The Movie Guys

The Spirit and Valkyrie...

2008-12-18T11:54:00.000-08:00

The Spirit

Comic book writer Frank Miller (300, Sin City) makes his directorial debut with The Spirit, which is unfortunately a colossal misfire that will likely please only his most devoted fans.
Gabriel Macht plays The Spirit, an ex-cop who became a superhero after narrowly escaping a brush with death. He does battle with villains The Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson) and Silken Floss (Scarlett Johansson) while also pursuing his former childhood flame Sand Saref (Eva Mendes). All of the characters are in pursuit of a mysterious vase.
The movie goes wrong in so many ways it’s hard to capture them all in a short review. In the leading role, Gabriel Macht is so devoid of charisma that he makes Al Gore seem like a cross between Sean Connery, Clint Eastwood, and Robert Downey, Jr. Samuel L. Jackson mails in another one of his “I’M SAMUEL L. JACKSON!!!!” performances as the villain. Scarlett Johansson just looks bored.
The writing isn’t much better. Both hero and villain are nearly immortal and survive all sorts of things that would kill a person many times over, so it never really feels like much is at stake. The faux hard-boiled narration isn’t even good enough for a TV movie.
Even Seven Pounds is preferable to The Spirit, which is easily one of the worst films of the year.

Valkyrie

After the bloated monstrosity that was Superman Returns, director Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects, X-Men) recovers with Valkyrie, a solid thriller about a failed attempt by German officers to assassinate Adolf Hitler.

Tom Cruise plays a disillusioned German officer who is maimed in combat in North Africa. When he returns to an administrative job in Berlin, he is recruited by some superiors (Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy) to join a group that hopes to stage a coup and forge a truce with the Allies before it’s too late. The challenge is not just assassinating Hitler, but insuring that the military and reserves fall in line after the fact. The film starts slowly, but it gains momentum and increasing sense of dread as the assassination attempt occurs at about the halfway mark – a reasonably impressive achievement since viewers already know the ultimate outcome for the protagonists.

Happily, Cruise does not even attempt a German accent. All he does exhibit his innate movie star charisma, something that was easy to forget about in recent years with his distracting behavior off-screen. He doesn’t go for the Oscar, nor does anyone else in the film, but that’s fine. Everyone involved seems only interested in making a slick, efficient thriller based on actual events. And they succeed.

Milk & Seven Pounds....

2008-12-16T10:55:00.000-08:00

Milk

In the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 in California, Gus Van Sant’s film Milk feels especially timely. It tells the story of Harvey Milk (Sean Penn), the country’s first openly gay politician. In the 1970s, Milk was elected to San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors.
Milk generally follows the conventional bio-pic template. That being said, it’s a good formula biopic. Penn does excellent work in the lead. Even though his performance is showy, it’s never overbearing. Ditto Gus Van Sant’s direction – his most recent films (especially Last Days) have been endurance tests, but he finds a way here to inject his own quirky visual sensibility into something that could have been a TV movie of the week in the wrong hands.
All in all, this is a well-made film about a man many people know very little about. And it serves as a bracing reminder of how far the gay rights movement has come and how far it still has to go.

Seven Pounds

It’s generally a bad sign when the climax of a movie that aims to be powerful and moving elicits more giggles than tears, but that’s the case with the new Will Smith showcase, Seven Pounds.

Smith plays a tormented IRS agent who decides to play the role of fairy godmother to an assortment of down-on-their-luck types (among them Rosario Dawson and Woody Harrelson). The film has a boatload of narrative problems. Chief among them is the fact that there is very little conflict in the film’s 120 minute running time. Smith just hops from good deed to good deed with virtually no obstacles blocking his path.

In addition to this, the film is coy about revealing the source of Smith’s torment. It aims to be a mystery, but it’s one that any non-comatose viewer could see coming from a mile away. As a result, Smith’s character development is virtually non-existent and viewers are left with an agonizingly slow moving film.

Standard Operating Procedure and City of Ember....

2008-10-15T07:44:00.001-07:00

Standard Operating Procedure

Even though it never opened in theaters here in New Orleans, the new film by acclaimed documentarian Errol Morris (The Fog of War, The Thin Blue Line) is out on DVD and definitely worth a look.
The documentary focuses on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. A number of the soldiers prosecuted for abuse are interviewed and Morris successfully pulls off the balancing act of humanizing the soldiers without condoning their actions. A great deal of time is spent on the day-to-day horrors of war and how they can wear on a person’s psyche and make them do things they otherwise wouldn’t do. However, the film refuses to shy away from the fact that the abuses were real, criminal, and went a long way towards making the war in Iraq seem something far less noble than a mission of liberation.
Aside from its ruminations on the Iraq War, Standard Operating Procedure also provides an interesting examination of the nature of photography and how an image frozen in time is irrefutable, but also fails to show the full picture.
Like last year’s excellent documentary No End in Sight, Standard Operating Procedure is not easy viewing, but it is essential viewing for people looking for a deeper understanding of the current war.

City of Ember

City of Ember is not a bad film. It has some interesting ideas and noble lessons about the importance of individuals taking action and refusing to accept the word of an authority figure solely because they’re in charge, but the overall result lacks a spark and feels like it’s missing something.

In a futuristic world, the surface of Earth has become uninhabitable and the residents have fled underground. Centuries later, the underground civilization is running out of resources (thanks in large part to the corrupt mayor, well played by Bill Murray). Two plucky adolescents (Saiorse Ronan and Harry Treadaway) do their best to save the day.

Again, the film is sometimes intriguing, but it falls into a sort of no man’s land. It’s too scary for young children, but it’s not quite exciting enough to be really stimulating for older kids. Ultimately, it’s a well-intentioned film that’s hard to really bash, but it’s also hard to recommend.

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People....

2008-10-02T13:48:00.000-07:00

The new film How to Lose Friends and Alienate People made me appreciate the woefully underseen 2005 Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang even more (Netflix it now). The two films' plots bear virtually no resemblance to each other. However, Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang featured a protagonist (Robert Downey Jr's character) who was often a self-sabotaging idiot, but you still root for him. The excellent script makes him seem just charming, glib, and smart enough to laugh at his misadventures without wanting to throttle him. It's a tightrope walk, but Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang pulled it off.

In How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, the audience is supposed to be charmed by the boorish antics of the lead character played by Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz). Pegg plays a British tabloid journalist whose irreverent stunts attract the attention of a major New York celebrity magazine. Once there, Pegg proceeds to behave in an oafish manner and does several stunts that would have had him fired many times over from any job on Earth. He does not come across as charming. He does not come across as witty. He does not even come off as a charismatic anti-hero. He comes off as a @#@#ing idiot.

A little over an hour into the film, Pegg morphs via montage into a sought-after celebrity journalist. It was not good leading up to this point, but after this montage, it really flies off the rails and just becomes woefully dull. The one good thing about this film is Jeff Bridges' skillful performance as the boss of Pegg's new magazine. Sadly, Bridges all but disappears from the film after a point, leaving us to just check our watches and wait for the film to be over.

Righteous Kill and Lakeview Terrace...

2008-09-19T13:22:00.000-07:00

Righteous Kill

If this were the 70s, 80s, or even early 90s, it would be a lot easier to get excited about a film featuring both Robert De Niro and Al Pacino (1995’s Heat and 1974’s The Godfather Part II featured both, but they share only one scene in the former and none in the latter). But, as the 90s passed, both actors became much less selective about their roles and watching them became more like watching once great athletes stumble - think Earl Campbell limping around in a Saints uniform.
Sadly, Righteous Kill is a weak thriller about two partners (Pacino and De Niro) pursuing a serial killer who targets criminals. Eventually, De Niro finds himself the prime suspect. The plot here revolves around a big “twist,” albeit it’s one that viewers should be able to guess from a mile away. The story seems like a TV movie of the week and the two headline actors seem to just be going through the motions.
Like all movie fans, I hope for De Niro and Pacino to recapture some of their old magic, but it doesn’t happen in Righteous Kill.

Lakeview Terrace

The previews for this film are misleading. It’s not quite the stalker-from-hell film the marketing campaign has made it out to be. Lakeview Terrace tells the story of an interracial couple (Patrick Wilson and Kerry Washington) who move into a new neighborhood, only to find themselves hassled by their policeman neighbor (Samuel L. Jackson).
The movie touches on some interesting issues: the challenges interracial couples face, the bad things that happen when fundamentally decent people receive one slight too many and feel the need to lash out at something, anything. The problem here is the Samuel L. Jackson character is never fully realized. It seems as if the script wants to make him a three dimensional antagonist, someone who’s gradually becoming unhinged after too many hits from life. But, the problem is, he seems too overtly sinister from the get-go and Jackson’s performance doesn’t help, either. He’s in full-tilt crazy mode, kind of like Dave Chappelle’s parody of him in the Samuel Jackson beer commercial skit from the Chappelle’s Show. A subtler performance would have been much better here.
All in all, a near miss.

Step Brothers and Pineapple Express....

2008-07-29T09:02:00.000-07:00

Here's a look at two new comedies I found disappointing on various levels...

Step Brothers

Since this marked Will Ferrell's reunion with co-writer/director Adam McKay (the two previously collaborated on Anchorman and Talladega Nights), I was pretty excited. Sadly, Step Brothers botches a great premise. Ferrell plays a man still living with his mother (Mary Steenburgen). John C. Reilly plays a man still living with his dad (Richard Jenkins). The mom and dad fall in love and marry, prompting the families to move in together. Hijinks ensue.

Considering the setup and the talent involved, this should all work wonderfully. And there are a few isolated funny moments throughout. However, the film doesn't work. A big reason is that it desperately needs a straight man. It would have been fairly easy to create comic gold out of the Reilly and Ferrell characters interacting with relatively normal people. But every single character in Step Brothers acts as if they're completely deranged at all times. The result is a very shrill, unpleasant movie that consists of a lot of people yelling at each other.

Another point brought up by The Onion A.V. Club in their review is worth mentioning. Characters like Ferrell and Reilly would likely behave like arrested adolescents, kind of like the guys in Knocked Up. Here, however, they really act more like 8 or 9 year olds.

The end result is a film that has some occasional laughs, but is tremendously disappointing because it could have been so much better.

Pineapple Express

This is better than Step Brothers, but it's still a disappointment. Seth Rogen (Knocked Up, The 40 Year Old Virgin) plays a process server who witnesses a murder. He ends up on the run with his pot dealer (James Franco). What follows is a variant on the cinematic staple of the 1980's, the buddy comedy.

For about an hour or so, Pineapple Express is amusing and works reasonably well as an action comedy. Unfortunately, it goes off the rails in its final 30-45 minutes when it mostly ditches the comedy and becomes an out and out action movie (and a surprisingly nasty, gory one at that). Defenders of the film will likely point to 80's fare like Beverly Hills Cop and Midnight Run, two films that blended comedy with action. But those films had a more consistent tone. Despite the early murder in Pineapple Express, the tone of the first hour or so of the film is that of a stoner comedy. Then it shifts into a very violent action film.

Midnight Run actually managed to have a clever, tense finale without resorting to all-out mayhem. Yes, Beverly Hills Cop's final act is heavy on the bullets, somewhat gratuitously so, but that film felt all along like it was building to a violent confrontation. As much of an irreverent smart-ass as Axel Foley was, he still journeyed halfway around the country to avenge the death of his childhood friend and he was, after all, a cop. So when he trades bullets with bad guys, it doesn't seem as jarring as in Pineapple Express, where two guys who have probably never handled guns in their lives are suddenly engaged in intense fighting/shootouts with two different armies of drug dealers.

Rogen and his co-writer, Evan Goldberg, scripted a movie last summer, Superbad, that effectively riffed on the "into the night" subgenre of 80's movies (e.g. Into the Night, After Hours). Here, they try to riff on the buddy action comedy, but come up short.

The Dark Knight...

2008-07-23T10:15:00.000-07:00

Every once in a while, a movie comes along that's a huge hit with the public and is a genuine artistic success. The Dark Knight is one of those movies.

Following 2005's excellent Batman Begins, The Dark Knight follows Batman/Bruce Wayne as Gotham City tries to climb back on its feet again. Mobsters are on the defensive, partly because of Batman, partly because of idealistic, crusading district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart). Dent also happens to be dating Bruce's ex-flame Rachel (Maggie Gyllenhaal, taking over the role from Katie Holmes).

Things get complicated when the Joker (Heath Ledger) convinces local mobsters to pay him to kill Batman. The Joker then threatens to kill a Gotham resident a day until Batman reveals his true identity. When the Joker starts following up on his threats, things get nasty.

Director Christopher Nolan (Memento), co-writing with his brother Jonathan, uses the plot to examine ethics in a post 9/11 society. The residents of Gotham react to the Joker's terrorist tactics in different ways. Things get even more high stakes when the Joker starts putting individuals in horrible situations and forcing them to make impossible choices. He believes that under stress, people will turn into animals, and he aims to prove that. In a way, it's similar to the gimmick used by the killer in the Saw movies, except those films were only concerned with finding gory ways to kill people, while The Dark Knight is actually concerned with the moral/ethical dilemmas posed by such situations.

A lot of focus will be given to Heath Ledger's performance, partly because the Joker is a showy role and partly because of the unfortunate circumstances of his death. Is Ledger's performance up to the hype? It's a very good performance, but it doesn't take over the film. In Tim Burton's Batman, Jack Nicholson's Joker upstaged the entire film (granted, Nicholson was entertaining, but he still upstaged the film itself). Ledger does fine work here, but I think it's more impressive than Nicholson because it's an ensemble performance. Ledger's good in a showy role without upstaging the film and everyone else around him.

And there are a number of other excellent performances, too. Aaron Eckhart does good, understated work as Harvey Dent. His idealism could have been grating and over-the-top, but Eckhart handles it nicely. It's a critical role, because the real emotional arc of the film belongs not to Batman/Bruce Wayne (as it did in Batman Begins), but to Dent. Without a good performance from Eckhart, the film does not work.

Gary Oldman returns as Commissioner Gordon and he has a bigger role here than he did in Batman Begins (conversely, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman have less to do than in Batman Begins). Amidst all of the darkness and unpleasantness, Oldman is the soul of the film. The Dark Knight is upsetting, intense, and depressing stuff, but Oldman's performance grounds it in humanity.

The Dark Knight is more than just a great comic book movie. It's a genuine work of art, one of the best films of the year.

Journey to the Center of the Earth...

2008-07-11T11:33:00.000-07:00

Full disclosure: Journey to the Center of the Earth was filmed for 3-D, and the screening I attended did not have 3-D, so take the following review with a grain of salt.

Seeing a movie like Journey to the Center of the Earth makes one appreciate Pixar's work all the more. Films like the Toy Story films or Finding Nemo are entertaining to children and adults. Something like Journey to the Center of the Earth will likely only be enjoyed by boys under the age of 10.

Brendan Fraser plays a scientist who follows his missing brother's notes and finds an entrance to, you guessed it, the center of the earth. Along for the ride are Fraser's nephew and an attractive guide. Journey to Center of the Earth ends up playing more like an amusement park ride than an actual film. Once Fraser and company are in the center of the Earth, they encounter killer fish, dinosaurs, etc, one after the other. The problem is no real time is spent establishing the universe. Really good fantasies immerse you in a world (the Harry Potter books are an excellent example of this). Here, it feels more like a park attraction. And for that reason, young kids will probably enjoy it. But the adults will find themselves glancing at their watches and mentally planning the rest of their week before the film ends.

Hancock....

2008-07-02T10:34:00.000-07:00

In Hancock, Will Smith plays an alcoholic superhero in Los Angeles who has become so reckless that the citizens are almost as sick of him as they are of the criminals he fights. But after Hancock saves the life of a struggling PR man (Jason Bateman), the PR man vows to remake Hancock’s image.

Hancock gets a lot of laughs out of the premise of a slumming superhero and the attempts to transform him into a polite, politically correct public servant. Smith and Bateman are both good in the lead roles, as is Charlize Theron as Bateman’s wife.

The film (which runs just over 90 minutes) is a little rushed in its final third when it starts explaining Hancock’s origins and the film’s villain (Eddie Marsan) is not as intimidating as a good villain should be. In fact, there were times when I thought I could throw the villain through a wall, and I only weigh 145 lbs. That being said, Hancock is fast-paced and funny. It’s silly entertainment, the kind of film many people think of when they think of a good “summer movie.” The parts may be greater than the sum, but the parts are still good enough to make this a decent entertainment.

Wall-E and Get Smart....

2008-06-27T11:21:00.001-07:00

Wall-E

This is a curious one. Yes, Pixar has made yet another good film (although at this point, the fact that Pixar releases a good film is about as unsurprising as Tiger Woods winning a golf tournament). But, what will be interesting to see about this is how young children react to it.

Wall-E is the story of a lonely robot stuck on a post-apocalyptic Earth (trash has polluted the environment to the point that the planet is no longer inhabitable). His only friend is a cockroach until one day, another robot, E.V.E., shows up. The two strike up a friendship. Eventually, they end up on a massive spaceship (that's laid out like modern day cruise ships) that houses much of humanity's descendants.

Visually, Wall-E is amazing. The story is reasonably affecting. There are laughs. The short in front of the film (featuring a magician and his rabbit) is probably the funniest short Pixar has done yet. But, Wall-E has a much more deliberate pace than most children's fare. There are long stretches with little to no dialogue. And while there is some slapstick comedy, it's not all that frequent. So, what I wonder is - will kids be restless watching this?

It's a good movie, although I wouldn't put it with Pixar's best (the Toy Story movies and Finding Nemo). I'm just wondering how kids will react to it. We shall see.

Get Smart

There are some movies that are meant to be watched on video or cable TV. Such movies are reasonably entertaining, but aren't so good that you need to watch them in the theaters. Get Smart is one of those movies. Steve Carell plays a research drone for a secret government agency. After an attack renders the agency desperate, he's promoted to field agent and teamed up with a more competent agent (Anne Hathaway).

While it's based on the old TV show, Get Smart actually bares more of a resemblance to Beverly Hills Cop, or even the little-seen Richard Grieco film If Looks Could Kill (bet you haven't thought about Richard Grieco in a while). In other words, it's just as much of an action film as it is a comedy. Some of the action scenes are well-staged, Carell is his usual funny self, and Alan Arkin has a number of very funny lines as Carell's boss.

There are some dead stretches and some of the comedy is hit-and-miss, but you'll probably enjoy yourself while watching Get Smart. But you probably won't remember it much after it's over. Like I said, the perfect kind of movie to watch if you need a diversion in the comfort of your own home.

The Happening...

2008-06-13T16:26:00.000-07:00

M. Night Shyamalan took the world by storm in 1999 with The Sixth Sense, a film that most people (justifiably so) view as great. After that, opinion varies considerably. Some believe that every film after The Sixth Sense has sucked. Others will defend all of his films, including Lady in the Water and The Village, because they feel Shyamalan, even with all of his wackiness, is an "auteur" and is therefore preferable to filmmakers who make more conventionally entertaining films.

Where do I stand on M. Night? I think The Sixth Sense is a great film, one that holds up to repeat viewings, and a rare "twist" movie where the big twist actually makes sense and doesn't collapse in on itself after you think about it for more than two minutes. I think Unbreakable is pretty good. Signs is so-so. The Village has its moments, but it's one of those movies whose final twist is so idiotic, so eye-rollingly awful, that it completely destroys everything that came before it. Lady in the Water is one of the worst films of this decade.

The Happening is a step up from Lady in the Water, but it's still not a good film. Shyamalan still has some sense of how to craft a creepy shot, and he has a few here (some of the mass suicides in the early minutes are genuinely unsettling). However, he desperately needs to hand over screenwriting duties to someone else. In interviews, he's stated that he wants The Happening to be a good "B" movie. But it doesn't even work on that level. The film's attempts at humor fall flat, the dialogue is clunky (fun "B" movies, like say, Tremors, succeed in large part because of snappy dialogue and interplay between its leads), and Mark Wahlberg is woefully miscast as a wimpy science teacher.

The plot follows Wahlberg and his wife (Zooey Deschanel) as they flee Philadelphia after people suddenly begin committing suicide. The government suspects it may be a nerve gas, but that possibility is soon ruled out. Soon, Wahlberg and the scattered band of survivors flee an unseen force that is closing in on them. The film could have worked as a study of group dynamics in people when they are fleeing a disaster. But, the script's not emotionally resonant enough for that to work. And it's too awkward and goofy to work as a pure horror film, either. Bottom line - it's yet another swing and a miss for a talented director who's his own worst enemy.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull...

2008-05-22T07:59:00.000-07:00

You want me to get to the point. Is Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull good? Is it worth seeing?

Yes, it is. It's good; it works.

To the more complex questions - how does it stack up to the other films in the series? Realistically, I can't answer this question less than a day after I saw the film for the first time. I need to let it sit, linger, and see how well it holds up on a second viewing before I can honestly compare it to its predecessors. So, take the following comparisons with sufficient grains of salt.

While I liked Crystal Skull, I don't suspect it will have the same place in my heart the previous three films did. Why not? Because I first saw the first three Indy films when I was a boy (I saw the second two in the theater, Raiders on video). Even though we are of course still capable of loving films, music, etc. as adults, the films we love as adults will never hold the same place in our hearts as the ones we loved growing up. The music we are introduced to as adults will never seem as cool to us as the bands we grew up with. The Indy films were an indispensable part of my childhood (my love of screenwriting began when my parents gave me an illustrated copy of the Raiders of the Lost Ark screenplay as a Christmas gift). As a result, Crystal Skull works from a slight disadvantage because it's the first Indy film that I've watched entirely through adult eyes.

In retrospect, I realize this was also partially the case with the Star Wars prequels as well - they never had a chance to hold up to the original trilogy that I loved as a child. Although I didn't ponder this point as much with the Star Wars prequels because they all had much more glaring flaws to focus on. And in case you're wondering - yes, I think Crystal Skull is better than the Star Wars prequels (although I will still defend the prequels to an extent - even Phantom Menace, which is the worst of the bunch).

All that being said, Crystal Skull is entertaining. I won't spoil much, so don't worry. Indy (Harrison Ford) is twenty years older and pitted against Soviet agents (led by Cate Blanchett) who are after the titular artifact, which - like the Holy Grail in Last Crusade and the ark in Raiders is a device that they believe will give them power to rule the world. Steven Spielberg still has few peers when it comes to staging action scenes. The opening chase is a corker, and there are other highly entertaining set pieces throughout the film.

The film's biggest weakness is a midsection that sags a bit. This is likely because the human relationships at the center of Skull aren't as compelling as the father/son dynamic at the heart of Last Crusade (probably my favorite Indy film). In tone, Crystal Skull is closest to Raiders. It's not as dark, brutal, and relentless as Temple of Doom (although it doesn't have the glaring weakness of a character as problematic as Kate Capshaw's from that film), and it's not as humanistic as Last Crusade.

So...Final judgments about this film must came later, as we determine how well it holds up over time. But, for now, see it - if you've liked the previous Indy films, you'll like this one.

3 out of 4 Isn't Bad - Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Iron Man, Speed Racer, and Redbelt

2008-05-11T14:43:00.001-07:00

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

While this is certainly a generalization, the romantic comedy genre used to be almost exclusively the domain of fluffy chick flicks. Some of these films were definitely entertaining, but they were just as definitely geared towards ladies. This began to change in the late 90's, I would say with the 1998 release of There's Something About Mary, which combined the sweetness, empathy, and soulfulness of a good romantic comedy with gross-out humor. It was a romantic comedy told from a guy's perspective. You could argue that 1996's Swingers was the first guy's romantic comedy, but that film was just as much about male bonding as it was about romance (it's still a good film, though).

In 2005, Judd Apatow wrote and directed The 40-Year Old Virgin, which kickstarted the guy's romantic comedy genre all over again. Virgin hit virtually the same jackpot There's Something About Mary did - it had compelling characters, an overall uplifting sense of sweetness, and raunchy R-rated humor. After Virgin's breakaway success, Apatow became the hottest comedy commodity in Hollywood. He wrote and directed last year's Knocked Up, which was another big hit. He produced the surprise hit Superbad. And now he's producing Forgetting About Sarah Marshall. All of those films are pretty much the same genre - aggressively R-rated romantic comedies for guys. Eventually, the well will run dry, but...Forgetting Sarah Marshall is another success for Apatow and his group of actors.

Jason Segel (who also wrote the film) plays Peter, a schlub who does the score for a CSI type show. His girlfriend (Kristen Bell) is the star of the show. She breaks up with him for a lustful rock star (the hilarious Russell Brand). After a bout of serious depression, Peter takes a vacation to Hawaii, only to find out his ex and her new lover are staying at the same resort. In the meantime, he falls for the resort's customer service rep (Mila Kunis from That 70's Show).

Forgetting Sarah Marshall breaks no new ground (except for being perhaps the first mainstream romantic comedy to include full frontal male nudity), but...it's funny. Like all of the films Apatow has had a hand in, one of the film's major strengths is the way in which it spreads out the laughs to all the cast members. Bill Hader (one of the cops from Superbad) is terrific as Peter's stepbrother. Brand, who I've never seen before in a film, takes the role of the rock star, which could have been a one-note caricature, and makes it genuinely funny. And Apatow regulars Paul Rudd (as an aging surfer) and Jonah Hill (as an obsequious maitre' d) get a lot of laughs, too.

The major criticism about Forgetting Sarah Marshall would be that, like in all of Apatow's films, a schlubby or dorky guy ends up with a girl who seems way out of his league. And Mila Kunis' character in Forgetting Sarah Marshall is no different - the character seems to exist only to make Segel's character feel better about himself. But, she's likable, and hey, this is a romantic comedy, not an in-depth psychological character study. It's a good, breezily entertaining time at the movies.

Iron Man/Speed Racer

Even though I liked Iron Man and did not like Speed Racer, I will lump them together for purposes of a comparison.

Iron Man (directed by Jon Favreau) tells the story of a billionaire arms dealer (Robert Downey, Jr.) who decides to change his ways after being attacked in Afghanistan. He constructs a suit of armor for himself and voila, he's a crime fighting superhero. Absolutely ludicrous premise. But, it's a solid action movie for one important reason - Downey's work in the lead. Yeah, he's doing the usual Robert Downey, Jr. schtick, but, Downey's routine is pretty funny. He's glib, humorous, and walks the fine line of not taking the material too seriously without descending into outright camp. It's a tough balancing act, but Downey makes it seem effortless. The plot which has Downey combating his former partner (Jeff Bridges) is standard stuff, but it's pulled off with just enough conviction and humor to work reasonably well.

Speed Racer, on the other hand, is a 135-140 minute slog. The title character (played by Emile Hirsch) and Racer X (Matthew Fox) are dull, humorless characters. The film tries to inject some humor with Speed Racer's kid brother and his pet chimpanzee, but these lame asides are more eye-rolling than funny and they pad the running time of a movie that's already way too long. And just as they did with the unwatchable Matrix sequels, the writer/director team of the Wachowski Brothers show no sense of pacing and make the film way more convoluted than it needs to be. Speed Racer has some cool visuals, but it's a dull, hollow, humorless, and empty film. It makes me appreciate the light, workmanlike effort of Iron Man all the more.

Redbelt

Writer-director David Mamet (Glengarry Glen Ross, The Spanish Prisoner) isn’t the first person most people would expect to make a movie about the blossoming world of mixed martial arts (i.e. ultimate fighting). But he’s done just that with the highly entertaining Redbelt.
Chiwetel Ejiofor (Children of Men, Dirty Pretty Things) plays a martial arts instructor who’s morally opposed to prizefighting. An encounter with an unstable lawyer (Emily Mortimer) and a chance meeting with an actor (the surprisingly good Tim Allen) set in motion a chain of events that force him to consider entering a brutal tournament in order to win the prize money.
As usual, Ejiofor turns in excellent work as the lead. But Mamet’s script is the real star. Every decision made by every character seems completely believable. The characters, whether they be virtuous or villainous, feel real. There is action, but the action is at the service of the characters, not vice versa.
Redbelt is a thoughtful, engrossing film that deserves to find an audience in what has been a disappointing year for movies so far.

88 Minutes....

2008-04-19T16:07:00.000-07:00

Al Pacino can give bad performances. However, when he usually gives a bad performance, he overacts so much that it’s still entertaining in its own way. His work in the laughably awful serial killer thriller 88 Minutes is the first film where he looks like he might doze off at any moment. And it’s hard to blame him because the script is full of plot holes, stilted dialogue and jaw-droppingly ridiculous plot twists.
Pacino plays a forensic psychiatrist who gets a call from a killer telling him he has 88 minutes to live. Thus begins the film’s major motif: phone calls – and lots of them and not just from the killer. This isn’t intended to be a sustained gimmick like in Phone Booth; he just spends most of the film’s running time on the phone giving and receiving awkward exposition.
If you played a drinking game where you took a drink every time someone made or received a phone call in 88 Minutes, your liver would resemble Nicolas Cage’s at the end of Leaving Las Vegas.

Leatherheads Review...

2008-04-05T15:40:00.000-07:00

While George Clooney has received a lot of recognition as an actor, he’s actually a pretty good director. With Leatherheads, his latest effort as a director (after Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and Good Night and Good Luck), he’s 3 for 3. And with Leatherheads, he's made the first 2008 movie that I'd actually recommend.
Clooney plays Dodge Connolly, the over-the-hill star of a fledgling professional football team in the 1920’s (when football was still very much a fringe sport). With the team going bankrupt, he convinces a golden boy WWI hero (The Office’s John Krasinski) to join the team and put people in the seats. Things are further complicated by a journalist (Renee Zellweger) out to prove Krasinski isn’t all that he appears to be.
Leatherheads won’t go down in history as one of the classic sports movies, but that being said, it’s pretty good. It has laughs, exposes sports fans to an era most are only slightly aware of (in many ways, it's kind of the movie that Will Ferrell's dud Semi-Pro could and should have been), and Clooney the director stages a number of scenes and shots more cleverly than an average director would (an early shot of a cow is particularly deft). Compared to the rest of the junk that’s come out in 2008 so far, Leatherheads is a breath of fresh air.

Funny Games

2008-03-22T07:35:00.000-07:00

Fritz here....I've been working on a mammoth post about the end of The Wire but can't come to finish it, so...

