Category Archives: 2000 Movies
The Grinch (2000)
Ron Howard brings to the screen a lively but languid and ultimately empty revision of Dr. Seuss’ magical tale of a green haired grouch with an ill temper for yule tidings. There’s plenty of noise and effects but none of the magic can be sustained.
The most difficult problem with making a feature film out of Seuss’ How The Grinch Stole Christmas is that it’s 20 minutes of source material. This then requires a lot of padding, and boy does Howard pad like none other. With the aid of the screenwriters of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (who I’ve now lost all respect for) they go into a psychoanalysis of why the Grinch acts how he does. As it seems with every serial killer movie the Grinch was tormented as a child for being a little green, hairy brussel sprout. What child wouldn’t make fun of a kid that was green? This distaste for the holidays turns the Grinch into a hermit who enjoys his days making prank phone calls down to the city of Who-ville and wallowing in despair. Cindy Lou-Who sees a nice but misunderstood person underneath all that fur and thus embarks on a quest to show the citizens of Who-ville that the Grinch isn’t so bad. Mixed results ensue.
Howard’s direction is very child-like but empty after an initial glow. One wonders what Tim Burton could have concocted with the same material. The art direction looks like a candy-coated Oz instead of the whimsical imagination of Dr. Seuss. The central message of The Grinch is that Christmas doesn’t come from a box or a store but the message is entirely hypocritical when you have a bazillion product deals for the film. The whole “lost view of Christmas” is a very lame moral anyway.
Jim Carrey, on the other hand, puts this movie on his green back and nearly saves it himself. But the immense weight overtakes him in the end. Carrey gives a flat-out slapstick comedic performance like none other. If you had any doubt in Carrey’s ability to contort himself for laughter all doubts will be quelled. While Carrey is marvelous as the central villain/hero (?) the majority of time is spent with the dog-nosed Whos. These people are lifeless and uninteresting. It’s a breath of relief every time we return back to Carrey. The Who’s are populated with a Martha Stewart like former crush of the Grinch’s (Christine Baranski), the mother who strives to be like Martha May-Who and has no other characterization (Molly Shannon), and the dowdy mayor of Who-ville (Jeffrey Tambor). No one can survive unclean.
Without Carrey this family film would be without merit. The writing throws a few bones toward the adult audience but relies too much on Carrey being goofy – which he is good at. Anthony Hopkins as a grandfatherly narrator works only in making you miss Boris Karloff even more. In short, watch the Chuck Jones special instead. This Christmas gift is a lump of coal disguised as candy.
Nate’s Grade: C
Share this:
Unbreakable (2000)
“I should have known it from the children…” Ladies and gentlemen, you have now witnessed the most atrocious ending of this year. Unbreakable has a simple yet moderately sophisticated premise in the examination of what makes a super hero. The psychology going into it would be fascinating, like do you feel a civic duty to help others? This could have made ‘Unbreakable’ a good escapist flick with some imaginative thoughts, but instead it all gets destroyed by a lame lam-shackled ending that will suck the life out of everything good and decent.
There are numerous shots in the film that go on and on and are single coverage. This likely wouldn’t pose as much a problem if it weren’t so persistent and annoying. The opening scene where the camera dances back and forth between two seats to see Bruce Willis fumbly trying to hit on another woman is aggravating to the least in its set-up. Willis himself is a security officer for a college and basically suffering from a faltering marriage and overall loser status. That is, until he is the lone survivor in a horrific train accident. Samuel “Mr. Glass” L. Jackson seeks him out to reveal to Willis that he believes he has been chosen to do good, and comic books are true, and whatever else. How can you trust a man with Gumby hair?
Unbreakable is not a movie without merits, in fact it almost could have been a good film or at least a better one. There are moments of tension, and a scene with Willis stretching out his arms in a bus station a la Christ is particularly well directed. Then there is…. the ending.
