The Others

Posted on December 13, 2002 at 5:17 am

B+
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
Profanity: None
Alcohol/ Drugs: None
Violence/ Scariness: Not explicit, but very tense and creepy
Diversity Issues: None
Date Released to Theaters: 2001

Way back before computer graphics, movie makers knew how to scare us through what the movie didn’t show us. They knew that no one knows what scares us as well as we do ourselves, and that anything we could imagine would be far more scary than anything they could put on the screen. “The Others” is a return to that kind of old-fashioned-squeaky door hinge-flapping shutter-“Who is that playing Chopin downstairs when I know I locked the piano?”-“She can’t leave now! It’s too foggy!” sort of thriller, the kind that creeps into your bones and makes you shiver.

Grace (Nicole Kidman) and her two children live in a huge old home on an isolated island near England. World War II has ended, but she still has not heard from her husband and is trying not to let herself fear that he may be dead. Her two children have a genetic photo-sensitivity and break out in welts if they are exposed to any light stronger than a candle. The servants all left mysteriously, not even staying to get their wages, and they are there alone when three new servants show up, explaining that they worked at the house once years before and were happy there, so they have returned. Their arrival is unsettling, but not as unsettling as evidence of “intruders,” including sightings by Grace’s daughter Anne. Grace does her best to hold everything together, to protect the children’s souls (she is deeply religious, and is preparing Anne for her first communion) and their bodies (she has an elaborate system of keys to make sure that all doors are locked and all curtains drawn, to keep out light, as she says, the way a ship is designed to keep out water.

This movie is more mood than plot, but the mood is expertly handled by the writer/director and by Kidman, who makes her attempts to maintain control scarier than outright terror. The cast is outstanding and the ultimate resolution properly eerie.

Parents should know that the movie does not have any bad language or gory images, but that it is genuinely creepy and may be upsetting even for older children. Some will be concerned over Anne’s questioning of her mother’s religious principles or disturbed by the implications of the final explanation.

Families who see this movie should talk about their views on life after death and why that has been a powerful theme in fiction as well as theology from the beginning of time.

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy The Haunting (the original, not the dopey remake), The Uninvited (one of Hollywood’s all-time best ghost stories, with a theme song that may also haunt you), and The Innocents.

Related Tags:

 

Movies -- format

The Way of the Gun

Posted on December 13, 2002 at 5:17 am

C+
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
Profanity: Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking, smoking, and drug use
Violence/ Scariness: Extreme and prolonged violence
Diversity Issues: Interacial affair handled casually
Date Released to Theaters: 2000

Christopher McQuarrie, the screenwriter of the deviously brilliant “The Usual Suspects” wrote and directed this bleak, tough-talking story about a couple of petty criminals named Longbaugh (Benicio del Toro) and Parker (Ryan Phillipe).

Longbaugh says, “Our path had been chosen and we had nothing to offer the world. So we stepped off the path.” The opening scene, a confrontation outside a club, shows us that our heroes are tougher than they are smart. Later in the story Joe Sarno (James Caan), who is both smart and tough, asks which is the brains of the outfit, and Longbaugh responds honestly, “Tell you the truth I don’t think this is a brains kind of operation.” They have no ability to think about the risks they are taking, and even if they did it would not matter because they just do not care.

Their lack of ability and indifference to the outcome turn out to be their greatest assets when they decide to kidnap a pregnant woman named Robin (Juliette Lewis). She is a surrogate mother, carrying the child of a wealthy couple, so they think they can get enough ransom money to take care of themselves. The kidnapping and ensuing chase are so badly organized that the experienced bodyguards who escort Robin to the doctor are not able to figure out what they are going to do, and they get away.

As in “The Usual Suspects,” the dialogue is terrific (“$15 million is not money. It’s a motive with a universal adaptor.” “Karma is only justice without the satisfaction.” “I can promise you a day of reckoning that you will not live long enough to remember to forget.”) The characters are exceptionally interesting, especially as the story unfolds and there are some surprises in their relationships and history. The performances are outstanding, especially Caan, Taye Diggs as one of the bodyguards, Dylan Kussman as Robin’s obstetrician, and Kristen Lehman as the millionaire’s trophy wife. McQuarrie shows a sure hand in his first time as director, with a muted color palatte, strong rhythm, and effective action sequences.

