It's hardly surprising that Brokeback Mountain is one of the most talked-about films of the year--you couldn't really expect otherwise with a "gay cowboy movie." I'm not quite sure it completely lives up to the hype, but it is a very good film. To begin with, it's visually stunning. You expect that from a Western--landscapes are an integral part of the genre--but what impressed me was how well Ang Lee, who was born and raised in Taiwan, was able to capture such an American feeling in his movie. The combination of lean, spare dialogue with the vast scope of the visuals lends this sort of stripped-down, rugged feeling, at once haunting and empty, but also raw and passionate. That more or less also describes Heath Ledger's performance, which would have been perfect if not for the fact that he had so much trouble with the accent. As for Jake Gyllenhaal, well, I'm starting to be a little unsure if he's quite as good as I've given him credit for being. I think it's just that he's a little too young and doesn't have the range to play a fully mature character. That's fine for movies like Donnie Darko and Jarhead, but by the end of Brokeback Mountain he's supposed to be approaching middle age, with a teenaged son and a wife of nearly twenty years, and I just didn't buy it. The supporting cast was good, and I especially thought the three main women (Michelle Williams, Anne Hathaway, and Linda Cardellini) did well, but really it was all about Ledger and Gyllenhaal. I don't know if I think this one really deserves a Best Picture or Best Actor win, but I think the nominations it's gotten so far are quite appropriate. And it's been kind of a lean year for movies--in my book, at least--so maybe some wins wouldn't be so bad after all.

Viewed: 12/17/2005 | Released: 12/8/2005 | Score: A

IMDb Page

I had a really hard time finding free moments in which to read this book, which was a real shame because it grabbed me from the start. When I finally got a chance to really sit and read it, I ended up staying awake until three in the morning to finish it. This was my first time reading Ishiguro and, despite what I had heard, I found his writing to be very accessible. More to the point, I found it to be beautiful, the sort of haunting beauty that is all the more powerful for its seeming simplicity. My one regret about the book is that the review that led me to read it gave too much away. I think the book would have been even more effective if I hadn't known the twist ahead of time. That's why I'm not going to tell you much about the story itself. (And, by the way, if you happen to follow the Barnes & Noble link above, don't read the School Library Journal review.) What I will say is that the blurb on the jacket cover is a bit deceptive--the book goes in a very different direction from the normal lit-fic stuff you'd expect. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that it's by such a recognized literary author, I imagine a lot of those snooty lit-fic readers out there would turn up their noses at it. Trust me, though, it's good.

Started: 11/10/2005 | Finished: 11/27/2005

Purchase from Amazon

My wife and I have been having occasional friendly games of poker with a couple of our friends for a while now, but a couple of months ago I did well in a tournament that my friend's coworker hosted, and now it looks like I've caught the fever. This book stood out for me only because I've seen it mentioned so many times on Celebrity Poker Showdown. It's a fun read, but a little light in terms of substance. I did pick up a few basics in terms of probability and strategy, but a lot of the stuff I already knew. The real value of this book comes from it's amusing anecdotes, easy style, and, most of all, the recommendations for further reading.

Started: 11/12/2005 | Finished: 11/27/2005

Purchase from Amazon

Rent has always been one of those shows I've felt like I ought to have seen but haven't had the opportunity, so I was very interested to see the film adaptation. Having seen it, I can see why it was such a big deal, even though a lot of what made it provocative in 1996 has lost some of its edge. When a revolutionary show loses its shock value and people lose interest in the issues it presents the show often suffers--Hair is an example of that, in my opinion. Rent, though, manages to survive this transition largely due to the character drama and the great music. Six of the eight members of the original Broadway cast reprised their roles in this film adaptation, and I think that their familiarity with the characters really showed in the performances. The two newcomers, Rosario Dawson and Tracie Thoms, also integrated very well with their veteran counterparts. The only catch in my mind was that, as good as this movie was, it seemed like the stage musical would have been better. Throughout the film I kept finding myself wondering how scenes had been staged in the Broadway production. It seemed to me that the only thing really gained by turning it into a movie was that people got a chance to see it who otherwise might not have had the chance--like me, for example.

Viewed: 11/25/2005 | Released: 11/22/2005 | Score: A

IMDb Page

With all the buzz generated last year by Ray, it's no surprise that the studios would be interested in putting out more movies about music legends. There's always the danger that the followers won't be as good, that they'll be too derivative and too formulaic. It's impossible not to compare Walk the Line to Ray. Not only are they both about famous musicians, but the storylines are surprisingly similar. Both Johnny Cash and Ray Charles came up from humble beginnings, both were tortured by the memory of a lost brother, both struggled with drug addiction. With such similarities, it's a real testament to the actors and filmmakers of Walk the Line that it manages to be an excellent movie in its own right. From an acting and musical standpoint, this film was superb. Joaquin Phoenix has done a lot that I've liked over the years (and one or two that I haven't) and this is some of his finest work. And Juliette said--and I agree--that this is the best acting she's ever seen from Reese Witherspoon. The chemistry between the two of them, the tortured love obvious in the way they look at each other, would be enough to make this a good movie, even without the music, but the music really did put it over the top. I've been interested in Johnny Cash's music for about five or six years now--not that long, I know, but long enough to hear a fair amount of his music. I have to say, even though everything I've heard and read has indicated that Phoenix did all of his own singing, I'm still having trouble believing it, his impression was that good. When I think of how much work must have gone into preparing for this role, I am quite honestly awestruck. The only problems I had with the film were the pacing--it felt a little scattered and slow to me, though not to Juliette--and the fact that I had trouble getting into the love story between Cash and June Carter because I felt so bad for Cash's first wife, Vivian.

