YESTERDAY

Movies about AIDS - or about any 'big issue,' really - run a serious risk of becoming pamphlets supporting an agenda. When tackling these issues, its easy to do it at the expense of human drama. 'Yesterday' avoids this trap by inverting it completely. It is a film about AIDS that only mentions the disease by name once. We see only two infected people, and the politics involved are scarcely even hinted at. This is a film about people first, foremost, and finally.

Leleti Khumalo stars as Yesterday, in a performance that relies almost entirely on facial expression. Khumalo uses hers to great effect - only the blackest of hearts wouldn't be won over by her within the first ten minutes of the film and moved to tears during the last ten. The supporting cast is nearly equally impressive, especially the very young Lihle Mvelase as Beauty.

Filmed in South Africa and performed in Zulu, 'Yesterday' looks and sounds like few other films. It is easy to enjoy the first quarter of the film simply as a sightseer. The landscapes are positively beautiful and the way of life is far removed enough from our own to be interesting no matter what is taking place on screen. As time progresses and our heroine Yesterday grows severely ill, the story becomes interesting more and more because of its universality. Even as the landscapes grow in beauty, it is the characters we want to see.

Some will certainly argue that more could have been done with the premise of this film. With AIDS ravaging Africa, is it right to tell such a small story? Surely there's room in the film for it - at times 'Yesterday' moves almost maddeningly slowly, and there isn't a subplot in sight. It would come as no surprise if the dialogue added up to no more then twenty pages of script. Writer/Director Darrell Roodt has obviously decided that less is more in this case, and the results speak for themselves. 'Yesterday' is finally and emphatically not about AIDS; it is about a woman with AIDS and her struggle to change the tide, to make tomorrow better than today.

YES (8/10)

SEX AND LUCIA

It's always admirable when a film trusts its audience enough to take risks with narrative structure or avoid spoon-feeding plot points. It is a nice (and rare) experience, having your intelligence respected by filmmakers. 'Sex and Lucia' provides this type of experience for much of it's 2:08 running time, but ultimately ruins the spell by relying on pure and multiple coincidences to tie its plot together. As these coincidences slowly come to light, any audience member who has put effort into understanding the complexities of the story will no doubt feel hung out to dry.

The plot of the film is complex enough that an accurate summation is difficult after only one viewing. However, the core of the story is plainly laid out. In it, Lucia (the preposterously beautiful Paz Vega) falls for Lorenzo (Tristan Ulloa), a novelist. The two move in together after the briefest courtship in movie history, and a healthy dose of sex follows (more on this later). Just as the two are at the peak of bliss, an event from Lorenzo's past comes back to haunt him. As his past slowly collides with his present and his novel-in-progress collides with his reality, Lorenzo's life slips out of his control. Lucia is left to pick up the pieces of her own life while mourning the one she shared with Lorenzo.

'Sex and Lucia' is a story about loving someone despite themselves, about running away from the past, about people as complete beings instead of convenient one-note players. That the above plot synopsis barely begins to cover what happens in the movie is a testament to its fullness.

That said, the coincidences that tie the beautiful mess together are too much to bear. If I walk into a cafe an hour after writing it to find Paz Vega sitting in the corner reading this review, complete with my name (which came to her in a dream) tatooed across her chest, it will be less coincidental than certain elemental plot points in the film.

'Sex and Lucia' is shot beautifully, with the exception of certain exterior scenes looking terribly bleached out. The editing falters at times as well, cutting during a few tense sequences as if it were a second rate slasher flick. In addition, one major plot point is nearly missed simply due to it being hinted at but never filmed (a low budget is the only forseeable excuse).

Because it sometimes sacrifices complexity for heart, and because the story is ultimately built on quicksand, 'Sex and Lucia' is in no way a 'must see' film. It is, however, far better than average if for no other reason than because it trusts us to make sense of a twisting, turning plot while trying its damndest to be about so much more.

