In Stock at Asylum - Drama (A - L)

I can't believe I'm going to call "Boogie Nights" underrated, but there it is. This film caused quite a stir when it first came out, beloved by critics and hailed for introducing new stars and resurrecting others past their prime. Yet, as time goes by, it doesn't seem to hold the same water in our pop culture as many of the other 90s hits. And that's a shame, because it is certainly better than almost all of them.
The story is compelling whether you find the subject matter distasteful or not. The acting is top notch and despite the huge cast, each gets their chance to shine. Even the smallest details in the dialogue, costuming and music pay huge dividends. And what P.T. Anderson does with his camera is nothing short of magic. I still shake my head in disbelief at some of the complex long shots he accomplishes, not only the technical mastery of them but that the scenes actually accomplish moving the plot forward, pack an emotional punch and look really, really cool.
I don't think - at 155 minutes - it is as tight as it could be. Things tend to drag a bit once the story moves into the 80s, losing some of the momentum the enormous energy of the first act generates. But whatever minor flaws it has can be forgiven, especially from a story with a scope this enormous that manages to remain as entertaining as it does for as long as it does. So I've got to give it 4 1/2 stars. Great big bright, shining stars.

This one is a conundrum. I can honestly see both sides of the argument.
Most people I hear mentioning it truly despised it. It was filmed just down the road from my hometown and captures the lives and speech of the Mid-Ohio Valley so perfectly that viewers from this area were confused and let down. It was slow and talky and boring, just like everyday life.
Most critics, however, loved it. They found it completely fresh and daring, an unglamorous peek into the lives of some average Midwesterners living paycheck to paycheck in a dead-end town. (Which is as foreign to an L.A. film critic as L.A. is to us hicks.)
Personally, I don't think "Bubble" is the masterpiece some say it is, but it certainly isn't as bad as many of my acquaintances think. I respect Soderbergh for what he was trying to accomplish and believe his experiment was a success. I was engrossed in the story and felt a real connection to the characters. Would I have appreciated a little more clarity and closure? Sure. But it's just not that type of movie.
This is a film about people as complicated as they are closed-off, so there is bound to be ambiguity. It's about people with real hopes and fears but without the facility to express them or the means to change their position. It explores the sort of working class laborers too often ignored or turned into aw-shucks cliches in our popular culture, endeavoring, as we all do, to make the best of their lot. And for that, if nothing else, it should be celebrated as an achievement.

Saying that this is the most important film of my generation feels like I'm overstating it a bit. But I can't think of anything that more perfectly captures who we are as a society at the turn of the new century like "Fight Club" does.
Shocking violence, naked abs and a switcheroo twist ending distract lazy viewers from the movie's real message. Or it's just a hard pill to swallow in our self-improvement-obsessed culture, where every self-help guru and ad agency does its best to make you feel incomplete so it can sell you something to fill what's missing.
"Fight Club" spits in their face and says "never be complete. Stop being perfect. Let's evolve, let the chips fall where they may." And I say amen.

The concept of the film is terrific, exploring not just the battle of Iwo Jima but the psychological impact that the famous photo had back home and the way it was used to manipulate public opinion. The interplay of the military and the media is fascinating, and of great relevance today.
But in execution, "Flags of Our Fathers" falters. While the battles are intense and realistic, the pace during the stateside scenes drags to the point of boredom and the acting is stiff and uncertain. Only Adam Beach as drunken Ira Hayes gives a truly human performance, self destructive and unable to cope with his new status as a hero.
I could put up with Eastwood's slow, deliberate pacing if it wasn't built around Paul Haggis' cliche-filled screenwriting. He turns these sympathetic characters into platitude-spouting cartoon drawings of soldiers.
It's worth a watch because it is such an important part of our history, but I felt let down by the final product.