2008 is still young, but it's hard to imagine there'll be a film this year that I'll hate more than Funny Games.

Directed by Michael Haneke (Cache), it tells the story of a married couple and their young son who travel to their country vacation home. Once there, they find themselves terrorized by two Leopold & Loeb clones (Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet). Torture (of both the physical and psychological variety) ensues.

What's so infuriating about Funny Games is its unbelievable smugness. Haneke thinks he's making a grand artistic statement about voyeurism and violence in movies and how moviegoers are complicit in that violence (Pitt makes roughly 2 or 3 asides to the audiences where he asks them what they think before contiuing his torture of the family). In reality, all Haneke has done has made the most smug, self-satisfied horror film in the history of cinema.

Funny Games revels in the behavior it claims to be superior to. Say what you will about grade-Z horror films like the Friday the 13th films, but at least they're honest about what they are. Those films know they're sleazy, gory, exploitative films that treat human beings like objects. Funny Games is sleazy, gory, and exploitative (you get to watch a bound Watts writhe around in her underwear for several minutes), but it's also dishonest to the point of loathsomeness. It acts as if it's superior to other horror films and the audiences who watch them, but it's not. And if you tell an artsy-farty defender of the film that you hated it, they'll give you some line about how it's supposed to infuriate the bourgeoisie, challenge your perceptions of violence, blah blah.

I'm not sure if a meta exercise in deconstructing audience participation in on-screen violence would work in any circumstance, but for it to work it has to be introduced earlier. Haneke only uses the aside device two or three times in the movie, which makes it seem like an astonishingly halfhearted attempt to justify the film's sleaziness. If you want an example of a movie that breaks the fourth wall and interacts with its audience while deconstructing a major genre, see Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (which satirized old-school detective films).

In the end, Funny Games is just torture porn for pretentious people.

Jumper, Charlie Bartlett, and Semi-Pro mini-reviews...

2008-02-27T11:02:00.000-08:00

Semi-Pro

Many superstar comedians hit a wall at some point. It happened to Chevy Chase in the early 90's. It happened to Eddie Murphy around the same time (Murphy's scored quality hits with Bowfinger and The Nutty Professor, but those are more the exceptions than the rule for him). And I fear it is happening to Will Ferrell.
I really enjoy Anchorman and Talledega Nights. I thought Ferrell's work in Melinda & Melinda is vastly underrated (his work in Stranger Than Fiction was also underappreciated). I thought Elf was amusing. Granted, I didn't like Old School, but still....in the middle of this decade, Ferrell put up an impressive body of work. Things started to go downhill with last year's underwhelming Blades of Glory. Ferrell's new film, Semi-Pro, is even worse.
It tells the story of the Flint Tropics, a fictional ABA franchise. Ferrell is Jackie Moon, owner, coach, and power forward. The team's terrible and the ABA is about to merge with the NBA, but only four teams will get to go (in real life, this happened - the Nuggets, Spurs, Nets, and Pacers were all originally ABA teams). So, Ferrell tries desperately to save the team with the help of a weathered veteran (Woody Harrellson) and a flashy young player (Andre Benjamin).
A really good sports movie could be made about the ABA - the league had some genuine characters. At times, it seems like the film wants to be a throwback to tough, R-rated sports comedies of that era like Slap Shot and The Longest Yard. But, the script is weak and Ferrell just seems to be playing the umpteenth version of his usual character. Any potential in the script seems to have been squashed to allow for Ferrell to do his usual shtick.
I don't want to seem too hard on Ferrell here. I've enjoyed much of his work and I don't want to see him all but disappear from films the way Chevy Chase did (and I liked a lot of Chase's work in the 80's, too). I just think it's time that Ferrell tries to branch out a little more and take on more films like Stranger Than Fiction.

Jumper

The best superhero movies combine cool concepts and action scenes with well-developed characters. Jumper gets only half of that equation right. It has a workable premise: a small group of people, “jumpers,” have the ability to teleport. They’re pursued by a group of well-funded zealots (led by Samuel L. Jackson) who believe only God should have the power to be everywhere at once.
The teleporting makes for some cool action scenes, especially in the film’s final half hour, and there’s plenty of exotic locales (Rome, Tokyo, Egypt) to feast the eyes on. However, the film’s hero (Hayden Christensen – Anakin from the Star Wars prequels) doesn’t register the way that Peter Parker does in Spider Man or Wolverine in X-Men. The film runs less than 90 minutes (and that’s including the ending credits). As a result, Christensen’s character comes across more as a shallow brat than a charismatic, complex superhero.

Charlie Bartlett

When compared with his teen comedy ancestors, the character of Charlie Bartlett (played by Anton Yelchin) most closely resembles Ferris Bueller. They’re both goofy guys who have problems with authority and end up being almost universally loved by the student population.
However, Charlie’s rise to popularity revolves around his serving as a psychiatrist to the students in his school (even prescribing Ritalin and other drugs). For the film’s first hour, it’s generally amusing as Charlie plays shrink and the film makes the line between a psychiatrist and a drug dealer seem pretty blurry. And the film initially gives Charlie’s main adversary, the school’s principal (Robert Downey, Jr.) a little more depth than such characters usually have in this genre.
Unfortunately, the film’s final 30 minutes become overly melodramatic. With a few small exceptions, it stops being a comedy and tries too hard to be heartwarming. Still, there are a lot worse teen comedies out there.

Best List, Worst List, Oscar Nominations

2008-01-22T06:48:00.000-08:00

The Best of 2007 (in alphabetical order):

Away From Her/The Savages - I'm listing these two together, because movies have generally shied away from portraying dementia/Alzheimer's in films, probably because it's the proverbial fate worse than death and is too depressing/painful for most people to contemplate. These two films, however, take on the disease from different perspectives. In Away From Her, actress Sarah Polley makes an assured feature film writing/directing debut in a story of a man (Gordon Pinsent) who must cope with his wife's (Julie Christie) slow descent into dementia. In The Savages, writer/director Tamara Jenkins tells the story of two siblings (Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Laura Linney) who must cope with their father's dementia and the reality of having to put him in a nursing home. Despite handling similar subject matter, they're both very different movies, both very powerful and moving in their own ways. However, I'll give them a shout out together for tackling subject matter that has routinely scared off movies.

Black Book

In 1987, director Paul Verhoeven made Robocop, a classic that remains perhaps the only film ever to work simultaneously as both an action film and as a social satire (and a very prescient one - watch it again). After that, Verhoeven made two okay films (Total Recall and Basic Instinct), then careened into obscurity with the horrific Showgirls. Black Book marks a terrific return to form, succeeding in every way that Academy Award winner Ang Lee's Lust/Caution (see my worst list below) fails. It's a film about a Jewish woman on the run in World War II who joins the Dutch resistance and is asked to go undercover and seduce a Nazi officer. Aside from working exceptionally well as a thriller, it's unique among World War II films in the way it portrays how both "the good guys" and "the bad guys" consisted of individuals who often fought amongst themselves as much as they fought with the enemy.

Breach

Chris Cooper was shamefully overlooked in the Oscar nominations for his portrayal of Robert Hansen, the worst mole in the history of the FBI. Ryan Phillippe plays the young agent assigned to gain his confidence and bring him down. Just like writer/director Billy Ray's 2003 film Shattered Glass (also a wonderful film), this tells a complex, suspenseful true story. It's also notable for making the cliches like the strained relationship between a hero and his wife seem fresh. Rent it.

Knocked Up

It's too long and it can be argued that its depiction of an overweight slob (Seth Rogen) ending up with a statuesque, accomplished career woman (Katherine Heigl) is sexist. But, it's still the year's funniest movie. Writer/director Judd Apatow gives his characters the same humanity he gave his characters in The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Paul Rudd's speech while watching his children blow bubbles in a park is the most painfully funny moment of the year.

The Lookout

It's a battle between this, The Bourne Ultimatum, and Gone, Baby, Gone for the best pure genre film of the year. The Lookout gets the edge because it works as both a thriller and a character study. A young man (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) who suffered a brain injury from a car accident he caused struggles to make a life for himself despite limited memory capacity (shades of Memento, but they're still very different films). A local crook (the terrific Matthew Goode) prays upon his desperate desire to belong and enlists his aid in robbing the bank he works for. Jeff Daniels gives another excellent supporting performance, making me wish he appeared in movies more often.

My Kid Could Paint That

The film's core story, that of a four-year-old who becomes a sensation on in the art world, only to suffer allegations that her father is doing most of the painting, is compelling enough on its own. However, this documentary tells that story and also poses fascinating questions about the nature of art, parenting, and journalistic ethics in less than 90 minutes. It only played for a week in New Orleans, so rent it.

No End in Sight

Another excellent documentary that played for only one week here in New Orleans. It's a cold, clinical, infuriating breakdown of all the ways in which the Iraq War has been botched by the Bush administration. While I enjoyed Michael Moore's Bush takedown Fahrenheit 9/11, naysayers could dismiss it by saying that Moore and his subjects had personal/political axes to grind with the president. In this film, however, the tone is always calm and level-headed and I'd guess that most of the people criticizing Bush war policy are registered Republicans.

Sicko

Speaking of Michael Moore, he returned with this documentary on the travesty that is the American health care system. It has its flaws, but it also has an undeniable emotional power, especially as it relates stories of the countless people who thought they would be protected by their medical insurance, only to be betrayed by the insurance companies. It's such a good film that even Fox News' critic gave it a glowing review.

Zodiac

Arguably the most cerebral serial killer film ever made, director David Fincher's 2 hr 45 minute epic about America's most infamous uncaptured serial killer traces the effect that the murders had on San Francisco. Aside from being a fascinating police procedural, it's also one of the best cinematic examinations of obsession.

The Worst List

5. Lust/Caution - Congratulations, Ang Lee, for making acrobatic sex seem boring. This nearly three hour NC-17 rated snoozefest fails in every way that Black Book succeeds. Poorly structured and paced from a storytelling level, it also utterly fails to make us believe that our heroine (a Chinese woman in the WWII resistance going undercover and seducing a collaborator with the Japanese) would have any genuine feelings (other than contempt) for the man she's seducing - a brutal, taciturn thug who practically rapes her in their first sex scene. Easily the low point in the otherwise distinguished career of director Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain, The Ice Storm, Sense and Sensibility).

4. Death at a Funeral - Very few things feel as painful and forced as an unsuccessful farce.

3. Smokin' Aces - Sometimes, it's easy to take for granted the delicate balancing act of violence, humor, quirky dialogue, and often unlikeable characters that Quentin Tarantino pulled off in Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs. You'll get a renewed appreciation for those films after watching this chaotic, often repulsive piece about a parade of hitmen simultaneously converging on a hotel to murder a mob informant and collect the bounty.

2. Lions for Lambs - Whether you're a liberal or a conservative, pro-war or anti-war, you'll be united in agreement that this is awful. Like Lust, Caution, this is particularly painful because it marks the low point in the otherwise distinguished career of a talented director (in this case, Robert Redford, who has done wonderful work on films like Ordinary People and Quiz Show). It's not so much a film as it is a loose collection of speeches. The film's so talky and stilted that it makes An Inconvenient Truth seem dynamic and fraught with tension.

1. Norbit - At least you can argue that the people behind Lions for Lambs had good intentions. Just like in The Nutty Professor, Eddie Murphy plays multiple roles and dons a fatsuit for laughs. However, The Nutty Professor had genuine empathy for its characters even as it often engaged in bathroom humor. This is unfunny, mean-spirited, and offensive. Murphy's caricature of a Chinese man is the most horrifically racist portrayal of an Asian man since Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's. In the realm of Murphy's career, this even makes stuff like Harlem Nights and Beverly Hills Cop 3 seem like Schindler's List, Casablanca, and The Third Man rolled into one glorious cinematic experience. This was released before the Oscars last year, and some argued that it was so bad and offensive that it cost Murphy the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for Dreamgirls (which was a pretty bad film in its own right). Oh, if only the world were that just.

Oscar Commentary

Best Picture

No real surprises here - No Country for Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Juno, Atonement, and Michael Clayton. As you've probably noticed, none of these films are on my best list. Of the nominees, Atonement and Michael Clayton were probably the two I liked the most.

My feelings for both Juno and No Country for Old Men are sort of similar. I felt the first 15 or so minutes of Juno (it's barely over 90 minutes) were excruciating, as it tried way too hard to be cute and quirky, but I felt it recovered nicely (thanks to some terrific supporting work from Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner) and is overall a good film, even if it isn't really Oscar-worthy. No Country for Old Men is absolutely brilliant for its first 90 minutes (it's about 120 minutes), but then goes off the rails with its anti-climaxes and interminable monologues in its final 30 minutes. And yes, I "get" the final 30 minutes, I just don't think it's good storytelling. Like Juno, I would still categorize it as a good film, but just not one I'd want to award a Best Picture nomination to.

There Will Be Blood is the only film of the nominees that I would give a "thumbs down" to if I were on a Siskel & Ebert-style show. It has its moments and it plays with some interesting ideas, but it does not fully explore them. I never really felt invested in or all that interested in Daniel Day-Lewis' character. On top of that, the final scene is hilarious (and it's meant to be taken very seriously - more on this later when I discuss the Best Actor nominees).

Best Actor

George Clooney, Michael Clayton - Clooney does a good job in this, but I fail to see it as award-worthy. He's basically playing the umpteenth version of his standard on-screen persona. I don't want to sound too harsh about Clooney. I like the guy, but I think he's more comparable to Harrison Ford and Tom Cruise in their respective primes - a guy who knows his strengths and weaknesses, picks roles that suits him, and even though he may not have a lot of range as an actor, he's still good enough not to get blown off the screen when playing opposite the best in the business.

Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood - Daniel Day-Lewis has given some excellent performances. He's incredibly selective about the roles he chooses, which makes him a refreshing change of pace from certain equally talented actors who will appear in anything and everything (ahem, Robert DeNiro). But, I think the critical media has treated him with kid gloves for his performance in the overrated There Will Be Blood. It's the very definition of shameless overacting. In his blog (blogs.suntimes.com/scanners), Jim Emerson said it was like watching Yosemite Sam do a John Houston impersonation. That's not far off. In what are arguably the film's two most important scenes, Day-Lewis' scenery chewing had me laughing (at stuff that wasn't supposed to be funny). "I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!!" will go down in the pantheon of overacting, along with "NO WIRE HANGERS, EVER!!!!" and "SAY HELLO TO MY LIL' FRIEND!!!" Still, the Academy loves him, so there's a good chance he could win.

Johnny Depp, Sweeney Todd - Meh. It's on okay performance in a film I found to be only so-so.

Tommy Lee Jones, In the Valley of Elah - Here's a cause for celebration. Tommy Lee Jones gives a thoughtful, understated performance in Paul Haggis' overlooked police procedural. It didn't do well at the box office, and it's unfortunately being lumped in with all of the other bad War on Terror movies (Lions for Lambs, Rendition, etc.) . Without Jones, In the Valley of Elah does not work nearly as well as it does. In lesser hands, the role could've come across as a stereotypical stoic Marine. Jones is three dimensional, nuanced, and not the least bit showy. Granted, this means he probably won't win the Oscar, but it's nice that they at least nominated him, especially since the film was generally overlooked (unjustly so)

Viggo Mortensen, Eastern Promises - I don't have a lot to say here. It's a strong performance in a good movie and I have no problems with the nomination. However, it would be funny if they use the naked wrestling/knifefight scene in the sauna for Viggo's Oscar clip.

Who did they leave out?

Phillip Seymour Hoffman, The Savages - His terrific work as a son coping with his father's dementia was arguably the best lead performance of the year. Hell, even Hoffman's turn in the not bad Before the Devil Knows You're Dead was better than Day-Lewis, Depp, and Clooney's nominated performances.

Chris Cooper, Breach - Rent this movie. Now. It premiered on HBO this weekend. TIVO it. Watch it. Cooper also gives exemplary supporting work in the so-so The Kingdom, giving far more depth to his character than the script provides. If I ever get one of my scripts made, I want Chris Cooper cast in it so he can make my mediocre lines seem wittier than they actually are.

Best Actress

Cate Blanchett, Elizabeth: The Golden Age - Didn't see it. The film got terrible reviews, but the Academy loves Blanchett.

Julie Christie, Away From Her - The likely front runner. Christie's a respected actress playing a character with a disability (Alzheimer's). That being said, it's an excellent performance in one of the year's best films, so I have no complaints if she wins.

Marion Cotillard, La Vie En Rose - Didn't see it. The film got middling reviews, but critics did rave about Cotillard's performance.

Laura Linney, The Savages - Yay! Fantastic work by Laura Linney. She was also superb in a supporting role in Breach (have you rented it yet?)

Ellen Page, Juno - I'm fine with this nomination.

Who got dissed?

I can't think of anyone off the top of my head. Oddly enough, the Supporting Actress field was much stronger this year (see below).

Best Supporting Actor

Casey Affleck, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford - I have mixed feelings about the film, but Affleck delivers a star-making performance. He manages to simultaneously be both sympathetic and creepy, which is just the balance his character needs. My only complaint about his nomination here is that he's the lead in the film; this should be in the Best Actor category.

Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men - Whatever my reservations about the film's final 30 minutes are, Bardem deserves this. Anton Chigurh belongs in the pantheon of great movie villains alongside the likes of Hannibal Lecter, Michael Myers, etc. He's got a good chance of winning, too.

Philip Seymour Hoffman, Charlie Wilson's War - Didn't see it, but I'm happy Hoffman got nominated for something since he was so good in The Savages and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead.

Hal Holbrook, Into the Wild - He's a veteran character actor and he's outstanding. Due to his decades of experience in the biz, he might sneak away with the award like Alan Arkin did last year for Little Miss Sunshine.

Tom Wilkinson, Michael Clayton - Typically strong work from Wilkinson, who was also quite good in a supporting role in Woody Allen's Cassandra's Dream.

Who got left out?

Best Supporting Actor is almost always the most competitive category, and this year's no different. You could argue that Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, and Robert Downey, Jr. were worthy in Zodiac (the problem is that film has no clear lead and they probably split each other's votes). Josh Brolin's terrific in No Country for Old Men, but he probably missed out for the same reasons the Zodiac crew did (yeah, Bardem was able to get an acting nomination, but...that's an iconic performance). Jason Bateman's very, very good in Juno. So were Jeff Daniels and Matthew Goode in The Lookout, Ed Harris in Gone, Baby, Gone and David Strathairn in The Bourne Ultimatum. See what I mean about this being a competitive field? I've probably left out a lot of people, too.

Best Supporting Actress

Traditionally, this is the weakest and least competitive category, but not so this year.

Cate Blanchett, I'm Not There - Didn't see it, although everyone seems to be in agreement that she was brilliant.

Ruby Dee, American Gangster - The one weak link. There were a few other people I thought would have made better choices (see below).

Saoirse Ronan, Atonement - Nothing but nice things to say for the teenage star of Atonement. She should have a bright future ahead of her

Amy Ryan, Gone, Baby, Gone - Since The Wire is my favorite show on TV, I am of course rooting for all its cast members to get the recognition they deserve. Ryan (she plays Beadie on The Wire)'s well-deserved nomination as a deadbeat mom is a start.

Tilda Swinton, Michael Clayton - She manages to be both villainous and sympathetic all at once here. Not an easy feat to pull off.

Who got left out?

In Juno, Jennifer Garner's character could have easily been played as shrill and overbearing. Garner acknowledges that the character is overbearing, but she finds the sadness and humanity in her. She and Jason Bateman save Juno from being a shallow quirk-fest.

Kelly McDonald, No Country for Old Men - Her big scene is the only scene I liked in the final 30 minutes of the film. And she's brilliant in the first 90 minutes, too.

Laura Linney, Breach - (see above)

Kristen Thomsen, Away From Her - While Julie Christie is rightfully garnering a lot of attention for her lead performance, Thomsen turns in a nice supporting turn as a nurse. There's one scene in particular with her and Christie's husband (Gordon Pinsent) that has lingered in my memory 9 months after seeing the film.

Best Director

The directors of all the best picture nominees were nominated here, except for Joe Wright for Atonement (Julian Schnabel was nominated instead for The Diving Bell and the Butterfly). This puzzled me, as I thought Wright brought a lot to the table in Atonement. He gets wonderful performances from his actors and he's visually a very assured director (the tracking shot at Dunkirk was marvelous). If the film got a Best Picture nomination, there's no reason he shouldn't have gotten a nomination as well.

There Will Be Blood and Atonement

2008-01-11T08:56:00.001-08:00

There Will Be Blood

Paul Thomas Anderson is a mixed bag for me. While many people my age regard him as one of the premier filmmakers of our generation and feel he can do know wrong, I haven't been crazy about any of his films. Granted, Anderson has talent and his films (Boogie Nights, Magnolia) have good parts in them and shouldn't be completely dismissed, but I don't think the films are all they're cracked up to be.

The trend continues with There Will Be Blood, the story of an oilman (Daniel Day-Lewis) who comes across an oil rich town. Day-Lewis ends up clashing with a charismatic young preacher (Little Miss Sunshine's Paul Dano). At its most interesting, the film is an exploration of capitalism and religion, how the two conflict and how the two intersect. Unfortunately, those ideas only seem half-explored. There's an extended subplot in the middle third of the film where Day-Lewis' estranged brother (Kevin J. O'Connor) begins working for him and the capitalism vs. religion storyline becomes an afterthought during this stretch.

In many ways, There Will Be Blood will rise and fall on how much audiences can tolerate the two highly unlikable main characters. And this is a sticky point when it comes to film criticism. All criticism is subjective, but it seems like it's nowhere more so in instances like this. We all have movies that we like where the main characters aren't particularly likable (for me, Pulp Fiction and Unforgiven are two that leap to mind in this category). However, we all have movies that we just can't get into because we find the main characters unsympathetic and uninteresting/annoying. Raging Bull is a prime example of this phenomenon for me. Visually, it's brilliant. The acting's terrific. I just don't care one whit about Robert DeNiro's character. I loathe spending time with him. Therefore, I can't in all honesty say I like Raging Bull, even though it's routinely hailed as a masterpiece. I feel similarly towards the main characters in There Will Be Blood.

And there's another big problem with the film: overacting. While Dillon Freasier gives a wonderful supporting performance as Day-Lewis' adopted son, Day-Lewis engages in the most hilariously overwrought acting since Nicolas Cage in The Wicker Man. Nowhere is this more evident than in the film's final scene. I'll try to avoid spoilers here, but involves Day-Lewis screaming "I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!" At that point, it was impossible for me to keep a straight face. In fact, I'm giggling to myself now while writing this. When you aspire for Academy Awards and your final scene inspires unintentional laughter, that's not a good thing.

In the end, this feels like a movie that could have been great, but ends up falling short.

Atonement

Literary + Britishness = Academy Awards

This is a fairly reliable formula and it seems like Atonement is poised to, at the very least, garner a ton of nominations. Do I think it's the best film of the year? No. Do I think it's a good film? Yes, and it's certainly more deserving of nominations than There Will Be Blood.

The first hour of Atonement centers on a British country house in the years just before World War II. A privileged young woman (Keira Knightley) is in love with a servant's son (James McAvoy). Her imaginative 13-year-old sister (Saoirse Ronan) misinterprets a number of events and, as a result, does something that many would consider unforgivable (I won't spoil it for those unfamiliar with the story).

The second hour is set at the beginning of World War II, with the 13-year-old now a young woman (played by Romola Garai) who realizes the severity of her actions and is trying to atone for them by passing up Cambridge in order to work as a lowly nurse in a London hospital. McAvoy's character is now a soldier in the British army.

Director Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice) does a terrific job, both visually and in getting good performances from his actors. In particular, a tracking shot of McAvoy and two buddies walking up and down the beach at Dunkirk (where a defeated, disorganized British army waited on the beach in hopes of a rescue) is remarkable.

My one problem with the film, the one thing that keeps me from saying it's one of the best pictures of the year, is that I didn't quite believe that the 13-year-old character would do what she did (I'm being vague, but I'm trying really hard to avoid spoilers). Adolescents can be petty, foolish, and vindictive, but even by those standards, I found the action hard to believe.

Still, Atonement is a good film from a director who's steadily becoming a force to be reckoned with.

Walk Hard, Juno, Sweeney Todd....

2007-12-19T08:02:00.000-08:00

Walk Hard

For people like myself who have a soft spot for the Zucker/Abrahams/Zucker parodies of the '80's (Airplane, Top Secret, The Naked Gun), there is good news. Jake Kasdan's Walk Hard is the first good parody film in nearly 20 years (after the genre had been hijacked by the makers of Epic Movie, Date Movie, et. al). Walk Hard parodies the musical bio-pic (films like Ray, Walk the Line, Beyond the Sea). John C. Reilly plays Dewey Cox, who endures a comically tragic childhood to become a rock star.

Reilly, like Val Kilmer in Top Secret, handles all of his own singing duties and he's terrific in the lead. For almost 20 years now, Reilly's been a reliable character actor in a number of notable films. In Talladega Nights, he even proved that he can be very funny (he's good in the film itself, but some of his improvisations over the end credits - ones that didn't make the actual film, are genuinely hilarious).

In many ways, comedies are the hardest kinds of films to review. All criticism is subjective, but comedies are perhaps the most subjective of all. You either laugh or you don't. And I would fell guilty about spoiling some of the film's funniest gags for you. So, the best I can do here is to say that if you enjoy the Airplane style of comedy, this is a good movie for you. If not, stay away.

Juno

For the first ten minutes or so of Juno, the film seems like it's not just going to be bad, but excruciating, end-of-the-year-worst-list bad. During this stretch, the film tries so hard to be quirky and clever in a way that would irritate even Wes Anderson. The direction is overbearing, the script is full of lines that think they're witty and clever when they're not, and the soundtrack features one of the most grating songs I've heard in years.

Despite this horrific start, however, Juno recovers and ends up being a pretty good film. Ellen Page plays Juno, a 16-year-old girl who gets pregnant from her best friend/not quite boyfriend (Michael Cera). After briefly contemplating an abortion, she decides to have the baby and give it up for adoption to a local couple (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner), who cannot conceive a child of their own because Garner is infertile. However, things aren't as happy as they initially seem with the couple.

Garner and Bateman both do terrific work. In the wrong hands, both characters could have come across as one-dimensional. Bateman could have been merely irresponsible and Garner could have been just an overbearing shrew. Bateman is indeed irresponsible, just as Garner is overbearing, but the script (by Diablo Cody) and the actors make us understand why Bateman would feel trapped into a life that he didn't really want. And we feel the pain and sadness behind Garner's character, a woman who wants one thing more than anything else in the world (a child) and that's the one thing she can't have because of biological bad luck.

J.K. Simmons and Allison Janney also do nice work as Page's father and stepmother. These characters are neither pushovers nor ogres. They love Juno, but are clearly taken aback by the news that they'll be grandparents a lot sooner than they anticipated.

In the end, the richness of the supporting characters is what makes Juno work as a film. Without them, the main character would seem like nothing more than a collection of quirks (as she does in an early confrontation with a convenience store clerk played by Rainn Wilson in which it doesn't seem like an interaction between two people so much as a contest to see who can out-quirk the other). With the solid supporting work, Juno's forced cleverness comes across as a defensive mechanism, something a scared teenager would employ because she feels overwhelmed by the world.

If you can survive the first 10 minutes, Juno is worth seeing.

Sweeney Todd

Full disclosure: I am generally not a huge fan of musicals in any form. In addition to this, I think they work better on the stage than on the screen. Sure, there are exceptions. I love Singin' in the Rain and enjoy the early '90's Disney musicals. But, I think film's a more literal medium than the stage and it seems more patently ridiculous when characters burst into song on film than when they do on the stage, where the stage itself makes things seem inherently more artificial, so it's not as jarring when the characters sing. On top of this, seeing a musical on stage is a more energetic experience. Watching the performers belt out the music live in front of you gives off a palpable energy that rarely translates to the screen (witness the failures of the film versions of Rent, Phantom of the Opera, Evita). I mention this just so you know my general feelings about musicals, so you can take the following review with a grain of salt.

Tim Burton's adaptation of Stephen Sondheim's stage musical Sweeney Todd tells the story of a barber (Johnny Depp) who's imprisoned on false charges by a corrupt judge (Alan Rickman) who's hot for Depp's wife. After tragedy strikes Depp's wife, Rickman adopts Depp's young daughter as his own, with hopes of making her his wife when she reaches legal age.

15 years later, Depp is out on the streets again and looking for revenge against the judge and against humanity in general. In a way, the film is like The Count of Monte Cristo, except if Edmond Dantes wanted to kill random people as well as those who wronged him. To this end, Depp teams up with the creepy Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter) who takes the corpses of Depp's victims and turns them into meat pies that become a big hit in London.

When the film is focused on Depp's revenge against Rickman, it's pretty compelling. Depp does a good job and the set design is terrific. Unfortunately, much of the middle third of the film is devoted to Depp's random killing spree and his conflict with a rival barber (Sacha Baron Cohen, a.k.a Borat) and this is much less involving. And now, less than 24 hours after I've seen the film, none of the songs have stuck in my head.

Musical fans might enjoy this more, but this was middle-of-the-road for me.

I Am Legend...

2007-12-14T06:28:00.000-08:00

I had very little interest in seeing this. I've never read the Richard Matheson novella on which the film is based - many regard the novella as a classic of science fiction. I knew attempts to make the film stopped and started again many times over the years. The previews did absolutely nothing to interest me in the film. I thought the director's (Francis Lawrence) previous work, Constantine, sucked. My indifference was so great that even though I had a pass for a free screening of the film, I almost decided to stay home and read.

But you know what? I Am Legend is actually pretty good. Not a classic by any stretch of the imagination, but pretty good. (Side note: 2007 could be called the year of the "pretty good" film. I was looking over my list of films that I've seen this year and while 2007 is very thin at the top, with very few movies that have blown me away so far, there has still been a very sizable amount of films that would qualify as pretty good/entertaining/worth seeing.)

Will Smith plays a scientist who finds himself as the last man in Manhattan (he still has a canine companion), immune to a super-virus that killed almost everyone on Earth and turned the remainder of people into flesh-eating albino zombies (they die if exposed to sunlight). While there are a couple of skillfully staged suspense set pieces with Smith and the zombies, most of what I Am Legend does well and what distinguishes it from other zombie films is its exploration of loneliness. Other apocalyptic films touch on the emotional toll of the end of the world on its survivors, but since Smith is the only human being on screen for the majority of the film's running time, I Am Legend is in many ways an exploration of its character's loneliness.