M. Night Shyamalan had true break-out success with the monumental Sixth Sense but he is now a victim of his own success because everyone and their invalid grandmothers will be looking and waiting for a twist ending. And the payoff is NOWHERE near as rewarding as Sixth Sense. In fact, it might make you mad. Mad that it ruins the rest of the film that had its few moments. Mad enough … to become a super villain all your own.
Nate’s Grade: C
Share this:
Charlie’s Angels (2000)
These angels aren’t exactly what your father was enjoying when your mother was away fulfilling errands. These angels aren’t delegated as mere sex objects running around providing the jiggle entertainment that is (or was) supplied by today’s Baywatch. The 90s is a different decade after our minority movements and today’s woman is just as apt to do a flying kung-fu face plant into a baddie as any man. The angels of the film are action heroes for an armada of small girls needing some female empowerment when their only other choices consist of a barely clothed Britney or a barely covered Christina. These angels aren’t just the sex objects that the classic assortment of angelic 70s stars were; these angels are also tough-as-nails, resourceful, and not afraid to tussle or tango. Now that this exposition is out I can concentrate on the scattershot film Charlie’s Angels.
The film has been rumored to have at a minimum of 17 writers who tried shaping a story for Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore, and Lucy Lui. The story is pretty much shelved toward the back so the forefront is our trio of ladies kicking ass then shaking it with zig-zaggy and wild camera movements from debut filmmaker and video director McG.
Charlie’s Angels is whiz-bang dumb fun. The overall feel of the film is something more difficult to get a grasp on. At times it shows itself as tongue-in-cheek and satirical but then at other times it seems overly serious or overly dumb. The characters are non-existent and basically only discernible by hair color. The characters are very wooden and I actually found more enjoyment watching the villains and seeing more of them; call it the Austin Powers dilemma. Diaz makes the only notable attempt as her goofy and light-hearted angel connects with the audience best. Lui plays a techno-babe dominatrix but is easy to see that she was the last angel chosen and doesn’t exactly gel with the others as much as she could have.
Charlie’s Angels is best when the action is pumping. The scenes are cut together in a jam-packing sequential way adding distinct flavor and style. McG is a true surprise in the effectiveness he can orchestrate his action motifs even if the Matrix effects and moves make absolutely no sense in the real world.
Crispin Glover shows himself as a silent assassin nicknamed “the thin creepy man.” Glover is so suave and slick in his role of the non-verbal Oddjob henchman role that he exhilarated me with every presence he made on screen. Goodness, he was too cool in this film and everyone gets brownie points for allowing him. He has such energy and charisma that I wanted the film to veer off into him and desert our angels. Seeing our ageless McFly perform action scenes and choreographed fights is something I will be pleased with until my grave. seeing Crispin in the excellent Nurse Betty and now huge exposure in this is a true joy. And man… he smokes a cigarette way too cool every time he’s in this film. Some people can smoke cool some of the time but Crispin does it all of the time. His mere presence almost cancels out the annoyance of Barrymore.
The line is drawn with Charlie’s Angels in that it’s sex-kitten jiggle and an acrobatic arrangement of (light) feminism and humor. These gals know they’re sex objects and they’ll use it to their advantage delighting in every second of it. Therefore, you could argue successfully that Angels is exploitation hiding as meaningful but hell… why think about this stuff? The movie rolls along at a fast pace where you don’t keep track of these issues. It’s just an easy sit down.
The gigantic success of Charlie’s Angels makes sequels and a possible franchise all but certain. I’d be happy for McG to hop back in his directorial chair but have a unique idea for Angels 2: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut… it involves Glover kicking a lot of ass really cool like.
Nate’s Grade: B-
Reviewed 20 years later as part of the “Reviews Re-View: 2000” article.
Share this:
Bounce (2000)
The romantic comedy genre is in a slum of development, it’s own personal ring of hell. It’s become a playing field with a paint-by-numbers coloring book. Color in this section blue for the ignoring bastard of a boyfriend that the heroine is attached to, color this section red for some “misunderstanding” to occur that shatters the perfection of the relationship for ten minutes before a wise-cracking best friend convinces otherwise and reveals their honest true feelings, color this part yellow for eccentric yet lovable colloquial supporting relatives… etc. You hopefully get the idea. It’s all been done before. But can you make a romantic comedy that sticks to the aforementioned rules but is still enjoyable in a non-brain sucking sort of way?
Ben Affleck plays a cocky ad guru with malicious flair. He’s brimming with confidence and a sly charm. One evening he encounters two strangers in an airport bar. One is a sexy blonde that Buddy works his moves to make his own layover. The other man just wants to get back to his wife and family for Christmas but his flight isn’t until the next afternoon. Buddy does the honorable win-win situation and gives up his ticket. The man cheerfully thanks Buddy for his generosity and beams about on his way toward the flight home. Buddy beams about on his way back toward a hotel bedroom. That is until he flips on the TV to see a news report of flaming wreckage that was supposed to be his plane.
The realization of his close encounter with death and the grief of sending another man to replace him takes its toll. Buddy becomes an alcoholic and belligerent at an awards special where his agency is responsible for spinning the crash for the airline. After some time spent to recover buddy feels the personal need to search for the widow of the man he exchanged tickets with and see if she is doing okay. His widow is played by a brunette Gwyneth Paltrow and little do each think that they will fall in love with one another.
Granted, the story and all the so-called surprises that happen in it are telegraphed much sooner than their arrival. We know he’ll fall for her, we know she’ll find out, we know they’ll be a blow out, we know there will be a reconciliation. We just know. What makes Bounce surge from the formula is the ability of the actors and the wit of writer/director Don Roos. The sophomore film from the man who gave us The Opposite of Sex and lesser screenplays shows controlled and understated direction when dealing with the emotions of his characters.
Affleck quite possibly is showing his finest acting work yet. His Buddy runs the transformation of cocky socialite to a man haunted by grief and weary of his advances on the woman he accidentally widowed. The chemistry between Gwyneth and Affleck is electric and they mesh together very positively. In my later review of Proof of Life I mentioned how because Ryan and Russel Crowe fooled around during film that it didn’t transpire to anything on film. Well the past relationship of the two leads here sure as hell allows for some sizzle. Paltrow is quite fine as a harrowed widow trying to raise her boys. A scene where she slowly discovers the truth of her husband’s fate is wrenching. She also looks good as a brunette.
Roos may have to still play by the rules of romantic comedies but at least he utilizes skill to come away with something that doesn’t seem like Pretty Woman meets Random Hearts. And you know what Random Hearts could have used to make it a little livelier? A supporting performance by Johnny Galecki of course. Well, then again nothing could save that movie.
Nate’s Grade: B
Share this:
Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)
Let’s openly admit it from the start … there’s no way the people behind this could win. The Blair Witch Project was a phenomenon in indie cinema that likely will never be seen again. The movie certainly didn’t need a sequel, and probably couldn’t be easily hatched with its cracker-jack ending anyway. We, as a nation, are not only expecting any Blair Witch sequels to fail; hell, we’re demanding it. This is the state my mind I waded in as I started to see Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.
Burkitsville Maryland has become quite a hotspot for tourism because of the success of The Blair Witch Project. Local residents sell items such as rocks and stick figures to jabbering tourists, some of whom have come overseas. This is where our tour guide Jeff (Jeff Donovon) enters. He leads our band of characters into a tour of the Maryland woods. Each of his campers has their own reason for going. There’s the engaged couple with Guy (Stephen Baker turner) as the skeptic and realist, and Girl (Tristine Skyler) as the supernatural believer. Then there’s Wicca gal (Erica Leerhson) who’s out to disprove the bad reputation of the Blair Witch. Finally, there’s pseudo-psychic Goth girl (Kim Director) who really has no purpose except to wear pancake makeup and whine about how she’s unfairly treated by society for dressing in black.