Viewed: 11/19/2005 | Released: 11/17/2005 | Score: A

IMDb Page

It's hard to say what exactly was missing from this film that would have made me like it better. I did like it, but I definitely felt it was the weakest of the series so far. For the first twenty minutes or so I felt that it was moving very slowly and I wasn't very interested, while the rest of the film felt decidedly rushed--there was hardly enough time to introduce the other three Tri-Wizard champions, much less develop them into real characters. On top of that, I thought that a fair amount of the direction--especially the cinematography--just wasn't up to snuff. I continued to like the actors as much as I had in the previous films, but something about the camera work felt . . . I don't know, a little forced, maybe. I think my biggest problem, though, is with the new Dumbledore, Michael Gambon. I remember when I saw the first film, I wasn't completely in love with Richard Harris' Dumbledore. He didn't really seem to capture the image I had of this bumbling, slightly confused old man who provided a fair amount of comic relief in the books. What he did get right, though, was the sense of gentle wisdom and kindness that my Dumbledore had. Gambon, on the other hand, has neither of those. He's too loud and angry-seeming to be Dumbledore to me. I imagine that I'll just have to put up with him, though. Other little touches I didn't care for were things like the boys' haircuts and the fact that Professor Flitwick seemed to be quite a bit younger than in the previous films. Despite all of my complaints, though, I did like the movie overall. I just hope that the next one is better.

Viewed: 11/17/2005 | Released: 11/11/2005 | Score: B

IMDb Page

Between Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, and Jamie Foxx, it was pretty much a lock that I was going to see this one. It didn't disappoint. Having never been in the military, I can't say how accurate the film's portrayal of the marine mindset was, but I found the whole thing both enthralling and disturbing. All at once, the film was able to put a human face on the modern day warrior while also presenting characters that I was absolutely incapable of relating to. Watching the way the characters interacted with each other, the vulgarity and violence that pervaded every aspect of their lives, was so utterly foreign to me that at times it was like watching aliens, which is, I think, exactly what I found so fascinating. Additionally, the way the film dealt how being a marine changes a person really struck me. Man, what an intense film.

Viewed: 11/11/2005 | Released: 11/3/2005 | Score: B

IMDb Page

I feel like there's no way for me to continue reviewing these books without repeating myself, and I'm only half way through the series. So I will just go ahead and apologize in advance for all of the rest of my Hornblowed-related reviews. This one, like the preceding four, was a great read. That's all.

Started: 10/31/2005 | Finished: 11/8/2005

Purchase from Amazon

I came away from this one with kind of an odd feeling. You see, the film centers around the life and thoughts of Dave Spritz, a Chicago weather man who happens to be one of the whiniest, most awkward, bumbling, self-absorbed, self-pitying characters I have seen in recent years. For long stretches of the movie I just couldn't stand him. Add to that that the film was completely bleak and gray, both in outlook and in color, and that it was extremely slow-moving. I shouldn't have liked it, but, somehow, I did. There were just enough moments of profound emotional depth that I came out thinking that it was actually a pretty good movie. In fact, one particular scene--the last scene between Michael Caine and Nicolas Cage--really sticks with me as just beautifully done. Still, the beginning of the movie is so slow and so hard to watch that I just can't rate it higher than a 2.

Viewed: 10/29/2005 | Released: 10/27/2005 | Score: C

IMDb Page

I was pretty nervous about this movie when I first heard that it was getting made. You see, I liked Steve Martin's novel quite a bit, but about 85% of what made the book what it was was Martin's writing style--specifically, the omniscient narration, the whimsical prose, and the scarcity of dialogue. I thought, "How can you make a movie out of this?" Movies are all about scenes and dialogue, so taking a book that was almost entirely narrative prose and trying to turn it into a movie would be difficult at best. Fortunately, Steve Martin is a good enough writer to pretty much pull it off. He created a screenplay that captured all of the humor of the book and most of the fairy-tale quality. He even managed to mostly restrain the impulse to insert voiceovers. All in all, it was an effective little fable of LA, a town that at once repels and fascinates me. It only misses out on the fourth star because of the few instances of annoying voiceover and the fact that I think that Steve Martin may not have been the best choice to play Ray Porter. He did a fine job, I just think that someone else might have fit a little better.

Viewed: 10/27/2005 | Released: 10/20/2005 | Score: B

IMDb Page