It's also commendable for being a big-budget Hollywood suspense/action film that embraces stillness/silence. There are long stretches without dialogue or music. The film doesn't go to the extreme of The Birds or No Country for Old Men in terms of having no score, but the the film's music is very sparingly used (and when it is used, it's reasonably effective).

Again - I Am Legend is no classic, but it is a well-made, entertaining sci-fi film.

The Golden Compass and The Kite Runner....

2007-12-07T07:47:00.000-08:00

Fritz here...I've seen a lot of movies recently for the holiday rush - I've also seen Walk Hard and Juno, which will open in the next week or two. And I'll have more stuff to come. For now, enjoy reviews of two literary adaptations.

The Golden Compass

The latest effort by studios to cash in on the Harry Potter/Lord of the Rings extravaganza of adapting a series of sci-fi/fantasy books and making boatloads of money, The Golden Compass works just well enough to have me interested in the future films.

Directed by Chris Weitz (American Pie, About a Boy) and adapted from the His Dark Materials trilogy by Phillip Pullman, The Golden Compass is set in an alternate universe that combines elements of real-world life (stuffy universities, cowboys, etc.) with high fantasy (talking animals, witches, and the like).

An orphan girl (Dakota Blue Richards, who makes for a likable heroine) is in possession of the magical compass of the title, which attracts the attention of the Magisterium, a powerful group that wants to keep people from learning the truth about their own existence, and represented most prominently in the film by Nicole Kidman, who employs her natural iciness to good effect.

The Golden Compass has two big problems. The first is that, like many adaptations of novels, it feels a bit rushed, that the filmmakers were compressing a lot of stuff to make a film that runs under two hours. The second is that The Golden Compass is the first work of a trilogy, and like many such works, it has to spend a lot of time laying the groundwork for the universe and characters. I enjoy Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone, but it's still my least favorite book and film of the Harry Potter series, mainly because a lot of it is exposition, albeit necessary exposition. I got the same vibe here.

But, the performances are good and the world itself is visually striking, with its juxtapositions of real world and fantasy. And the film is brave enough to have some genuinely scary moments in it for a children's film. The film's still suitable for children, but a fight scene near the end of the film and a sequence where the heroine finds herself trapped at a Magisterium base are genuinely scary.

These virtues are enough for me to forgive the clunkiness of some of the exposition and the rushed feel of some of the film. It's worth seeing and hopefully things will really take off in the next film.

Oh, and if for nothing else, go see this just to annoy the religious groups protesting the film because they think it promotes atheism.

The Kite Runner

The Kite Runner may actually be a first - a Hollywood movie populated almost exclusively by Muslim characters. Some of the film's characters are kindly, others are downright evil. But, the same could be said of humanity in general. Even if the film accomplished nothing else, The Kite Runner would be an important film strictly for the way it describes the experiences of Muslims who've immigrated to America.

The film opens in Kabul, Afghanistan in the 1970's, just before the Soviet invasion. Amir (Zekeria Ebrahimi) is a priviliged boy whose only real friend is Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmidaza), the son of the house servant and member of a persecuted minority in Afghanistan. Hassan, despite being undersized, is the braver of the two, constantly standing up for Amir, who's reluctant to stand up for himself. A terrible event occurs about thirty minutes in (and when I say terrible, I mean terrible) that leaves Amir with a deep sense of guilt that he takes out on the loyal Hassan. Shortly thereafter, the Russians invade and Amir and his father immigrate to America.

The film then jumps forward to Amir (Khalid Abdalla) graduating from community college and finding his way in America. He marries another Afghan immigrant (Atossa Leoni). The film jumps forward again, with an adult Amir enjoying a reasonably happy life. One day in 2000, he gets a phone call that sends him on a journey back home to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

The first hour of The Kite Runner is the strongest. When the film is focusing on the relationship between the two boys, it's a powerful film. But, just like The Golden Compass, The Kite Runner suffers in that it feels rushed, particularly in its second hour, like the filmmakers were trying to get everything in and keep the film at a reasonable running time.

Despite this flaw, it's a good film, and ultimately a touching one. Even when the film feels rushed, the strong relationship from the first hour permeates the film, always the audience a sense of who Amir is and why he's doing what he's doing. And Amir's journey back to Kabul is affecting. After going through Katrina, I knew the pain of what it felt like to lose your beloved hometown. But New Orleans has nothing on Kabul. New Orleans has mostly managed to resurrect itself after Katrina. But the Kabul that existed in the 1970's is long gone and likely never to return. For me, anyway, Kabul's demise is almost as sad as anything that happens to the characters.

The Mist...

2007-11-27T08:04:00.000-08:00

This is a tough movie for me to review. The novella The Mist, originally featured in the Stephen King collection Skeleton Crew, is the work that made me love reading. When I was roughly 8 years old, my older brother was reading Skeleton Crew. Like all little brothers do, I wanted to be as cool, tough, etc. as my big brother, so I picked up the book and started reading it, too. By far the longest work in Skeleton Crew, The Mist is also first chronologically, so I started with that.

The Mist tells the story of David Drayton, an artist in a small Maine town, who's happily married with an eight-year-old son, Billy. After a terrible overnight storm, he sets out to the local grocery store with his son in tow. While they're at the crowded store, a mist rolls over town. Some decidedly creepy and bloodthirsty monsters are in the mist and the townspeople end up trapped in the supermarket.

As a child reading this, I had to stop reading it when the mist makes its initial attack on the store. The walls and the ceiling shake and the customers fear that the store will collapse on them at any moment. It freaked me out. Part of the reason, I suppose, is because of the terror being experienced by Billy (remember, I was the same age as Billy - 8, when I first read this) at the attack. The other reason is probably Stephen King's undeniable skill at melding the supernatural with the mundane. Despite the fact that this was a story about bug-like monsters in a mist, it all felt so very real. That, I believe, is the reason Mr. King has been so popular over the years. He often tells ridiculous stories, but they're usually grounded in humanity and recognizable situations.

Even though The Mist freaked me out so much that I stopped reading it (with the assumption that I would go no further), something strange happened to me. Even though it horrified me and left me feeling unsettled and uncomfortable, I picked it up and continued reading. I had to find out what happened to all of those people in the grocery store. And so began my love affair with reading.

So you can see why any film adaptation of The Mist would be facing a tough audience in me. As the old cliche goes, no film adaptation of a cherished book can ever be as good as the movie that was playing in your head while reading it.

But, I was still curious to see the film version of The Mist. A lot of that was because Frank Darabont was serving as writer/director. Darabont was responsible for the The Shawshank Redemption, another King adaptation and quite possibly my favorite film of all time. I hate it when people ask "What's your favorite film?" and I have to pick just one (I would say I have favorite films), but if you put a gun to my head and made me pick one, I would go with The Shawshank Redemption (it's listed at #2 all time on user survey portion of the Internet Movie Database). As a result of this, I would pay to see any Frank Darabont movie for the rest of eternity, just as my way of thanking him for making The Shawshank Redemption.

Since Shawshank, Darabont has certainly not been a prolific filmmaker, directing only two films since then - The Green Mile and The Majestic. I liked The Green Mile, albeit not as much as Shawshank, and did not like The Majestic. But like I said above, Darabont could release Plan 9 From Outer Space remakes for the rest of his life and I'd still see them out of gratitude.

So, I had some reasonably high hopes going into The Mist. And you know what? For the first 105-110 minutes of this 125 minute film, Darabont does a damn good job of adapting King's work. There are some additions and minor changes, just as there were in The Shawshank Redemption, but they're generally strong choices by Darabont.

With the exception of a few too obviously fake CGI shots of monsters, the monsters are scary and Darabont keeps the human parts of the story intact. King's work is as much about how people react/fall apart in the face of severe trauma as it is about scary monsters. Some people, led by Brent Norton (Andre Braugher), are in denial, refusing to believe the situation could be as bad as it seems. Others, led by Mrs. Carmondy (Marcia Gay Harden), fall back on religious fanaticism, believing that the creatures are a sign of the apocalypse and part of God's wrath. A few people commit suicide. Others, led by David (Thomas Jane), try to do the best they can. By the end, the person on person conflict is as scary as the monster-on-person conflict. This was rendered exceptionally well by King in the novella (I even read it again after Katrina and found his depictions of human behavior in the face of unbelievable catastrophe to be spot-on) and it done well by Darabont in the film. The performances are also solid. I especially liked the work of Toby Jones as Ollie, the assistant store manager.

Despite all of these good qualities, I cannot recommend The Mist as a film. This is because the ending is awful. Not just bad. Hideously, unbelievably awful and wrong-headed. In a film like No Country for Old Men, I can dislike the final act, but still give the film a recommendation because I at least understood what the Coen Brothers were going for, even if the energy completely drains out of the film in its final 30 minutes. In other words, it's not a good ending, but it's at least a defensible one.

The Mist's ending, to me, is indefensible. It made me want to flip off the screen. Had I been wearing a hat, I would have taken it off and thrown it to the ground. I know films make changes to books, but I think it's the filmmakers responsibility to remain true to the spirit of the material, if not the literal text. I love Frank Darabont, and b/c of Shawshank, he'll never have to pay for a drink as long as I'm in the same room with him, but I'm annoyed at him right now. I will discuss the ending in more specific details below (I have to), so if you want to see the film version of The Mist and don't want to know the ending, stop reading now.

MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW!!!!!!!

Here is how the book ends:

David, Billy, and two other survivors make their way out of the store (losing a couple of people to the monsters in the parking lot), but get into the Range Rover and safely hit the road. Here is the final passage of the novella (the setting is an abandoned hotel where the four escaped survivors are currently hiding out and the novella is narrated by David in the first person).

"I'm going to bed now. But first I'm going to kiss my son and whisper two words in his ear. Against the dreams that may come, you know.

One is Hartford.

The other is hope."

Note: He mentions Hartford because it's a big city and they hope to find more survivors there.

Anyway, this is an ambiguous ending. We don't know if they'll ever be rescued, but when we leave them, they are alive and still have some hope for the future. David's final words to his 8-year-old-son resonated to me as an 8-year-old reading the book because it taught me that, no matter how horrific or awful things may seem, there is always hope and the end and you just have to keep trying. You have to keep searching for Hartford, so to speak. In this regard, the message I took from the novella isn't all that different from the message portrayed by The Shawshank Redemption that also resonated with me so much.

And it's not an ending that can't be transferred to film. Hitchcock's The Birds ends on a similarly ambiguous note, with the heroes driving away, but the birds still lining the road. The original Dawn of the Dead ends similarly, with the main character contemplating suicide because he's tired of running from the zombies, but he decides at the last minute to get in the helicopter so he can live to fight another day.

There's a moment about 105 minutes into The Mist, after some of the survivors have gotten into the Range Rover and driving out of the parking lot, where the headlights from the Range Rover shine on the faces of the people still in the grocery store as they stare out on the parking lot. It's a great shot by Darabont, and it would have been a fantastic place to end the film.

But the film keeps going. David takes the Range Rover to his house to see if his wife is still alive (she isn't - the book implies her death as well). Still on reasonably solid ground. Where the film goes off the rails, however, is when the vehicle runs out of gas. Billy (the 8 year old) is sleeping. The adults in the car give up. David sees that they only have four bullets left for the pistol (and there are five people in the car). So, he shoots each of the four people left in the Range Rover in the head (including his 8-year-old son). Then, he gets out of the vehicle and wanders into the Mist, screaming for it to come take him so he can be put out of his misery. He seems a large object rumbling towards him in the mist. He braces for death, but it turns out that the large object is an armored personnel carrier with several rescued civilians on board. The military has apparently rescued a lot of people in the town and is in the process of exterminating the mist creatures. The film ends with an unhinged David screaming at the top of his lungs.

So...Can you see what I mean when I say that this ending violated the spirit of the book's ending?

Movie criticism is always subjective. With The Mist, it's particularly so for me because I went into the film with a lot of personal baggage regarding the text. And I'd love to sit down with Frank Darabont one day, have a drink, and discuss what he took from The Mist when he read it, because it sure as hell wasn't the same thing I took from it.

Final note: I'm not some guy who sees the world through rose-colored glasses who only wants happy endings in films, either. I think Seven has a terrific ending, even if it's one of the most depressing in cinema history. And I could go on and on listing films with downer endings that I still like and in some cases love, so don't take my aversion to Darabont's ending as being the complaints of someone who can't stomach unhappy endings.

No Country for Old Men...

2007-11-21T12:49:00.000-08:00

As much as any film in recent memory, the Coen Brothers' No Country for Old Men points out the inherent limitation in the star rating system (or the 10 point rating system, or letter grades, etc.) The first two-thirds of No Country for Old Men are often brilliant. However, the film completely stumbles in its last thirty minutes, turning what was potentially a candidate for the best film of the year into a frustrating film, one with a number of virtues and a gaping hole where a powerful conclusion should be.

Set in 1980, the film tells the story of a West Texan Vietnam vet (Josh Brolin) who stumbles upon a drug deal gone wrong. He spots a suitcase with two million dollars in cash, takes off with it and finds himself pursued by the both sides of the disastrous deal. Brolin's most formidable adversary is a stone-faced hitman (Javier Bardem), who seems every bit as implacable and emotionless as the Terminator, Jason, and Michael Myers. Meanwhile, a local lawman (Tommy Lee Jones) is befuddled by what he feels is an increasingly violent world.

What goes well? The performances are excellent, especially Brolin and Bardem. The cat and mouse game between the two actors is equally thrilling. Despite Brolin's initial dumb decision to take the money, he proves to be resourceful prey and it's quite entertaining to watch two clever characters try to one up the other. And the Coen Brothers adeptly stage the film's suspenseful set pieces. Most memorable are an early chase involving a wounded Brolin and a tenacious dog and a hotel/street chase between Brolin and Bardem. These scenes are work that Hitchcock himself would have been proud to film.

Sadly, though, the film completely unravels in the final third, and it's hard to discuss it without delving into spoilers, but here's my best shot. First, the film has a tendency, especially in the third act, to fall back on ponderous philosophizing. Genre films can be deep, but it's like the Coen Brothers didn't trust the material enough and felt the need to tack on speeches and conversations where the characters spell out for the audience the themes they're trying to get across. Granted, this is arguably the biggest flaw of Cormac McCarthy (who wrote the novel the film is based upon). Personally, McCarthy's writing often infuriates me because he tells genre stories that could be quite compelling and deep on their own and jazzes them up with speechifying, a stilted prose style, and metaphors that are superficially pretty but make little sense once reflected upon for more than a second. And No Country for Old Men falls into the first trap. It tells and tells and tells when it should just show.

Finally, and here's where it gets tricky to avoid spoilers, the film seems to be making a point about the anti-climactic nature of death and how it catches us by surprise and is never glorious, glamorous, or noble, but sudden and ugly. The problem the film has is that where a climax should be is actually a gaping hole that sucks the energy out of the rest of the film. Yes, I know people are going to argue that it's in keeping with the film's message, but filmmakers should not convey the anti-climactic nature of death by making an anti-climactic film, just like it would be a bad idea for a filmmaker to convey boredom by making a boring movie or conveying incoherence by making an incoherent movie. No Country for Old Men didn't necessarily need to have a bang bang action movie climax, but it needed a climax. The film doesn't have one and instead sputters along for its final thirty minutes before abruptly ending. I get what the Coen Brothers were trying to do, but it's just not good storytelling.

So, reviewing No Country for Old Men leaves me in a bind. It's often brilliant and certainly superior to much of the Coen Brothers' recent output, but it crashes where it should soar and ultimately ends up as a near-miss that is frustrating because of how close it came to greatness. Still, the first 90 minutes are so good that the film's probably worth seeing for that alone.

The Wire Revisited...

2007-11-10T15:08:00.000-08:00

Fritz here - I have some capsule reviews of new films below this, so check them out. In the meantime, The Wire (my favorite TV show) will have its 5th and final season starting in January. To whet reader's appetites and in anticipation of season 4's release on DVD (Netflix it!), I have reposted my thoughts on the show from the reelfellas site.

(article originally published at the end of last year)

Since my best list for movies will have to wait until January, when I get a chance to see some of the higher profile releases, I thought I’d write a piece on season four of The Wire, which is better than any movie I’ve seen this year. I will avoid any major spoilers in this discussion, but it will be impossible to fully discuss the show without going into minor spoilers. Don’t worry, though, you can read this piece and still have plenty of surprises in store for you with The Wire.

The Wire premiered in 2002, but was overshadowed by HBO’s more high profile efforts like The Sopranos and Six Feet Under. In 2004, Entertainment Weekly quietly ranked season three of The Wire as the television show of the year. I have not started watching the show until this season, its fourth, and I am glad I did. Sadly, however, it still does not seem to be garnering the attention it deserves. In fact, the only two writers I read that talk about it on a semi-regular basis are Bill Simmons and Jason Whitlock, two sports columnists. This lack of recognition is a shame, because The Wire might be the best television show of all time. At absolute worst, it at least deserves to enter the discussion. Imagine a show that combines the compulsive watchability of shows like The Sopranos, 24, and Lost at their best with a daring, genuine social conscience and you have The Wire.

The Wire is a portrait of inner-city Baltimore, from the cops to the drug dealers to the children to the teachers to the politicians. Its rich complexity and numerous major characters make it near-impossible to encapsulate (but I’ll try anyway in a moment). Unfortunately, that complexity is probably what keeps it from gaining a wider audience. You cannot be a casual viewer of The Wire. The show, more than any other I’ve ever seen, is a like visual novel. You can’t just pick up a great book and read a few chapters here and there, skipping around, and expect to be able to follow along. So it is with The Wire.

While there are recurring characters in each season of The Wire, each individual season has its own arc, making each season almost like a stand-alone 12-hour mini-series. There are some recurring characters from season to season, but they often drift in and out of the spotlight, with new major characters emerging each season.

Okay, here’s my best effort at quickly giving you a gist of the plot of the fourth season of The Wire. The season’s biggest focus is on four inner-city children: Namond (Julito McCullum), the son of a feared drug dealer/murderer who is serving life without parole; Randy (Maestro Harrell), an eager-to-please budding entrepreneur living with a caring foster mother; Michael (Tristan Wilds), a smart, taciturn, independent young man who cares for his younger brother because their mother is a hopeless drug addict; and quiet, shy Dukie (Jermaine Crawford), who lives in with an entire family of addicts, who steal whatever food or clothing he brings home and are so irresponsible that their dwelling has no water, leaving Dukie to often go to school without the benefit of a bath or a shower.

The boys attend a decrepit middle school that struggles to get by. Roland “Prez” Pryzylewski (Jim True-Frost) is an ex-cop turned overmatched first-year teacher. Also at the school, a study is taking place, conducted by a university professor (Dan DeLuca). Namely, they want to determine if disruptive kids (like the swaggering, aggressive Namond) can thrive if placed in an environment separate from the other kids. The professor’s point man is “Bunny” Colvin (Robert Wisdom), another former cop.

All of this takes place in a neighborhood where drug kingpin Marlo Stanfield (Jamie Hector) has come up with an ingenious way of getting rid of those who cross him: having his chief enforcers (Gbenga Akinnagbe and Felicia Pearson) kill them, then place the bodies in abandoned buildings, boarding up the entrances as they leave. No bodies, no crimes. Detectives Freamon (Clarke Peters) and Moreland (New Orleans native Wendell Pierce) are on the trail, trying to find the bodies that they know are out there, but no one will come forward and tell them about.

The last major subplot involves white city councilman Tommy Carcetti (Aiden Gillen) and his attempts to win the mayoral election in overwhelmingly African-American Baltimore. It is a tribute to The Wire’s complexity that there are also a number of other highly compelling characters and subplots that I did not mention here.

After that lengthy effort to convey the essence of the show, you may ask, “What makes it so good?” For starters, it is a stinging indictment of the disaster that is No Child Left Behind, as well the manner in which politicians and bureaucrats aim to cover their own backsides above all else. Because the school needs a minimum score on the yearly test to continue to receive funding, the school ends up teaching the kids the test. So much value is placed on numbers, i.e. the test scores, that no actual learning is going on. The kids learn the answers to the test (if that) and nothing else. Test numbers may be passable, but the kids learn nothing of consequence. The show makes an analogy comparing that to the way police departments “juke stats,” i.e. bumping an attempted murder or rape down to assault to make the serious crime stats look better or arrest street-level dealers to point to increasing arrest numbers while failing to arrest the men at the root of the problem.

In such an environment where role models are scarce and authority figures are more concerned with numbers and keeping their own jobs, it becomes very easy to see why an otherwise decent, hardworking kid like Michael would find it appealing when Marlo’s chief enforcer gives him a sales pitch in an effort to get him to join their organization. The scene is chilling because we realize why joining the drug dealers would seem like a step up to Michael.

While the show never shies away from the horrific consequences of individual actions or institutional neglect, it does a masterful job of making the audience understand why people make some very harmful choices. Carcetti, the aspiring mayoral candidate, has some genuine desires to make life better for the citizens of Baltimore if he is elected. However, he views politics as a career and often chooses to make deals and compromises necessary to get into office and stay there, even if those compromises end up hurting the city in the long run. Most people make compromises of some sort in order to keep their jobs. The Wire, while not excusing these actions, makes the viewers see that politicians and police administrators are typically no different: they want to keep their jobs and they will often take the safest (for them) and blandest route to assure they don’t rock the boat.

A social conscience and good intentions are swell, but they mean virtually nothing if they’re not being backed by good storytelling and character development. The Wire never seems like a civics lesson. It always seems real. Since I was raised in the suburbs, I cannot comment on the show’s authenticity in regards to inner-city life. However, I was a teacher for two years (albeit in a better school than the one depicted here) and I can authoritatively say that the teaching scenes feel 100% authentic. I cringed constantly during an early episode depicting Prez’s first day in front of the class. Almost every one of the mistakes he makes, I made myself (and so do many first-year teachers). Similarly, a moment comes late in the season where a more experienced Prez silences a disruptive student with a quiet look. That, too, is something almost all teachers eventually develop the ability to do. In retrospect, the authenticity of these scenes should not come as a surprise, as Ed Burns (not the same guy who wrote The Brothers McMullen), one of the show’s head writers, worked as both a cop and a teacher.

The show (created by David Simon) does a masterful job of developing its central characters. At first glance, Michael seems like the best of the bunch (or at least the one with the most potential). However, it’s the same intelligence and loyalty that makes him seem like such a great kid that makes the drug dealers want to recruit him. Similarly, the independence and strength that served him so well in taking care of his younger brother are the same traits that make him shrug off the efforts of well-meaning adults like Prez and Cutty (Chad Coleman), an ex-con who runs a boxing gym for neighborhood kids, to reach out to him.

Namond, who initially seems like the least likable of the bunch, is equally fascinating. His domineering mother (Sandi McCree) and his imprisoned father (Hassan Johnson) are pressuring him to become a drug dealer the same way a suburban family might pressure its son to become a doctor or a lawyer. At the start, Namond seems like Michael’s opposite, despite their friendship. He seems like a swaggering bully. However, like all kids who exhibit bullying tendencies, Namond is far weaker than he lets on. Because of this weakness, he is actually much more susceptible to influence of a positive male role model (in his case, Colvin) in his life than Michael would be.

The eager-to-please Randy is similarly paradoxical. More than the other boys, he genuinely wants to like everyone and be everyone’s friend. While most of the other kids are the cruel to the outcast Dukie, Randy is unfailingly kind and loyal to his friend. However, Randy’s inherent desire to like everyone proves to be a horrific flaw as he ends up making some very bad choices because he trusts others too easily. Dukie is probably the least complex of the four major youth characters, but only an inhuman clod would fail to feel sympathy for the kindly, horribly mistreated child. Dukie’s burgeoning friendship with the well-meaning but in-over-his-head Prez is also touching.

Unlike many Hollywood movies and TV shows that deal with poverty, The Wire does not peddle in easy answers. Most people want to believe that if you just work hard and be a good person, then things will work out for you, but things do not work out that way in real life, especially when you’re born into an environment as harsh as the one depicted here. Most the characters in The Wire do not get happy endings. One of the season’s major themes is how life’s greatest heartbreaks often occur when you sincerely try to help someone and your efforts fail, in some cases even making the situation worse than when you started. A few storylines are open-ended, and will likely be continued during its fifth and final season (which Simon says will focus on the media and its effects on society). However, The Wire is not entirely bleak, like say, Million Dollar Baby or House of Sand and Fog. At least one of the major storylines has a hopeful ending. And, because of the sadness that pervades the rest of the show, that happy ending is all the more sweet.

The Wire is a wildly entertaining and tremendously important show with a lot to say about education, poverty, crime, and the messes we leave behind for future generations to clean up. I’m not exaggerating when I tell you this show could change the way you look at the world. At this point, I realize I’m almost attributing supernatural powers to the show, but I really believe it to be true. My only concern is that I’ve oversold it with this review. Often, when you try to hard to impress people about anything, they end up being decidedly unimpressed.

But trust me (and if you’ve ever trusted my recommendations on anything, trust me now), season 4 of The Wire is an absolute, no-doubt-about-it must-see. If you don’t have HBO, netflix it or rent it the second it comes out on video. You will not be disappointed.

Some small reviews...

2007-11-10T14:49:00.000-08:00

Fritz here. I've been super busy lately with my journalistic work that I haven't had much time to do writing here. So, I'll leave you with a small update of capsule reviews for some new releases.

Lions for Lambs

As a director, Robert Redford has made some great films. Quiz Show is a genuine work of art. I've always felt that Ordinary People was unfairly maligned by film snobs who feel it robbed Raging Bull of the Best Picture award in 1980. Personally, I think Ordinary People is the better film; it actually engaged me emotionally, as opposed to Raging Bull, where I cared about none of the characters in any way shape, or form. I'm even one of the small group of people who likes Redford's last film, The Legend of Bagger Vance. Sure, Will Smith's character is problematic, but the film works well as an exploration of the old cliche "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game."

That being said, Lions for Lambs is an unmitigated disaster. It's by far Redford's worst film. Redford plays a college professor lecturing a disaffected student (Andrew Garfield) about what it means to be involved and the last two students who moved him. Those two students (Derek Luke and Michael Pena) are now fighting in Afghanistan as part of a strategy launched by Republican Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise), who is giving an interview to a journalist (Meryl Streep) who initially supported the war in Iraq.

Basically, Lions for Lambs is 90 minutes of characters delivering speeches to each other. This is not good cinema. It doesn't matter if the speeches are liberal or conservative; 90 minutes of nothing but speechifying makes for a excruciating film. Despite the considerable talent involved, even the acting is bad, with the exception of Cruise, who manages to convey the right mix of friendliness and phoniness that characterizes most politicians.

Clearly, Lions for Lambs was intended as one of the year's prestige pictures. In reality, it's one of the year's worst films.

Dan in Real Life

This is a fairly ordinary romantic comedy by writer/director Peter Hedges (Pieces of April). Steve Carell plays Dan, a widowed advice columnist with three daughters who falls in love with his brother's (Dane Cook) girlfriend (Juliette Binoche) at a getaway family weekend. In the end, Carell is what sold me on Dan in Real Life. It's not a great romantic comedy. The script initially seems like it would be honest about the messiness of Carell's situation. However, it settles for pat, fluffy romantic comedy conventions at the end. Still, Carell is a terrific actor and some of his reaction shots are priceless. He keeps the film above average.

If you like romantic comedies, you'll likely enjoy Dan in Real Life

My Kid Could Paint That

This documentary by Amir Bar-Lev starts out following Marla Olmstead, a 4-year-old girl whose paintings have become an overnight sensation and are selling for tens of thousands of dollars. After a 60 Minutes story where an art expert says that she thinks Marla is receiving help from her father, things take a turn for the worse for the Olmstead's.

Bar-Lev keeps filming, even as his attitudes towards the family begin to change. What starts out as a human interest documentary that explores the contradictions and questions posed by the modern art world then becomes an exploration of journalism and documentary filmmaking and how filmmakers and journalists often tell the story they want to tell, sometimes with little regard to the truth.

It probably won't be playing in New Orleans long, but it's a stimulating, thought-provoking film about both the art world and modern media.

Jesse James, Gone Baby Gone, The Darjeeling Limited, and Into the Wild...

2007-10-22T17:04:00.000-07:00

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

This one has been delayed for a year. Often, this is a sign of impending disaster, an indication that the studio has no confidence in the film. But, early reviews labeled it a masterpiece, a genuine work of art that confused mainstream Hollywood, which didn't know what to do with it. In reality, neither designation is true.

Jesse James (I don't feel like typing the full title over and over again) is an overlong film that has moments of beauty, but doesn't completely work. The film opens with the legendary outlaw's (Brad Pitt) final train robbery. Because his original gang has been completely depleted (with the exception of his brother Frank, memorably played by Sam Shepard), James has to rely on a group of petty criminals and headcases. One of these new recruits is Robert Ford (Casey Affleck), a fidgety, socially awkward young man who has spent his childhood memorizing romanticized accounts of James' robberies.

Director Andrew Dominik composes some lovely shots, and the film has a nice level of ambiguity in regards to character motivations. In life, people rarely have just one reason for doing anything important and the film convincingly assigns a number of motives for Ford's murder of James. Ford yearns to be famous and killing James will earn him that fame, but he's also genuinely afraid that James will eventually murder him and his brother Charley (Sam Rockwell).

The dynamic between Ford and James is often interesting, but for an extended stretch near the middle, the film ends up focusing on a feud between James' sidekicks Wood Hite (Jeremy Renner) and Dick Liddil (Paul Schneider). This occupies enough running time that film should have been retitled The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford with an Extended Interlude Regarding the Quarrels Between Dick Liddil and Wood Hite. Finally, the film's closing act, which should have been the most powerful part of the film, falls flat. It tries to make comments about the cost of fame and the difference between myth and reality, but it feels rushed. Flags of Our Fathers covered similar ground and did it better.

All in all, a flawed but somewhat interesting film. It is, however, 160 minutes, so be warned if you venture into the theaters for this one.