If only it was held together with a brilliant conclusion, as McQuarrie did in “The Usual Suspects.” No thrill in the ending here, just a long, long, shoot-out. Longbaugh and Parker are not coincidentally the real names of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and this movie has some resonances with the classic western about two men who ran out of options. But unlike that classic and like McQuarrie’s own “The Usual Suspects,” he doesn’t let us care about the protagonists, leaving an empty feeling.

Parents should know that this is an exceptionally violent movie with a very gory childbirth scene and lots and lots of gunfire. Many characters die brutal deaths. Characters drink, smoke, commit adultery, use profanity, lie, cheat, and steal.

Families who see this movie may want to talk about the family and non-family relationships, and how loyalties are — and are not — determined. Some family members may have questions about surrogate parenthood and how the biological parents and the mother who carries the child feel about it.

People who enjoy this movie should see “The Usual Suspects” and “Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels.”

Related Tags:

 

Movies -- format

40 Days and 40 Nights

Posted on December 13, 2002 at 5:17 am

C
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
Profanity: Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking and smoking
Violence/ Scariness: None
Diversity Issues: All major characters are white
Date Released to Theaters: 2002

At the heart of a sex farce is someone who wants to have sex (preferably illicit) but is amusingly thwarted. This gives us the best of both worlds, as we get to vicariously enjoy the illicit possibilities and feel righteously smug about the agonies the characters go through in pursuit of their quest.

The problem these days is in finding believable excuses for keeping the characters apart. Not quite in the category of believable, even within the low credibility threshold of a comedy is this movie’s premise: Josh Hartnett plays Matt, a web designer who gives up sex for Lent.

To make him a more sympathetic character, we find out that his real problem is that he can’t get over Nicole, the girl who dumped him. Though he tries and tries to have consequenceless sex with a series of girls who could have the Sports Illustrated swimsuit models feeling insecure, it just doesn’t make him happy. So he decides to go completely without for 40 days and nights. At first, he feels liberated and in control. But every first-act set-up requires a second-act complication, and it arrives in the form of the lithe and lissome Erica (Shannyn Sossamon of “A Knight’s Tale”). He enjoys getting to know her without jumping into bed, but after a while it becomes awkward. And when she finds out what he is doing and that there is actually a website devoted to whether he will last for 40 days, she feels hurt and betrayed. And then Nicole re-enters the picture.

This is a very raunchy and explicit comedy but it is all done with sweetness and even a certain humility that keeps it from being too disgusting. Hartnett and Sossnanan are stronger on the romance than the comedy but they have a nice chemistry and we can’t help rooting for them. Erica’s friend is played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, who seems to have real potential, with an adorable smile and wickedly perfect delivery.

Parents should know that this movie has extremely explicit (often humiliating) sexual situations and references, including casual sex, masturbation, nudity, Viagra, pornography (one tape is titled: “In Diana Jones and the Temple of Poon”), a same-sex kiss, overall skanky behavior, and a used condom. A woman has sex with a man without his consent (he is tied to the bed and thinks she is someone else). There is very strong language. Characters drink and smoke. Some viewers will be offended by the portrayal of a Catholic seminarian (Matt’s brother), who is having his own problems with the vow of chastity.

Families who see this movie should talk about how Matt sees the world differently (literally and metaphorically) as a result of his vow. How would his relationship with Erica have been different if he had not taken the vow? Why was he unable to enjoy casual sex – was it really his lingering feelings for Nicole or was it a sense that he had not connected with her any more than he did with his one night stands?

Viewers who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “American Pie.”

Related Tags:

 

Movies -- format

Beijing Bicycle

Posted on December 13, 2002 at 5:17 am

B+
Lowest Recommended Age: Middle School
Profanity: Some name calling and insults
Alcohol/ Drugs: A character tries a cigarette for the first time. Other characters smoke.
Violence/ Scariness: Bloody fights, child abuse
Diversity Issues: Characters fight bitterly rather than cooperate. No diversity issues.
Date Released to Theaters: 2002

A classic romance always involves a certain formula: Boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl. Beijing Bicycle is a romance, except the love interest is a bicycle and not a girl.

