mercury-26
Joined Feb 2000
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews68
mercury-26's rating
Never mind `Traffic'. Forget `Gladiator'. To find 2000's finest, most nail-on-the-head perfect film, you'll need to look a little deeper. A small film that only enjoyed limited release in theaters and isn't getting much attention on DVD either, is Keith Gordon's latest, `Waking the Dead'.
Back in 1992, there was another under-appreciated independent film called `A Midnight Clear' that had the misfortune of being released alongside the likes of `Unforgiven' and `Last of the Mohicans'. For reasons I can't fathom, this brilliant film seemingly did nothing to help Gordon's career. His budgets stayed small, but he continued looking for the most daring and fascinating material. In 1996, he released `Mother Night', another war-themed film, only this time set in the aftermath of WWII.
With `Waking the Dead', Gordon outdoes himself. He casts Billy Crudup as Fielding Pierce, an ambitious Coast Guard officer who'd like to be president--and he means it. His world is turned upside-down when he meets Sarah Williams (Jennifer Connelly), who just wants to feel like she `lives on the planet'. Fielding and Sarah could not be more different, yet they cannot live without each other. Each is the antithesis of the other, which dooms their relationship and intensifies their love at the same time.
The film begins with the announcement of Sarah's death, and continues pulling you back and forth in time. Employing this storytelling technique and maintaining the momentum of the story is a difficult task. While we see Fielding wrestle with her memory, we're shown the powerful connection these two had during her life.
What's more, Fielding begins to see visions of her. Some of these visions are so real, he begins to believe she's alive. The hauntings come just as he begins campaigning for the U.S. House. It begins to affect his life and threatens his campaign. The question of whether Sarah is really alive is the dramatic carrot Gordon dangles in front of us. It's then we realize that she was his conscience in life and remains so in death. Gordon pours it on right until the very last frame. He gets the best performance of Connelly's career out of her, plus a jaw-dropping performance out of Crudup that's worthy of an Oscar. Whoever was in charge of plugging this film for awards nominations must have fallen asleep at the wheel (though I see it did win an Independent Spirit award for its script).
That this film or others in the same situation get no recognition is definitely for the best. The more popular a film becomes, the more idiots that come out of the woodwork to second-guess it. So best to leave it to be discovered by those willing to seek it out. It is 2000's crown jewel.
Grade: A (but only because there isn't a higher grade)
Back in 1992, there was another under-appreciated independent film called `A Midnight Clear' that had the misfortune of being released alongside the likes of `Unforgiven' and `Last of the Mohicans'. For reasons I can't fathom, this brilliant film seemingly did nothing to help Gordon's career. His budgets stayed small, but he continued looking for the most daring and fascinating material. In 1996, he released `Mother Night', another war-themed film, only this time set in the aftermath of WWII.
With `Waking the Dead', Gordon outdoes himself. He casts Billy Crudup as Fielding Pierce, an ambitious Coast Guard officer who'd like to be president--and he means it. His world is turned upside-down when he meets Sarah Williams (Jennifer Connelly), who just wants to feel like she `lives on the planet'. Fielding and Sarah could not be more different, yet they cannot live without each other. Each is the antithesis of the other, which dooms their relationship and intensifies their love at the same time.
The film begins with the announcement of Sarah's death, and continues pulling you back and forth in time. Employing this storytelling technique and maintaining the momentum of the story is a difficult task. While we see Fielding wrestle with her memory, we're shown the powerful connection these two had during her life.
What's more, Fielding begins to see visions of her. Some of these visions are so real, he begins to believe she's alive. The hauntings come just as he begins campaigning for the U.S. House. It begins to affect his life and threatens his campaign. The question of whether Sarah is really alive is the dramatic carrot Gordon dangles in front of us. It's then we realize that she was his conscience in life and remains so in death. Gordon pours it on right until the very last frame. He gets the best performance of Connelly's career out of her, plus a jaw-dropping performance out of Crudup that's worthy of an Oscar. Whoever was in charge of plugging this film for awards nominations must have fallen asleep at the wheel (though I see it did win an Independent Spirit award for its script).
That this film or others in the same situation get no recognition is definitely for the best. The more popular a film becomes, the more idiots that come out of the woodwork to second-guess it. So best to leave it to be discovered by those willing to seek it out. It is 2000's crown jewel.
Grade: A (but only because there isn't a higher grade)
I like an offbeat film as much as the next guy. Heck, the weirder the better, I say. But this film crosses the line even for me. At least I could actually sit through this entire thing, unlike its older (even weirder) cousin, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas". I compare the two films because they're both drug-trippin', hallucinatory affairs. Both of them, for some reason, drew big names out of the woodwork to get involved. The star of "Jesus' Son" is Billy Crudup, along with the relatively unknown Samantha Morton. But also on board is Holly Hunter, Will Patton, Dennis Hopper, and Denis Leary in small roles.