Gone Baby Gone

Ten years ago, Ben Affleck burst on the scene with Matt Damon as the co-writer and co-star of the Oscar winning Good Will Hunting. Ten years later, their careers could not have diverged any more wildly. Damon has appeared in critically acclaimed and commercially successful films like Saving Private Ryan, The Departed, Ocean's 11, and The Bourne Identity trilogy. Affleck, on the other hand, has been mostly relegated to films like Daredevil, Gigli, Surviving Christmas, and Pearl Harbor. And when Affleck connects with an challenging role in a compelling film, like he did in 2002's Changing Lanes, no one besides me and a handful of other people saw him in it.

In Gone Baby Gone, Affleck stays behind the camera for his directorial debut (he co-wrote the script with Aaron Stockard). Working from Dennis Lehane's excellent novel (if you like mysteries and haven't checked out Lehane's series, do so immediately), Affleck's film tells the story of two Boston-based detectives (Casey Affleck and Michelle Monaghan) hired by the aunt and uncle of a kidnapped girl to help find the child. Complications arise when the mother (The Wire's Amy Ryan) turns out to be a highly irresponsible parent to say the least (she tells the cameras that she merely went away for a moment to watch TV and her child was gone, while in reality she was at a bar snorting cocaine for two hours). The two detectives also form an uneasy alliance with the cops (Morgan Freeman, Ed Harris, John Ashton) working the case.

It would be unfair to divulge much of what makes Gone Baby Gone good without ruining certain plot points. Suffice to say, things are not as cut and dry as they appear and the detectives find themselves at a moral crossroads that is not at all easy to navigate. Even after having seen the film and read the book, I'm still not 100% sure what choice I would have made in the main characters' shoes.

Overall, it's a very fine directorial debut from Mr. Affleck.

The Darjeeling Limited

I have mixed feelings about Wes Anderson. I think The Life Aquatic is underrated, but I think The Royal Tenenbaums is overrated. Anderson brings a distinct visual style to his films and they often have a deadpan humor to them. However, they also veer into arbitrary weirdness, the kind that asks viewers to seemingly embrace a film simply because the characters are bizarre and their actions almost arbitrary.

The screening I attended (I'm not sure if the film is being released this way theatrically) featured a 10 minute short preceding the film called "Hotel Chevalier." It featured Jason Schwarzmann's character from The Darjeeling Limited living in a hotel room in Paris and suddenly getting a visit from his ex-girlfriend (Natalie Portman). The short accomplishes nothing. Sure, it gives a little backstory into a character the audience is about to see in the main film, but it gives the audience nothing of susbtance. In essence, the short embodies the bad side of Anderson. The short is completely pointless and adds nothing to the film, but it just seems to be there so the film can be quirkier. It's an empty, cutesy gimmick.

The main feature itself is better, but still uneven. There are laughs to be had in the journey of three brothers (Schwarzmann, Adrien Brody, and Owen Wilson) who reunite in India at Wilson's bequest so they can have a spiritual bonding journey. And there are also affecting emotional scenes (a flashback to the brothers at their father's funeral is particularly good). However, the main section feels padded (it's only 90 minutes, not counting the short) and it seems to go on a good 20 minutes longer than it needed to.

Fans of Anderson will find things to enjoy here, but The Darjeeling Limited is a mixed bag.

Into the Wild

Sean Penn returns to writing and directing (he's also made The Indian Runner, The Crossing Guard, and The Pledge) with this adaptation of Jon Krakauer's non-fiction bestseller about a young man named Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch) who, upon graduating from Emory University, gave over $20,000 in savings to charity, tore up his identification, and left his family without a word. Over the next two years, he would travel the country, living on very little, communing with nature, and meeting a few interesting people along the way. He would die in the Alaskan wilderness as the result of ingesting a poisonous plant.

McCandless' story is a tricky one to tell. While there is something romantic about turning one's back on materialism and getting back in touch with the beauty of the natural world, McCandless turned his back on his family while doing so. Granted, his home life was not ideal, but McCandless continues to routinely turn his back on people who care about him that he meets on his journey (the saddest of these encounters is with a widower played by Hal Holbrook who comes to view the boy as a surrogate grandson).

For the most part, Penn succeeds at portraying the adventurous aspects of McCandless' story without glossing over the pain he caused those who cared about him. The film, unavoidably so given the nature of McCandless' journey, is a bit on the episodic side. But, it's mostly involving and, in the end, McCandless comes off as more of a tragic figure, someone who meant well and wanted to do great things, but had a fatal flaw that he didn't recognize until it was too late.

New Orleans Film Festival Roundup

2007-10-18T08:08:00.001-07:00

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters

Director Seth Gordon's new documentary is like the classic underdog sports films of the 80's (and he even uses the "You're the Best...Around!" song from The Karate Kid in the film). This is only appropriate, since the subjects of his film play the classic video games of the 80's competitively.

The film's underdog hero is Steve, a man who's not a part of the competitive gaming subculture, but for some reason becomes obsessed with Donkey Kong and trying to wrest the world's record for a high score from the long-time champion, Billy Mitchell. Steve is one of those guys who's been good at a lot of things in his life (he's a reasonably talented musician and athlete and has a wife and kids). However, things never quite came together for Steve in any one area (e.g. when pitching in the state finals as a high schooler, he had an injury-related implosion and he got laid off from his job at Boeing the day he and his wife signed papers on their house). So, he becomes determined to actually be the best at something, even if that something is just a video game.

Aside from being a bit obsessive, Steve is a very sympathetic character, one that even people who don't play video games should be able to root for. The Cobra Kais of the film are the subculture of super-geeks who play video games competitively and don't like the idea that this outsider wants a part of one of their records. One of the things the film shows very effectively is that nerds, in their own passive-aggressive way, can be just as cliquish and cruel as the most meatheaded jocks.

It doesn't quite compare to 2005's Murderball, the gold standard for sports documentaries, but The King of Kong is a rousing, compelling underdog story that should entertain both gamers and non-gamers alike.

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

The once great Sidney Lumet (12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, The Verdict) has toiled in obscurity for the 90's and the 21st century. Despite being in his eighties, he hasn't stopped making films; it's just they've been both critical and commercial flops (his last effort was the little-seen Vin Diesel film Find Me Guilty). Before the Devil Knows You're Dead marks an effort by Lumet to return to form, but it only halfway succeeds.

Ethan Hawke and Phillip Seymour Hoffman play not-very-close brothers whose lives are in shambles. Hoffman has been embezzling from work and has a costly drug addiction. His wife (Marisa Tomei) is cheating on him with Hawke, who's divorced and struggling to make child support payments to his ex-wife and daughter. Hoffman hatches a plan to rob a mom-and-pop jewelry store. The catch is that the mom-and-pop store in question is run by Hoffman and Hawke's parents. The idea is they fence the jewelry, rake in the money, their parents collect insurance money, and no one gets hurt. In heist films, nothing ever works out according to plan, and the heist here goes spectacularly wrong and the two brothers struggle to pick up the pieces.

There are a number of good things about Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. Hoffman and Hawke give good lead performances. In particular, it's nice to see Hawke play something different than his standard slacker intellectual character. Here, he's a sniveling loser and he plays the part well. For the first two-thirds of the film, the plotting is generally solid and it keeps the viewers' attention. However, the film completely runs out of imagination in its final thirty or so minutes and it ends up sputtering to an unsatisfying conclusion.

All in all, it's better than the other films Lumet's done in recent years, but it's still nowhere near the quality of his best work.

Grace Is Gone

In the umpteenth War on Terror film this season, John Cusack plays a man whose wife is killed while serving in Iraq. Unable to tell his grammar school age daughters, he takes them on a trip to Disneyworld (they call it Enchanted Gardens in the film, but it's clearly a Disneyworld stand in).

Despite the starting point for the story, this is not really a political film. Cusack's character gets into an argument with his anti-war brother (Allesandro Nivola) about the pointlessness of the war, but other than that, the film is more a low-key character study about a quiet man coping with a terrible loss and trying to find the words to tell his daughters that their mother is dead.

There's not a whole lot to say about this one. It's decent, the kind of small scale character study that Hollywood doesn't produce a lot of but that people starved for something more substantial than Transformers might tend to overrate a bit (last year's Half Nelson would be another example of this phenomenon).

Lust, Caution....

2007-10-13T12:04:00.000-07:00

Since Lust, Caution is director Ang Lee's first film since winning the Best Director Oscar for Brokeback Mountain and that it also the first NC-17 film released by a major studio since Showgirls, it's generated a fair amount of buzz. Sadly, it's a pretty big disappointment.

It's plot is roughly a mirror image of the far superior Black Book (released earlier this year and directed, oddly enough, by Showgirls' Paul Verhoeven). A young woman (Wei Tang) falls in with a group of student rebels in Japanese-occupied China circa World War II. The inexperienced rebels decide to assassinate an official (Tony Leung) who's collaborating with the Japanese troops. In order to get closer to him, our heroine has to seduce him.

It all sounds like a solid plot for a romantic espionage thriller. And Black Book, which dealt with a Dutch Jewish female spy seducing a Nazi officer, used more or less the same premise really well. However, in Lust, Caution, the characters remain frustratingly elusive. We never learn very much about the heroine and why she is willing to put herself through so much. In Black Book, the heroine's entire family had been killed by the Nazis, so the audience knew she had a pretty strong emotional stake in all of it. In Lust, Caution, a few minor characters talk about the evils the Japanese have committed to their families, but we never see it affecting the heroine on much of a personal level.

Even more critically, the movie never establishes Leung's character as anything more than a sadistic thug. As a result, it's hard to believe for even a millisecond that the heroine would have any genuine feelings for him (which the movie eventually asks us to believe). Black Book did an excellent job of painting its characters in shades of gray and giving the audiences reasons why the heroine and the Nazi she's seducing might still have some affection for each other. Here, the romance is never convincing or believable in any way. With little reason to be involved with the characters, the film's pacing sags, and at 157 minutes, it all begins to feel like an endurance test.

Like all of Lee's films, it's gorgeously photographed. The costumes, period detail, and cinematography are all top notch and there's an occasional scene that actually does work. However, the film is more like pretty wrapping paper that covers up a hideous present.

But wait, you say. How can you discuss the first NC-17 film in over a decade without talking about the sex scenes? Okay, okay. Basically, they're just acrobatic and go on for a long time. At the press screening I attended, there was an old man sitting behind me (I'm not sure who he was; he wasn't with the press, but somehow he managed to get into the screening). As they showed the two leads having sex in a variety of positions, he started saying things like, "Wow!" and "Damn!" All this led me to become very worried that he might start pulling a Pee Wee Herman in the theater. Thankfully, he didn't.

Anyway, if you're looking for a WWII thriller with sex, violence, and intrigue, just do yourselves a favor and rent Black Book instead.

Rendition and Michael Clayton

2007-10-09T17:01:00.000-07:00

Rendition

Steven Soderbergh's 2000 Traffic won him the Oscar for Best Director and earned a nomination for Best Picture. It managed to address a complex subject (people affected in one way or another by the drug trade) with characters who felt fleshed out and multi-dimensional. Watching director Gavin Hood's Rendition, which tries to address the war on terror via multiple perspectives, one cannot help but feel a renewed appreciation for Soderbergh's accomplishment.

Reese Witherspoon plays a mother expecting a second child who's married to an Egyptian national (Omar Metwally) who's been living in the United States since his teens. After a bombing in an unnamed North African country, Metwally is abducted by US special ops and taken to North Africa to be tortured/interrogated. Jake Gyllenhaal is a CIA analyst sitting in on his first torture. Peter Sarsgaard is the aide to a senator (Alan Arkin) who tries to help Witherspoon. Meryl Streep is the CIA honcho who orders the torture. Oh, and there's another storyline revolving around a reluctant suicide bomber.

Any one of these storylines could have made for an effective film. An interesting film could have been made about the political machinations behind a case like this (the Sarsgaard/Witherspoon/Arkin storyline). An interesting film could have been made about the difficulties CIA agents face when trying to prevent suicide bombings in Arab countries. An interesting film could have been made about a suicide bomber having second thoughts about his mission. However, all of these storylines piled on top of each other renders all of the characters one dimensional and makes the film surprisingly bland for a film dealing with so many hot button issues.

Michael Clayton

Veteran screenwriter Tony Gilroy (The Bourne Identity trilogy) gets his directorial debut with Michael Clayton. George Clooney plays the titular down-on-his-luck "fixer" at a prestigious Manhattan law firm. When Clooney's mentor (Tom Wilkinson) has a manic depressive meltdown at a deposition for a major lawsuit, Clooney is called to clean up the mess.

Of course, Clooney uncovers massive corruption on the part of Wilkinson's client, whose toxic side-effects have killed over a dozen people. Clooney comes into conflict with his boss (the excellent Sydney Pollack) who's sympathetic to Clooney but doesn't want to ruffle the feathers of the firm's biggest client, as well as the lead counsel (Tilda Swinton) of the evil corporation. Swinton also does a particularly fine job of playing a convincingly human villain.

Despite an overly flashy first few minutes, Michael Clayton is mostly solid, thoughtful entertainment. It's the kind of low-key character study that Hollywood rarely produces, so there's a chance this might be slightly overrated (it's good, but not best list good). That being said, Gilroy has made an accomplished debut as a director and Clooney scores another fine lead performance in this effective film.

The Kingdom

2007-10-01T09:48:00.000-07:00

The Kingdom

While the trailers make it look like Team America without the puppets or a War on Terror equivalent of the jingoistic flag-waving action films of the Reagan era (most obviously exemplified by Rambo: First Blood Part II), The Kingdom is more like an above-average CSI episode.

The film, directed by Peter Berg (who directed Friday Night Lights, which is my favorite football movie of all time, and Very Bad Things, which is one of my least favorite movies of all time), opens with a brief history of Saudi Arabia, followed by a massive series of terrorist attacks on an oil workers compound in Saudi Arabia.

The FBI manages to get a team on the ground in Saudi Arabia consisting of Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Garner, Chris Cooper, and Jason Bateman. Up until the final 30 minutes of the film, the brunt of the running time is like a police procedural/buddy movie set in Saudi Arabia. In general, most of the film is in the "just okay" range, although Chris Cooper makes the most of his underwritten role. If I ever get a film made, I will cast Chris Cooper in it, just so he can make my more mediocre lines sound far more witty and intelligent than they actually are (like he does on many occasions here).

The last five minutes manages to be both chilling and thoughtful regarding our country's position in the Middle East. However, I just wish that thoughtfulness had been sprinkled throughout the rest of the film as well. The rest isn't bad or brainless like Rambo, but it's merely serviceable.

The Brave One, Eastern Promises, and In the Valley of Elah...

2007-09-13T07:41:00.000-07:00

The Brave One

The Brave One has some prestige behind it. The director, Neil Jordan, has been nominated for an Oscar (for The Crying Game). Jodie Foster has won Best Actress twice (for The Accused and The Silence of the Lambs). Terrence Howard was nominated for Hustle and Flow. Sadly, the picture amounts to little more than a Death Wish sequel.

Foster plays a radio personality, hosting a program that seems like it would fit in fine at NPR. She's in love with a doctor played by Lost's Naveen Andrews and they're talking about marriage. One night, however, they are viciously assaulted by thugs while walking their dog. Andrews is killed and Foster is horribly injured.

After going through a period where she is afraid to leave her apartment, Foster becomes frustrated with the police's inability to catch the killers and buys herself an illegal gun. Shortly thereafter, she's killing thugs right and left on the streets of New York City. A detective (Terrence Howard) investigates the killings and forms a friendship with Foster.

What's sad about The Brave One is that there are some genuinely interesting dynamics going on in the film. There are intriguing ideas about how trauma can permanently change a person's identity. The film gets stronger during the second hour, when the shootings briefly stop and Howard and Foster develop their friendship, even though Howard suspects that Foster is the person behind the killings. In the best scene of the movie, Howard and Foster chat in a diner about the killings and Howard wonders if he would have the strength to arrest a criminal he cared about. There's also a good secondary relationship between Howard and his partner (Nicky Katt).

Unfortunately, these virtues are sabotaged by a horrible, cop-out ending and a tone that could best be described as schizophrenic. While the script sometimes poses ideas about the toll trauma and revenge take on a person, the individual revenge killings are lovingly staged by Jordan in a way to glamorizes the violence. The audience in my screening boisterously applauded every time a hoodlum was killed. Granted, a person should not always judge a film or it's intentions by the way an audience reacts to it. However, the shootings seem like they're out of a mainstream action film, not a thoughtful meditation on revenge, so I think more people will be cheering the killings instead of thinking about them. And the awful ending seems to have nothing to say other than "Yay for revenge! Woo-hoo!"

Three screenwriters were responsible for The Brave One, and only two worked together. While there's no way for me to know this, the film's clashing tones and ambitions suggest that one of the writers wrote an intelligent script about trauma, grief, and revenge, only to have it rewritten as an action film glorifying vengeance.

While some intelligent moments remain and the performances are strong, The Brave One is a movie that annoys me the more and more I think about it.

Eastern Promises

Leave it to David Cronenberg, the director of gross-outs like the 1986 remake of The Fly, to make a movie that makes violence seem horrific, ugly, and brutal. Working from a script by Steve Knight (who wrote 2003's excellent Dirty Pretty Things), Eastern Promises has a London midwife (Naomi Watts) of Russian descent who delivers a baby from a 14-year-old Russian immigrant who dies in childbirth. Watts keeps the young woman's diary (written in Russian) and tries to have it translated show she can get in touch with the girl's family and keep the baby from going into a foster home.

Finding a card for a trendy Russian restaurant in the diary, Watts visits the restaurant, where the grandfatherly proprietor (Armin Mueller-Stahl) claims not to know the girl, but offers to translate the diary. His old-world charm initially makes Watts guardedly trust him. However, the man is the godfather of the local Russian mafia.

While Watts never completely disappears, the film's focus gradually shifts to Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen), a driver for the Russian mob who's friends with the godfather's hotheaded son (Vincent Cassel). While Nikolai is a stoic through and through, his attitudes about the baby and Watts seem more ambiguous then his more aggressive cohorts, who want the diary at all costs. While the Mortensen character is interesting, as is the workings of the Russian mob, the film's biggest flaw is that the Watts character starts out as the protagonist but fade more into the background as the film progresses and the Mortensen character takes the forefront.

However, there is a lot to like about Eastern Promises. The performances are good, especially Mueller-Stahl as the mob boss whose kindly exterior masks a very sinister interior. The notion of public vs. private personas is Eastern Promises' biggest theme, and one it explores very effectively, as did Cronenberg's previous film, 2005's A History of Violence. There is also a late plot twist in the film that is the rare plot twist that actually enhances the film and the themes it's trying to promote, as opposed to existing purely for the sake of being clever (like so many plot twists do).

Finally, Cronenberg stages the violence as the atrocity that it is (in marked contrast to The Brave One). Eastern Promises is most definitely not for the squeamish. An early throat slitting is probably the most gruesome throat slitting in motion picture history. A late-movie fight in a sauna between a man and two knife-wielding mobsters is equally horrifying. It's the rare movie fight in which the director makes the audience really feel the pain and exhaustion felt by the combatants. Killing or disabling a person with one's bare hands is not easy and Eastern Promises' fight captures that.

So, if you have a strong stomach, Eastern Promises is definitely worth seeing.

In the Valley of Elah

Writer-director Paul Haggis' Crash is one of the most polarizing movies of the 21st century. It won Best Picture and received many reviews, but there is an equally strong contingent of people who utterly and completely loathe Crash. It's hard to think of an acclaimed movie in the past decade that has experienced as strong and vicious of a backlash that Crash still feels today. Personally, I'm in the middle on Crash. If I were on an Ebert & Roeper style show and forced to give it a thumbs up or thumbs down, I'd give it a marginal thumbs up. It has its virtues, but I can understand why it annoys many people. Haggis seemed to be channeling his inner Oliver Stone during Crash, feeling the need to constantly spell out for the viewers what his exceptionally obvious movie was about.

Why am I starting a review of Haggis' new film, In the Valley of Elah, by talking about Crash? Well, it's because Crash provoked such strong feelings that people are probably going to walk into the film with preconceived notions one way or the other, just because of Haggis' name. Last fall, Jim Emerson, a Crash-hater who otherwise does an excellent job with his blog "Scanners" was bashing Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers (which Haggis co-wrote) before he'd even seen it simply because Haggis co-wrote it. That's the kind of hatred that man has engendered for Crash. (To be fair to Emerson, however, he eventually relented and saw Flags of Our Fathers and placed it on his 2006 best list).

While I may end up eating these words, it's hard to imagine In the Valley of Elah being that polarizing. Yes, it does portray instances of American soldiers behaving badly both in Iraq and back at home in the United States and therefore might incite the usual right-wing backlash by people who think American soldiers and members of the current administration are blameless, holy creatures who never make any mistakes, but the film is mostly a low-key police procedural. Granted, In the Valley of Elah is a pretty good mystery, but it's doesn't have the grand, sweeping ambitions that enthralled and appalled viewers of Crash.

Tommy Lee Jones plays Mike Deerfield, a Vietnam vet and retired MP whose son has gone AWOL after returning from Iraq. Jones begins to investigate and the boy's dismembered remains show up a short time later. Jones gets assistance from a sympathetic detective (Charlize Theron), and the film's running time consists of Jones doggedly pursuing clues to find out what really happened to his son.

It's pretty straightforward stuff, but it's helped a great deal by Jones' understated, effective performance in the lead. Even though he plays a tough, no-nonsense character, he conveys deep emotions with a few small gestures. And despite a few scattered on-the-nose moments, the film's underlying tone is one of sadness, not outrage over the Iraq War. While there are soldiers who do not act honorably, the film's attitude is that situations like the Iraq War irrevocably transform people involved, often for the worse.

In the Valley of Elah likely won't get either the rapturous acclaim or venomous disdain that Crash did, but it's an effective, thoughtful mystery.

No End in Sight...

2007-09-10T08:05:00.000-07:00

People can debate whether or not America should have invaded Iraq in the first place (for the record, my feelings are that we should not have done it), but first-time director Charles Ferguson's Iraq documentary No End in Sight does not even attempt to answer that question. Instead, the film sets aside entirely and posits that, regardless of whether or not one was initially for or against the invasion, the fact that George W. Bush's administration has massively bungled the occupation is not up for debate.

Ferguson meticulously details the occupation of Iraq and the areas in which horribly bad decisions were made. And it isn't Monday morning quarterbacking, either. Ferguson establishes through numerous interviews that many military and State Department people raised objections at the time that were ignored. The decisions were almost exclusively made by the inner circle of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfled, and Paul Wolfowitz, none of whom had any combat experience. The two biggest disasters that Ferguson highlights are the decision by the powers-that-be to allow looting to occur unabated in Baghdad for several days, which destroyed infrastructure and encouraged a climate of lawlessness, and to completely disband the Iraqi army, which instantly rendered half a million armed men with military training marginalized and unemployed. Not surprisingly, many of these men began an ugly, armed insurgency that continues to this day.

No End in Sight is a valuable film on the Iraq War because the people issuing such damning statements about the administration's incompetence were people who thought that some good could come from the occupation. While Ferguson does not delve into each interviewee's politics, I think it would be a safe bet to say that most of them are politically conservative. As a result, people can't dismiss Ferguson's work the way they may dismiss Michael Moore (although I like Fahrenheit 9/11) as someone who's had it in for George W. Bush from the get-go. The people in No End in Sight speak with the disappointment and hurt of people who went into a project feeling that they had a genuine chance to do some good, only to have their work and ideas tossed aside by Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.

There are so many instances of mind-blowing incompetence detailed in the film that it's hard to single out one, but one that stuck with me as a New Orleanian is the way in which the Bush administration continues to hire woefully underqualified people for incredibly important jobs. In a story that reminded me of how Michael Brown had no business running FEMA, a Georgetown professor who was working for an NGO tells the story of running into a former student (who had just graduated the previous May) in the Green Zone. When the professor asked his student what she was doing, she replied that she had been hired to come up with a traffic plan for Baghdad. The professor asked her if she had any experience in that field and she replied that she did not. However, her parents were contributors to the Bush campaign.

No End in Sight is depressing but essential viewing.

Superbad and Shoot 'Em Up...

2007-09-05T08:56:00.000-07:00

Superbad

In 1998, There's Something About Mary introduced a strange hybrid of movies - a comedy that relies heavily on R-rated grossouts but still has an underlying sensitivity and sympathy for its characters. The original American Pie, released in 1999, followed in the same vein, but Mary's blend of grossouts and decent character work vanished for years. Comedies seemed more intent on expanding upon Mary's disgusting elements, while completely neglecting sympathetic characters or any kind of recognizable human emotion. The mixture came back, however, with 2005's The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Virgin's director and co-writer, Judd Apatow, brought it back again from the director's chair this year with Knocked Up, and produced Superbad (co-written by Knocked Up star Seth Rogen).

Superbad follows two high school seniors - Evan (Michael Cera), a skinny, soft-spoken dork who's shy to a fault about asking the girl he likes out on a date, and Seth (Jonah Hill) a fat dork who has a much brasher demeanor with people in general. During the same day at school, the boys are asked by the girls they have crushes on to secure alcohol for a party that night. The majority of Superbad's running time follows Evan and Seth's efforts to get alcohol and get to the party (needless to say, a number of things go wrong along the way).

Like many recent comedies, Superbad (at 113 minutes) is a little too long. The film's opening 20 minutes (before they actually set off to find the alcohol) could have easily been cut in half. While there are some amusing bits, all the opening 20 minutes establish is that Evan and Seth are dorks, and, like all high school boys, are really, really horny. The dialogue feels authentic, but there are only so many conversations about genitalia one can endure before it becomes repeititive (while there were a number of older viewers in the auditorium at the start of the film, virtually all walked out before the first 20 minutes were up).

Once the search for alcohol begins, the film finds its rhythm. Once they stop endlessly talking about sex, there is a genuine relationship between Evan and Seth and the film is right to point out how male best friends in high school often act like old married couples. In addition to the funny central relationship, Seth Rogen and Bill Hader turn in funny performances as perhaps the least responsible police officers on the planet.

It is not as good as The 40-Year-Old Virgin or Knocked Up, but Superbad is funny and entertaining enough to provide a good option for moviegoers looking to avoid the late summer/early fall doldrums.

Shoot 'Em Up

This is a tough one to review. Shoot 'Em Up, written and directed by Michael Davis, is obviously intended as satire. The film, from the script and direction to the lead performances by Clive Owen and Paul Giamatti, is presented with a knowing wink. Fans of the film will invariably point to those who did not like it and say that they didn't "get it."

I get what the filmmakers were trying to do with Shoot 'Em Up. It's played for laughs, not meant to be taken seriously, and is presented as a tongue-in-cheek satire of modern action films. However, it falls into a common trap for satires in that it revels in the behavior it wants to satirize.

Clive Owen plays a tough guy waiting for a bus who happens to a witness a pregnant woman fleeing gunmen. After dispatching a few baddies, he delivers the baby and attempts to help the mother escape. She dies (I'm not spoiling anything, this occurs within the first five minutes) and Owen is left to care for the newborn and fight off the assassins (led by Paul Giamatti) who seem hellbent on killing the infant.

Some of Shoot 'Em Up is clever. It pokes fun at action movie conventions like the one where a lone hero is able to dispatch dozens and dozens of bad guys ("Is he that good or do we just really suck?" asks an exasperated Giamatti after an Owen rampage). There are some imaginative action scenes and the film gets a few laughs from Owen's handling of the baby.

However, the relentless brutality and misogyny grows tiresome, even over the course of a scant 80 minute running time. It's a fine line for Davis to walk as a filmmaker - satirize a genre characterized by both sexism and a graphic, callous disregard for human life without letting his film wallow in both of those elements. Aside from the excessive violence, parts of the film involving feces, bizarre sexual fetishes, and a dead woman's breasts left me feeling queasy and dirty for watching it.

The other problem, one inherent to satire, is this: will the audience realize it is satire? Granted, a filmmaker does not want to be too obvious/heavy-handed in letting viewers know he/she is kidding, but...I think many (not all, but many) people watching Shoot 'Em Up will leave it thinking "wow, that was cool," simply because of the violence, gore, and sex, not because they think it was a subversive satire of action film conventions.

But how can a filmmaker walk that fine of a line, making the satire clear without being overbearing? The answer is that elusive, tricky thing called tone. At times, Shoot 'Em Up has the right tone, but at other times, it just feels icky. In the end, it makes me appreciate what Shane Black did with 2005's excellent Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang all the more. In that film, Black satirized noir detective films, but he managed that dangerous tightrope walk of telling a story that involved violence and other queasy elements while consistently maintaining a satiric, humorous tone throughout.

As people were leaving the theater, I heard a guy across the aisle from me tell his friends this: "That was either the best movie I've ever seen, or the worst movie I've ever seen." I'm somewhere in the middle and the guy was overstating things a bit, but at different times, the film alternately seems very good and very, very bad.

Interview

2007-08-25T06:18:00.000-07:00

In movies, there's nothing worse than a bad ending, especially a bad ending to a movie that had previously been at least good or decent. Bad endings cheapen everything in the movie that came before it. Even if there may have been some good individual scenes, they suddenly seem much less impressive because it turned out that they were leading up to such a fraudulent, annoying conclusion.

Sadly, this is the case with Interview, the fourth directorial effort from veteran character actor Steve Buscemi (Mr. Pink from Reservoir Dogs, The Sopranos, Ghost World). Buscemi gets a relatively rare chance to play a leading role as Pierre, a journalist who has gone from covering wars and politics to interviewing Katya (Sienna Miller), a mainstream actress, for a puff piece. Pierre views this as an insult to a journalist of his stature and shows up to the interview woefully unprepared. Katya is no saint, either (she shows up an hour late to the interview and answers her cell phone throughout the brief conversation), but she is rightfully annoyed at Pierre's snobbery and barely hidden disdain for her. After they quickly part ways, Pierre gets in a minor accident. Katya pities him and invites him back to her apartment, where they verbally spar for the remainder of the film.

The initial meeting between Pierre and Katya is both well written and well-played by both actors. Audiences can simultaneously understand why a journalist like Pierre might be annoyed at getting such an assignment while also understanding why Katya might view him as a complete jerk for putting no effort into the interview. It's an interesting relationship dynamic and one that could have been pursued for the entire film.

Once they get back to Katya's apartment, the film is hit and miss. There are good scenes of back and forth between the two leads, but it the fight/talk/fight/talk/fight structure gets a little predictable and repetitive. However, the film's climax initially seems to make a comment about how everyone carries baggage with him/her and that people should not so easily judge each other based on first impressions. Pierre and Katya seem very flawed, but also very recognizably human.

Unfortunately, it seems as if M. Night Shyamalan was called in to write a "twist" ending that is so wrongheaded that it sabotages the entire film. It tries so hard to be clever, while forgetting that intimate character studies don't need to be clever; they need to be authentic and grounded in characters who make mistakes but are ultimately empathetic and recognizable. Without spoiling anything, the twist ending here makes Pierre and Katya both go from flawed-but-human to completely irredeemable jerks in the span of a couple of minutes.

And it's a shame, too. Interview certainly had its good moments leading up to its disastrous ending and Buscemi has directed good films before (Trees Lounge is very good). The performances here are good (and it's unfortunate Buscemi does not get more leading roles). But, all of the film's virtues end up getting flushed down the toilet by a bad, bad ending.

The Bourne Ultimatum and Rush Hour 3...

2007-08-09T08:08:00.000-07:00

The Bourne Ultimatum

While the overwhelmingly positive reviews for the third installment in The Bourne Identity trilogy are correct to praise the film, they are a bit misleading. Many of the reviews praise the film for its realism, but that's wording it incorrectly. The Bourne Ultimatum isn't much more realistic than a lot of action movies. Let's face it - even the best action movies are not realistic. You think Indiana Jones could have been dragged behind a truck for as long as he was in Raiders of the Lost Ark without completely tearing up his chest? And here, Matt Damon's anti-hero certainly has a few scenes where he walks away from things that would either kill or, at the very least, seriously injure most people (the parking garage scene being the most obvious example).

So, realism isn't the right word for what The Bourne Ultimatum and its two predecessors did well. What the films have is more a realistic feel, for lack of a better way to put it. Director Paul Greengrass (he should have won the Oscar last year for United 93) gives the film's locations, from London to New York to Tangier to CIA offices, the same day-to-day, lived in feel that he gives to his gritty dramas (United 93 and Bloody Sunday, both of which are terrific and well worth renting). Even though it's not exactly realistic, you get the feeling you are a spy story unfold amidst the lives of real, everyday people.

While I don't know how many special effects were used in the film, the stunts seem to be actually performed by stuntmen and the car chases seem to be real car chases. It never seems digitally enhanced. In particular, a scene where Matt Damon jumps out of a window several stories up, across an alley, and through a window in another building is jaw-dropping and thrilling in the way action movies are supposed to be.

David Strathairn, as the film's main villain, adds to this feel. Instead of a gloating mastermind that we often see in any number of spy films or action films, he comes off like the world's most sinister accountant, a smug bureaucrat who's indifferent to the lives ended/damaged by his plans. And Strathairn's war room at the CIA is manned by a bunch of ordinary-looking techies, whose 9 to 5 job just happens to be helping the CIA track targets that they can eventually kill.
Strathairn's scenes with Joan Allen, returning from the second film as the decent CIA official tracking Bourne, authentically feel like the interactions between two people who completely despise each other but mostly bury their hatred because they have to work together.

It's not the performance that will garner a whole lot of attention, but that's been in character with Strathairn's entire career. He did get some attention when he was nominated for an Oscar for his role as Edward R. Murrow in Good Night and Good Luck, but his career is populated with well-acted but otherwise unnoticed roles in a number of quality films (Eight Men Out, A League of Their Own, L.A. Confidential, Sneakers, to name a few).

Well, I'm several paragraphs in and have not discussed the plot or Matt Damon, so I suppose I should get to that. The film picks up right after the second one ends, as Bourne (Matt Damon), the amnesiac assassin, continues his quest to find out how he became who he is. He gets a lead from a series of pieces a London journalist (Paddy Considine) is writing on him and it's off to the races. In essence, the film is a 111 minute chase picture, but it's a terrific one.

Damon does what good action movie stars should do - he anchors the picture and reacts to everything going on around him. Bourne's not a role that's going to land anyone an Oscar. The character is dour, determined, and haunted, but there aren't a lot of showy acting scenes to play. But, Damon is correctly content to be understated and it all works very well.

Simply put, it's easily the best action movie of this summer.

Rush Hour 3

Now, we come to a third installment that doesn't work so well. I remember the first two Rush Hour films as being passably entertaining, although to be honest, I remember very little from either film. But, I remember thinking they were okay for what they set out to be. Rush Hour 3, however, is pretty lackluster.

The first 30 minutes or so are reasonably amusing, as Jackie Chan's character seeks to avenge an assassination attempt against the Chinese ambassador (Tzi Ma). Since the attempt occurs in Los Angeles, Chris Tucker's character gets involved. When the film is in L.A., it is still hit and miss (there's a painfully unfunny "Who's on First?" bit), but there are some funny scenes and some decent action.

Unfortunately, once the two detectives head to Paris to investigate further, the film grinds to a halt. The boorish antics of Tucker's character end up dominating the film (it's an interesting role reversal from buddy films of the 80's, like 48 Hours, to have the racially insensitive jerk cop be played by a black actor in this series). Granted, Tucker plays the same character he did from the first two films, but there doesn't seem to be much of a balance once they get to Paris. It seems like the Chris Tucker show and it gets really old, really fast. Jackie Chan, a tremendously gifted stunt performer, does not get to do a whole lot. Admittedly, Chan's getting up there in age and probably can't do everything he once did, but...the film suffers by cutting back on the manic action scenes that are Chan's specialty.

Blah.

The Simpsons and Sunshine...

2007-07-27T09:57:00.000-07:00

The Simpsons

In the build-up leading to the film, a writer whose name is eluding me compared The Simpsons (referring to the TV show) to the Beatles. It's an apt comparison. Like the Beatles, The Simpsons has been so consistently brilliant for so long that people take for granted how great of a show it is. Like the Beatles, The Simpsons is so universally acclaimed that people stop praising it, assuming it's a given that people like it. Saying you like The Simpsons or the Beatles isn't interesting because they're both so transcendent it's hard to imagine someone not liking them. Granted, opinions vary on later seasons of The Simpsons (it has been on the air since spring 1990). Some argue that the show was brilliant in the early-to-mid 90's, but started sucking in the late 90's and has been on cruise control since. Others loyally stand by it. Personally, I think the show was consistently brilliant until around 2001 or 2002. Now, the show is still good, and there are very funny episodes, but they're now interspersed with some genuinely bad episodes (in all seriousness, I'm not sure there was a single bad episode in the 1990's). In a way, I think people were so spoiled by The Simpsons' seemingly endless excellence that when the show started slipping some in later years, people overreacted a bit.

Now, there is a movie. The big question is this: Is it on par with the show at its best? No (granted, the show at its best was arguably better than anything that's ever appeared on TV). But, it's still a lot of fun watch. Part of what made the show so good for so long has been he rich diversity of supporting characters. In an 85 minute movie, however, some of these popular supporting characters will get short shrift (I'm not sure Principal Skinner even has a line). Springfield villain Monty Burns, perhaps my favorite television character ever, has only a couple of brief scenes (one is during the ending credits, so don't leave too soon). But, it has to be this way for it be an actual movie. If the film spent too much time allowing each supporting character to get his/her due, the movie would be a disjointed mess.

The plot of the film has Lake Springfield becoming toxic with the pollution. The tipping point occurs when Homer (who else) dumps waste from his new pet pig into the lake. The head of the EPA (voiced by Albert Brooks) encloses the town in an impenetrable dome. Naturally, Homer must redeem himself in the eyes of both Marge and Bart, who has taken a liking to neighbor Ned Flanders as a surrogate father figure. One way the movie keeps the series' attention to smaller characters is in the sympathetic way it treats Flanders. Yes, he's a religious goody-goody dork, but he is human, likable, and genuinely practices what he preaches.

The movie lags a little when the Simpsons clan briefly escapes from Springfield, but on the whole, the film is fast-paced and funny. I don't want to spoil too many of the gags, but for anyone who's ever enjoyed The Simpsons, the movie is well worth checking out.

Sunshine

From director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland (the team behind 28 Days Later) comes the story of a group of astronauts in the future on their way to reignite the dying sun by detonating a gigantic nuclear warhead inside of it, restarting its core. A first crew had been sent on the mission, but never returned.

As they get closer to the mission, the crew makes mistakes, technical errors occur, and all sorts of calamities happen that force the astronauts (among them Cillian Murphy, Cliff Curtis, Rose Byrne) to make some seriously difficult decisions. For the most part, the movie works as an intelligent piece of sci-fi. The only exception is when, somewhere around 2/3 of the way through, the film inexplicably turns into Event Horizon for about 10 minutes. Thankfully, it recovers in time for its finale.

All in all, it's nice to see a piece of thoughtful sci-fi that doesn't rely entirely on explosions and effects.

Rescue Dawn, Harry Potter, and Hairspray...

2007-07-19T13:49:00.000-07:00

Rescue Dawn

After Christian Bale tortured himself and nearly killed himself for The Machinist (in which he dropped to below 120 lbs, despite being 6'2), Bale has now taken on the role of a POW in a Laotioan camp in Rescue Dawn. Granted, even at his most malnourished here, Bale does not look as horrifyingly skinny as he did in The Machinist, but it's clear that once again Bale is putting his body through the wringer for his art. And yes, what Bale does is most definitely art. He's arguably the best actor of his generation.

Here, in director Werner Herzog's film, Bale plays Dieter Dengler (also chronicled in Herzog's documentary Little Dieter Needs to Fly), a German-born American pilot shot down and captured in Laos during the infancy of the Vietnam War. Transferred to a camp where even the guards are starving (and thus more cruel), Bale quickly learns from his fellow prisoners that the real prison is the jungle. Even if they successfully escape the prison, they must negotiate treacherous jungle terrain that's crawling with Viet Cong without supplies or any real knowledge of where they are.

Bale does a convincing job of portraying a character who is decidedly strange (Dieter decided he wanted to fly after witnessing American jets bomb his hometown to smithereens during WWII), but keeping him sympathetic. In fact, Dieter's peculiar way of looking at the world and his single-minded tunnel vision seems to make him the ideal candidate for surviving such an ordeal. The other prisoners have all let despair creep into their minds, but Dieter never seems to think that he won't escape.

All in all, it's a solid and thoughtful character study/adventure movie. Before I get to Harry Potter, I feel I must relate a stupid audience member story from the screening. However, it contains a mild spoiler, so skip to the Harry Potter review if you don't want to read it.

Anyway, at one point in the film, one of Bale's fellow prisoners is hacked to death with machetes, eventually being decapitated. Late in the film, an obviously dehydrated and malnourished Bale hallucinates and imagines the dead man sitting next to him and talking to him. When the dead man appeared, a middle-aged woman in my row said aloud, "He's still alive??" apparently thinking the man had magically sewn his head back on his shoulders.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

At almost 900 pages, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the longest book in the Harry Potter series. Yet, oddly enough, it is the most economical and streamlined film. The book's length had me concerned for the adaptation, but screenwriter Michael Goldenberg and director David Yates have stayed true to the essence of the book while streamlining it for film. In a way, the shorter books seem to have made for longer films in part because the books were so short they may have left the filmmakers feeling like they could try to get everything into the film. With Order the Phoenix, that would have been impossible, and the film is better for it.

For those unfamiliar with the books, Harry is having to deal with his battle with Voldemort and having seen one of his classmates killed. On top of this, most of the wizarding world does not believe him. The Ministry of Magic has placed a beaureaucrat, Professor Umbridge (Imelda Staunton), in Hogwarts to keep things in order. Umbridge is as much of a villain in this piece has Voldemort, a petty tyrant who administers her cruelties with a smile plastered onto her face. Part of the reason the Harry Potter series works so well is that characters like Umbridge feel like the teachers from hell that most people have to endure at some point in their lives.

The film proceeds at a fast pace, keeping a sense of humor even as the subject matter gets progressively darker. It's quality entertainment, although it might be a little scary for very young children.

And yes, I can't wait for the final book to be released this weekend.

Hairspray

Oddly enough, the film Hairspray reminds me of the most is Rocky Balboa. While it may seem like an odd comparison, the two films are similar in that the previews for both made the films look absolutely hideous. Rocky Balboa featured 60-something Sylvester Stallone trying to fight again; Hairspray is a teen-oriented musical comedy based on a stage musical based on a lackluster 1988 film by John Waters. But, in both cases, the end result is a pleasant surprise, much more tolerable than one would expect. However, both films are being overrated, probably because people went into both with such low expectations that when the films turned out to actually be okay, they seemed much better than they really were. One review termed Hairspray as "viciously satirical," which it is not. It's amusing and mildly satirical, but let's not pretend this is Catch-22.

The film tells the story of a short, overweight Baltimore girl (Nikki Blonsky) circa 1961 who longs to be a featured dancer on a local dance show. However, her physical appearance makes her a prohibitive underdog. The film's funniest moments are tied directly to the show, which is kind of like an overtly racist, facist version of the Mickey Mouse Club.

The gimmick that is getting the film a lot of attention is John Travolta playing Blonsky's mother in drag and in a fat suit (the role in the original film was played by Divine, a transvestite actor and regular in John Waters' films). Travolta is okay, but he's overshadowed by Christopher Walken, playing Travolta's husband. It's pretty funny to watch Walken, who's renowned for the many villains he's played in his lengthy career, singing and dancing. And for the curious, no, at no point in the film do Walken and Travolta make out (which would have been transcendent in kind of a horrifying way).

Is the film good enough to convert people who typically dislike musicals? No. It sags in the middle and rambles on a bit near the end. It's not a classic, but it knows its target audience. Adolescent girls will absolutely love this film. And there are certainly far worse films for young women to love. After all, Hairspray teaches racial tolerance (an interracial romance is prominently featured) and self-acceptance. Both are worthy messages for kids to learn at any age.

Regarding the last point, Hairspray may be the first mainstream Hollywood romantic comedy that features a short, overweight girl as its heroine. I racked my brain to think of another film that may have come before it, but I can't think of any. There have been many movies where unconventional-looking guys successfully woo very attractive women (pick a Woody Allen movie, Paul Giamatti gets Virginia Madsen in Sideways), but I'm not sure the reverse has ever happened. Usually, when a Hollywood film casts the part of a female social outcast, they usually just take a conventionally beautiful woman and put glasses on her and mess up her hair a bit. Not the case here. Blonsky is shorter than most actresses and definitely heavier. It may be a sad commentary on gender issues in Hollywood films, but for her to be cast as the lead here is downright revolutionary.

Once, Ratatouille, and 1408 Reviews....

2007-07-02T12:00:00.000-07:00

Once

It seems that every year, there are at least one or two small, character-driven indie films that are good, well-made pieces of entertainment that get inflated to something more than they are. I hate to use the word overrated, because these films are usually good, but don't deserve the four-star ratings people throw at them (I felt this way about Half Nelson last year). Once is the latest movie to fall into this category, and people's excitement over it is probably heightened by the fact that's being released in the summer, surrounded by action movie sequels, dumb comedies, and stuff like Transformers. A quiet, low-key indie film in the midst of all this chaos is such a nice change of pace from what's out there that it's understandable to see why some people get so excited about it.

Once is, in essence, a quasi-musical version of Before Sunrise (the standard bearer, along with Before Sunset, of low-key, character driven indie romances). A Dublin street musician (Glen Hansard, of the Irish group The Frames) strikes up a friendship with a Czech immigrant (Marketa Irglova) who plays the piano. Together, they have a cautious flirtation (she's married, but separated from her husband; he's still reeling over a break-up with a longtime girlfriend). They collaborate on a few songs. And...that's about it.

The film does a good job of finding an innovative way to translate the musical into the medium of film. While there are some exceptions (Singin in the Rain, the Disney movies from The Little Mermaid through The Lion King), musicals generally don't work on film because it is a much more literal medium than the stage. This is why I enjoyed Rent, when I saw it on stage, but when I saw the faithful version (which starred most of the original cast), I mostly found it to be a contrived yawner. Most of the time, it just seems downright silly when characters randomly burst into song on film. All characters in musicals express their feelings through song, but writer/director John Carney (no, not the former kicker for the Saints) ingeniously makes his leads musicians who express their emotions through songs they write and perform. The gimmick works well and the songs are good.

So, what's wrong with Once? It's a little slight (just a shade over 80 minutes). This, too, is somewhat refreshing in the era of three-hour Pirates of the Caribbean movies, but...the film would have benefited from more time spent with both of the characters. I am nitpicking here, but based on the mostly orgasmic reception the film has received, people should scale back their expectations slightly. Once is good (if forced to rate it on the conventional star scale, I would give it a three out of four), but it's not great.

Ratatouille

When Pixar burst onto the scene with Toy Story in 1995, it was basically the death knell for traditionally animated films (from 1995-98, Disney released Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, and Mulan - none of which are bad films, but it was clear then that old school animation was fading). The latest Pixar effort is Ratatouille, from director Brad Bird (The Incredibles).

The film tells the story of a Parisian rat named Remy (Patton Oswalt) who longs to be a chef. His taste for fine dining puts him at odds with his rat family, who are less discriminate in their eating habits. Eventually, he finds his way into the kitchen of Gusteau's, a once famous restaurant that has fallen into disrepair, largely due to a scathing review by a food critic (voiced by Peter O'Toole). Remy teams up with a hapless busboy and they create a scheme where Remy works the busboy like a puppet, creating gourmet food and putting the restaurant back on the map. However, the head chef is suspicious and the food critic is eager for another opportunity to knock the restaurant down a peg.

The film's opening is excellent and it has a very good conclusion, which, oddly enough, features a monologue about the nature of criticism (both its good qualities and its bad qualities) delivered by O'Toole's character that is perhaps the most elegant meditation on the subject ever delivered on film. It's certainly more mature and insightful than any of M. Night Shyamalan's shrill whining in Lady in the Water.

However, like the recent Pixar efforts Cars and The Incredibles, Ratatouille runs a little too long (110 minutes). It sags in the middle, when the busboy turned chef takes the focus away from Remy. What's that you say? I was just complaining about how Once was too short at 82 minutes, and now I'm complaining about how Ratatouille is too long at 110 minutes? Am I suggesting that all films be between 90-100 minutes? No, it's just coincidence and a matter of whether or not the individual film feels complete or padded. Once needed a little more character development and Ratatouille could have benefited from some cutting of the middle section of the film. That's all. There have been great 80-90 minute films and great 180 minute films.

Just like Once, however, Ratatouille is an enjoyable, reasonably well-made film.

1408

Based on a short story by Stephen King, 1408 is the story of a writer (John Cusack) who makes a living writing about haunted hotels (he doesn't really believe they're haunted, he just cynically plays up the mythology to make a buck). He gets an unsigned postcard telling him to try a hotel in New York City. When he arrives, the manager (Samuel L. Jackson) strenuously tries to convince him not to stay in the room, listing dozens of people who have committed suicide, died of heart attacks, or maimed themselves after spending as little as ten minutes in the room.

1408 is PG-13 and while there is blood, much of the suspense is psychological. It had a strong showing at the box office in its opening weekend, making more money than Hostel Part II made in three weeks. I'm not suggesting that all horror films should be PG-13 or that horror films should be afraid of grossing people out, but...I am encouraged by my fellow human beings embrace of a horror film that does not emphasize torture and over-the-top gore over everything else.

While I am encouraged by the direction 1408 chooses to take, the film unfortunately runs out of gas, petering out around the halfway mark and resorting to gimmicks and effects in its second half. As for the ending, it feels like the writers (Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski) were just plain unsure how to end it.

All in all, a so-so effort that I'm fonder of for what it might represent regarding trends in horror films than the film itself.

Live Free or Die Hard...

2007-06-27T17:06:00.000-07:00

While it was exceedingly well written and directed on all counts, part of what made 1988's Die Hard work was the fact that it was grounded in reality. Bruce Willis' John McClane seemed like a regular guy caught in an extraordinary situation. He wasn't a superhuman muscleman like Stallone or Schwarzenegger. He wasn't an invulnerable machine taking on an army of bad guys. He takes on twelve guys with resourcefulness, toughness, and desperation because his wife's life is at stake. Everything he does in the film (even the big stunt with him jumping off the roof with the fire hose) seems like something a real guy could actually do. You feel the sweat, the hard work, the exhaustion McClane goes through and when he has to run over broken glass in his bare feet, you feel his pain. Even though Die Hard 2 and Die Hard with a Vengeance are not on the same level as the original, they both work as action movies. McClane's feats become more far-fetched, but he retains his trademark irreverence (another one of the character's main charms in the first film) and the two sequels still at least feel somewhat real (the most entertaining parts of the third installment come from McClane's efforts to navigate the traffic and hassles of an average summer day in New York).

Live Free or Die Hard, the fourth installment of the series, throws any connection to reality entirely out the window. McClane still keeps his rough humor (Willis still knows how to sell a ho-hum line like "And I'm gonna beat you to death in your own house" and make it funny), but his ability to take punishment after punishment in this makes him seem more like Robocop than John McClane. Director Len Wiseman and Mark Bomback also allow henchmen to survive things that would kill a person five different ways. In essence, the movie is an overblown, outlandish cartoon.

That being said, it is entertaining. It goes on a little long (approx. 2 hrs 10 min), but it has its moments. It just feels more like a passably entertaining Schwarzenegger film from the mid to late 80's than a Die Hard film. And, as fourth installments go, it is certainly better than the hideous Lethal Weapon 4 (another series that began with a wonderful first installment with two heroes that seemed like real guys that became loonier with each progressive film).

McClane is asked to escort a hacker (Justin Long - the young guy from those annoying Mac commercials) into federal custody. However, they're ambushed and barely escape with their lives. A group of cyber-criminals (led by Timothy Olyphant) have begun an attack on the nation's infrastructure that Long unknowingly assisted in. So, the two men must team up - McClane's old school street smarts and survival skills with Long's computer skills. Initially, the interplay between the gruff McClane and the slacker feels strained, but the two eventually develop a decent chemistry that generates some welcome laughs (Long has a line about FEMA that drew thunderous applause from the screening I attended).

In the end, Live Free or Die Hard is a decent enough movie to see on a summer afternoon. Just don't expect it to bear much resemblance to its predecessors.

Sicko...

2007-06-22T14:02:00.000-07:00

It's nearly impossible to discuss Michael Moore's latest without getting into political issues (even though I think national health care is non-partisan), so keep in mind, any views expressed here are my opinions, and only my opinions.

In first-world nations, the United States stands apart from other countries like England, Canada, and France (all of which Moore visits in this film) in that health care must be paid for by the patient. No money, no care. Now, a common argument in favor of the current health system is that whether it be through insurance or through taxes subsidizing a national health care system, you're paying for it one way or the other. However, as Moore efficiently and heartbreakingly exposes in his new film Sicko, that's really not the case when medical insurance companies are constantly denying valid insurance claims in the name of more profits. Modern American health insurance is a rigged game, one in which medical directors are given a bonus depending on how many claims they deny and investigators look for the tiniest loophole to deny coverage for the most ludicrous of reasons. For New Orleanians, the stories told in Sicko will sound eerily familiar to people who were screwed over by property insurance companies who denied claims to Gulf Coast residents while still enjoying record profits.

While Moore as a reputation of being confrontational and flashy, Sicko is a generally restrained piece of work (even Fox News' critic has given the film a rave review). While he's still present in the film, he lets his subjects do most of the talking. Even though he has a tendency to be a little too cheeky and rely a little too much on gags, the humor he employs here is pretty funny (even though the commercials spoil it, watching him ask the Coast Guard for directions to Guantanamo Bay is priceless).

Moore presents the issue as a non-partisan one. While he does get some well-deserved shots in at Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, he skillfully and brutally depicts Hilary Clinton as someone who started out with some noble ideals but eventually sold her soul to the highest bidder (she now ranks second in campaign donations from the medical/pharmaceutical industry, behind only Rick Santorum). He also emphasizes the non-partisan point by speaking to a member of Canadian's conservative party who is also an enthusiastic advocate of Canada's health care system and by interviewing a former member of British Parliament who said that Margaret Thatcher, the most conservative of Britan's prime minister's, never would have even considered messing with the national health care system.

In examining why the United States does not have universal health care, Moore posits that's at least partially because of a fear of communism. People fear that if there's socialized medicine we'll turn into the Soviet Union. In other words, it's the "with us or against us" mentality - it allows for no shades of gray, no middle ground. Moore does a very effective job showing the the audience how countries like Canada, France, and England prove that you can have socialized medicine without turning into the U.S.S.R.

While Sicko is monumentally depressing, it is most definitely worth seeing. Unfortunately, many won't because Michael Moore's detractors hate his guts. Granted, this happens in part because Moore puts himself front and center in his films. But, the knee-jerk backlash against him is unfortunate because Moore, even if he is a showboat, raises questions that people should be thinking about and discussing. He was raked over the coals by some for Fahrenheit 9/11, but the criticism seemed to be more of a personal nature. I did not see one person who attacked that film explain why Congressmen should be able to send other people's sons and daughters to war, but (mostly) not send their own? Similarly, I fear that the vehement anti-Moore crowd will insist on slamming him as opposed to actively discussing the health care issues in the United States.

In the end, though, Sicko's message is that human beings, regardless of race, religion, or political beliefs should look out for each other. It may be an obvious message, but it's one that a lot of people need to hear again.

A Mighty Heart...

2007-06-20T08:40:00.000-07:00

Hey everybody. Busy review time...I should also have reviews of Ratatouille, Michael Moore's new film Sicko, Once, and Live Free or Die Hard up in the near future.

The TV commercials for A Mighty Heart make it seem like a soap opera-ish Oscar-begging vehicle for star Angelina Jolie, playing the wife of journalist Daniel Pearl, who was beheaded in Pakistan in 2002. Thankfully, writer John Orloff and director Michael Winterbottom (24 Hour Party People, The Claim) have something more thoughtful and substantial in mind.

In reality, what A Mighty Heart more closely resembles are films like All the President's Men or Apollo 13, films that detail the amount of grunt work done by large groups of people in an effort to achieve something great and/or meaningful. However, a key difference is, as we all know, the people who worked so hard to try and save Daniel Pearl did not get a happy ending to their saga, unlike the folks in All the President's Men and Apollo 13.

Even though the film is being marketed as a star vehicle for Jolie, the actress in fact disappears for large portions of the film's middle-third, which focuses more on the efforts of a hard-working Pakistani police captain (Irrfan Khan), Pearl's co-workers at the Wall Street Journal (Denis O'Hare and Gary Wilmes), and a US security official (Will Patton) to rescue Pearl before it's too late. This is not to say Jolie's character is not integral to the film or that Jolie herself does a bad job, it's just to point out that the film is very much an ensemble piece. In particular, Khan (as the Pakistani captain) and O'Hare (as Pearl's kindhearted but fussy editor) do very strong work.

Jolie does a good job of making people see how difficult it must have been for Marianne Pearl to try and maintain her composure while being watched constantly by the media, friends, and members of the police force. While there is one scene near the end where Jolie seems to be gunning for the Oscar, she's really much better in the film's quieter moments, particularly one late dinner scene where she thanks everyone for their hard work in trying to save her husband's life.

Most everything about the film is restrained and low-key. For those worried that the film may be exploitative in its portrayal of Daniel Pearl's murder, it is depicted off camera and viewers only get to see the expressions on the face's of the people watching the notorious video, not what's on the video itself.

The Wind that Shakes the Barley

2007-06-17T08:42:00.000-07:00

Here's a review of a film that won the Palme D'or at 2006's Cannes Film Festival. For whatever reason, it is not getting a traditional theatrical run in New Orleans, but is playing at Zeitgeist at 7:30 every night until Thursday. Zeitgeist is currently running out of Tulane's Architecture Building, so if you want to check it out, make haste.

In director Ken Loach's The Wind that Shakes the Barley, Cillian Murphy (28 Days Later, Batman Begins) plays Damian, an Irish medical student about to depart for London. When the dreaded black & tans (the British paramilitary units that occupied and terrorized Ireland in the early part of the 20th century) kill a boy in his village for refusing to say his name in English, Damian's brother Teddy (Padraic Delaney), who's already linked to the IRA, talks him into joining the cause.

For about half of the film, it covers similar ground as many other revolutionary/resistance films. Granted, it does so effectively, but the first hour covers ground that has been seen before (1996's Michael Collins also covered the struggle for Irish independence). Where The Wind that Shakes the Barley is at its best, however, is in its second hour, when the British offer the Irish the compromise of a "free state" that still swears allegiance to the crown. While Michael Collins also covered the Irish Civil War that followed after the signing of this treaty, The Wind that Shakes the Barley does a much better job of understanding why each side feels the way they do. Damian and others who are against the treaty feel it will do nothing to ease the suffering of the Irish people (many of whom were living in poverty at the time), as well as the fact that the country will still be tacitly supporting England by swearing an oath to the king. As one character puts it, "All this (the treaty) will change is the color of the flag and the accents of the landlords."

While this is a convincing argument, the film's characters who support the treaty (including Teddy) make valid points about the IRA not having enough people or weapons to withstand a full-scale British invasion and that the British would be unwilling to concede complete control to Ireland which would give the green light to nationalists to revolt in other British colonies like India. Most affectingly, a few characters are just tired of the killings and want any way out they can get while still saving face.

Like any film about this particular subject, it is pretty grim and not for the faint of heart. In one scene, a revolutionary has his fingernails torn out by a British soldier (this scene prompted several walkouts in the screening I attended). But, if you can stomach it, the film is worth seeing. Even if the film is not entirely original, it is still a thoughtful examination of a certain period in history and revolutions in general.

Ocean's 13 and Day Watch reviews...

2007-06-11T06:13:00.000-07:00

Ocean's 13

Coming off the shamefully overlooked The Good German, Steven Soderbergh returns to the mainstream with Ocean's 13. The plot is nearly identical to the original. In Ocean's 11, Danny Ocean (George Clooney) organized a heist to rob a casino owned by Terry Benedict (Andy Garcia) out of revenge because he was dating Ocean's ex-wife (Julia Roberts). In Ocean's 13, Ocean organizes his old gang to rob a casino because its owner (Al Pacino) cheated one of the Ocean's gang (Elliot Gould) out of his rightful ownership share in the casino and giving the man a heart attack in the process.

Despite the been-there-done-that feel, there are some funny moments here and there. A small subplot where Casey Affleck's character works in a Mexican dice factory (to load dice headed back to the casino the group intends to scam) gets some laughs when Affleck leads a worker's revolt against unfair factory conditions. A celebrity cameo at the end also gets a pretty big laugh. In essence, Ocean's 13's most charming moments are its throwaway gags, ones that have little to do with the plot.

However, a large portion of Ocean's 13's 122 minute running time is devoted to the guys standing around strategizing. The biggest problem with this is that the logistics of the heist itself do not hold up under the slightest scrutiny. If moviegoers are going to be subjected to lots of scenes of guys discussing strategy, then the ultimate plan must be foolproof and impress audience members with its logic, skill, etc. But, since it doesn't really make sense, one just wishes that more time had been devoted to the funny stuff.

The end result is an intermittently amusing film that, like most sequels, will be quickly forgotten once it leaves theaters.

Day Watch

This is the sequel to Night Watch, a blockbuster special effects extravaganza in its native Russia. The plot is too all-over-the-place to completely encapsulate here, but it involves forces of light and dark engaged in a tenuous truce. But, since the dark forces are evil, they're looking for a way to break the truce and take over the world. Oh, and a past-altering device called the "chalk of fate" is prominently involved (I wish I had one of these in my classroom when I was a teacher).

Sadly, Day Watch is a giant mess. Occasionally, there's an interesting visual, but the film piles silliness on top of silliness for over two hours until the overall effect feels more punishing than entertaining. If nothing else, it makes one appreciate the Harry Potter books and films for creating a fantastical universe that, in its own way, makes sense without an inordinate amount of exposition and backstory.

Knocked Up and Mr. Brooks....

2007-05-31T10:40:00.000-07:00

Knocked Up

After helming The 40-Year-Old Virgin, one of 2005's most entertaining films, writer/director Judd Apatow returns with Knocked Up. It may not quite live up to Virgin, but Knocked Up still has easily enough laughs to make it a potent comedy.

Ben (Seth Rogen) is a loser still living off a settlement he received as a teenager when a postal truck ran over his foot. He lives with 4 roommates and together they aspire to create a website that catalogues nude scenes in film. Out one night, he meets Allison (Katherine Heigl), an on-air reporter for E!. Even though Allison is clearly out of Ben's league, they hit it off and have a one night stand. After an awkward breakfast, they go their separate ways only to discover a few weeks later that Allison is pregnant.

The film then devotes its running time to Ben and Allison adjusting to their new lives. Ben has to learn responsibility and try to make some semblance of a life for himself that doesn't involve smoking dope, scouring movies for nude scenes, and trading insults with his roommates. Ben and Allison try to make the relationship work, even if they are intimidated by the strained marriage of Allison's sister (Leslie Mann). Mann's husband (Paul Rudd) categorizes the married-with-children lifestyle as being akin to an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond, except it's not funny and doesn't end after 30 minutes.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin was a bit too long, clocking in at just under two hours. Knocked Up takes things even further, lasting a hearty 132 minutes. In essence, it's too long, it's mostly shapeless and lacks much in the way of structure. But, the good thing is, Knocked Up is consistently funny enough that it doesn't really matter. Apatow and his actors walk the fine line of creating characters who are noticeably flawed but still likable. This is especially true for Rogen's character, who in the hands of the wrong actor and screenwriter, could come off as an obnoxious slob. However, in the hands of Apatow and Rogen, the character has enough humor and self-awareness that the audience roots for him to get it together.

Even the throwaway scenes are funny. In particular, one scene where Heigl and Mann go out on a girl's night initially seems like it will be entirely shrill and unnecessary, but it concludes with a hilarious monologue by a bouncer that's one of the film's funniest bits. It doesn't add anything to the plot or tell us anything about the characters we didn't already know by that point in the film, but the end result is so funny it's impossible to complain.

That scene's kind of a microcosm of the film itself - flawed, rambling, and occasionally off-putting, but so consistently funny and humane that most moviegoers will forgive its flaws and just enjoy the ride.

Mr. Brooks

From the late eighties to the early nineties, Kevin Costner was on a hot streak few actors ever get to enjoy (The Untouchables, No Way Out, Bull Durham, Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves, JFK). However, in the mid-90's, Costner hit a rough spell. While his name doesn't carry the clout it once did, Costner has made a mild comeback in the past few years. Open Range and The Upside of Anger are not great films, but they're respectable and Costner certainly carries his weight in both. Now, he's playing a modern Jekyl/Hyde type in Mr. Brooks. Like some of his other recent work, it's not on par with his best stuff, but it has its moments and Costner does well enough to remind people why he still is an actor to watch.

Costner plays the title character, a respected Portland businessman who moonlights as the serial killer nicknamed "The Thumbprint Killer." After a queasy start in which Costner murders a young couple, he gets blackmailed by an amateur photographer (comedian Dane Cook) who saw him committing his last crime. The catch is, Cook doesn't want money; he wants Costner to tutor him in the ways of being a serial killer.

Where the film, directed by Bruce A. Evans (a screenwriter who collaborated with his writing partner Raynold Gideon on the script for Stand by Me), becomes interesting is when it examines Costner's personal life. Costner's character views the killing as an addiction. He even goes to AA meetings (where he just says "I'm an addict" without specifying his addiction). At best, the film resembles a serial killer version of The Sopranos in its exploration of a monster who experiences both remorse at his actions and worry over the future of his family. In Mr. Brooks, Costner is particularly worried about his college-aged daughter (Danielle Panabaker), who is showing something of a wild side. The film's best extended sequence revolves around Costner's anguish over what to do about his daughter.

Unfortunately, the film devotes an ample amount of screen time to Demi Moore's detective investigating the case. In particular, there is a subplot where Moore is stalked by an escaped killer that she put behind bars that is completely unnecessary. If the time devoted to that subplot had been used to further develop Brooks' relationship with his family and the AA group, the movie might have been something special.

As is, the film is an interesting, but not entirely satisfying work. Evans and Gideon's script shows flashes of imagination and, after the opening murders, the remainder of the film is rather tastefully restrained and non-exploitative for a serial killer flick. Costner's natural stoicism serves him well in the role of a respected man hiding a double life and William Hurt delivers a nice supporting turn as the personification of Costner's dark side (a tricky device to pull off, but it mostly works).

On one last side note, while the film is set in Portland, it was actually filmed in Shreveport. I never would have guessed Shreveport would one day sub for Portland in a major motion picture.

Away From Her...

2007-05-23T11:30:00.000-07:00

In many ways, Alzheimer's is the proverbial "fate worse than death." People who suffer from it end up in sort of a living death. They lose their memory and their mental abilities; in essence, the person they were dies and their body ends up being an empty shell. And Alzheimer's ravages the families of its victims, too, as they must helplessly watch as a person they love forgets them.

Actress Sarah Polley (Go, The Sweet Hereafter, Dawn of the Dead) makes her feature writing/directing debut with Away From Her, a film that tells the story of a married couple (Gordon Pinsent and Julie Christie) affected by Christie's increasing memory loss. Things become more complicated after Christie moves into a retirement home and strikes up a relationship with another resident (Michael Murphy) as her memory of her husband dwindles.

Away From Her is a quiet, methodically paced character study. Pinsent and Christie do excellent work in the leads and Polley makes an assured debut as director/screenwriter. The film always feels authentic, from the heartbreak of the disease to the depressing sterility of the nursing home. As one would expect in a film about Alzheimer's, Away From Her is quite depressing, but there are some welcome moments of humor throughout in some early interactions between Pinsent and Christie, as well as in the form of a former hockey play-by-play man who lives in the nursing home and announces his daily activities like he would a hockey game.

All in all, a wortwhile effort.

28 Weeks Later and Spider Man 3

2007-05-11T06:55:00.000-07:00

28 Weeks Later

2003's 28 Days Later is one of the very few memorable horror films of the 21st century. Director Danny Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland (an accomplished novelist) took a fairly familiar story about viruses and a zombie apocalypse and made it into a terrific entertainment that still holds up on repeat viewings (I watched 28 Days Later again on TV yesterday).

Despite an intriguing trailer, 28 Weeks Later is ultimately a major disappointment considering its predecessor. The original cast is gone, Danny Boyle has been replaced by Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, and Alex Garland has been replaced by a gaggle of screenwriters. However, things do get off to a promising start. While much of the film takes place after the outbreak of the original has been contained, the prologue takes place during the initial film's outbreak. Several people are holed up in a farmhouse, among them a married couple (Robert Carlyle and Catherine McCormack). They fall under attack. At a crucial moment, Carlyle finds his wife cornered in a room by three or four zombies. On the one side of him, there's his wife and the zombies. On the other, there's an open door which he can use to escape outside. He chooses to run for it.

The sequence happens in a very bang-bang way that underscores how hard it is to make decisions during a time of crisis. We'd all like to believe we'd be totally heroic in a similar situation, that we'd charge into the fray despite being outnumbered and fight valiantly. But, none of us know this for sure and there's a chance that, faced with such a split-second decision, we might turn and run like a scared rabbit. Carlyle escapes, and the film flashes forward to 28 weeks later, when London is being repopulated by the American army and Carlyle is reunited with his two children (Mackintosh Muggleton and Imogen Poots) - the children were abroad on a school trip when the outbreak occurred.

So far, so good. 28 Days Later worked so well as a horror film because Boyle and Garland realized that good horror filmmaking relies heavily on character. If the characters are interesting and/or you care about them, it becomes a lot scarier. While Carlyle's actions in the prologue are not sympathetic, he still is a very interesting character, tormented by guilt and shame as he faces his children (who don't know he abandoned their mother) and another zombie epidemic. I would have loved to follow that character through the entire film.

Sadly, the film's focus shifts from character to character and, on a whole, falls apart once all hell breaks loose. An American General (The Wire's Idris Elba) seems like he'll be a major character, but disappears from the film. Two sympathetic soldiers (Jeremy Renner and Rose Byrne) become the de facto leads, but we never learn much about them other than that they're vaguely benevolent. And it doesn't help that Fresnadillo's action sequences are too chaotic for their own good - at times, it becomes hard to tell what's going on.

Despite a promising first 30 minutes, 28 Weeks Later falls well short of the mark. Rent the original instead.

Spider Man 3

The first two Spider Man films, along with the first two X-Men films, as well as the likes of Batman Begins and Casino Royale have given viewers reason to hope that big-budget studio blockbusters can still provide quality entertainment. Director Sam Raimi returns with Spider Man 3, a film that reminded me of last summer's third X-Men installment. It has many of the same qualities that made the first two so good, but in the end, it doesn't measure up to its predecessors.

Spider Man 3 is, in a word, overstuffed. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) must confront his former friend Harry Osborn (James Franco), who is now the new Green Goblin (his father was the old one in the first film). Meanwhile, the convict (Thomas Haden Church) responsible for the murder of Peter's beloved Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson) has escaped from prison, only to find himself accidentally demolecularized, turning him into supervillain the Sandman. And Edward Brock (Topher Grace) is a rival photographer who comes into contact (as does Peter) with a mysterious black ooze that amplifies its host's worst traits. And Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard), a classmate of Peter's, has eyes on him, making Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) jealous. And Mary Jane is just making her Broadway debut, but it doesn't go so well.

This is a lot of plot to fit into a film and Spider Man 3 struggles to adequately develop all of these storylines, even at its 140 minute running time. The Peter-Harry conflict works the best, in part because the filmmakers have been developing that plotline since the original. Church and Grace have moments where their characters have potential, but often get left in the background as the film tries to juggle all of its subplots. Still, the fact that Spider Man 3, like its predecessors, actually does try to make characters of its villains, does set apart in a good way from many action films. In addition to this, Peter's character continues to grow and evolve from when we first met him in the original.

While there is a lot in Spider Man 3 that works, the character of Mary Jane remains problematic. In essence, her role in all three of the films has been to serve as the helpless victim who must be rescued. Also, while there are interesting elements to Peter's flirtation with his own dark side, one bar scene where Peter begins playing piano is so over-the-top ludicrous that I expected Will Ferrell (as Ron Burgundy) to come in and accompany Peter on jazz flute.

In the end, Spider Man 3 is definitely flawed, but there's still enough good things going on here to make it worth a look.

Black Book Review...

2007-05-05T11:43:00.000-07:00

Fritz here. A few days later, Year of the Dog is dwindling in my memory - the final act bugs me more the more I think about it. Yesterday, I made the fortunate choice of catching a matinee of Black Book at Canal Place instead of Spider Man 3 at the Prytania. It was fortunate because while I was in the theater, a torrential thudnerstorm occurred, flooding some streets severely, including the intersection of Jefferson & Prytania. So, lucky I caught Black Book, or I might not have a functioning car right now. That being said, I will catch Spider Man 3 during the week and put up a review.

Dutch director Paul Verhoeven (Robocop, Basic Instinct, Showgirls) has long been a frustrating enigma. Robocop is a brilliant film; It might be the only film I've ever seen that works simultaneously as an action film and as social satire. Watching it 20 years later, its satire about greedy private corporations running the military and police seems more prescient than ever, as do its jabs at a news media more interested in puff pieces than hard news. Unfortunately, Verhoeven's career took a marked downturn about halfway through 1990's Total Recall. That film is a rollicking thriller for its first half, only to fly off the rails in its second hour. In 1992, Verhoeven made tons of money with the erotic thriller Basic Instinct. While that film is certainly not boring, it's pretty much Joe Eszterhas writing the same script he always writes (is so-and-so, whom the hero is related to or sleeping with, really a killer?). Showgirls is an all-time infamous train wreck. Some will argue that Starship Troopers is a wonderfully subversive satire. They're half right. While Starship Troopers sometimes works as a satire of dumb, cheezy action films, it sometimes appears to be the very thing it claims to satirize. The Hollow Man is just plain bad. So, it might seem like something of a backhanded compliment to call Black Book Verhoeven's best work since Robocop, but it is...and it's a highly entertaining film.

Carice Van Houten plays Rachel, a Jewish woman hiding out in a Christian family's farmhouse in WWII Holland. When a stray bomb destroys her hiding place, Rachel tries to escape with her family to Belgium. When their boat is ambushed, Rachel (the only survivor), joins the Dutch resistance. Soon, she finds herself cozying up to a high-ranking Gestapo official (Sebastian Koch). At one point during her undercover work, she even has to perform a musical duet with the Nazi most responsible for her family's death.

Aside from giving viewers an interesting look at relatively unexplored part of World War II (although one of Verhoeven's early Dutch films, Soldier of Orange, covered similar turf), Black Book is refreshingly complex. It is, first and foremost, a thriller and works very well in that regard (even it goes on a little long). Like one would expect from the director of Robocop and Basic Instinct, there is plenty of sex and violence to go around, but the film effectively establishes the gray areas that surface in war. Since World War II is generally the war everyone agrees was a "moral" one, films tend to paint its participants as either good or evil. Black Book recognizes that both sides were populated by individuals who often acted out of self interest first and moral obligations second. While there are many conflicts between the Dutch and the Nazis in the film, there is plenty of inner fighting between both the members of the resistance and the Nazis. The most effective quandary in the film occurs when the resistance members are faced with a choice of saving the lives of Jews at the expensive of Dutchmen, or vice versa. Naturally, Van Houten wants to save the Jews, while the Dutchmen in the resistance want to save their countrymen and a heated argument ensues.

The film is idealistic enough to have an admirable moral about how everyone, no matter how odious, deserves a fair trial. There is also one very satisfying comeuppance regarding one of the more blatantly evil characters. However, Black Book is more complicated than that. Not all of the bad guys receive their just desserts. And while the film is right to preach forgiveness of those who have wronged us, lest we all become as monstrous as those we despise, Verhoeven is world-weary enough to know that such a sentiment is easier said than done.

Year of the Dog and Some Mini-Reviews....

2007-05-02T11:28:00.000-07:00

Screenwriter Mike White (School of Rock, The Good Girl) makes his directorial debut with the character study Year of the Dog. Saturday Night Live alum Molly Shannon plays a dog lover. She's not just any dog lover, either; she's one of those people who seems to connect far better with her pet than she does with any of the people in her life.

Thing change, however, when Shannon's beloved dog dies suddenly. Soon thereafter, she is contacted by a staffer at the vet's office (Peter Sarsgaard) who is even more socially awkward than she is. While trying to set her up with a new pet, Sarsgaard educates Shannon about things like factory farming and other unappetizing aspects of the meat industry. As a result, Shannon becomes a vegan and something of an animal rights activist.

Much of the comedy of the film's first 2/3 revolves around the befuddled and condescending reactions people, like her brother (Tom McCarthy), sister-in-law (Laura Dern), and neighbor (John C. Reilly) have to Shannon's newfound activism. While I am not a vegetarian, I have friends who are and many have expressed frustrations with the silly, patronizing responses they often get from people when they explain their vegetarianism. The low-key humor in White's script rings true and the film is aided by strong performances all around (although at this point it should be no surprise when Sarsgaard and Reilly turn in exemplary work).

However, White's script runs into a wall in its final act. While everything in the first 2/3 felt real, the final act seems forced. In particular, Shannon does something that undermines her character. It's such an irrational and stupid action that the movie seems to be saying that vegans are crazy and that people are right to patronize them. Now, I really don't believe that was White's intention as the first two acts are empathetic and White's a good screenwriter, but, the finale feels false and the film suffers for it.

That being said, there's a lot of enjoyably low-key laughs in the film's brief running time and some good performances to go with it. Year of the Dog is the kind of movie that makes for a good rental.

Fracture

The previews play up the battle of wits between hotshot prosecutor (Ryan Gosling) and a man (Anthony Hopkins) who murders his wife. The big problem is that, upon even the most cursory examination, Hopkins' plan does not seem to be very clever at all. In fact, it relies heavily on luck and coincidence. Fracture is not a particularly bad film, but it does feel like a two-hour episode of Matlock that somehow found its way into theaters.

Disturbia

The previews make it look like Rear Window for teens, and that's pretty much what audiences get here. A juvenile delinquent (Shia LaBoeuf) confined to house arrest for the summer suspects his neighbor (David Morse) might be a serial killer. No great shakes here, but the script does take some pains to make LaBouef an actual character and there's some mild suspense throughout. Disturbia, while not a memorable film, is nonetheless one that does what it sets out to do.

The Hoax

Director Lasse Hallstrom (What's Eating Gilbert Grape) directs this story (based on true events) about Clifford Irving (Richard Gere), a novelist who briefly conned the world into thinking he wrote an authorized biography of reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes. Irving is not a likable character, but the film captures the story in a compelling way and watching Gere descend further and further into a trap of his own making still makes for entertaining viewing. It probably won't be in theaters for much longer, but it is worth seeing, so catch it while you can.

Hot Fuzz Review

2007-04-18T08:17:00.000-07:00

In 2004, writer/director Edgar Wright teamed up with writer/star Simon Pegg to make Shaun of the Dead, a zombie comedy that was brilliant for 2/3 of its running time before turning into pretty much a straightforward zombie picture for its final half hour. Still, despite its flaws, the film was funny and imaginative enough to be thoroughly enjoyable. Similar things could be said about Wright and Pegg's new effort, Hot Fuzz, which parodies action films. Parts of it are brilliant, parts of it are funny, and parts of it drag, but overall, there's enough creativity, imagination, and energy to recommend it.

Pegg plays Nicholas Angel, a London cop who is so good at his job that he's making the rest of the force look bad by comparison. As a result, he is sent to a quiet village where he works under a kindly boss (Jim Broadbent) and is partnered with the boss' oafish son (Nick Frost). After some very funny scenes establishing Angel's contrast with the small town folks, some grisly murders begin to happen. They're passed off as accidents, but Angel suspects something more.

While Shaun of the Dead faltered a bit at its conclusion, Hot Fuzz actually sags in the middle portion of the film. After brilliantly satirizing action movie conventions for the first 30-45 minutes, the film takes a detour and begins satirizing films like The Wicker Man and Brotherhood of the Wolf. It's an odd juxtaposition and this satire doesn't find its mark as readily as the action film gags. Happily, the film recovers in time for its finale, which has some hilarious send-ups of climactic action movie shootouts.

Pegg and Frost are funny in the lead roles, but part of the fun of Hot Fuzz is seeing a lot of British character actors playing small roles as the townsfolk. In particular, Timothy Dalton (who I always thought was a better James Bond than people gave him credit for being), is quite funny as a sinister supermarket mogul. It's also nice to see Paul Freeman (Bellocq from Raiders of the Lost Ark) as the town priest.

Again, the film is a bit messy in places and runs a little long for a comedy (2 hours), but there's a lot to laugh about here.

Grindhouse...

2007-04-04T13:27:00.000-07:00

Okay, folks, I think the best way to approach the review of this opus from Robert Rodriguez (Sin City) and Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction), which involves two feature-length films plus four fake trailers, is to discuss each separately, then come back and discuss the whole at the end.

The Fake Trailers

In addition to paying homage to cheesy exploitation fare from the 1970's, Grindhouse features four fake trailers. The first is "Machete," directed by Robert Rodriguez. It purports to tell the tale of a professional killer (Danny Trejo) out to avenge his own shooting. Cheech Marin plays a priest friend of Machete's who assists with the revenge. This is the best of the trailers. It's funny and manages to affectionately satirize and pay homage to grindhouse flicks.

The next three trailers are in between the two main segments. Rob Zombie's (The Devil's Rejects) "Werewolf Women of the SS" and Edgar Wright's (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) "Don't" are both amusing. Not as good as "Machete," but still infinitely superior to Eli Roth's (Cabin Fever, Hostel) "Thanksgiving". Roth's trailer pinpoints everything wrong with the genre - it's exploitative, disgusting, and devoid of wit. Back when Pulp Fiction was released, people would attack Quentin Tarantino for thinking that violence itself was funny. I always defended Tarantino, stating that when Marvin gets his head blown off in the car in Pulp Fiction, it's not the act itself that's funny, but the reactions of John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson's characters and the ensuing interplay between them and Tarantino's character. Roth's trailer, on the other hand, seems to think violence in and of itself is flat-out hilarious. I'm not particularly squeamish, but some of the acts played for laughs in the trailer are simply vile. The "Thanksgiving" trailer, along with some of "Planet Terror" (see below) make me believe that the MPAA will never, ever rate a movie NC-17 for violence alone.

Planet Terror

The first feature-length segment is Robert Rodriguez's "Planet Terror," which tells the story of a Texas town overrun by zombies created by the release of chemical agents into the sky. The heroes are go-go dancer Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan) and Wray, a wreckage man with a past (Freddy Rodriguez).

While never great, "Planet Terror" has some clever moments and some legitimately funny gags (although one is undercut slightly by the fact that it gets repeated in Tarantino's film as well). While Quentin Tarantino is famous for resuscitating careers of actors (John Travolta, Pam Grier, etc.), Rodriguez might have done the same for veteran B-movie actor Jeff Fahey (The Lawnmower Man). Here, Fahey plays the ornery owner of a local BBQ joint who remains fiercely protective of his recipes, even as the world seems to be ending all around him. Every time Fahey appears on screen "Planet Terror" gets a needed jolt.

"Planet Terror" bogs down some with repitition in its final thirty minutes. It would have worked better as a 60 minute short film instead of a feature length movie. And it never really distances itself from the other good zombie films that have been released in recent years, either (28 Days Later, Shaun of the Dead, Land of the Dead).

That being said, "Planet Terror" has its virtues and, if one can stomach the relentless gore, is moderately enjoyable.

Death Proof (minor spoilers below)

Going into Grindhouse, I was expecting Quentin Tarantino's "Death Proof" to be the superior of the two segments. I've never been a fan of Robert Rodriguez. I find Sin City to be slick, but largely soulless (ditto Desperado, Once Upon a Time in Mexico). Tarantino, on the other hand, manages to merge his fanboy obsession with genre films with sharply defined characterizations and relationships. However, "Planet Terror" is markedly better than "Death Proof," which is a huge disappointment considering Tarantino's talent.

The entire first half of "Death Proof" follows around one group of young women (among them Sydney Poitier, Vanessa Ferlito, Jordan Ladd) who party and chat...and chat....and chat some more. Tarantino's scripts tend to be talky, but the lack of forward momentum in the first half of "Death Proof" is astounding. It may as well have been called "Chit Chat." At the bar, the women are sized up by Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell) a former stuntman and current killer who
drives an armored car that protects him from injury when he crashes his car into the women's at 200 miles per hour, killing them all in horrible ways.

The second half of "Death Proof" follows a second group of women (Rosario Dawson, Zoe Bell, Tracie Thoms, Mary Elizabeth Winstead) who are associated with the film industry. Winstead's an actress, Dawson's a makeup artist, and Thoms and Bell are stuntwomen. After more chit-chat, Russell stalks them.

Once Russell finally attacks the second group, "Death Proof" finally becomes somewhat engaging, mainly due to the work of real-life stuntwoman Zoe Bell (she was Uma Thurman's double in the Kill Bill movies). An extended sequence where Bell clings to the hood of a car while Russell aggressively rams it with his own car is quite tense. However, it just makes you wish that the entire segment had been geared to allow Bell to show her stuff. She'd make a great action heroine for a full-length movie.

The weaknesses here are puzzling because Tarantino is typically so adept at structuring his scripts (even if the structure is unconventional, a la Pulp Fiction). "Death Proof" would have been better if the first group of women had been dispatched after maybe five minutes and then spent the rest of its running time focusing on the second group of women battling Russell. That could have made for a magnificently tense film and could have been Bell a chance to wow audiences even more than she does in her relatively limited time.

Defenders of "Death Proof" will likely argue that Tarantino was meticulously re-creating a certain type of film and that its flaws are intentional. This is what I refer to as Mars Attacks syndrome. Like Tarantino, Mars Attacks' director Tim Burton is a very talented guy. But, Mars Attacks is one of the worst movies of 1996. People would often defend it to me by saying variations of "But he meant to do that!" Okay, so he meant to do it. He meant to recreate the cheesy sci-fi films of the 1950's, most of which were horrifically bad. And he succeeded so well that he created a film that, in it's own way, just as horrifically awful as those films. Similarly, "Death Proof" may be a loving recreation of a certain type of film, but many of those films were not good to begin with, so even if Tarantino's mistakes were intentional - so what? It still makes for bad cinema.

Hopefully, Tarantino will recover with his next project (maybe his WWII script Inglorious Bastards?). He's a singular talent and it's painful to watch him swing and miss like this.

The Film as a Whole

This would be a very difficult to film to rate via the traditional star system. The trailer for "Machete" is good. "Planet Terror" is okay, as are the trailers for "Werewolf Women of the SS," and "Don't." "Death Proof" is a major disappointment. The trailer for "Thanksgiving" is the most hideous thing I've seen on screen this year (and remember, I saw Norbit).

Overall, the film's running time becomes a burden. It runs for three hours and five minutes. Three hour movies have a smaller margin for error than shorter films. If three hour films don't fire on all cylinders, they become punishing as their running time progresses. Grindhouse becomes similarly wearying as it plods along. Aside from the fact that it's length detracts from the film artistically (both "Planet Terror" and "Death Proof" would have been better with about 20 minutes each on the cutting room floor), Grindhouse's prodigious length will likely keep it from finding anything other than a niche audience. If the main segments had just been an hour each, then the film could have been a tighter, more manageable 130-140 minutes with the fake trailers. That might have made for a much better film and one that would be more likely to reach a wider audience.

The Lookout and Blades of Glory Reviews...

2007-03-30T12:18:00.000-07:00

The Lookout

The new thriller from writer/first-time director Scott Frank (he wrote the screenplays for Get Shorty, Out of Sight, and Minority Report) has been compared to Christopher Nolan's landmark 2001 film Memento. The comparison is unfair to The Lookout and frankly, it's not all that accurate.

Yes, The Lookout and Memento are both mystery/thrillers with characters who have sustained head injuries and have some difficulty remembering things (although Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character in The Lookout is not in quite the bad shape Guy Pearce was in in Memento in the memory department). However, that is where the similarities end. Memento was a meditation on the elusiveness and deceptiveness of memory, the futility of revenge, and the ways in which all people lie to themselves in order to get through the day. The Lookout, on the other hand, is pretty much a low-key character study centered around a bank robbery. It's not as good as the classic Memento, but it is still a well-written, well-acted, compelling little film.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Chris Pratt, a rich kid who was seemingly on top of the world as a hockey phenom at his high school when, because of carelessness/negligence on his part, the car he was driving crashed at high speed. Two of Gordon-Levitt's close friends were killed in the accident and he was left with a brain injury that makes it hard for him to remember simple tasks and remain organized. He's roommates with an older blind man (Jeff Daniels), but other than that, has no real friends.

Until one day at a local bar, Gary (Matthew Goode), a man who went to the same high school as Gordon-Levitt, approaches him and befriends him. Soon, Gordon-Levitt is spending more time with Goode and even becomes romantically attached to one of Goode's friends (Isla Fisher). After a short time, however, Goode reveals that he wants Gordon-Levitt to help him in robbing the bank that Gordon-Levitt works at as a night watchman/janitor.

In the wrong hands, this could all easily turn into an overly gimmicky thriller, but thankfully, Frank is an excellent screenwriter and favors the low-key, character-driven approach. Frank's script makes the audience understand how incredibly frustrating Gordon-Levitt's condition must be - not just the memory lapses, but the interactions with strangers who are often patronizing and unwittingly insensitive to him. Most crucially, Frank's screenplay shows the audience how lonely a person with such a condition would be. This is the most important part of the script because it explains why Gordon-Levitt would allow himself to be suckered into a robbery plot against his better judgment. He wants friends and wants to belong again to a group. Indeed, Frank's script should serve as a reminder to beginning screenwriters that even plot-driven films should have a strong grounding in character.

As the lead, Gordon-Levitt once again does solid work in a noir film (he was the lead in last year's Brick). Jeff Daniels and Matthew Goode steal the film in supporting roles. Daniels has been very good for a long time and his role as the kindly but wary blind man makes me wish he appeared in more movies. Goode is quietly proving himself to be a very versatile actor. He gave an accomplished performance as a callow rich kid in Woody Allen's Match Point and was the only bright spot in Imagine Me and You, where played a cuckolded nice guy. Here, Goode strikes the right balance between charming and malevolent that his role needs.

It may not be a classic, but The Lookout is strong, confident filmmaking that is well worth seeing.

Blades of Glory

There's not a heck of a lot to say about this one. Will Ferrell and Jon Heder (Napoleon Dynamite) play rival figure skaters who, after a fight on the medals podium, are banned from the sport. However, there is a loophole that allows them to still compete in the pairs competition. So, the two mismatched skaters (Ferrell is a macho blowhard, Heder is an effeminate wimp) end up as a team.

Blades of Glory gets off to a promising start, but then becomes wildly uneven the rest of the way. Amy Poehler and Will Arnett provide some welcome laughs as a rival pair and Ferrell gets some chuckles, but the film too often goes for the most obvious punchline. But, there are enough funny moments that make one think that there was a smarter film looking to escape. The film has some laughs, enough to keep it from being bad, but it's infinitely forgettable and feels like it could have been better, especially considering the talent involved. Ferrell's been great in other films and The Office's talented Jenna Fischer is left in a pretty straightforward girlfriend role.

In the end, Blades of Glory is the kind of film that's hard to review - it doesn't have enough going for it to gush about its positives, but it doesn't have enough against it to write about its negatives, either.

Reign Over Me and 300 reviews...

2007-03-21T09:33:00.000-07:00

Reign Over Me

Writer/director Mike Binder (2005's The Upside of Anger) returns with Reign Over Me, the story of a well-off, but bored cosmetic dentist (Don Cheadle) who one day stumbles upon his old college roommate (Adam Sandler) on the streets of Manhattan. Sandler has lost his wife and three daughters in one of the planes on 9/11 and is now a reclusive shell of his former self. The grief is so deep that he refuses to admit that he remembers his wife and daughters. On their first meeting, he even denies remembering Cheadle. But, Cheadle takes an interest in his former roommate, trying to bring him back into the world of the living.

It all sounds very trite and predictable, a story about how someone gets over his terrible grief through the love and caring of others, etc. In the last act, with melodramatic courtroom scenes and a tacked-on romantic subplot, the film succumbs to cheap, TV-movie of the week sentiment. At 125 minutes, it also overstays its welcome by about 20 minutes.

That being said, Reign Over Me has its moments before it unravels near the end. To its credit, Binder's script is smart enough to realize that someone who has suffered a trauma as horrific as Sandler's cannot be cured simply by love and attention. Sandler's character needs consistent professional help and the script acknowledges this. In addition to this, the script has enough complexity to acknowledge that Cheadle's initial motives for helping Sandler are partly altruistic and partly selfish in that Cheadle is bored with his life and is looking for a guy friend to give him something to do outside of his family.

Cheadle does a good job as the film's anchor, but Sandler is the wrong choice for his role. And for the record, I'm not a Sandler-hater. I've enjoyed, to varying degrees, The Wedding Singer, Happy Gilmore, Punch-Drunk Love, and I'm one of the four or five people who enjoyed 50 First Dates. However, the role here requires an actor who's very skilled at portraying introversion. In other words, the role asks him to play to the exact opposite of his strengths as a performer.

All things considered, Reign Over Me is not a bad film. It has its moments and has a reasonable intelligence to it. It's just a shame that overlength, a shaky conclusion, and the wrong lead actor keep it from being all that it could have been.

300

The latest film based on a comic book by Frank Miller (Sin City) tells the story of 300 Spartans who fought off an invading Persian force that vastly outnumbered them (supposedly the Persian force had over a million people in it). Just like Robert Rodriguez did with Sin City, director Zack Snyder (the Dawn of the Dead remake) painstakingly attempts to capture the look and feel of a comic book on a movie screen. Just like in Sin City, the digital effects are impressive. But, just like much of Sin City (excepting the Mickey Rourke segment), 300 feels soulless.

On top of that, 300 has a lot more problems working against it other than its empty feel. Without giving us much context, King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) constantly raves about protecting freedom and reason from the nasty Persian invaders (headed by Rodrigo Santoro as Xerxes). However, the talk about freedom and reason rings hollow in a society where any babies that are sickly or deformed in any way are discarded/killed and children are sent into the wilderness around age 10 to fend for themselves.

In an interesting way, 300 is reverse image of Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima. A main part of Iwo Jima's emphasis was to mourn the loss of the individual to a war-crazed society that glorifies death in battle. When Saigo the baker is taken from his pregnant wife to serve in the military, Eastwood's film views it as an absurd tragedy, made even more ridiculous by the neighbors who scold Saigo for not being thrilled by the opportunity to die in battle. On the flip side, 300's portrayal of a brutal, rabidly militaristic society seems to think sacrificing everything to die in battle is actually really cool.

I know, I know, I can hear the naysayers saying that I'm a liberal wimp and I'm letting personal/political objections get in the way of enjoying what was meant to be a rollicking action film. Yes, I am mostly a liberal wimp and I do have personal objections to the philosophy portrayed by the film. However, I think Dirty Harry is still an excellent film even though it's largely fascist. On the other hand, Dirty Harry is well-written and well-directed and Clint Eastwood gives an incredibly charismatic performance in the lead. No such luck in 300. The script gives the actors almost nothing to do other than scream lines at each other. The finale seems like it was lifted directly from Braveheart. As King Leonidas, Gerard Butler fails to register much, although, to be fair to him, the script does not give him much to work with. Rodrigo Santoro's villainous Xerxes is just flat-out bizarre. He's feminized so much with eye-makeup and extravagant jewelry that it's sometimes hard to tell whether it's Xerxes or Priscilla Queen of the Desert commanding the Persian army.

Bottom line: there are some striking images in 300, but the script is weak, some of the themes are iffy, and a fascinating real-life story ends up relegated to being little more than a showcase for beefcake and special effects.

The Good German review...

2007-03-16T07:08:00.000-07:00

Steven Soderbergh’s The Good German, a film originally targeted as an end-of-the year prestige pic, is receiving an extremely limited release after mixed reviews. The release and the reviews are puzzling, because The Good German is actually a good movie.

George Clooney plays a war correspondent in Berlin just after WWII ended in Europe. Clooney runs into a German-Jewish former lover (Cate Blanchett), a dead body turns up at the conference he’s covering, and the soldier assigned to escort him (Tobey Maguire) is a black marketeer. Of course, all the events are connected.

Soderbergh was so intent on paying homage to classic ‘40’s cinema like Casablanca and The Third Man that he restricted himself to only using camera equipment and techniques used in that era. While it may occasionally feel like a film geek stunt, the film still works as an homage.
The technique is there and it's noticeable, but it does not overwhelm the narrative and the film walks the fine line between being an homage without blatantly ripping off its predecessors. In particular, the film's closing scene is a particularly devastating take on one of the classics' denouements.

Clooney and Blanchett both do fine work in the leads, but the most memorable performance here is by Tobey Maguire as Clooney's sinister driver. Maguire employs his usual aw-shucks, All-American nice guy persona, which makes it all the more shocking when it's used to portray a violent, misogynistic bigot. The role almost suggests what Leave it to Beaver's Eddie Haskell would be like if he shipped off to war and developed a violent streak.

Most importantly, The Good German features a resonant emotional theme about the compromises people make, with varying degrees of severity, to survive in an environment as hellacious as WWII-era Berlin. It effectively conveys how the American concern about winning the next war (the Cold War) allowed for some Nazis responsible for committing numerous atrocities to get off scot-free because American needed their scientific expertise.

You may not be able to see this in the theater, but it's worth a look on video.

Reviews of Premonition and Longford

2007-03-14T08:43:00.000-07:00

Fritz here. I'm grouping the latest Sandra Bullock thriller with an under-the-radar HBO film starring Jim Broadbent for tangential reasons you'll see below. I'll have a review of Steven Soderbergh's The Good German at the end of the week.

Premonition

Sandra Bullock plays Linda, a woman who receives news that her husband (Julian McMahon) died in a car crash the previous day. She wakes up to find him alive again. She goes to sleep, then wakes up to find him dead again. The gimmick (and it's revealed fairly early, so I'm not spoiling much) is that she arbitrarily wakes up during different days in the same week, the last day of course being the day of her husband's death, which she aims to prevent.

Unlike Christopher Nolan's landmark Memento, which had a narrative gimmick that made the story more effective dramatically and tied in nicely with the film's theme about the elusiveness of memory, the gimmick in Premonition is just that - a gimmick, and an empty one at that. On top of this, it suffers from the usual gaping plot holes that time travel movies suffer from. Even the best time travel movies (the first two Terminator films, 12 Monkeys, Back to the Future) have logic problems, but viewers overlook them because they're carried out with style, conviction, and still make sense in their own weird ways.

Premonition is further undercut by a vague, inconclusive, and idiotic "twist" ending that basically leaves one wondering "What the hell just happened?" When twist endings work (The Sixth Sense, The Usual Suspects), they go over like gangbusters. When they fail, like they do here, they make everything that preceded it seem worse, and what preceded it in Premonition wasn't that good to begin with.

The reason I grouped this with Longford is that Premonition tries, very late in the game, to make a hamfisted statement about the importance of faith and the belief in something bigger than oneself. Aside from the fact that it, like everything else in the film, seems sillier in lieu of the ending, the theme of faith is brought in and spelled out explicity in one late scene, then called back at the conclusion of the film. There is no examination of faith. The theme does not permeate throughout the entire movie; it's just brought in as a cheap gimmick to give the film resonance it doesn't have.

All of which is in marked contrast to Longford, a movie (based on a true story) that premiered on HBO a few weeks ago and is now in rotation on the various HBO channels. Jim Broadbent plays the Earl of Longford (circa the late 1960's), a member of England's House of Lords and a devout Catholic. In large part because of his religious beliefs, he spends large amounts of his spare time visiting prisoners in jail and mentoring them. Many of them moved on to constructive lives after their parole.

Longford's life becomes more complicated when Myra Hindley (Samantha Morton) writes him and requests a visit. Myra, along with her boyfriend Ian Brady (the chilling Andy Serkis, Gollum from Lord of the Rings), abducted, tortured and murdered several people, including children. Longford begins a relationship with Myra and makes an earnest effort to befriend her and convert her to the Catholic faith.

Once this relationship leaks out to the press, however, things get uglier for Longford. Many people, including families of the victims, are outraged at Longford's attempts to comfort and reform a woman who was at least partially responsible for some unbelievably vicious crimes. Even Longford's wife is adamantly against his efforts.

I feel I must make a brief digression before I discuss the film's examination of Christianity and Catholicism. All film criticism is subjective. The critic's individual beliefs and prejudices most definitely affect how he/she views a film. The most obvious examples of this would be the films of Michael Moore. With a few exceptions, people generally like or dislike Fahrenheit 9/11 in direct proportion to how much they like or dislike George W. Bush. Anyway, in the interests of full disclosure before I discuss the religious aspects of Longford, I should say that I am a permanently lapsed Catholic. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic grammar school, Catholic high school, and even a Catholic university (note: my attendance at a Catholic college was purely coincidental and was not an attempt to further my beliefs). I know my Bible and all of the tenets of the Catholic faith quite well. However, I am not a practicing Catholic and have no intentions of returning to the Church. I'm no atheist, but the rituals mean nothing to me, I'm opposed to the concept of a Pope and priests telling me what Christ's message is supposed to mean, I think the church's administration is corrupt, etc. I could write an entire doctoral thesis on why I have no intent to be a Catholic (or a Protestant, or any other form of organized religion), but you get my point. I just want you to understand where I'm coming from when I assess Longford's thoughts on faith.

Back to the film...The people who vocally oppose Longford's relationship with Myra Hindley do so on the grounds that what she did was "unforgivable." Indeed, her crimes were as despicable as they come (google her name and find out for yourself if you like). However, Longford responds to the criticisms by repeatedly saying that Christ teaches forgiveness for anyone and everyone, no matter how heinous some of their individual actions may have been. And Longford's right - this is what Christ actually says in the Bible. That no one is beyond redemption, that everyone deserves a chance at forgiveness.

The importance of forgiveness and its centrality to the life of any genuine Christian is the film's primary theme. Many Christians are Christians when it's convenient for them or coincides with their own personal opinions. Some loudly declare themselves "pro-life," and then actively support the death penalty, something viewed as murder by the Catholic Church (and it of course completely goes against Christ's message of redemption).

There's a reason people do this. It's easy. Forgiving people, even people who commit far less serious crimes than Myra Hindley, is not an easy thing to do. And Longford is fully aware of the challenge this poses. The script by Peter Morgan (The Queen, The Last King of Scotland) is complex. It does not shy away from the horrors of Myra's crimes and it does not have a Polyanna-ish view of things. It does not suggest that loving and forgiving people will simply cure them of wickedness.

The events of the film end up taking a personal toll on Longford, but, the film is quite touching because Longford so doggedly sticks to the true tenets of his faith, even in the face of someone that most would readily dismiss as "pure evil." I don't agree with everything Longford does in the film (there is a subplot about his quest to ban pronography from England, which I, as a fanatical 1st Amendment supporter, oppose). But, his unfailing willingness to forgive even the most diabolical crimes makes him a highly sympathetic character. If more Christians were like him, the world would be a far, far better place.

Regardless of your religious beliefs, Longford is worth seeing simply for the fact that a film that intelligently, thoughtfully, and provocatively examines what it means to truly be a Christian is very rare.

Black Snake Moan Review...

2007-03-05T13:50:00.000-08:00

Well, this is a head-scratcher.

Black Snake Moan (from writer/director Craig Brewer of Hustle and Flow) tells the story of a Tennessee nympho (Christina Ricci) who freaks out after her anxiety-prone boyfriend (Justin Timberlake) leaves for boot camp. Ricci then goes on a sex binge and gets herself viciously assaulted and left for dead by Timberlake's brother. Blues musician turned farmer Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson) finds her, takes her home, then, after finding out a few tidbits about her lifestyle choices, chains her to his radiator in an effort to "cure" her of her wickedness.

Yes, he chains her to his radiator. It's a fundamentally insane thing to do (Therapy? Who needs therapy? Let's just chain people to something) and offensive when one considers the misogynistic overtones. And it's hard to defend the movie from charges of misogyny when Brewer so frequently shoots a half-conscious, half-naked Ricci writhing on Jackson's floor (you'd think if he were so concerned about her welfare, he would have covered her up sooner than he does in the film). During this portion of the film, Black Snake Moan comes across as offensive, shallow, and gimmicky.

Thankfully, this segment of the film takes up about 30 minutes of a roughly 120 minute film, and some of its other moments actually work well. The soundtrack is fantastic and Jackson can still fluctuate from charming to scary as well as anyone. In the role of Ricci's boyfriend, Justin Timberlake does a respectable job and looks as if he can carve out a solid, Mark Wahlberg-esque acting career for himself if he plays his cards right. Even better, the film ends on a lovely closing shot and the film's closing message (that everyone is f---ed up because of wrongs that have been done to them in the past, but that we can still give each other some comfort when our demons come for us) is endearing.

Because of all of the above virtues, I wish Brewer would have made a quieter movie with the same characters. The chain sequence should have been done away with entirely and the characters should have been allowed to interact in a different way, and I think Brewer could have pulled this off. As it is, it feels like a gimmick made just to draw attention to itself. Or, if the chain stuff stays in the film, then Brewer has to do a better job of exploring the misogyny of a man who would do such a thing. He hints at it in the first act, but the chaining is portrayed as almost entirely paternal on Jackson's part.

In a weird way, Black Snake Moan actually reminded me of the Friday the 13th movies (although Black Snake Moan is far better than any of the Friday the 13th films). Both are lurid films with actually very conservative messages at their center. Similar to how any Friday the 13th character who engaged in premarital sex met with a horrific death, Ricci's promiscuity leads her to being horribly assaulted and nearly killed. Jackson's character is a scarred mess of a man because his wife had an abortion. The movie's sanest, most well-adjusted character is the town preacher (John Cothran, Jr.). And all of this moralizing is packaged in a film with plenty of nudity, sex, and some violence thrown in.

All in all, Black Snake Moan is certainly an odd film, and a difficult one to review. Like Brewer's Hustle and Flow, it has powerful moments, but it is offensive at times and the total result is not as good as some of the individual parts.

Zodiac Review...

2007-03-01T10:58:00.000-08:00

Fritz here. I'll post my thoughts of the show Extras and a review of Black Snake Moan next week.

The serial killer genre has, as a whole, become quite tiresome. Silence of the Lambs and Seven, released, in 1991 and 1995, respectively, were the high points of the genre. However, with umpteen variations on the formula (and the unfortunate Silence of the Lambs prequels and sequels), the genre seemed to be dead creatively. Part of the problem is the morbidity of the subject matter. A romantic comedy or a film dealing with less gruesome subject matter could get away with being mediocre. However, because of their inherent grisly nature, a serial killer film almost has to be excellent to justify its subject matter. For example, 1996's Kiss the Girls (starring Morgan Freeman and Ashley Judd) isn't really a bad film. But, since it features murders, torture, implied rapes, and generalized misogyny and misanthropy, I still felt like I needed to take a shower after watching it. A so-so serial killer movie ends up seeming worse than it is because of the sheer grisliness of its content.

Leave it to David Fincher, the man who directed Seven, to breathe some much needed vigor and life back into the genre with Zodiac, a story based on the real-life (and never apprehended) murderer who terrorized the Bay Area in the late '60's and '70's. It features many staples of the serial killer film: some unsettling depictions of murder and protagonists desperate not only to catch the murderer but to reach some sort of understanding as to why a person would choose to murder others at random. But, where Fincher throws genre conventions a curve ball is that all of the film's murders occur in the first 30 minutes or so (and the film runs 160 minutes). The rest of the film is devoted to both the difficulties involved in finding a suspect and then proving a case against that suspect and the toll such a case takes on the people directly involved with it. It's kind of like a serial killer version of All the President's Men (but without the happy ending, since Zodiac was never caught).

The film's perspective often changes throughout the course of its running time, but the focus is primarily on four separate characters. Detectives Toschi and Armstrong (Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards) investigate the one murder that took place within the limits of the city of San Francisco. Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) is the crime reporter for The San Francisco Chronicle, the newspaper to which the Zodiac sent letters to (that he demanded be published, lest he kill more people). Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a bookish cartoonist at the Chronicle on the fringes of the case at first, then becoming more and more obsessed as he takes it upon himself to solve it once the trail has gone cold for the detectives. The film is based on the two books Graysmith wrote on the case (Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked, both of which are interesting reads).

Much of what makes the film work is the way the script (by James Vanderbilt) concerns itself with how real people would react when surrounded by the chaos that was the Zodiac case. The case takes both a professional and personal toll on the four men most prominently involved with it. Other authentic bits that add something to the overall picture are the discussions the Chronicle staff have as to whether or not to print the Zodiac's letters and the bureaucratic nightmare that occurs when one man commits murders in different jurisdictions. 4 different police departments had murders that may or may not have been committed by the Zodiac and the film does a good job of showing how easily information can get lost when four separate departments are trying to work together.

Like real life, the film does not posit any easy answers. Graysmith, and by extension, the film, have a favored suspect - Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch), a convicted child molester who died of a heart attack in 1992. The case against Allen is compelling, but it is still completely circumstantial. Even though he was considered a strong suspect by police, charges were never filed against him. While the film favors Allen as a suspect, the script is smart enough to acknowledge that in a judicial system that aspires to be as fair as America's aspires to be, circumstantial evidence and gut instinct are not enough to convict a man of murder. Cleverly, the film makes allusions to Dirty Harry, the original Clint Eastwood cop film in which he circumvents the legal rights of a killer based on the Zodiac because he "knows" he's guilty. In the real world, things don't work out that way, which most would agree is a good thing.

The script also shows how difficult it is to solve murders years after the fact. Most murders are solved within a few days of their commission and, as the more time elapsed, the Zodiac murders became more challenging to solve. Tantalizingly, the film posits the question that Ruffalo and Gyllenhaal's convictions that one suspect is the Zodiac is at least partially due to a desire to just have the case finished once and for all. This is most effectively conveyed in a scene where Gyllenhaal talks to a victim's relative and belligerently tries to get her to say something she doesn't want to say after her initial answer doesn't fit with what he's put together in his head. This is also the fallacy behind true crime books like Zodiac and their ilk: the author often has a theory as to who committed the unsolved murder and will often ever so gently nudge the facts so they fit the suspect they have in mind (this is true of most books written about Jack the Ripper as well).

Fincher's direction is not as stylized as it was in Fight Club. Here, he mostly lays back on the fancy camerawork, which is not to say that film does not have a visual style to it. One late sequence in which Gyllenhaal becomes decidedly spooked while in the house of the friend of a suspect (Charles Fleischer, the voice of Roger Rabbit) is tense and masterfully shot by Fincher. He gets strong performances from his leads and from the many character actors filling in the smaller roles (among them Brian Cox, Elias Koteas, and Chloe Sevigny).

2006 was a relatively lackluster year for film. While 2007 got off to a horrific start with Norbit, films like Zodiac and Breach have me hopeful that 2007 with be a decidedly better year.

Music and Lyrics...

2007-02-23T12:29:00.000-08:00

Fritz here. Scroll down for my Oscars preview and check back next week for a TV review of Ricky Gervais' show Extras and end-of-the-week reviews of David Fincher's Zodiac and Black Snake Moan.

How many of you kids know who Andrew Ridgley is?

Okay, put your hands down. For those of you who are not '80's savvy, he was the "other guy" from the mid-80's pop group Wham ("Wake Me Up Before You Go Go" "Careless Whisper"). George Michael moved on from Wham to release several big solo hits in the late 80's and early 90's while Ridgely faded into complete obscurity and turned into a trivia question for '80's buffs.
Music and Lyrics basically casts Ridgely as the hero in a romantic comedy.

Hugh Grant plays the Ridgely surrogate, a has-been who is now starting to have trouble even booking state fair gigs. When things start to seem bleak, a pop princess (Haley Bennett) asks Grant to collaborate with her on a new song. The problem is Grant's character can only write music, not lyrics. Conveniently enough, his new plant waterer (Drew Barrymore) has a knack for lyrics and romantic comedy hijinks ensue.

In romantic comedies, charming leads are half the battle, and Music and Lyrics is in good hands with Grant and Barrymore. Grant may not be the most versatile actor, as he mostly plays minor variations on his persona, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. He conveys charm, intelligence, and a certain self-awareness that makes you like his characters in spite of their flaws. In something like Four Weddings and a Funeral, he's able to carry the film even though Andie McDowell is absolutely terrible as the female lead.

Barrymore does a good job as the free-spirited lyricist. Along with writer/director Marc Lawrence (Two Weeks Notice), Barrymore creates a character who is a little odd and quirky, but still seems like a person, rather than a collection of quirks (i.e. Natalie Portman in Garden State).

Lawrence's writing is also solid, and is in fact an improvement over Two Weeks Notice. While no one will mistake Music and Lyrics for an in-depth character study, Lawrence's writing does give some dimension to the two leads, more so than a lot of romantic comedies. And the film also does a decent job of exploring the fine line artists must walk between pleasing an audience and selling out (a theme also explored in Extras, which I'll get into next week).

Above all else, Music and Lyrics is a film that knows it's target audience. If you like romantic comedies and are looking for a pleasant afternoon or evening's diversion, then Music and Lyrics is for you. If you already don't like Hugh Grant and/or rom-coms, you probably wouldn't even bother reading this review.

The Oscar Preview...

2007-02-19T08:51:00.000-08:00

Fritz here, taking a break from the Mardi Gras festivities to post thoughts and predictions for the major categories at Sunday's Oscars. I'll be at the Prytania for the festivities and I'll have a Music and Lyrics review up by the end of the week.

Best Supporting Actor

Alan Arkin, Little Miss Sunshine
Jackie Earle Haley, Little Children
Djimon Hounsou, Blood Diamond
Eddie Murphy, Dreamgirls
Mark Wahlberg, The Departed

Let's just take a moment here to appreciate the fact that Mark Wahlberg, formerly known as Marky Mark of Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch, has been nominated for an acting Oscar. I mean, really, those of you old enough to remember, think back to 1991, when "Good Vibrations" was getting major airtime. If someone had said then that Marky Mark would get such acclaim and recognition, it would have been just as outlandish as if someone said Vanilla Ice or Gerardo (the guy who sang "Rico Suave") would one day get acting nominations. Part of me wishes I had a time machine so I could travel back to fall 1991 and tell 1991 Fritz that Marky Mark would become a respected thespian just to see the look on my younger face (admittedly, this would be a trivial use for time travel, but...). However, the fact that many seem to have forgotten his Marky Mark days is a testament to the generally respectable acting resume Wahlberg has assembled since first appearing in 1994's Renaissance Man. He may not be the most versatile of actors, but he does good work in The Departed as Martin Sheen's pit bull and I tip my cap to him.

As for the other nominees...I like Alan Arkin in Little Miss Sunshine, but honestly, if I were going to nominate anyone for this category from that film, I would have gone with Steve Carell over Arkin (and you could also argue that Greg Kinnear and Paul Dano are just as good as well). Djimon Hounsou is a pretty good actor and I felt his performance in Amistad was unfairly overlooked, but I thought he didn't have anything to do in Blood Diamond other than play the noble African victim. It's not that Hounsou does anything wrong with the performance; I just think the writing leaves him stranded.

My favorite of the nominees I've seen is Jackie Earle Haley in Little Children. The former child star (he was Kelly Leak in The Bad News Bears before disappearing from film for many years) manages to make his unrepentant child molester character simultaneously human and chillingly repellant. No small task.

Unfortunately, the one nominee I have not seen is Eddie Murphy in Dreamgirls, the one that is getting the most hype. Even reviews that are largely apathetic about the film itself seem to shower Murphy with praise. Since Murphy's acting career has been mostly dormant (with very few exceptions here and there) since Harlem Nights, giving Murphy the award would make for a nice comeback story, the kind that Oscar voters like (e.g. Jack Palance in City Slickers). However, a few publications, notably the L.A. Times, have forwarded the rumor that voters have been so put off by the incredibly vile Norbit that it will turn sentiment against Murphy. Also, the famously private Murphy has not worked the talk show circuit in an attempt to garner votes. I understand and respect his decision here, but in many ways, the Oscars are a political process. So, that could turn against him as well.

Ah, I'm overthinking here. Murphy will win. I'll check out Dreamgirls on video and get back to you as to whether or not he deserved it over Jackie Earle Haley.

Best Supporting Actress

Adriana Barraza, Babel
Cate Blanchett, Notes on a Scandal
Abigail Breslin, Little Miss Sunshine
Jennifer Hudson, Dreamgirls
Rinko Kikuchi, Babel

Okay, there are two nominees from Babel here, meaning they'll cancel each other's votes out. And on top of that, I feel the same way about Barraza and Kikuchi's performances in the film as I do about the film itself - they're good, but they didn't blow me away. Cate Blanchett is a fine actress, but she just won for The Aviator.

This leaves Hudson and Breslin. Just as with Eddie Murphy's performance, even critics who largely disliked the film gave praise to Hudson, particularly for her rendition of "And I Am Telling You I Am Not Going." Breslin gives a remarkable performance in Little Miss Sunshine and there is precedent for the Academy to give a Supporting Actress Oscar to a child (Anna Paquin for The Piano).

So, it's a toss-up for me here - I'll go with Breslin because the Academy has a history of making offbeat choices for Best Supporting Actress (Marisa Tomei for My Cousin Vinny). However, I would not be surprised at all if Hudson won.

Best Actor

Leonardo DiCaprio, Blood Diamond
Ryan Gosling, Half Nelson
Peter O'Toole, Venus
Will Smith, The Pursuit of Happyness
Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland

In 2006, Leonardo DiCaprio gave a thoughtful, mature, understated, and charismatic performance in a leading role. But, that was for The Departed and the Academy, for some bizarre reason, decided to not nominate him for Blood Diamond. Just like I said for Djimon Hounsou, it's not that DiCaprio does bad work in Blood Diamond, it's just that the role is just a standard-issue action movie hero role. He thoroughly deserved a nomination for The Departed, but he got nominated for Blood Diamond instead. C'est lavie.

Will Smith won't win for The Pursuit of Happyness. Wait a moment, you say. Why don't I make the same fuzz over the Fresh Prince receiving an acting nomination that I did for Marky Mark? Well, Smith has been nominated before (for Ali), and on on top of that, his rapping persona always seemed much more polished and movie-star ready than Marky Mark's.
Ryan Gosling did very nice work as a crack-addicted teacher in the indie film Half Nelson. He's an actor to watch, but this is a case of the nomintion being the honor for him.

So, it comes down to Peter O'Toole for Venus and Forest Whitaker for The Last King of Scotland. The venerable O'Toole has won the Irving Thalberg Lifetime Achievement Award, but has never won an actual acting Oscar. Sentimentality could win out. But, I think Whitaker is the more likely choice. The Academy loves acting with a capital "A". And Whitaker's performance as genocidal dictator Idi Amin qualifies. Whitaker gets to run a gamut of emotions from jovial to sinister to out-and-out deranged. He does a good job, too. It's a very extroverted performance, but it's still excellent work, and I'd have no problem with him getting the Oscar.

Again, O'Toole might pull it off, but I'm going with Whitaker.

Best Actress

Penelope Cruz, Volver
Judi Dench, Notes on a Scandal
Helen Mirren, The Queen
Meryl Streep, The Devil Wears Prada
Kate Winslet, Little Children

Cruz's nomination for the Spainish film Volver is another case of the nomination itself being the honor. Judi Dench is a talented actress, but I doubt she'll win. Part of me thinks she could get nominated for anything (Eddie Murphy should have cast her as Rasputia in Norbit to test this hypothesis...Okay, I promise I'll stop making runs at Norbit after that one).

Streep is a joy to watch in The Devil Wears Prada, but her nomination annoys me, because it should have been Best Supporting Actress. The film is about Anne Hathaway's character and her character is in the film far more than Streep, yet Streep is viewed as the lead? This is the most ridiculous misstep in this regard since Jamie Foxx was nominated for Best Supporting Actor for Collateral, even though his character had the arc and he was in almost every scene in the movie.

