

(WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS)

I'm having a rough time with writing the review of this one. On one hand, as you can see, I think the movie is well made and comes together on several levels as a whole. But on the other hand, I'm not sure I like it.

It's hard for me in that I'm an author who is gay--and my bias comes right up as I watched this movie. I mean, for the first time EVER, I saw a movie where I could walk away and relate to the characters on more than one level. Previously, I could watch my favorite Casablanca and understand the concept of giving it all up for the love of your life. But now? I didn't realize that I could feel such a deep connection with the characters played on the screen on such a visceral level. Is this what the straights have been doing for years? You lucky dogs you.

And they say there's no such thing as discrimination against gays.

Let me elaborate by completing the rest of this review. The movie is just like the rest of Ang Lee's repetoire. There's good news and bad all over the screen but, if you've ever seen Lee's films, even his comedies, you know that there is a pall, unseen but most certainly detected, that comes through. You might call it brood or darkness, but it's there, hiding in the corners of his films and this is no different--and that's okay. This film needs to have a bittersweet message and it works here.

I'm reminded of the doomed lovers in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. In the first three minutes of that film, you can see how Michelle Yeoh's face lights up when Chow Yun Fat enters for the first time in many moons and you know that they are doomed to not flesh out that love. Same goes here with the emotional level. Jack Gyllenhall prances in the first few seconds and you smile because you know he's flirting with Heath Ledger's Ennis character but the sadness has already been established with long shots of beautiful but empty exteriors and majestic mountains without human's oogling over them.

I've seen hundreds of lesser known gay flicks (thanks Netflix and Logo) and know that there have been very few major players really have played homosexuality well. I cannot relate to humor of The Birdcage or the epic of Angels in America. They may very well be very good and accurate in their portrayal, but for some reason, these two young men resonate with me. We have to remember, Jake and Heath grew up ina world where Will and Grace were commonplace; that gays and lesbians' fights for equal rights has been televised nightly. They aren't afraid to be a gay characters. And with that, they truly embody the characters. I was able to believe these were real men because of it.

What also pulled me in was that Mr. Lee shot totally on location, giving the flick a better feel of desolation. There were not in a set, I don't believe. There are no overhead shots. There were real houses and apartments. You can see the paneling of the indigent home of Ennis' and the space between the floorboards of Jack's childhood home. The paint on these buildings is in a constant fade; the dust was not put there with purpose.

Couple the decent acting with the art production--you can move onto camerawork. The mountains stay in focus whenever the actors are in the foreground. Welcome to digital people. It works in conveying a sense of isolation that propels the title. These men are physically alone whenever they are with each other--meaning also they are alone in their hearts. Their love can only exist, it seems, behind the curtain of these mountains.

Okay, three good things. I saved writing for last, because that, to me, is the heart of the piece. I loved the The Last Picture Show. That was Larry McMurtry at his best. You can tell that his skills have not waned. He is a man of the West and his dialogue enhances a sense of ruggedness by being curt and direct in it's manner. There's some terrific lines too, like (I'm going from memory here, folks, so forgive me I misquote):

"Now come on Jack, you know the only traveling I have ever done is around the coffeepot to find the handle."

The mere fact that lines like this stayed with me says something--something worth hearing.

But Mr. McMurtry and his wife has committed something grave against this reviewer and this is so major, it really gives me pause. Even the original writer, Ann Proulx committed this sin.

One of the homosexuals dies. Yep. Gotta kill off a queer to make the story fuller.

I HATE THAT and I'M TIRED OF IT.

From my childhood to my adulthood, this is what I've seen of gays in the movies a majority of the time. Sure, it may not be a physical death, perhaps a allegorical death, but it's there. I've had to deal with it again and again. It worked it's way into my subconscious--meaning that at some point I will die as a gay person.

And this story is no different. Why? Well, of course, it had to be the happy one too, the one who gets fed up with his partner's inaction and decides to pursue a life else where. Now my partner points out a few things I need to mention. One, that even in movies like Love Story so long ago, and Dying Young so recently, this is a common theme in romances tales. And that two, that the screenwriters did add something onto the original tale at the very end to show that life does go on and that things do change.

But for me, this is a pretty profound message of an otherwise excellent piece of filmmaking and it holds me back from making a perfect review of the title. It also makes me want to say to people, "hey, this is the kind of movie where you just need to go and see it and decide for yourself."

So did I like the movie? As I reread my words, I'm going to say yes, overall, I liked the movie. Interestingly, I noticed the audience was mostly nongay, but that just probably means I wasn't paying attention. Lots of cowboy hats, but then again, look where I live folks. Did I cry? Sobbed. But also remember, this was the first time I could really relate to what was happening on the big screen.

My biggest hope, sadly, is that this movie makes oodles of cash. For me, that means I can go to the movies again and see more stuff that moves me on a visceral level. Media has been very good to me this year. I never watched television until Logo and now, with Brokeback Mountain, I found out--I've never really been going to the movies either.

Movie Review: King Kong

Okay, so this guy, Kevin Jackson, makes three movies about his most favorite book and they give him an Oscar. Frankly, I don't want to review that movie, for I hate fantasy tales, but I have to say something. I've read Lord of the Rings etc. and you know what? Those are boring books. Really long and they encouraged me to hate the genre more. But still, when I bought those tickets to see what everyone was talking about--wow, just wow. It was obvious to this reviewer that the film maker really loved those titles. He must have, for he took a fanboy tale and made it something for the masses.

So, for his next run, seeing he's already got an Oscar, they gave him the pick of what he wanted to do next. And he, like his favorite book, goes with one of his favorite movies--King Kong. And really, was what great and wrong with the Lord of the Rings was what was great and wrong about King Kong.

Folks, this is the reason we go to the movies. Huge monsters, depth of characters and ongoing action. The concept of spectacle goes one better here, even though Kong is an animal, a CGI one to boot, I felt for him and that only means that the creature was created with enough expression and interaction that I could connect. I found myself cheering and weeping at the right places, so that's all a good sign.

But there are things people won't tell you about this movie. It started long and I knew, hearing from tabloids, that it was threatened to be edited. The studio execs, however, decided not to touch it. Which is, really, one of the things they probably should have. Every sequence is milked for one last CGI shot, as if the director was bragging about his bag of tricks. A three Rex/King Kong sequences just KEEPS GOING, to the point where the casual viewer literally falls from exhaustion at it's completion. Is there a denouement after that? Nope, he then has a bug fight sequence that also keeps testing the patience of it's audience.

It's as if the screenwriter, which I believe is Jackson and his wife, went to the James Cameron School of Egocentric Authorship. Cameron's movies go on and on, and you can practically hear the producers' meetings with Cameron arguing, "no, no, no--You HAVE to keep that part, because..." Same goes here. Dear filmmakers, if you have to explain it, it means that the sequence is not coming across as you are planning, cut the blasted thing and move to a more direct mode of communication.

Since screenwriting is so essential and so key to the film, that takes it's toll on this movie, but really, it survives because so many other important elements take place. I mean, the acting is impecable. Jack Black, an excellent but underused performer, is perfect. I'm unsure if I'm supposed to like him or not--he's a jerk for so long that when he entones the famous final lines, they fall flat. Again, a problem with the writing. Naomi Watts? Perfect, if only given most of her screen time to screaming (more problems with writing). And Adrian Brody? Also well cast--an actor of his talent almost dropped off the screen in some really bad pics, so it's good to see him back.

Now comes the major issue for Mr. Jackson. What next? Without satisfingn his need to elaborate on his fanatic adoration of movies and books...will he try something totally original?