Guei (Cui Lin) is a very poor but hard-working and determined delivery boy from the “country” area of present-day Beijing. The company that he works for loans its delivery boys first-rate bicycles. Guei is told that if he can earn 600 yuan, his company will transfer ownership of the bicycle to him. Guei toils daily to earn the 600 yuan. Finally, as he is just about to reach his goal, his bike is stolen when Guei leaves it for a moment to deliver a package. Devastated, Guei vows to find his beloved bicycle, and begins to search tirelessly for it throughout the entire city.

On the other side of town, Jian (Li Bin), a teenager about the same age as Guei, has a new bicycle which he adores. Jian claims to have purchased it at a flea market. Jian believes that his new bicycle allows him to fit in better with his peers, and that the status he now possesses as a result of owning the bicycle has earned him the affections of Xiao (Gao Yuanyuan).

Guei, meanwhile, continues his search for his bicycle. By persistence and amazing luck – given the millions of bicycles in Beijing – Guei stumbles upon the bicycle, hung on a bike rack in some obscure location in the city. He tries to take it back but is driven away by a guard. Still determined, Guei somehow is able to trace the bike to Jian. Guei then seizes the bike. Jian runs after him, and what ensues are a series of incidents in which Guei and Jian steal the bike back and forth from each other. In the process, Guei is subjected to continuous, and very graphic, physical abuse from Jian and his thuggish friends.

Eventually, after endless struggles to gain possession of the bicycle, Guei and Jian agree to share it. While this works well for a while, eventually Jian relinquishes his rights to the bicycle because he doesn’t need it to impress his girlfriend, whom he’s driven away by mistreating her. Although Guei has regained sole custody of the bicycle, his troubles are far from over. He and his beloeved bicycle will endure further physical trials caused by Jian’s reckless behavior. In the end, however, Guei perseveres. He and his bicycle may be a wreck, but they are together.

This movie was nominated for 5 of Taiwan’s Golden Horse Awards (Best Film, Best Director, Best New Actor, Best Original Screenplay, Best Editing), and won a variety of other awards. The director, Wang Xiaoshuai, says he made the film because of the special meaning of the bicycle for Chinese people, which he calls a “symbol of China.” He said he also made the film to capture the jubilance of young people getting bicycles – and their heartbreak at loosing them.

To American audiences, Beijing Bicycle may seem like a lot of pointless fights and hand-wringing over a common and easily-replaceable object. To understand the deeper meaning of the bicycle, viewers need to understand that in China, ownership of a bicycle is (or at least was) a sign of prosperity and resourcefulness. Further, it is a key mode of transportation because cars and motorcycles are still relatively rare. For the characters in this movie, the ownership of the bicycle was equivalent to a first love. It filled their desires and needs, and it made them feel more mature and in control.

The problem with this movie is that the symbolism probably does not translate across cultures. American viewers, who are used to automobiles as the principal mode of transportation, are unlikely to feel the way that Jian or Guei feel for the bike – as something essential for survival or for social support. It is hard to stop asking, as the movie progresses, “Why all this fuss over a bike?” Because bicycles are not valued in our culture as they are in China, it is difficult for the audience to connect with Wang’s characters in the way that the director perhaps intended.

The two main characters in this movie did a very convincing job. The audience will feel empathy for Cui Lin’s character, because Cui is able to show him as hard-working and as a fundamentally good person. Li Bin was very believable as the immature, self-centered, and dishonest Jian.

Parents should know that there are numerous bloody fights that may scare younger kids. Characters smoke and pressure a character into trying a cigarette. Beijing Bicycle’s overall theme is perseverance over adversity. The most interesting aspect of this movie was the presentation of how the two main characters deal with the different obstacles placed in their path (theft, and constant physical and emotional abuse). Older teens will enjoy comparing the lifestyles of American and Chinese cultures to each other. They will also enjoy seeing how a common object can have a completely different meaning depending on the person who owns it.

Families should discuss why Guei and Jian cannot live without the bicycle. Kids should think about why these characters obsessions have put them in danger and caused them to do things they normally would not do. Why is it that Guei’s boss call him “the little engine that could”? Why does Jian believe the bicycle is rightfully his? Why does Guei believe the bicycle is rightfully his? Why does Jian give up the bicycle in the end? In American culture, what would be the equivalent of the bicycle to Guei and Jian? What similarities and differences are there in the way people live in Beijing and the way people in large cities live in the United States? Do Jian and Guei have anything in common other than their obsession with the bicycle?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy “The Bicycle Thief,” the story of an Italian painter who searches for his stolen bike which is crucial for his family’s survival (in Italian with subtitles).