Even though Kate Winslet is still young, she has accumulated a very impressive resume. She's already received Oscar nominations for Titanic, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Iris, and Sense & Sensibility. As usual, she does excellent work in Little Children, but just as in the other years she was nominated, Winslet's youth and the strength of one other nominee will work against her. If there's any justice, though, the exceedingly gifted Winslet will get her statuette one day.

That leaves us with the no-brainer, the most obvious pick of all the major categories - Helen Mirren for The Queen. Mirren is British and has had a respectable career, two checkmarks in her favor. She's playing a real-life character, another huge checkmark in her favor, as the Academy LOVES that (Jamie Foxx for Ray, Reese Witherspoon for Walk the Line, Cate Blanchett for The Aviator, and many more). And you know what? She actually is an excellent choice to win. Despite the many Oscar-loving traits the performance has, it still is a beautifully understated performance. There's a stillness to it that for some reason reminded me of Morgan Freeman in The Shawshank Redemption - both Freeman in that movie and Mirren in The Queen convey so much while seeming to do so little. Hammy, over-the-top actors should be forced to watch this performance.

Best Director

Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, Babel
Martin Scorcese, The Departed
Clint Eastwood, Letters from Iwo Jima
Stephen Frears, The Queen
Paul Greengrass, United 93

Okay, here's where my overthinking, paralysis-by-analysis goes into overdrive. While I think Paul Greengrass should win for United 93, as I think that was the best film of the year, he will not as United 93 failed to get a Best Picture nomination. After that, I honestly would not be stunned if any of the other four nominees won.

Based on last year's Crash love, there's a chance Inarritu could win for Babel. Clint Eastwood has already won two Best Director Oscars (for Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby), so it's clear the Academy has no qualms about giving him multiple Oscars. And he does outstanding work in Letters from Iwo Jima. I'm not going to pick Stephen Frears for Best Director or The Queen for Best Picture, but I wouldn't entirely discount either's chances. Both are darkhorses, but I wouldn't be stunned if Frears or The Queen won.

The big question mark here is Scorcese. The man's name, and rightfully so, is frequently tossed about in discussion of the greatest directors of all time. He's also arguably America's greatest living director (at worst, he makes the discussion). Unlike some of his contemporaries like Francis Ford But, he has yet to win an Academy Award. And there is a precedent for great directors never winning an Oscar (Alfred Hitchcock and Stanley Kubrick, two of the greatest directors of all time, never won an Oscar). But, part of what Kubrick had going against him was that he was not prolific at all. Scorcese keeps getting nominated and it stands to reason that the Academy will one day yield. However, just like with Gangs of New York and The Aviator, Scorcese's last two near misses, The Departed is a good film, but not a great one. Personally, I think based purely on the films released this year, I think Greengrass and Eastwood would be more deserving. But, Scorcese has had a sterling career and it's a shame he has not won.

I think I'm going to predict Scorcese will win, but I'm uncertain. This could go in a lot of different ways.

Best Picture

Babel

The Departed

Letters from Iwo Jima

Little Miss Sunshine

The Queen

Just like above, I think this could go a lot of different ways. The favorite seems to be Babel. But, as my friend Chad pointed out, it almost seems like if Babel wins one year after the similar Crash, that it would be like the Academy were applying a template for Best Picture winners to follow. Both films are very similar not just because they have many interconnected storylines and lots of ambition, but also in the reaction to both films. Crash and Babel have their passionate advocates and their equally passionate detractors. The people who don't like Crash and Babel HATE them. I'm somewhere in the middle. I think both films have their undeniable strengths and weaknesses. However, I would not have nominated either film for Best Picture, much less give them the award. When it comes to movies featuring a large cast of characters in interconnected stories, I actually think Doug Liman's Go is a better film than both, but because it's decidedly less pretentious/ambitious than the Crash and Babel, it was dismissed (and yes, I also think Robert Altman's Nashville, the grandaddy of all such films, is superior to Crash and Babel). But, Babel strives to be important, and the Academy often eats that up (like when Gandhi beat the superior E.T.).

Of the nominees, I think Letters from Iwo Jima is the best, but I'm skeptical about the Academy handing the Best Picture to a completely subtitled film (granted, much of Babel is subtitled, but one of the major storylines is mostly in English). Little Miss Sunshine is my second favorite of the nominees, and I think it has a chance to pull an upset. The Academy is fond of awarding Best Picture to underdog stories (Rocky, Chariots of Fire). The fact that directors Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris weren't even nominated for Best Director is a strike against it (although Driving Miss Daisy won without a Best Director nomination).

The Queen and The Departed both have a chance, but I wouldn't call either a favorite. Part of the problem with Scorcese's pictures not winning the big award has been their violent, pulpy nature. Scorcese tried to get away from this with The Aviator, which seemed like a more traditional Oscar film, but failed to get the Oscar. The Departed is a good film, but it's not a blow-you-away-classic that would make viewers overlook its dime-store novel core (Silence of the Lambs was one Best Picture winner that was so indisputably great as to overcome this). The Queen is also a good film, but again, not a great one. The reviews for The Queen have been overwhelmingly positive, but very few people have been saying, "Oh, this is the best film of the year." I wouldn't rule it out, but I wouldn't bet on it, either.

So, with some reluctance, I am predicting Babel will win. If it does, I won't be out-and-out infuriated like I was when Forrest Gump won, because I think Babel is a decent film, but I still think it's the least impressive of the five nominees this year.

So...your thoughts? (Once my brother reads this, he'll probably pick apart all of my predictions - and he's usually right).

Breach review...

2007-02-16T12:08:00.000-08:00

Fritz here. Before I throw myself headfirst into Mardi Gras weekend, here's a review to tide you over until next week when I do my Oscar preview and review Music and Lyrics.

Director/co-writer Billy Ray, who made 2003's criminally overlooked Shattered Glass, returns with another based-on-a-true-story tale. Breach tells the story of how a young FBI agent (Ryan Phillippe) gained the confidence of and helped bring down veteran agent Robert Hanssen (Chris Cooper), who happened to be the most damaging spy in U.S. history.

Just like Shattered Glass gave viewers a convincing tour of the world of journalism, Breach gives the audience a convincing look at the inner workings of the FBI. While there are some tightly staged suspense sequences, much of Breach's appeal stems from the fact that it always seems to be grounded in reality. It seems like real people are going about their day-to-day lives and jobs. It's just that this job has life and death implications for individuals and the country itself.

Initially recruited by a senior agent (Laura Linney) to spy on Hanssen because he's a sexual deviant, Phillippe's character gradually comes to admire the devout, hardworking Hanssen, whose career advancement seems to have been hamstrung by the fact that he speaks openly and honestly, no matter what the consequences are. Eventually, the true nature of his mission is revealed to him, and Phillippe is forbidden to reveal anything about it to his wife (Caroline Dhavernas). To her, it just suddenly seems like her husband has taken a strange interest in his new boss.

There are a number of interesting character dynamics going on here. Even the most cliched element of the story, that of the strained relationship between Phillippe and his wife, does not feel cliched because the script establishes that it would be perfectly natural for a marriage to become strained if the husband suddenly started keeping things from his wife and began to behave in a way he never had before. Part of the strain comes from Phillippe's character, who was previously a lapsed Catholic, showing an interest in Hanssen's ultra-conservative Catholic beliefs (we're talking Opus Dei/Mel Gibson stuff here) as an effort to ingratiate himself with his target. In addition to the husband/wife dynamic, Phillippe must walk a fine line between pleasing Linney and not revealing his true intentions to Hanssen.

Hanssen himself remains an interesting enigma. His motives are hinted at, but never fully revealed - resentment at being passed over by a bureau that doesn't appreciate his talents and the ego boost of knowing that he's outsmarting everyone else are the two most strongly forwarded, but the film never settles on one, and it doesn't really need to. It's hard to pin down a simple "why" to the great crimes of our history. In this regard, Hanssen is similar to a serial killer. People want to know "why," but there is no simple answer. And like a lot of serial killers, it was Hanssen's ego that eventually tripped him up.

It may not be quite as good as Shattered Glass (one of my favorite films of the decade), but this smart, well-crafted film is a welcome respite from the garbage that typically litters theaters at this time of year.

Video Review: Idiocracy

2007-02-09T07:46:00.000-08:00

Fritz here - The Mardi Gras season gets underway tonight, so I'll be enjoying the festivities for the next ten or so days. I will put up a review of Breach at the end of next week and an Oscars preview, though.

Mike Judge, the writer/director of Idiocracy, first gained notoriety in the '90's as the creator of MTV's Beavis and Butthead. By following the titular half-wits, Judge examined how stupid two people can become when they've done nothing but watch television their whole lives. While sometimes inspired, the show was far from flawless. At times, it seemed to be reveling in the behavior it aimed to satirize. And like many satires, there were many people who liked the show not because they viewed it as satire, but because they enjoyed the behavior that was being satirized (for older readers, this would be akin to bigots loving All in the Family because they agree with Archie Bunker's worldview). Judge's film Idiocracy takes the concept he explored in Beavis and Butthead and expands it to a much larger scope. Namely, the gradual dumbing down of society that results in humanity consisting of nothing but complete morons in 500 years.

Luke Wilson plays a thoroughly average soldier who, along with a hooker played by Maya Rudolph, are put into hibernation as part of an army experiment. The experiment is forgotten about and the two human guinea pigs are left in hibernation until they are accidentally awakened 500 years later. They find a world where a professional wrestler has been elected president and where people are puzzled why crops won't grow when Gatorade is poured on them. In one scene, we see that the most popular comedy of the era is a movie which consists of nothing more than a 90-minute shot of a person's butt on screen (I did think of this scene when the screening audience laughed hysterically at much of Norbit).

Idiocracy was originally scheduled for release in the summer of 2005, but was delayed for over a year before being released briefly in a paltry seven cities. When a studio buries a movie to that degree, it often leads one to suspect that the movie was either so bad that the studio was ashamed to release or that it is a subversive work of genius that the studio is afraid to release. With Idiocracy, the answer is none of the above. It is nowhere near as bad as many lackluster comedies released by Hollywood on a regular basis (Norbit, Just My Luck, You Me & Dupree, among others). However, it is by no means a classic, either. Judge has some inspired ideas and bits, but they don't really add up to a fully cohesive motion picture. Even in Judge's best film, the initially overlooked but now beloved Office Space, the film's momentum came screeching to a halt when the embezzlement plot kicked in. In Idiocracy, Judge has similar problems sustaining narrative momentum. The film feels more like a series of sometimes inspired, sometimes not inspired sketches on a similar theme than a fully developed movie.

In the end, it's the kind of decent-but-not-great that is just fine for a rental. And hey, it's hard to really dislike a movie that passionately argues against the dumbing down of our society.

Norbit Review...

2007-02-07T06:57:00.000-08:00

Fritz here. I'll have a video review of Idiocracy Friday. In the meantime, check out my review of the latest Eddie Murphy comedy. The pre-screening wait was enlivened slightly by a precocious 4-year-old next to me, who, among other things, asked to see my teeth, asked me where movie screens come from, told me he wanted to be just like me (down to wearing the same jacket, shirt, jeans, and boots), and told me what to do if a crocodile were chasing me (I already knew that one, actually). Anyway, on with the review!

If you've ever asked yourself "What would Eddie Murphy's The Nutty Professor be like if it were completely devoid of imagination, empathy, and humanity?" you know have your answer: Norbit.

In what is essentially a 100-minute fat joke, Murphy plays multiple roles: Norbit, the wimpy, put-upon title character who is bullied into marrying the grotesquely obese Rasputia (Murphy again in heavy make-up). Rasputia bullies, cheats on, and abuses Norbit, who longs to be with his childhood sweetheart Kate (Thandie Newton).

While The Nutty Professor had its crass, over-the-top moments, the film still was grounded with some recognizable human behavior. Sherman Klump had a quiet dignity to him that made him very endearing. The scene where the stand-up comic (played by Dave Chappelle) humiliated him at the club felt painful and, most importantly, real. Now, one might be to tempted to argue that the fat character in Norbit is the villain and that the comparisons aren't valid. However, even villains have to have some level of reality. Because Rasputia rings so completely false, because she comes off as nothing more than a vehicle for numerous gross-out jokes, I never invested myself in Norbit's dilemma and I never cared about him the way I cared about Sherman Klump.

Norbit has nothing resembling narrative momentum. Everything here merely serves an excuse to see the fat-suited Murphy in a bikini, taking a bubble bath, in lingerie, getting a bikini wax, stripping, etc. The gross-outs are so constant that the film at times feels like the naked male wrestling match from Borat stretched out to an entire film. If this weren't bad enough, Murphy also appears to be channeling Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's when playing a third role, that of the cranky (and horribly stereotypical) Asian man who ran the orphanage in which Norbit was raised.

2007 is still young, but moviegoers should take note. Norbit has already set the bar exceedingly low in the race for worst picture of the year.

* In the interest of full disclosure, I will note that the screening audience I saw this film with (and it was a packed house) seemed to think this film was absolutely hilarious.

Upcoming Stuff....

2007-02-03T15:37:00.000-08:00

Fritz here. I am a little busy this weekend/early in the week, but I do plan on having a review of Idiocracy, the long-delayed, barely-released Mike Judge film, up by the middle of the week. And I'll have an Oscars piece up in the near future as well. Keep checking back regularly, as I promise to update the site at least once a week from here on in.

The Best of 2006

2007-01-28T10:40:00.000-08:00

As always, folks, remember that all lists are inherently subjective and can only reflect the films from 2006 that I've been able to see. Looking back, I think 2006 was a weaker year than 2005 and some of the films near the bottom half of this list would not have made my list in 2005. Anyway, time to stop babbling and get on with it.

Not on the list, but worth mentioning:

The Departed - This got terrific reviews, ended up on a number of ten best lists, and received numerous Oscar nominations (including Best Picture and Best Director). And for 2/3 of its running time, I think this is a great film and one that stands tall with any in Scorcese's filmography. However, it runs approximately 30 minutes too long and becomes needlessly preposterous and twisty when a more understated ending would have been far more effective. Don't get me wrong - this is still a good film with a boatload of memorable performances, but because of my problems with the final act, I can't quite join in with the people declaring this one of the year's best.

The Queen - Here is a very good film that I still think is ever so slightly overrated. Even though The Queen has garnered a Best Picture nomination and a Best Director nomination for Stephen Frears, Frears made an even better film in 2003 with Dirty Pretty Things that went almost completely unnoticed. Still, The Queen is an estimable film, in no small part because of Helen Mirren's terrific performance in the lead, which should (and probably will) take home the Oscar for Best Actress.

And now, for the actual list:

10. The Painted Veil - While many critics preferred the solid but unspectacular Half Nelson as this year's best indie character study, I actually preferred this examination of an unhappy marriage (between Edward Norton and Naomi Watts) in the midst of a cholera epidemic in 1920's China. Excellent performances and writing, as well as gorgeous locations make this an end-of-the-year film that one shouldn't overlook, despite its lack of Oscar noms.

9. Stranger Than Fiction - One of the year's most purely enjoyable films. More impressively, it's enjoyable and intelligent simultaneously as Will Ferrell hears an omniscient narrator in his head (Emma Thompson), who is really an author writing a story about him - and she plans to kill him off soon. Ferrell continues to do wonderful things on the big screen and Maggie Gyllenhaal makes for a quirky, likable romantic interest for Ferrell.

8. For Your Consideration - Is it as good as Best in Show or Waiting for Guffman (two of director Christopher Guest's previous efforts)? No - after all, those are two of the best comedies of the past 25 years. Is this still better than most comedies out there? Absolutely. And here, Guest even manages to find more pathos than usual in examining the inherent insecurity and neediness performers exhibit in their quest for recognition.

7. Little Miss Sunshine - Because it was loved by audiences and mostly praised by critics, there has been somewhat of a backlash against this film lately. Does it have flaws? Yes - at times, it borrows too liberally from other movies (Vacation, About a Boy) and one or two scenes ring false (Steve Carell bumping into the object of his affection in a gas station), but this is a wonderful examination of personal failure that features exceptional ensemble work from the cast (Greg Kinnear, Toni Collette, Steve Carell, Abigail Breslin, Alan Arkin, and Paul Dano). Yes, the movie is a blatant crowd-pleaser, but there's nothing wrong with a well-written, thoughtfully acted, audience-friendly movie.

6. Pan's Labyrinth - On the depression level, this is a downer on par with Million Dollar Baby. However, it is also a beautifully realized adult fairy tale that explores both the horrors of fascism and the reality that when people turn to fantasy, it is often in escape of a terrible reality. Writer/director Guillermo del Toro pulls off a tough balancing act between fantasy and reality in this decidedly grown-up film about a child.
5. The Prestige - Not quite on the level of Memento, writer/director Christopher Nolan's 2001 classic, but still a powerful examination about the toll obsessing about revenge takes on the soul. Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale play rival magicians, and they do a wonderful job, as the audience's sympathies shift back and forth (sometimes resting with neither). The final "twist" is easy to figure out, but Nolan makes it effective because it is used to illustrate the price one of the men has paid for his choices in life, not just as a cheap "gotcha" device.

4. Children of Men - The year's best "genre" film - a combination of thriller, mystery, and chase picture filmed with skill and vitality by Alfonso Cuaron and making prescient statements about the road society is travelling on, all within the trappings of a conventionally exciting futuristic film.

2 & 3. Letters from Iwo Jima/Flags of Our Fathers - It's tough to pick one over the other. Even though Letters has been the more praised of the two, both of director Clint Eastwood's examinations of the Battle of Iwo Jima are masterworks. Letters is more of a conventional war film, albeit from the side of "the enemy". It proves to be as intelligent and effective look at the futility of war and the destruction of the individual in war as any film ever made. Flags of Our Fathers tackles post traumatic stress disorder and thoughtfully explores both necessity of "feel-good" myths like the raising of the flag of Iwo Jima and the harsh reality that faced the surviving men when they returned home. Eastwood shows no signs of slowing down creatively, even as he approaches 80.

1. United 93 - In a nutshell, this is the best film that I never, ever want to see again. Director Paul Greengrass (Bloody Sunday) does what Gus Van Zant failed to do in Elephant, that is, spend time contrasting the mundane activities of a seemingly normal day with the horrors that eventually befell ordinary people going about their business. And once the highjackers take over the plane, about an hour into the film, United 93 becomes a harrowing, visceral experience unlike any other. I wasn't there on 9/11, thankfully, so I can't truly testify about its realism, but Greengrass at the very least captures the illusion of reality. There's no phony heroism or melodramatic death scenes, just fear, panic, terror, and grief, and Greengrass makes you feel all of these emotions acutely in the year's best film.

Big Update...

2007-01-25T07:41:00.000-08:00

5 new reviews, people (Pan's Labyrinth, The Last King of Scotland, Letters from Iwo Jima, The Painted Veil, and The Queen). Keep coming back, because within the next few days I will also have my best list for 2006 and, not long after that, my reactions to the Oscar nominations.

Fritz reviews Pan's Labyrinth....

2007-01-25T07:39:00.001-08:00

Imagination and fantasy can be wonderful things, but one aspect of it that movies tend to gloss over is that when people retreat into fantasy worlds, it is often to escape the terrible realities of life. So it goes for Ofelia (Ivana Banquero), a young girl accompanying her pregnant mother (Ariadna Gil) to live in the countryside with her stepfather (Sergi Lopez), a ruthless Captain in Francisco Franco’s fascist army in 1940’s Spain. Within the first ten minutes, we get a frightening glimpse at just the kind of monster Ofelia’s new stepfather is. Because she is a child and largely helpless to the choices made by her mother, Ofelia has little to retreat to except her own imagination.

Clips of reality are intercut with a fantasy story occurring in Ofelia’s imagination where she has a set of tasks to perform in order to re-stake her claim as the princess of a faraway, magical land. In keeping with brutality in her everyday existence, Ofelia’s fantasies are pretty scary in their own right, especially when they feature the Pale Man (Doug Jones) a malevolent creature with eyeballs in the palms of his hands.

The film progresses, as Ofelia eventually tries to escape her predicament both mentally and physically. Her beleagured mother is loyal to her evil stepfather, but Ofelia does find some hope with a housekeeper (Maribel Verdu) who is secretly helping the rebels fight against Franco’s forces.

While the film is fantasy, make no mistake about it, it is a decidedly R-rated one. The violence here is every bit as gruesome and horrifying as that featured in The Last King of Scotland and Letters from Iwo Jima (keep in mind, writer/director Guillermo del Toro cut his teeth on horror films like Blade 2 and Mimic before this film). However, the violence does not feel gratuitous. Indeed, the film has a noble message about rebelling against tyranny and fascism, even if it means defeat in the end.

Even though it is hard to go into too much more detail without giving things away, Pan’s Labyrinth is an imaginative, achingly sad tale that announces Del Toro as a major talent.

Fritz reviews The Last King of Scotland....

2007-01-25T07:38:00.001-08:00

Kevin MacDonald, director of the excellent 2004 documentary Touching the Void, makes his first foray into the realm of fictional films with The Last King of Scotland. While it is inspired by events that took place in Uganda in the 1970’s under the reign of the psychotic Idi Amin (brilliantly played here by Forest Whitaker), it is still work of fiction with a main character (a young Scottish physician played by James McAvoy) who is a composite of several people. The end result is something akin to Boogie Nights with genocide.

McAvoy’s character finds himself just out of medical school and bored with the prospects of becoming a family practitioner like his decent, hardworking father. In search of some excitement, he travels to Uganda under the pretense of being there to help the locals, when in reality, he seems more like he wants to party as evidenced by an immediate one-night stand with a local woman and an attempt to seduce the wife (Gillian Anderson) of the doctor (Adam Kotz) who originally employs him. It is not surprising then, that McAvoy becomes taken with the unpredictable but charismatic new leader of Uganda, whom he meets when he is asked to treat the general for minor injuries sustained in a car accident.

Amin takes a shine to the young doctor, partly because of his interest in Scottish culture (Amin trained with the British army as a young man) and partly because he likes the young man’s own unpredictability. McAvoy is easily seduced by the lavish, fast-lane lifestyle lived by Amin and finds himself enjoying the job’s perks so much that he turns a blind eye to the fact that Amin is a lunatic whose violent side is growing due to paranoia over threats on his life.

While Amin was responsible for a genocide that claimed the lives of approximately 300,000 people, The Last King of Scotland is not a film about genocide in the way that Schindler’s List, The Killing Fields, and Hotel Rwanda are. Most of the violence is off-screen until the final thirty minutes and the film’s absence of on-screen violence for its first two-thirds makes the truly squirm-inducing actions in the final act even more effectively shocking. Scotland concerns itself more with the way in which well-to-do white Westerners exploit Africa for their own gain while blithely ignoring its day-to-day horrors. McAvoy’s character never seeks to murder another human being, but his recklessness and willing ignorance lead to the deaths of several Ugandans. This blatant shallowness makes it hard to sympathize with the doctor, even when everything comes crashing down upon him in the final act. In fact, when Amin gives the young man a speech about his true intentions on leaving Scotland to live in Africa, I was disturbed to admit that I found myself agreeing with the genocidal psychopath.

Even though it bogs down a little bit at the one hour mark, when we start to really become exasperated with McAvoy’s intentional ignorance, this is still a solid foray into fictional film by MacDonald, one that is elevated by a leading performance that stands a good chance of receiving an Oscar nomination on Tuesday. Whitaker has a lumbering, overweight physique and easy smile that gives him a teddy-bear quality, but also a sleepy-eyed stare that can prove quite scary when he wants to intimidate. Both qualities are necessary to effectively portray the childlike but utterly deranged Idi Amin. Whitaker knocks it out of the park. After a lengthy career of mostly supporting roles, he makes the most of his chance to carry a film. He deserves a nomination.

Fritz reviews Letters from Iwo Jima...

2007-01-25T07:36:00.000-08:00

Letters from Iwo Jima is director Clint Eastwood’s companion piece to his October film Flags of Our Fathers, which dealt with the experiences (before and after the war) of the American soliders who raised the flag at Iwo Jima. Letters focuses strictly on the battle itself, from the point of view of the Japanese soldiers defending the island from a network of underground tunnels.

Specifically, the film focuses on Gen Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe), the mastermind behind the tunnel system, and Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya), a baker turned hapless soldier who would rather be home with his pregnant wife. Both struggle against long-held traditions that dictate it is more honorable for a soldier to commit suicide than to concede defeat. A memorable flashback scene has Saigo being greeted by neighbors informing him of his conscription in the army. When he and his wife seem upset by the news, his neighbors seem indignant and confused as to why he wouldn’t want to die for Japan. During the battle itself, Gen. Kuribayashi has to not only fight the Americans who vastly outnumber his forces, but the fact that so many of his soldiers are committing suicide rather than fight to the end.

Despite a relatively slow start, the film is a powerful examination of the damages that war inflicts on the individual and how the wants, desires, and lives of individuals get lost in the chaos and insanity of war. Through its examination of the culture that espouses suicide as a form of honor, Letters also brilliantly depicts the sheer futility of war and pointlessness of the mayhem. A scene in which a group of Japanese soldiers commit mass suicide is as disturbing as any scene in any war film ever made.

While the general critical consensus is that Letters is a better film than Flags, I’m not sure that I would agree. I think both are excellent and both do different things very well. Both are extraordinarily complex movies that do not seek nor find easy answers in the insanity that is war. Both are among the best films Eastwood has made in a distinguished career.
Just as in 2004, the buzz in Hollywood is that Martin Scorcese will finally win a Best Director Oscar (in 2004, it was for The Aviator, now it is for The Departed). However, in 2004, Eastwood, who had already won a Best Director Oscar (for Unforgiven) got the award for Million Dollar Baby. And, based on the films and the director’s work in those two films, Eastwood deserved it more than Scorcese. Again, if you look strictly at the quality of the films this year, Eastwood is once again more deserving than Scorcese. None of this intended as a slam on Scorcese, who is an all-time great, and it would not be a crime at all if he got an Oscar for The Departed as some sort of “career-achievement” Oscar (like the one Paul Newman won for The Color of Money or Al Pacino for Scent of a Woman or Denzel Washington for Training Day).
But, the most amazing thing of all is that Eastwood’s work here makes you believe that the best may still be yet to come, even from a 76-year-old filmmaker.

Fritz reviews The Painted Veil....

2007-01-25T07:35:00.000-08:00

One of the sad facts about human nature is that, even if dealing with terrible, heartbreaking situations (like Katrina, 9/11, et. all), many people will still continue to hold their pretty grudges and act in generally shallow, selfish ways. My mind still has a hard time getting around the fact that, even after Katrina, the murder rate still skyrockets here. Something bad happens, people pause for a moment, and then go right back to being what they were before. Well, in most cases, anyway. Occasionally, such experiences do humble and change people for the better. John Curran’s (We Don’t Live Here Anymore) new film The Painted Veil deals with such an exception.

Based on the novel by W. Somerset Maugham, Edward Norton plays a British doctor stationed in China whose wife (Naomi Watts) cheats on him with a local diplomat (Liev Schreiber). After catching his wife, Norton, in a passive-aggressive attempt at murder/suicide, volunteers to serve victims of a cholera epidemic in a rural Chinese village and forces his wife to join him. After being initially hostile to each other, the gravity of the situation does wear on them and they do begin to see each other in a new light.

To its credit, the film manages to have empathy for both of its leads (thanks to both the script by Ron Nyswaner and the lead performances by Norton and Watts). It never seems like the deck is stacked unfairly in either character’s favor. Both entered into the marriage for the wrong reasons. Since the film takes place in the 1920’s, Watts felt the pressure of getting too “old” and being labeled a spinster if she didn’t marry. Norton wanted companionship and clearly fell into the more classical mistake of falling in love with the ideal version of his spouse that he had in his head and not with the real woman herself. The empathy and complexity of the characters also extends to supporting roles. Diana Rigg plays the Mother Superior of an orphanage in the village. While Norton’s character correctly points out that missionaries don’t do their work for entirely altruistic reasons, the film still treats her like a human being. In particular, a late speech Mother Superior gives about her relationship with God is touching.

The film proves that a movie does not have to have a great deal of “plot” to be compelling and entertaining. Much of the conflict here is sustained by genuine, realistic interactions between flawed, but relatable characters. Overall, it’s a very strong effort all around. That being said, between this and Children of Men and the upcoming Pan’s Labyrinth and Letters from Iwo Jima, I’m reaching my depressing movie threshold. Someone needs to make a good comedy – immediately!

Fritz reviews The Queen....

2007-01-25T07:34:00.000-08:00

Coming from a family of stoics, I never viewed grief as a public thing. So, even though I find the notion of hereditary royalty to be absurd, I can sympathize with the dilemma facing Queen Elizabeth (Helen Mirren) in Stephen Frears’ film The Queen. Set in 1997 at the time of Princess Diana’s death, the British people express their grief openly, covering the ground outside Buckingham Palace in flowers, sleeping on the sidewalks, and shedding tears in public. Said public is quite annoyed and indignant when the Queen refuses to make a public appearance to openly share her grief, especially over someone she didn’t like all that much to begin with. On her end, the Queen can’t fathom how so many people can be so upset over a person they never actually knew.

Recently elected Prime Minister Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) is left with the unenviable task of bridging the gap between the institution that most symbolizes Britain’s old tradition with the modern culture of open emotions and celebrity worship. To its credit, the film addresses the bizarre insanity that is celebrity culture of any kind – a person is raised up, torn down, then deified in death. The same culture that made Diana look like a secular saint after her death is the same one that encouraged paparazzi to brazenly chase after her 24/7, which led to her fatal car crash.

The real story of the film is Helen Mirren’s performance as the Queen. While the script (by Peter Morgan) is good, Mirren manages the difficult task of being stoic without seeming to be cold. Even if you don’t agree with her character’s actions at all times (although I often shared her befuddlement), you at least are able to sympathize with her and see where she’s coming from. In all likelihood, Mirren should take home the Best Actress Oscar in a month (and deservedly so).

Finally, the film works as a study in culture clash. While Americans like myself may have a hard time grasping England’s relationship with its royalty and traditions, The Queen provides an interesting look into the clash being experienced in modern England, the desire to maintain old traditions while embracing the modern.

While the film might not quite have been good enough to crack my top 5 (in case you missed it, The Queen was nominated for Best Picture), it is still well worth seeing, if for no other reason than Mirren’s exceptional performance.