These films' defining stamp is that they are told in an intentionally haphazard manner. Put simply, this makes a film that's difficult to watch. Both films are based on novels (I've read neither) and I can safely say this storytelling style befits the page more than it does the screen. It's supposed to make the experience more challenging for the audience, leaving them to try and piece this collection of strange occurrences into something that means anything. Let's just say I don't prefer this type of movie-going experience.
I didn't find anything particularly great about this film, nor did I find anything to be at all endearing. The result is an unsatisfying hour and a half of movie watching. Don't use drugs. Don't bother with "Jesus' Son".
Grade: D+
These films' defining stamp is that they are told in an intentionally haphazard manner. Put simply, this makes a film that's difficult to watch. Both films are based on novels (I've read neither) and I can safely say this storytelling style befits the page more than it does the screen. It's supposed to make the experience more challenging for the audience, leaving them to try and piece this collection of strange occurrences into something that means anything. Let's just say I don't prefer this type of movie-going experience.
I didn't find anything particularly great about this film, nor did I find anything to be at all endearing. The result is an unsatisfying hour and a half of movie watching. Don't use drugs. Don't bother with "Jesus' Son".
Grade: D+
When was the last time you found a martial arts film beautiful and touching? Ang Lee wants to give you something that holds your interest because of its visuals. The story is tailored around the many fight sequences that it contains. The difference, as it turns out, is that these people are allowed to live and breathe and have depth. Lee is not afraid to stop and explore his characters in a way that action/adventure films never do (chicks and dudes alike will enjoy this one, but probably for different reasons).
The result is a completely unique cinematic experience. It didn't blow me away like it did for some. I haven't heard many people talk about how comedic this film really is. Lee can't help but borrow this trait from the Bruce Lee or even Jackie Chan school of filmmaking (the fight scenes were orchestrated by `Matrix' choreographer and long-time Jackie Chan collaborator Yuen Wo Ping). In this case, the humor is more obscure. For example, the climactic fight scene (which will go down in history as one of the best ever) between Shu Lien (Michelle Yeoh) and her would-be apprentice Jen Yu (Zhang Ziyi) begs for laughter. They fight in the middle of an arsenal. Lien keeps grabbing larger, more imposing weapons to use against the magical, indestructible sword Jen has stolen. It lasts quite a long time and by the end, still you wish it would go on.
Then there's the Peter Pan' aspect of the combat these warriors use. It didn't work for me much of the time. To Lee's credit, though, at least he's attempted to create something fresh. At times, you can almost see the cable it's so obvious. At other times though, the effect is so cool you can't believe what you're seeing. I rule in favor of its incorporation, but wish they'd used it more sparingly.
`Tiger' deserves the acclaim it's received as much as any movie this year. What makes `Tiger' so appealing is that it's not trying to be an Oscar contender, nor any other kind of contender. It's like Crash Davis (you know, from `Bull Durham'). It just wants to Be. Same can be said of all the films nominated for a lot of hardware this year, `Traffic', `Gladiator', `Almost Famous' for example: they just ended up being really good. For one reason or another, they were weeded out of that vast pool of worthy films (well, not so vast this particular year). `Tiger' is certainly worthy. If it cleans up on March 25, I'll be happy for it.
Grade: B
The result is a completely unique cinematic experience. It didn't blow me away like it did for some. I haven't heard many people talk about how comedic this film really is. Lee can't help but borrow this trait from the Bruce Lee or even Jackie Chan school of filmmaking (the fight scenes were orchestrated by `Matrix' choreographer and long-time Jackie Chan collaborator Yuen Wo Ping). In this case, the humor is more obscure. For example, the climactic fight scene (which will go down in history as one of the best ever) between Shu Lien (Michelle Yeoh) and her would-be apprentice Jen Yu (Zhang Ziyi) begs for laughter. They fight in the middle of an arsenal. Lien keeps grabbing larger, more imposing weapons to use against the magical, indestructible sword Jen has stolen. It lasts quite a long time and by the end, still you wish it would go on.
Then there's the Peter Pan' aspect of the combat these warriors use. It didn't work for me much of the time. To Lee's credit, though, at least he's attempted to create something fresh. At times, you can almost see the cable it's so obvious. At other times though, the effect is so cool you can't believe what you're seeing. I rule in favor of its incorporation, but wish they'd used it more sparingly.
`Tiger' deserves the acclaim it's received as much as any movie this year. What makes `Tiger' so appealing is that it's not trying to be an Oscar contender, nor any other kind of contender. It's like Crash Davis (you know, from `Bull Durham'). It just wants to Be. Same can be said of all the films nominated for a lot of hardware this year, `Traffic', `Gladiator', `Almost Famous' for example: they just ended up being really good. For one reason or another, they were weeded out of that vast pool of worthy films (well, not so vast this particular year). `Tiger' is certainly worthy. If it cleans up on March 25, I'll be happy for it.
Grade: B