Related Tags:

 

Movies -- format

Chicken Run

Posted on December 13, 2002 at 5:17 am

B+
Lowest Recommended Age: Kindergarten - 3rd Grade
Profanity: None
Alcohol/ Drugs: None
Violence/ Scariness: Characters in peril, minor character (chicken) killed with an ax
Diversity Issues: Strong, smart female characters (also strong female villain)
Date Released to Theaters: 2000

Chicken Run” has arrived to the joy and relief of the many fans of Nick Parks’ Oscar-winning Wallace and Gromit short films. In his studio’s first feature-length movie, a brave chicken plots an escape from a small Yorkshire chicken farm.

The stern and angry Mrs. Tweedy (voice of Miranda Richardson) and her brow-beaten (should we say hen-pecked?) husband have bullied their hens into producing eggs, but now they have set up a fierce-looking machine that turns chickens into chicken pies. Ginger (voice of Julia Sawalha) is a smart, brave, loyal chicken who will not leave unless she can take the others with her. When an American circus rooster named Rocky (voice of Mel Gibson) arrives, Ginger gets him to agree to teach the chickens to fly over the fence, so they can find a place where they can live in freedom.

Parks is a master at creating a world that is enchantingly believable. The farm seems to be set in the 1950’s, and every detail, down to the last nail in the last board on the hen house wall, looks exactly as it should. Though his painstaking process produces only a few seconds of film footage each day, every frame is filled with vivid personalities who seem to be moving in real time, each creating an instantly recognizable character. One look at Mrs. Tweedy’s formidable Wellington boots marching into the hen yard for inspection, and we know everything about her. The chickens are highly individual, completely believable, and wildly funny, whether doing Tae-Bo-like exercises for increasing wing power or a celebratory Lindy hop. But I admit that my favorite characters are two forager/thief rats who are so completely charming that it is impossible to imagine anyone objecting to their stealing.

The movie also features Parks’ special talents for creating deliciously malevolent machines and split-second action sequences. Ginger and Rocky fall into the chicken pie machine for a scene that combines Rube Goldberg complexity of gears and operations with the breath-catching near misses of Indiana Jones.

Three cheers for producer Dreamworks, who let Parks be Parks and didn’t focus-group him into making something more linear and accessible. What that means, though, is that the movie does not have some of what both adults and kids expect in a G-rated movie. This is not a musical in which the heroine sits down 15 minutes into the story to sing about her dreams or adorable sidekicks provide comic relief.

This is not a script with jokes that children will necessarily understand. Indeed, given that most of the parents of today’s school-age children were born 20 years after the 1950’s, there are several jokes parents may not understand, like a pointed reference to the delay in the US entry into World War II and a couple of witty tributes to the classic movie, “The Great Escape.” The movie has a decidedly British point of view, with a wonderful range of accents that will be much more meaningful (and understandable) to English children than they are to Americans. Parks is like Bugs Bunny creator Chuck Jones, who, when asked whether he made cartoons for adults or children, replied, “I make them for myself and my friends.” But, as with Bugs Bunny, kids will enjoy the world created by this movie, and will rejoice in the chickens’ adventures.

Parents should know that although the movie is rated G, it may be too scary or hard to follow for children under 6 or 7. A minor character is killed off-screen and characters are in peril throughout the movie.

Families who see this movie should talk about why it was hard for Rocky to tell the truth, and even to understand what telling the truth meant, as when he said, “I didn’t lie to them, dollface. I just omitted certain truths,” and when he tells Ginger that if they want the chickens to perform they have to tell them what they want to hear. Talk, too, about Ginger’s perseverance in the face of “million to one” odds, and her refusal to escape without her friends, and about the importance of leadership and teamwork. Ask kids why Ginger had a dream of freedom that some of the other chickens could not even imagine, and what it meant to say that “the fences aren’t just around the farm – they’re up here on your head.”

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy Parks’ Wallace and Gromit videos: “The Wrong Trousers,” “A Grand Day Out,” and “A Close Shave.

Related Tags:

 

Movies -- format
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2024, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik