You Are Here: baldmike2004 > reviews

Monday, February 06, 2006

"Brokeback Mountain" - movie, 2 stars

Two cowboys, Jack Twist  (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis Del Mar (Heath Ledger), meet at the trail boss' headquarters and are assinged a job up at Brokeback Mountain, guarding a herd of sheep until winter. One of them will be at camp, and the other will sleep with the herd, and is not allowed to burn a campfire. After a while, as the weather gets colder, the guys decide not to leave camp. Jack is sleeping in the tent, and Ennis is out on the ground. Jack invites Ennis into the tent, and they get close together, almost cuddling, in order to share the warmth of their bodies. Jack reaches behind him and latches ahold of Ennis' hand. He brings the hand around to his crotch and holds it there for a moment. Ennis seems a bit taken aback, but before you can say "yee-hah" Ennis takes the lead in a rough trade sex scene, commandeering Jack's white butt. The guys find out they have more in common than a love of the land. They love each other.
They frolic naked in the streams and lakes on the mountain. They do their job. They eat beans. The sheep are mixed with another herd during a storm. They have to separate them. The work is hard. But a cowboy doesn't need to be lonely in Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain". Especially a young cowboy in love with his partner.
The trail boss spies them frolicking one afternoon while attempting to give Jack some family news. He wears a "w-t-f?" expression on his face. He calls the boys home early, and he decides not to hire them next season.
Jack moves to Texas, works the rodeo and marries Lureen (Anne Hathaway from "The Princess Diares'") daughter of a farm equipment salesman. Ennis marries Alma (Michelle Williams, from Dawson's Creek). Both begin families. Jack tries without success to get a job at Brokeback the next year, but the trail boss won't have any more hanky panky on his watch.
Ennis and Alma seem to be happy, in a spartan Wyoming skies type of relationship, until a postcard comes from Jack one day. When the two cowboys meet again, it's lust at first site, after a brief howdy, and Alma catches them in the "act" of kissing, although she doesn't say anything.
Years pass. Ennis and Alma break up after Alma confronts Ennis about the fact that he never does any fishing on his fishing trips with Jack. Jack and Lureen have problems. But the two cowboys still get together for a few idyllic sexual romps every now and then.
In the end, they love each other.
The skies are shot beautifully. The images are framed like a Marlboro ad. The movie is so liesurely paced I almost fell asleep, and at certain times I just wanted this movie to end. "Brokeback Mountain" is another interesting choice for director Ang Lee, coming off the disappointment of "The Hulk", but for this reviewer, whose original instincts were that I was not going to really care about this "gay cowboy movie", the film was a bit of a snore.
I can only give "Brokeback Mountain" a 5 of 10 on the Mikometer. I really wasn't all that impressed.
Countless reviews bow to this film as a "masterpiece". Liz, who accompanied me to the film's showing, really liked it, and thought it was a very fine portrayal of "masculine" emotion because men usually do not emote. I found no motivation for the main plot "twist" of the film. I didn't buy the love affair, the attraction, or the interminable length of the scenes. I found the film an almost too objective look at a "forbidden relationship" that I didn't believe for a moment. I really only went to see this film for two reasons. The acting and directing talent, and the fact that it has been winning lots of awards. After actually seeing it, I have to put the brakes on my support for the movie, and proclaim that it is not that great. In fact it's not really that good, and I think the talent is somewhat wasted. A lot of folks disagree, judging by the reviews, but frankly, this emporer is naked (quite literally) and I feel no sense of majestic or tragic love after spending a few hours in the theater with this film. "So what" is my reaction. This is not Ang Lee's "masterpiece". That would be "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." It is not even his best western, that would be "Ride with the Devil".
"Brokeback Mountain" has been called "powerful" and "honest". It's powerfully boring and honestly uninteresting. These are my personal thoughts. I usually cry at overwhelming romance movies, even romantic comedies, when I am touched by that spark of love between characters. I didn't feel that spark of love here, and the only tears I shed were of joy when the credit scrawl began and I had the opportunity to leave the theater. At one point, after one of the innumerable fadeouts, I even voiced out loud, "when is this movie going to end?"
Is my quibble with this film prejudical in any way? Is it because I'm a gay basher and can't stand the look of the movie or the actual plot of men loving each other? No, not in the slightest. I've lived with gay people, and I've seen more realistic portrayals in gay porn films. I just wasn't impressed. I actually think that the movie didn't live up to it's hype. Now, I do know that this shouldn't impact my viewing of a film. It doesn't usually, but this year has had such a dearth of great films that I wanted to love this movie. Ang Lee is one of those directors, like Ron Howard, who doesn't have a discernable "style" but whose films are usually acting powerhouses, with lots of great actors showing their chops. "The Ice Storm" is a very "cold" film, and the theme is the "coldness" of the character's lives. I felt a lot of that 'coldness' in "Brokeback Mountain" and it wasn't supposed to be that cold in this film, except of couse in the snow sequences.
I kept thinking about how "objective" the moviemaking was presented. Almost "too objective" as mentioned earlier. I didn't feel as if I "knew" Jack or Ennis. Ennis is the stoic wordless cowboy, immortalized by actors like Gary Cooper. Heath plays him with a quiet sense of desperation. It isn't a bad performance. Oscar worthy? I don't think so. Jack is a fine Jake Gyllenhaal performance. I will always love Jake's work in "Donnie Darko". He is not the same character here, but he acts with his big soulful eyes, and though he looks like a puppy you'd like to take home and smother, I didn't buy his overall performance that much in this film. I just can't get over my initial reaction, which seems to have been proven right after my viewing. Why make this film? Why go see it?
I did note that my companion, Liz,  enjoyed the film tremendously, and she saw symbolism in the film that I didn't catch. The characters and the plot do seem to speak to a lot of people. Larry McMurtry wrote the screenplay, along with Diana Ossana from a short story by Annie Proulx. Rodrigo Prieto shot the film, and it is quite pretty. I championed all the Oscar nominations sight unseen in my Oscar article last week, but I will have to change my vote, and see some more of the nominated films.
Even the makeup leaves room for improvement. I was reminded of "Giant" where Elizabeth Taylor gets a little gray in her hair after 30 years. I didn't believe these guys were aging, just applying more facial hairpieces as the years pass.
"This is a bitch of an unsatisfactory situation." ......Jack Twist
I would say this is a bitch of an unsatisfactory movie. I wanted to like it, but I wasn't impressed at all.

Brokeback Mountain 2hrs. 14 min. Rated R
Mikometer Rating: 5 of 10
Focus Features, River Road Entertainment

Sunday, May 29, 2005

"Star Wars Episode III: The Revenge of the Sith" - movie, 5 stars

 
"So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause"  Padme Amidala

"The boy you trained, gone he is. Consumed by Darth Vader." Yoda

"You're either with me or you're my enemy." Anakin Skywalker (as Darth Vader)

I have been a "movie buff" or "film student" for most of my life, and there are countless "better films" in the history of movies than this one, but "Star Wars III" ends a lifelong obsession by a singular talent, and finishes a "mythology" that has been ongoing for 28 years, and does it with excitement, panache, and style. The film gets my top rating on the Mikometer, 10 of 10, simply because I cannot with all honesty say I disliked a single frame of it's fantastic 140 minutes, and I was entertained far better than with many a film I have watched in the last 28 years.

I explained in my review of "Star Wars I: The Phantom Menace" in 1999, that as a "roller coaster ride of a movie" that film was certainly okay, and I gave it an 8 of 10.

Probably now I would have graded it lower, perhaps a 7, and "Attack of the Clones" the second of the current crop of movies proabably deserves a 7 as well. I wasn't overwhelmed by either, like I was for instance with "A New Hope" back in 1977when it was merely called "Star Wars" and neither George nor Hollywood knew if there would ever be another "chapter." I explained in the review of "I" that I didn't really feel the film was worthwhile cinema, simply a joy ride that I would want to go on again. As time has passed, I really haven't felt like visiting the film at all after two viewings. I even own the DVD (mainly for the documentaries) and it isn't a title I'll pop in the player if I feel I have nothing to watch, which is seldom anyway.

"II" is even less interesting. I never wrote a review of the 2nd chapter, and saw it only twice as well. Once in a theater, where I was completely underwhelmed, and once on DVD. It was a rental, and again, I was lured not by the film but by the docs. When asked if I were interested in seeing "III", I had to say I really had no interest at all. By no means am I one of those "Star Wars Geeks" but I am a sci fi afficianodo, and I respect everything Lucas has done for the industry, from digital imaging to creating a modern mythology which borders on religion for some. ("Use the Force, Luke") I wasn't sure I'd even like "III". I usually go into a theater either with my hopes up (in which case they can be dashed) or with low hopes, as in this case, and when the film turned out to be not only exciting and visually stunning, but a grand finale to one of the most popular film series in history, I actually applauded at the end. I was the only one, in a 10:40 a.m. Saturday showing, and I did it quietly, but I do applaud Lucas for ending this series on a high note. As one of the "user blurbs" on the imdb site for the film states: "It's OK to be a Star Wars fan again."
If you read my review of "I" you will find that I was not "down" on the movie in 1999. I even recognized the reasons for including, and stood up for the universally derided character Jar Jar Binks, who somewhat thankfully is not given a 'speaking part" in "III". The little kid who grows up to be Darth Vader is almost cloyingly cute in "I" but by "II" I thought Hayden Cristensen, who was so excellent as Kevin Kline's son in Irwin Winkler's "Life is a House" 2001 played the "adolescent" Anakin with rather too much angst. I half expected him to scream, "You're tearing me apart" a la James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause" half way through the film. The extended "walk ons" by respected actors such as Christopher Lee (Dooku), Jimmy Smits (Organa) and Samuel L. Jackson (Windu) seemed forced to me in the first two episodes, because remembering the first trilogy, Lucas intentionally cast no major stars, preferring to let the story and the effects steal the show, and so that "star power" didn't get in the way of the characters.  (Harrison Ford (Han Solo) had played a bit part in "American Graffitti" before "Star Wars", which along with Spielberg's "Indiana Jones" movie, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" in 1981 made him a star.

These "actors" in "III" however add another dimension to the grand operatic turn of events, and I understand why Lucas cast them. He didn't know it at the time of course, but Hayden has grown up considerably, and makes a striking troubled Anakin, and the audience believes totally as he becomes Darth Vader. The actual "transformation scene" in the Jedi council chambers during a showdown between Mace Windu and Senator (soon to Emperor) Palpatine could have been acted better. I can clearly see the transformation of Palpatine (and I'm discussing acting chops, not physical makeup) Anakin/Darth is less believable, but is believable enough that the audience "buys" what Lucas is "selling". This is the major turn of events in six films, so if it hadn't have worked, then the movie would have been laughable instead of the great work of art it is.

Yes, I will call "Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" cinematic art. I believe the "SWG" (Star Wars Geeks, and you know who you are) would have embraced it anyway, but I remained completely skeptical until about midway through the second scene. Then I knew that something terribly wrong would have to happen for this to become unwatchable.

The plot points are all sewn up. I used to wonder why C3PO in the 2nd trilogy didn't "recognize" the planet of Tatooine since he was "born there", so to speak. That's explained in an almost throwaway line. How do the twins get separated? That's explained. There are still a few quibbles I have, but they are merely quibbles. On the whole, I spent an enjoyable time at the theater, and will rush right out and buy this film on DVD. (And I'll buy the second one, too, maybe even next week, so I can watch it again in case I decide to see this one in the theater again. (And at 8 bucks a pop for a matinee, if I see a film twice in a theater prior to collecting the DVD for my own home theater, that is as fine a compliment I can make for the movie's expertise to entertain.)

Beginning with a title crawl, as all the "chapters' in Lucas' homage to the Saturday morning serials of his youth, specifically "Flash Gordon", do, the camera pans down, just as it has in the first (4th ) film in the series, and this simple "movement" puts a knot in the stomach, as everyone who remembers the first shot of the 4th film can tell you, they had just seen something they had never seen before in a film, and "III" builds on that promise by showing the ultimate Star Wars "battle", which lasts a good 20 minutes. No "exposition here" (save for that title crawl) Like "A New Hope" which begins in the middle of a battle, the excitement factor is ramped up considerably as the audience just has to succumb to the visceral thrills being presented on screen. As soon as Anakin and Obi Wan pull out their light sabres, and do battle hand to hand with a number of nasty enemy "droids" helped by the ubiquitous R2D2 (whose comic moments in this film are priceless and unbelievably slapstick) one forgets any thoughts of criticism, and is sucked into the action, which is nearly nonstop from here on in.

Ewan McGregor only gets better in the role of Obi Wan Kenobi, and that is a grand compiment when one realizes it's Sir Alec Guinness' shoes he is filling. (Guinness was of course a major actor when cast in the original film, but the audience, except for film buffs in those pre video days didn't really know who he was.) Hayden is less angsty and this angst has developed into a masculine broodiness that is at once sexy and evil. Natalie Portman is not as visible here as in the first two films, and wears far less overbearing uniforms. I have a quibble with the fact that she hasn't "aged" as much as Anakin has, but neither did Liz Taylor age much over 40 years of time in George Steven's "Giant" so a precendent had already been set. As noted earlier, Jar Jar is only shown fleetingly, as if George has finally given into his critics. (Yowsah!)

I enjoyed how the "title scrawl" "jiggles a bit" so it doesn't look too "digital" and that some of the aliens (Gen. Grievous' assistant for example) are men in masks, so that this film "bridges'" the gap of digital vs. non digital makeup techniques in the now ancient 1977 edition, which is the "next" chapter.

It is also incredibly clever that the second set of films will be approached by a viewer who has seen these three in an entirely different light, because of course now we "know" who Vader is when he is "introduced" in "A New Hope". We probably will guess that Leia is Luke's sister about half way through the proceedings whereas it comes as a complete shock in episode "V". This is "layering", and fine film directors have been doing it for years. Nobody has ever attempted it over a six film septology taking 28 years to complete however.

George Lucas, you have gained this reviewer's respect and admiration again. I still like "American Graffitti" best, but you have proved to me that you not only know what you are doing, you are a master storyteller and an extraordinary artist.

One can view these films in any number of contexts, and a lot of people already have. But to me, they are above all an homage to the American movie industry, and the cultural art form of choice of the 20th  century, bridging the 21st with a flourish and a round of applause.
The End.......or is it?

Mikometer Rating: 10 of 10
Lucasfilm, 20th Century Fox
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for sci-fi violence and some intense images.
Running time: 140 min
Cast:
Ewan McGregor ....Obi-Wan Kenobi
Natalie Portman ....Padmé
Hayden Christensen ....Anakin Skywalker
Ian McDiarmid ....Supreme Chancellor Palpatine
Samuel L. Jackson ... Mace Windu
Jimmy Smits ....Senator Bail Organa
Frank Oz ....Yoda (voice)
Anthony Daniels ....C-3PO
Christopher Lee ....Count Dooku
Crew: Written and Directed by George Lucas
Produced by
George Lucas ....  executive producer 
Rick McCallum ....  producer  Original Music by John Williams  Cinematography by David Tattersall  Film Editing by Roger Barton & Ben Burtt Casting by Christine King Production Design by Gavin Bocquet Art Direction by Ian Gracie, Phil Harvey, David Lee  & Peter Russell   (director of concept design)  Set Decoration by Richard Roberts Costume Design by Trisha Biggar

Sunday, January 30, 2005

Million Dollar Baby - movie, 4.5 stars

Clint Eastwood is one of my favorite directors, and he rarely disappoints, even in films like "Blood Work" and "True Crime", which seem to borrow heavily from his earlier ouvre. His specialty in recent years, in the movies in which he stars and directs, like the excellent 1992 Oscar winning western "Unforgiven", is in stories of weatherbeaten men who possess honor, if not good sense, and who have arrived at the nadir of their lives with sometimes tragic results. His last film, the excellent but ultimately tragic and sorrowful "Mystic River" probably would have won Best Picture for 2003 if not for the "Lord of the Rings" bandwagon. The academy gave the major acting awards to the film, which it deserved, and it's unflinching look at it's subject was powerful filmmaking.

