(Even) Short(er) comments...
Now Playing: ...on stuff I've seen before
My Own Private Idaho- haven't seen this one since high school, and never before on the big screen, so I decided to check it out again on a lonely Friday night (and really, aren't they all anymore?). Didn't really dig it that much this time, since the various elements of the film seemed to clash more than they did on previous viewings. Mikey's inner torments, manifested in his narcolepsy, are intriguing enough to carry a picture by themselves (though they might have been more effective without the old home movies in my opinion- River was a powerful enough actor that he could've conveyed the backstory simply via performance), so the Shakespearean elements that Van Sant included distract from its effectiveness. Which is not to say the Shakespeare isn't interesting as well, though it would've been more so had Van Sant not made it so blatant, or even if he'd cast a better actor than Keanu as the story's Hal- he's clearly overmatched in his scenes opposite the Falstaffian Bob, played by William Richert. It's not a bad film, just not nearly as good as I'd remembered.
Rating: ** [was ***].

American Splendor- many critics have (mostly unfavorably) compared this film to Terry Zwigoff's work, and while there's certainly a distinct similarity between Harvey Pekar and, say, Steve Buscemi's Seymour from GHOST WORLD, I think that Pekar is more accepting of his lifestyle than Zwigoff's characters tend to be of theirs. I believe that Pekar, as presented in his various incarnations here, has found his place in the world, which is why he's willing to document minutae and annoyances of his environment (he's also so deeply immersed in his non-mainstream way of life that he doesn't realize how strange he seems to those who don't share his lifestyle, as on his Letterman appearances- something that certainly doesn't afflict Enid). Paul Giamatti's performance, on second viewing, was surprisingly deep, avoiding surface mimickry- which could've risked caricature- and instead incorporating various elements of Harvey's emotional makeup and worldview. Lesson of the day: when you speak to your not-in-the-know coworkers in a Toby Radloff voice for an entire shift, they'll give you funny looks. Makes sense, in retrospect...
Rating: ***1/2.

The Kid Stays in the Picture- as with AMERICAN SPLENDOR, this film is a collaboration between a chronicler of his life and filmmakers who are working from his accounts. However, while Pulcini and Berman respect Pekar, KID directors Nanette Burstein and Brett Morgen seem to be in awe of Robert Evans, which keeps them from probing his past any more deeply than he has already done himself. The film takes its cue from the opening quotation from Evans himself, and while Evans is certainly a great raconteur (and quite a character to boot), I frankly wanted to know more. That's the problem with first-person accounts, I suppose- you have to go with what the person's willing to share. As it is, the film is an example of a prevailing trend in film culture to romanticize 70s Hollywood. Yeah, it was a great and fruitful time for cinema, but the highlight-reel structure of the film doesn't really have much to say about it than that (a period in which EARTHQUAKE could be nominated for a Golden Globe must've had its share of problems to, after all). The film is certainly entertaining, but rarely if ever more than that, and that's kind of unfortunate.
Rating: **1/2 [was ***].