|
'Punch Drunk Love' (2002 theatrical release)
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson
I'm a huge fan of P.T. Anderson's 'Boogie Nights' and
'Magnolia', so I was really looking forward to this one. While I
immediately loved those two films, 'Punch Drunk Love' took a while to grow on
me, and I may have to see it again before I can truly assess it. As it
stands, however, this is an interesting, somewhat bizarre anti-romantic comedy
with some great performances. Perhaps most surprisingly, Adam Sandler
proves himself capable of handling something other than his usual comedy roles.
Sandler plays Barry Egan, a guy who can barely function around
other people. He runs a company that makes novelty plungers, and as the
movie opens he has discovered a way to get a ridiculous amount of frequent flyer
miles through a Healthy Choice promotion, a plot device based on a true
occurrence. His meddling sisters, who are likely responsible for his
psychic scars, are in the meantime conspiring to set him up on a blind date with
Lena Leonard, played by Emily Watson.
While a similar set up in a movie starring Tom Hanks and Meg
Ryan might lead to a series of cutesy predictable moments, in Anderson's hands
we take several detours into the twilight zone. First, there's the toy
piano that gets dropped off a truck and onto the driveway behind the office park
where Barry works. No explanation, it just happens. Then there's the
phone sex call Barry makes, looking more for someone to listen to him than for
any sort of sexual release. This leads to an even more bizarre turn of
events with the phone sex company trying to blackmail him.
Barry eventually does hook up with Lena, who turns out to be
almost a female version of himself. Unlike Barry, however, she has learned
to function. Those who say these two characters would never fall in love
in "real" life or that Watson's character is "normal" must not have been paying
attention. As their relationship progresses, Anderson riffs off of several
romantic comedy clichés, but always subverts audience expectations by taking
them in unexpected directions.
Watson is great, as are Anderson regulars Phillip Seymour
Hoffman and Luis Guzman in supporting roles. While at times the film feels
more like an exercise in subverting genre, I did leave the theatre satisfied.
Will I watch this a zillion times like I have 'Boogie Nights'? Probably
not. Still, it is worth a look, or maybe two. (Bob Ignizio)
|
'Bowling for Columbine' (2002 theatrical release)
Directed by Michael Moore
The latest documentary from filmmaker Moore is sure to elicit a
wide range of reactions. Trying to get to the bottom of why America has so
much gun violence, the card carrying liberal goes right down the list of usual
suspects and finds they just aren't guilty.
Movies and TV? The Japanese watch far more violent
programs and films. High rate of gun ownership? Same situation in
Canada, and they aren't shooting up their schools. Our violent history as
a nation? The Germans are a pretty mellow bunch, and their country
certainly has had its share of violent moments in history.
For the most part Moore sticks to his standard M.O.,
interviewing relevant personalities like Charlton Heston and Marilyn Manson, two
figures who both received the ire of Columbine's citizens in the wake of the
school shootings there. Both also have some interesting comments, with
Heston in particular speaking off the cuff and then seemingly regretting it.
And of course he makes time to confront a few corporations along the way.
Although Moore makes a lot of good points, he also seems a bit
wrong headed at times. In one segment he takes a pair of Columbine
survivors to K-Mart to try and return the bullets the Trenchcoat Mafia purchased
there, still imbedded in their bodies. Not only does this seem in poor
taste, it contradicts his conclusion that gun ownership is not the real reason
for the violence in America.
Flawed though the film is, it is at least an attempt to get past
the knee jerk reactions most people have to tragic events like Columbine.
Moore raises a number of good points, and the movie is a good catalyst for
conversation. On top of that it manages to be entertaining as well.
As for the title, it refers to what the high school shooters were doing the
morning of their attack. If we're going to blame all these other
influences, Moore says, we might just as well blame bowling. (Bob Ignizio)
|