I enjoyed even the films which didn't charm the critics, like "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" in 1997. Eastwood has proved at times to be a better director than he is an actor, with a sure and steady hand, and a way to coax the best performance from the other actors in his pictures.
His latest, the "boxing picture" "Million Dollar Baby" is being touted as "more than a boxing picture." I think it is more of a boxing picture than even Scorsese's "Raging Bull". The film uses the world of boxing as a metaphor, and is based on a well known book of short stories called "Rope Burns" from the writer F. X. Toole. The screenplay is by Paul Haggis, and concerns two of the Rope Burns stories. The film is narrated by "Scrap-Iron" Dupris, played with the usual panache by Morgan Freeman. He tells the story of manager and trainer Frankie Dunn, an old pro who has never had the opportunity of having one of his fighters, including Scrap Iron himself in earlier days, win a title fight. As the story begins, Frankie's main fighter is ready for a title fight, but Frankie keeps telling him to wait a few fights, and the fighter ends up leaving Frankie for a title shot with another manager. Frankie and Scrap Iron operate a gym, and Maggie Fitzgerald, an up and coming "girlie" fighter, wants Frankie to manage her. She is not a young woman, at 31, and Frankie is almost at the end of his game, so ultimately, the two join forces, and Frankie manages her career, as she blossoms into a major force in the female fight game.

Frankie has an estranged daughter, and Maggie becomes a surrogate daughter for him.
The acting is excellent. The filmmaking is direct and gritty, in keeping with the subject matter, shot by Tom Stern, who was a chief lighting technician for "Unforgiven" as well as "American Beauty" and "Road to Perdition". This too is an "unforgiving film" and will last as a tribute to Eastwood's credibility as one of our greatest living directors, even in his older age.
Hilary Swank plays Maggie, in the year's best female performance. I have my eye on her performance to win the Academy Award for Best Actress. It is the best performance in a film full of them, including those of Eastwood himself, who is better than he's been in his last four acting roles, and Freeman, who is never anything less than brilliant in his portrayals.

(Plot Point Alert:) I can't recommend this film to everybody however. It has tragic overtones, just as "Mystic River" did, and while I don't want to ruin anything for people who have not seen the film by giving away specific plot points, I do want to say that the story arc is absolutely real and honest in a film of this type, and there are no real "surprises" or "twists" as has been reported, especially in as regards dealing with the subject matter. The film deals with it's gritty but sometimes glamourous world in a realistic unflinching way, and the results of this are honest and gut wrenching.

I wanted this film to get Best Picture prior to seeing it, but now that I have, I still believe it will be Marty Scorsese's year at the Oscars, for making a more audience friendly epic. Besides, Clint has already won the statuette.
Hilary will be awarded for her performance, however. It is the best thing in a film full of great acting, as I already mentioned. She lives and breathes as the trailer trash pixie Maggie, who only wants to fight because it makes her feel good when she is doing it, and who wants ultimately to make her mark on the world, and receive love and appreciation.

This is an excellent movie, and has some rather powerful moments. Ultimately it is not really about boxing at all, but about family, and respect, love, and honor. Themes that have permeated Eastwood's films for a long time.
It is not, however, a light evening out at the movies. This film makes the viewer think, and that is always a good thing.
Mikometer Rating: 8 of 10

Monday, December 27, 2004

'The Aviator" - movie, 3.5 stars

Martin Scorsese is probably the most gifted working director today, responsible for some of the most well reviewed classic films of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, including "Taxi Driver", "Raging Bull", and "Goodfellas". Remarkably, none of his films, nor he as a director, has ever received a Best Picture of Best Director Oscar from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. His last film, the amazing "Gangs of New York", was well positioned to be the Best Picture winner in 2002 but lost to the much less ambitious "Chicago", which was really a travesty in the mind of this reviewer. It would seem that Marty is back in the running in 2004, with the big budget biopic, "The Aviator" based on the early life and career of famous billionaire recluse Howard Hughes, and this film had a very high need-to-see quotient for me. It was released in limited run a week ago, and opened wide on Christmas. 

The crowds hadn't yet arrived when I slipped in the theater for the 11:00 am matinee. I have been incredibly interested in seeing the film, and Marty has been making the rounds promoting it. The preview looked delicious, and I have been all set to announce that Marty will win the Academy Award, and his career will be vindicated at last. As the lights dimmed, I had my hopes set too incredibly high, and I have been sorely disappointed.

The film is technically excellent. Stepping into the project after Michael Mann dropped out, Scorsese has created a picture perfect world of the past, as he always does. Robert Richardson's photography simulates the living, breathing look of Technicolor. Dante Ferretti's production design, as with "Gangs", "Casino" and "The Age of Innocence" for Scorsese, is perfect. Howard Shore's music is filled with period detail and soars as high as the planes in the movie. Technically, "The Aviator" is a triumph. The film looks magnificent. Throughout the experience of watching the film, however, I became troubled that this is not going to be Scorsese's Oscar winner, because of the simple fact it doesn't deserve to be. The movie doesn't have a heart. And in the end, it suffers.

The performances are at most serviceable. Leonardo di Caprio is probably not anyone's thought for the first choice of playing Howard Hughes. He performs flawlessly, and in some scenes is even made to "resemble" the young billionaire, but the performance lacks soul. Perhaps this is because the role corresponds to Hughes' actual character, but at times it just seems too mannered, and leaves the viewer with an empy feeling. That di Caprio performed so well, with heart and soul, in "Gangs" and was captivating in the romantic tragedy "Titanic", makes his performance here all the more puzzling. The movie paints Hughes as a charismatic young go getter who is slowly falling apart, becoming more obsessed and manic as the years pass. The film uses visual motifs (Hughes constantly washes his hands to rid himself of germs) and "clues" (Hughes repeats himself interminably when stressed out) to guide the viewer deeper into his "madness" but the performance "looks" like a performace, and while it, too, is technically fine, there just seems to be no fascinating glimpses into the "humanity" behind the person.

Most of the performances are window dressing. Cate Blanchett does a fine turn as Katherine Hepburn, in a job that almost borders on caricature. Hers is the only full blown acting job in the film. Kate Beckinsale, third billed after di Caprio and Blanchett, looks pretty as Ava Gardner, but she does nothing at all with the role. She is wasted in her Vampire Movie choices, but she actually gives better performances in those movies than she does here. John C. Reilly, who is appearing in his second Scorsese film, plays Noah Dietrich, Hughe's confidante and right hand man. This is a role that could have been more fleshed out, but is sadly lacking in completeness. Alec Baldwin, as the President of Pan Am Airlines, and Alan Alda, as the Senator out to get Hughes, turn in the best performances in the film. Alda should probably get a nomination for Best Supporting Actor. He sizzles when onscreen. But this film, set for the most part in Hollywood, lacks stellar acting. For all the press about Gwen Stefani (as Jean Harlow) and Jude Law (as Errol Flynn), these roles amount to nothing more than cameos. 

The story arc of the film traces three decades.  One of  Scorsese's strengths is charting history through use of production design and music, and this is accomplished stunningly. This is not a violent movie, yet at certain times I half expected Joe Pesci to show up and knife someone. Marty treats Old Hollywood like he treats the Gangsters in "Goodfellas" or "Casino". There is a lot of loving detail in the recreation. Setpieces which account for Hughes flying career, including a crash in Beverly Hills, and the flight of the "Spruce Goose" are a professional blend of camera angles, CGI,  and editing (by Scorsese mainstay Thelma Schoonmaker). The exciting scenes are truly exciting. The movie is rambunctious at times, and is never boring. It leaves a viewer cold, however, and at the end, you have to wonder if the film is truly a monument to Marty's career, or ultimately, a programmer.

For all the technical excellence of the filmmaking, there are two CGI shots that stand out as incredibly "fake" looking. In one, Hughes is photographing the aerial dogfight in the movie "Hell's Angels". The "camera plane" swoops past with Hughes "directing" from the cockpit. In another, the camera pans back from Hughes face through the window of the Spruce Goose as it is about the take off. These shots call attention to the fact they are CGI, and almost ruin the experience.

I was frankly disappointed in "The Aviator". The film is about airplanes, yet it seldom soars as a film. When I first heard of the project, I wondered why Scorsese was directing what seemed to amount to a TV Movie Biopic. The pairing of film and director didn't seem to fit. After seeing the previews I did want to see the film, but my impression was all along that this would not be one of Marty's best. And it isn't. The movie will certainly rack up nominations. It might even win some. But "Gangs of New York" remains Martin Scorsese's masterpiece of the 21st Century, and "The Aviator" will eventually fly away.

6 of 10 on the Mikometer

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

"13 Going On 30" - movie, 4 stars

"13 Going On 30" was a pretty good hit at the box office, and it is now on DVD. I rented the title not thinking it would even be particularly good, and I was very much surprised to find that not only did I like the movie, I found it a most delightful "treatise" on the subject of a "what if" kind of movie. There were a lot of comparisons in reviews for this film to the Tom Hanks vehicle, "Big" directed by Penny Marshall in 1988. The comparisons were usually in favor of "Big", and would mention that "13 Going on 30" was a fun film, but not as special.

I would disagree. I found myself crying at the conclusion of the picture, and for me, this is the true test of whether or not a film has touched me on a deeper emotional level. I cried like a baby, and I had a very nice time getting to know both the characters in the early 80s, when they are "13" and in the present, when they are "30".

Jenna Rink, an excellent Jennifer Garner, (who is a TV star with the "Alias" series, which I don't watch,) is a mixed up 13 year old at the beginning of the picture, who "hangs out" with Matt (Mark Ruffalo as an adult) a geeky photographer who lives next door, but yearns to be one of the "Six Chicks" led by "Tom-Tom" (Judy Greer as an adult). On her 13th birthday, she holds a party, to which she invites the six chicks by promising to do their homework, so that they will bring along class hunk Chris. The party is a disaster, and poor Jenna is left in the closet hoping that Chris is going to come in and kiss her, when the Six Chicks are really stealing all the food and coax Matt to go into the closet to kiss her. She is so disappointed, and tells poor Matt to go away. In her grave disappointment, she finds herself wishing to be "30, and fiirty," a phrase she read in a fashion magazine. Thanks to some "magical wishing dust" Matt had given her, she gets her wish, and transforms into the glamorous Jennifer Garner, but is still the geeky kid inside.

I have never heard of Gary Winick, who is a producer of films like "Pieces of April" and "Uptown Girls" neither of which I've seen. His directing "style" is somewhat pedestrian, but the story and the characters got to me, and this is the best thing about watching a film for me anyway. No amount of "camera swinging" by "Spielberg wannabes" can disguise a bad film, but a good film can transcend mere photography. Besides, if the audience isn't distracted by the histrionics normally associated with moviemaking today, then they can concentrate on and be involved in the characters and the story. Both characterization and story are important in "13 Going on 30". Camera histrionics and quick editing, which are not in evidence, thank God, would only get in the way.

I was amazed by the wonderful way in which the casting director has matched the young actors with the adults. Christa B. Allen, as young Jenna, is especially good. I believe this is her first film, and she is very likable as the character, in the guise in which we first meet her. I would also like to point out Alexandra B. Kyle, who plays Tom-Tom, or Lucy, the leader of the Six Chicks, which is a Heathers type group in the school in which Jenna and Matt attend.

When Jenna finds herself in her 30 year old body, "with these great boobs", the acting of Jennifer Garner stands out excellently. Light films like this, which is a comedy, never get acting nods at Academy Awards time, but this is a delicious performance, which really stands out for me. The obvious and subtle ways in which Garner inhabits the 30 year old "body" while still making the audience relate to the 13 year old they see in the beginning of the movie is better, I feel, than even Hank's performance in "Big", and, as I mentioned earlier, the emotional impact of the film is just as special to me as well. I was amazed by Garner's "walk on" role in Spielberg's "Catch me If You Can" as a hooker, and I liked her in "Daredevil". She is cute as a bug's ear, and is amazingly adept at screwball comedy, and physical comedy, as she shows in this film. I really believed she was 13. This film had me remembering my own youth, and this is a testament to the movie.

There are numerous deleted scenes on the DVD, and they extend scenes in the movie which probably work better edited. Every thing feels so "right" in this film. I didn't feel there were any loose ends, and there are lots of things that one spots which makes a viewer smile with recognition. I don't want to give anything away concerning plot points, or how the situation works itself out, but let's just say that there are no plot holes that I could ascertain, and the film resolves it's fantasy elements fantastically.

I would recommend this movie highly. It is a "date movie" which couples should enjoy. It's a film 13 year olds would probably love, with it's scenes of Jenna at a slumber party lip synching and dancing to Michael Jackson and Pat Benatar songs. It's a film I truly enjoyed, enough to actually pen a review, in order to let future viewers know that it deserves a viewing. There are so many bad films, I have written so many times, that when a gem comes along, especially one which I wasn't that interested in seeing, I am aglow with wonder and pleasantly surprised at it's charms. "13 Going On 30" is such a film.

"13 Going on 30" garners a 7 of 10 on the Mikometer.

 << Previous 5 | Next 5 >>