(Note: 'Sex and Lucia' was supposed to be part of a series focusing on explicit sex in cinema. Netflix took the film out of that category, however, by sending an unrated, toned-down version. While the sex is still present and somewhat graphic, jumpy edits make it apparent where certain material has been deemed too risque for my eyes to handle. This is most likely at no cost to the story, but being forced to watch a version other than the one the director wanted me to see is always disheartening).

MAYBE SO (7/10)

JFK

There are at least two important factors to consider when reviewing any film "based on a true story." The first is how well the movie plays as a coherent, compelling narrative. The second is whether the film is factually accurate.

Oliver Stone's 'JFK' does remarkably well in the first regard. Despite its three hour running time, the story races by, mixing numerous characters and events and both personal and public struggles without losing its center. That center is Jim Garrison, played without misstep by Kevin Costner. 'JFK' is at heart a story of one man's - New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison - search for truth among a veritable mountain range of opposition. Even amid countless pieces of evidence given through excellently edited testimony, flashback, and whispered secrets, Stone never forgets that heart.

As for the second barometer, factual accuracy, 'JFK' is at very best suspect. Though the period set design, costuming, and locations are pitch perfect, the 'evidence' of a massive conspiracy to kill and cover up the murder of President Kennedy is strung together from Garrison's own questionable account and those of like-minded theorists. The film cannot be taken at face value as historical truth. It must be watched as one man's version of reality and his struggle to make that reality known. In that respect, it is an unbridled success.

YES (8/10)

SAVED!

Though it tries again and again to be a biting commentary about narrow-minded religious fanatics, 'Saved!' works far better in the few moments when it forgets its agenda and lets genuine emotion poke through.

'Saved!' takes place during Mary's (a genuinely likeable Jena Malone) senior year at American Eagle Christian High School, paying extra special attention to holidays (lest we don't realize that time is passing). The plot, in a nutshell, concerns Mary and her boyfriend Dean, young Christians in love. When Dean admits that he thinks he's gay, Mary is told by Jesus that sleeping with him will convert the sinner. Dean is sent away to Mercy House. Mary finds out she is pregnant. Mary's friend Hilary Faye becomes an ex-friend, then enemy. A kid in a wheelchair and a Jew make nice. A nerdy girl is accepted into the cool clique. And on and on until the inevitable climax at the school prom.

The first half hour of 'Saved!' concentrates almost solely on sticking it to religion, but the jokes never rise above sketch comedy level. Mary is fleshed out, but the rest of the cast during the first segment of the film never become more than cardboard characters we've all seen in other movies. Things don't get much better from there, though when the movie lets itself be a simple story about high school pregnancy and feeling like an outcast, 'Saved!' does become a better (if different) movie than it tries to be. Then it's right back to broad satire, and the moment is lost. There are some touching scenes in 'Saved!' but even those feel cribbed from better films. It's the near constant slams on religious zealotry that truly set this film apart. Ironically, they're also the weakest cog in the machine.

'Saved!' picks an outstanding target - I wish it had practiced its aim. As it is, the film is perfectly average, and just like the perfectly average kids at high schools across the nation, 'Saved!' doesn't generate much better or worse than a shrug.

MAYBE SO (5/10)

8 1/2

'8 1/2,' Federico Fellini's classic, is stunning in the way it balances brutal honesty with incredible absurdity. The film reveals itself in layer upon layer right up until the last scene, twising and turning on itself constantly while always digging deeper. Those who don't know its plot and are daring enough to enter into its world blindly should stop reading this review right here and find the nearest copy on DVD.

At its most surface level, the film is about Guido, a film director who is stuck looking for the story for his next film. His actors are present and prepared, his producer is anxious, and sets are being built - but no one, including Guido, knows what this next film will be about.

Deeper, the film is only partly about the above. Through fantasies, dreams, and memories, Guido learns not only what his film must be about, but what his life must be about. And if that sounds banal, believe that these words of description are to blame, not the way the film plays out.

'8 1/2' was filmed in beautifully crisp black and white, and each shot is so thoughtfully constructed that pausing the movie at almost any moment of it's 2:10 running time would create an image ideal for framing. Interestingly, it is also one of the greatest examples of 'meta' filmmaking ever released, all the more impressive considering its 1963 release date.

A small number of scenes seem out of place here, especially when they delve into the wackiness of silent film type action. Also, the storyline can get a bit confusing upon first viewing. These flaws are so minor, though, that they're like complaining about comma placement in the greatest book you've ever read.

'8 1/2' will without doubt not appeal to everyone, but even the most casual film fan should take the time to find out for themselves.

YES (9/10)

THE GRADUATE

Impeccably cast and flawlessly shot and acted, 'The Graduate' is as close to perfection as a feature film can hope to achieve. This doesn't mean that it speaks to all the deepest questions we humans can ask; only that it surpasses its goals of being extremely funny and deeply poignant, often at the same time.

For those seven Americans who don't know the plot, a summation: Ben (Dustin Hoffman, in his starmaking role) has just graduated with honors from college and has no idea what to do with his life. Content to spend his days floating in his parents' backyard swimming pool, Ben soon falls into an affair with Mrs. Robinson, an older family friend. After pressures from his unsuspecting parents, Ben takes Mrs. Robinson's daughter Elaine on a date and falls in love with the girl. When she learns of Ben's affair with her mother, Elaine forces Ben's hand, and he must choose whether to continue on his lackadaisical path or take his life into his own hands.

'The Graduate' is a masters class in screenwriting, featuring constantly raised stakes, unique situations, and infinitely quotable dialogue. With actors who completely inhabit their characters, inventive editing, and one of the finest final scenes in film history, 'The Graduate,' despite occasional claims to the contrary, cannot be overrated.

YES (10/10)

I HEART HUCKABEES

Far less than the sum of its parts (a stellar cast and original concept), 'I Heart Huckabees' is still worth seeing, if only because movies this truly strange rarely get made in Hollywood. Jason Schwartzman plays a manchild who hires an existential detective agency to help him solve the mystery behind three coincidences in his life. The detectives, played by Lily Tomlin and Dustin Hoffman, mostly ignore the coincidences and instead help Schwartzman find the meaning of life. This story is, of course, nonsense, and it's refreshingly treated as such throughout the movie. All the major roles in 'I Heart Huckabees' (with the exception of an Americanized Jude Law) are filled with actors who seem to be playing themselves and having a great time doing it.

The point is that the plot is beside the point. The movie nods to the big questions - and even answers them - without taking itself at all seriously. If ever a film could accurately be called a romp, it's this one, and that isn't an insult. The film doesn't add up to very much, but because it never really pretends to, it's possible to just sit back and enjoy a nearly two hour string of odd, funny scenes without asking for very much more.

MAYBE SO (6/10)

CLOSER

'Closer' is a well written, superbly acted, visually exciting film, but no one should have to watch it twice. The story - of four people whose sex lives and lies overlap repeatedly - is so squirm-inducing, 'Closer' plays as the film version of walking in on your significant other in bed with the milkman.

It's hard to imagine who Mike Nichols had in mind as a target audience for this film - People already disgusted with love looking for validation? Married couples seeking a reason to fight? Teenagers who want to hear Julia Roberts describe the difference in taste between two men's ejaculate?

At times, the film's roots as a stage play show through, making for an awkward break from the reality that has been set up well elsewhere. There's also something deeply unsatisfying about the ending, though looking for satisfaction here is probably beside the point. Still, it's hard to give a negative rating to a film that gets under the skin so deeply. It does that so well that while I can't recommend it, I dare you to sit through it.

MAYBE SO (6/10)

ELEPHANT

Working with a crew of mostly non-actors, Gus Van Sant gets some nicely realistic (and some argue boring) performances in this non-story of a school shooting and the hours leading up to it. For most of the film, there's no real plot - at least no more plot than there is in me typing this review while taking occasional breaks to smoke. Knowing what will occur by the time the movie is over, however, lends real weight to every movement, action, and word spoken. Overlapping time is masterfully handled in 'Elephant' (and unlike in '11:14' [see review] isn't a substitute for depth). The camera work is stunningly smooth and unobtrusive - the Steadicam operator is arguably the brightest star in the film.

Van Sant does falter a few times. When three teenage girls synchronize their bulimia in the school bathroom, reality is broken in a film that relies on it. There are clues as to what eggs the teenage killers on, but do they need to exhibit them all on the same day? And the ending point seems almost randomly chosen. The film could be ten minutes longer or ten minutes shorter to much better effect.

The true greatness in 'Elephant' is in the bold decision to point no fingers, to offer no indictments of blame for teenage violence. Instead of preaching, or even dominating the conversation, Van Sant carefully chooses a first sentence and trusts each audience member to continue the discussion themselves.

YES (8/10)

11:14

This movie, the first feature length film written and directed by Greg Marcks, has a fervent following online. These fans can't fathom why the film didn't see theatrical release and why more people aren't lining up to rent the dvd.

I am here to let these people in on a secret - '11:14' is not a good movie. Yes, it has plenty of mindfucks of the 'huh? Oh, yeah, I guess that makes sense' variety, but there's so little character development here that it's hard to see a story on screen instead of a puzzle. Personality traits are not personalities, and though Patrick Swayze does a decent job of creating something more than what's been written for him, the rest of the cast don't even try. Hilary Swank suffers more than most - she is likeable but unbelievable in her role as a teenager (no, those shiny braces on her teeth aren't enough), but it's her role as Executive Producer that's truly confusing.

Marcks' directing is solid as far as the look of the film, but without a story any deeper than 'then this happens, then this happens,' all the effort is wasted.

(Nitpicky but true - for a movie as obsessed with precise timing as this one, it's unforgivable that the audience is asked to make several large leaps in logic, i.e. activities which would take up half an hour at the very least are shown to have occured in mere minutes here).

NO (3/10)

SPANGLISH

'Spanglish' is nothing more (or less) than a charming mess. A cluttered story of cultures, families, languages, and personalities colliding, this James L. Brooks film tries to cover so much ground that it only occasionally hits on something deeper.

There are some major flaws here - characters are forgotten about completely for long stretches of time, Tea Leoni's portrayal of Deborah Clasky is extremely grating, and the narrative framing device (a college entrance letter) doesn't hold up to any scrutiny.

With all those flaws and more, though, there's something likeable in here. Adam Sandler underplays his part to great effect. Sarah Steele, as Sandler's daughter, is at times heartbreaking. Chloris Leachman does as much as she can with the little she's given. And Paz Vega plays the sweet side of Flor Moreno to perfection.

As art, 'Spanglish' is roughly the equivalent of an episode of 'Just Shoot Me.' As something to sit down and watch with the family after Thanksgiving dinner, it's not the worst way to spend a few hours.

MAYBE SO (6/10)

DEAD MAN

Johnny Depp stars in Jim Jarmusch's long-form poem put to film. The story, which plays out in what feel like short chapters (due to Jarmusch's decision to fade to black between every new scene), is simple on the surface. William Blake (Johnny Depp) comes to a new town in search of a job, is shot, kills a man, and escapes to the wilderness both to avoid capture and to live his last days before his gunshot wound does him in. There he meets a Native American who guides William on his journey.

The film, however, is not that simple. Like much great art, it's about as complex as you let it be - there are meditations on death, violence, history, gore, dark comedy and more packed into what plays as an incredibly sparse movie.

Like 'The Thin Red Line' or 'Elephant,' the plot in 'Dead Man' spools out slowly and is subtle enough to frustrate many viewers. For those patient enough to travel with William Blake at his snail's pace, however, this is a remarkable film.

YES (8/10)