This motley crew of slacker backpackers spends a night in the woods and turns it into something that you would see advertised during a commercial for Howard Stern. The alcohol mixes with the drugs and the next morning no one can remember a thing. Their surveillance equipment is destroyed and Guy’s lengthy paper is littering the ground like snow (it must have been over a 1000 pages for the amount that continuously falls). Accusations fly, and after a brief stay in a hospital occupied with ghostly images of dead children, the group decides to take refuge in Jeff’s secluded residence. It just so happens that it’s an empty warehouse in the middle of nowhere. Perfect setting for scary things to jumps out at people, and they do. The remainder of the movie is spooky shenanigans happening in this big bad haunted house until the mandatory muddled ending.
Book of Shadows (some studio exec must have tacked it on because it sounded “cool” since it has nothing to do with anything) takes off promisingly enough. The first ten minutes show the effect the first film had on the community and the fans with a mock-documentary fashion. Then it’s over quickly and we get a glossy film, a 20 million dollar budget and Marilyn Manson scraping his larynx or killing an owl on the soundtrack. Can you say “corporate fast buck”? I know I did. The sequel to the soggy backpack adventure of indie fame bears little resemblance to its predecessor. The only common line between the two is an assortment of unknown actors starring, which isn’t necessarily a good practice for every movie
None of the characters in Book of Shadows are truly interesting at all. Surprisingly enough though, they have an intelligent conversation about the blame of media and how it can affect others’ will. This, as should be guessed, is the high point of the film. It makes little difference that the most intelligent conversation in the film occurs when everyone is wasted and high by camp light.
The first movie was by no stretch a lesson in horror but it was innovative and relied on a practice of creating horror in your mind, which I can at least admire. Blair Witch 2 has no scares in it whatsoever. It has gore, blood, and things that are thought of as scary: bats, darkness, mean dogs, dead children, insane asylum kooks etc. Problem is none of these things work. They’re all textbook but they never work in execution.
Blair Witch 2 was directed by documentary filmmaker Joe Berlinger. He co-created the truly excellent and gripping Paradise Lost films over the hysteria and blame that convicted Gothic teens in Arkansas of murder. It’s easy to see some similar themes in Blair Witch 2, which include a Goth crying out against the way she’s seen and treated and a Wicca crying out against the way she’s seen and treated. They’re carryovers from his earlier works. But Berlinger’s first step up to fictional direction is really a step down. He’s so good at storytelling and underscoring tension and drama in his documentaries, so what went wrong? I think it was probably studio interference (look at the title), but Berlinger may just not be up to snuff for fictional film. Which is fine because he’s one of the best documentary filmmakers alive next to Errol Morris, Michael Moore, and Barbara Koppel. Berlinger will bounce back but he may not want to make a fictional film again.
The way the story is told is in different layers cut together from different times. It’s interesting enough and sets up some mild foreshadowing but by the end, when it makes it clear who will survive and who won’t, it becomes annoying. The ending crawls along and presents two possible scenarios (spoilers): one; it invalidates everything before and shows the nature of humans with hysteria and their own capabilities for evil (better ending), and two; some supernatural force interfered and did bad stuff (boo!). Reluctantly I think most people will go with ending number two. The understanding of the ending is too fundamental toward the enjoyment of this film. This further muddles the whole film and the reason for even watching it.
The flick initially took me by surprise but then left me muddled in confusion that has yet to cease. Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 is a conundrum of a film. It’s really not very entertaining or innovative. In fact, it’s really not that great at all. It will be interesting to see how people receive this film with years of distance. I think it could be kindle an interesting film class discussion on the pressures of following up a phenomenon. Studio execs certainly had their say and certainly wanted Blair Witch bucks, but the public is older and wiser, and repackaging the same old tricks will not work the same. Owls, dead children, and shadows of friggin’ stick figures will not scare an audience without a story. Of course, after Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 bombed so succinctly, the ones left horrified were the studio executives. The public had the last laugh.
Nate’s Grade: C-
Share this:
Meet the Parents (2000)
Ben Stiller is adept at playing everyman nice guys the audience yearns for to succeed. Something in his look, a twinkle in his eye – I don’t know. What I do know is put skilled comic Stiller, add a dash of stodgy Robert DeNiro as a foil counterpart, mix with ongoing catastrophe of errors, bake for twenty minutes at 450 and you have hilarity. Or at least, Meet the Parents. The premise is nothing new (in-laws from hell), but ‘Parents’ manages to find new laughs with an old concept. The chemistry between Stiller and the gruff DeNiro is fantastic and proves to produce numerous humorous situations. The laughs are genuine and keep stacking as the film continues on with more and more calamities happening for Stiller. Supporting characters all add something to the mix. Meet the Parents is likely the funniest film you’ll see all year without a man being stabbed in the head with a penis. What? I’m sentimental.
Nate’s Grade: B
Share this:
Series 7: The Contenders (2000)
A scathing satire of our media and bloodthirsty society wanting something always pushing the boundaries. Writer-director Daniel Minahan has created a future where the most popular TV show is called “The Contenders” and selects five strangers at random in the same town as contestants. The problem is that these five people, including the winner of the previous season, are now on a manhunt in a kill-or-be-killed situation where the only prize of this game show is one’s own life. Series 7 is skillfully made to be indistinguishable from other reality TV shows except for the bursts of language and violence. If you were playing this and a friend walked into the room they would be convinced it was a TV show. The film gets a little soap operish toward the end with its characters dealing with haunted love but the film is a fast and entertaining warning piece that might provoke as many thoughts as cries for blood.
Nate’s Grade: B
Share this:
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
Rarely does a movie today affect you that when the end credits roll you’re left silent and unable to speak. Requiem for a Dream is an unforgettable and intensely harrowing experience. You can’t take your eyes away from it. Afterwards you’re left in disarray and unable to think straight for most of the day.
Requiem chronicles the lives of four individuals and their spiraling addictions and missed choices. Harry (Jared Leto) is a small time coke dealer along with his friend Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) who can’t help to taste their merchandise and eventually end up broke again. Harry has gotten into the habit of routinely pawning his elderly mother’s TV set for some quick cash to score with. This happens so often that the pawn broker has a special folder for Sarah Goldfarb (Ellen Burstyn) and her televison. Harry is in love with his more positioned girlfriend Marion (Jennifer Connelly). She’s given an annual allowance of money from her wealthy folks to spend in her own fashion, but she’s denied love or attention. It’s between these four main characters that we will go through hell with.
Ellen Burstyn shows her grace with age and utterly blows your mind with her jaw-dropping performance as the lonely and strung out Sarah. Sarah has no husband anymore or a son to look after. She is alone and old, and those are two bad ingredients. She lives in an apartment complex overlooking the decaying ruins of Coney Island. Sarah has a different addiction than her child, she is addicted to food and is overweight. One day she mistakes a random junk phone call as her ticket to appear on television. She daydreams about gliding across the stage in her red dress that she doesn’t be able to properly fill anymore. With her elderly peers aflutter she tries her best to stick to a diet to fit into her slender dress. When the temptation becomes overwhelming she consults a friend’s doctor for some special “pills” to suppress her appetite.
Harry and Tyrone are embarking on their own dealing dreams to evetually move up the ladder and score some pure coke. Marion and Harry experience their love through simultaneous shoot-ups that space them out and turn them into romantic philosophers. Harry speaks of great dreams he has and the yearning to be something. Tyrone is haunted by thoughts of himself as a child and disappointing his sweetly loving mother who was proud of her son no matter what.
The film starts off in the summer and we are in the good times for all four characters. Harry and Tyrone are successful and racking up profits. Sarah has an unusual amount of energy through her prescribed pills and feels good about herself when she sees actual results as the pounds begin to melt away. Marion dances in her love of Harry and is ambitious with plans for her own design store. Things never are as good as they are again. Fall rolls along and Tyrone and Harry lose their money and lose their ability to secure drugs to sell. Sarah is noticing her pills are not having the same effect they were earlier and decides to ignore guidelines and take them like M&Ms. Marion starts to lash out at Harry’s ineptness at scoring and begins to tear at their relationship. She gets pushed to the brink to score that she resorts to the practice of using her body to secure what she needs. This isn’t even the beginning of how dour and horrible events will become for these four.
One of the strengths of Reqiuem is the treatment of these characters. The film shows sympathy for them and their situations but never condone them. Harry and Sarah are a family that have much love between them they just don’t know how to express it. When Harry discovers his mother is on essentially speed when he pays her a visit he’s left a shattered and crying mess. Only an injection into his veins in that cab ride saves him from his emotions. The relationship between Harry and Marion is initially seen as puppy love or people brought together through a love of drugs, but there are moments where you see the true beauty they have. In the end when Harry is out of state and dramatically in the need of hospitalization he calls Marion just as she’s doing her make-up for a “special” get-together. In a hushed tone she asks when he will be coming home, to which he responds in a mix of pain soon. She then so sincerely and beautifully asks if he can come back today – to which through an array of tears he agrees. Her sincerity and emotion in this sequence is a powerful glimpse at the love that does exist between the two of them. The second time I watched this film I started crying at this moment.
Burstyn is the stand-out star and if she doesn’t at LEAST get an Oscar nomination then that is the most unjust crime of them all. It’s been some time since her roles in ‘The Exorcist’ and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore but she still shines like a true gem. She magnificently portrays Sarah’s descent into madness and chemical dependency and leaves us with a chilling and haunting figure. Leto and Connelly show that they aren’t merely pretty faces and deliver their best performances of their lives. Both show incredible warmth and emotion.
Requiem was directed and adapted for the screen by Darren Aronofsky who gave us the head trip that was Pi. Here he uses camera trickery like speed up and slowed paces to show Sarah’s journey through her drugs. Other items include cameras mounted on the actors, split screens, and hyper edits to show the process of every drug shoot-up. His camera moves and tricks are never out of place though, as many gimmicky video director’s are. Each effect has a specific purpose. Aronofsky brilliantly uses a scene where Leto and Connelly are lying in bed besides one another but split screen to show the closeness they can strive but the distance that still exists. While each talks we see shots of the other’s hand carefully caress the other’s body. It’s a scene that’s as powerful as it it thematically romantic.
The tragedy of this is this film has been rated NC-17 by the MPAA and of course anyone who sees it knows the exact scene. The film is being released unrated by Artisan because NC-17 is a commercial kiss of death. The shame is this movie needs to be seen. Make it mandatory in schools. DARE isn’t working but this film will. No one with an urge to use drugs will have that same urge after seeing this harrowing film.
Nate’s Grade: A+
Reviewed 20 years later as part of the “Reviews Re-View: 2000” article.
Share this:
Whipped (2000)
The ailing problems with Whipped aren’t with its inept acting, writing, and direction, though those do add up. The true problem is that Whipped isn’t just a bad movie as say Battlefield Earth; no my friends, Whipped is a viciously ugly movie, the type of which that force you to take an hour long shower afterwards.
The story of Whipped unspools over a familiar diner with four friends bantering over female conquests, misogynistic games and chest pounding, and general nastiness. Our core of characters the usual stereotypes with the supposedly sensitive one, the yuppie Wall Street kid, the playa’ etc. Writer/director Peter M. Cohen tries his darnedest to raise eyebrows with vulgarity and raunch, but minus any wit, just making it seem shallow and inane, which is a perfect description of Whipped in any kind of masochistic nutshell.
The three guys eventually fall head over heels for the same woman in Amanda Peet. Eventually these crass individuals all learn some kind of lesson when Peet plays each of them for the same kicks the men derive. Is this supposed to be a feminist statement in the end of a movie so full of hatred for women that it could have been In the Company of Men minus the quality? Whipped is billed to expose the politics of dating but what it perceives as breaking new ground and insights in dating we all learned many years ago, some of it on the schoolyard playground.
Whipped has such ugly contempt for basically anything living as we carry along with the four pathetic human examples. The humor is dead-on-arrival and horribly bad. The acting is so amateurish. Yet Cohen gets the worst for his flat and lifeless direction.
Whipped may prove not to be the worst movie of this year already full of its fair share of bad, but I defy anyone to discover a film that is more ugly, spiteful, and horribly uncomfortable to sit through.
Nate’s Grade: F
Share this:
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
Lars von Trier’s latest shaky video opus is likely the most unique movie going experience you’ll have all year. Dancer in the Dark is a clever, heartfelt, and achingly beautiful tale of sorrow and redemption. Dancer stars Iceland’s version of Madonna in the elfin Bjork. She plays Selma, quite possibly the nicest but also most stubborn person in the world. She’s an immigrant in 1960s America working long and odd hours to ensure that she can raise enough money for her son. You see Selma is slowly going blind but continuing to work so she can make sure her son will not have to suffer the same inherited illness. So she works late on heavy industrial machinery causing accidents as her condition worsens all to stop her son’s genetic curse she will give to him. Selma’s escape has always been musicals. In life she hears music in unusual places and visualizes life stopping to burst out into a vibrant fully choreographed musical number. Selma’s life continues to degenerate along with her vision as events pile on worse and worse until they all come crashing together.
Dancer in the Dark is no picnic in the park. The movie is haunting but incredibly depressing. Lars von Trier’s previous film (Breaking the Waves) was another wrenching drama with good people going through rough times with no fraction of light at any end of a tunnel. His jerky handheld video work is back capturing the life of Selma and seemingly framing it in a more realistic sense. The video images are edited to look like a documentary and the whole feel is one of raw power. You aren’t merely watching a film, it’s like you are in it witnessing the actions from the sidelines. The escapist musical numbers are shot in glorious still film to contrast the drab realism of video. The colors are bright, the faces are happy, and the cinematography is a wonder to envision.
Bjork soars and delivers what should be an Oscar-caliber performance. I never knew the queen of alt-rock had such emotive powers. Selma’s innocence is keenly expressed in Bjork and her glassy eyes. Her love for her son is no more evident then all the suffering and tragedy she goes through. All of the suffering and tragedy could be avoided – except her son would not be helped.
The ensemble around Bjork work fantastic magic as well. Peter Stormare is a sad figure trying to just get a glimpse of Selma’s attention. David Morse is a down-and-out policeman who is Selma’s landlord and in need of some cash. He’s afraid to tell his bourgeois wife they’ve run empty with money. Catherine Deneuve turns in the brightest supporting performance as Selma’s co-worker and friend Kathy. She’s torn between trying to stop Selma from continuing on her acts that could cause her harm and helping her along her determination. A great scene as example of her care for Selma is when the two of them are in a theater watching an old Hollywood musical. At this point Selma is completely blind and can’t see what’s going on, so Kathy takes Selma’s palm and dances her fingers in correlation with the actions on screen to Selma’s delight. A simple scene yet so elegant and beautiful.
Dancer in the Dark is a wonderful piece of original film making that gives us the escape of hope and the crush of despair. Selma’s love of musicals and their role in life is perfect symbolism for discussion. Dancer will leave you with a distinct feeling by the end credits. Whether it’s sorrow or bewilderment Dancer in the Dark is a film not to miss.
Nate’s Grade: A
Reviewed 20 years later as part of the “Reviews Re-View: 2000” article.
nathanzoebl 
You must be logged in to post a comment.