Disappearing Worlds

No Apologies

2011-01-29T22:09:00.001-06:00

You know the drill.

New Year. New Films. Let's try this again.

It's Coming Back...

2010-09-28T13:54:00.003-05:00

...I promise.

In the meantime, watch this movie if you haven't already.

Link Roundup

2010-07-27T18:25:00.001-05:00

I thought today, as this is the first roundup of links and such, I'd just give a few road signs to places on the internet that I visit daily. Next week I'll start by linking to specific stories, pieces, trailers, etc. Some of the following links are already linked to on the side, but I thought I'd give them all a proper plug.

Dark Horizons- Updated most weekdays with the latest news, rumors, etc. Despite its sometimes focus on science fiction and fantasy genres, it does a good job of covering all the latest news. Plus it links to most all of the latest trailers to be released.

Awards Daily- If you want the latest Oscar news and a good place to join in discussions on upcoming movies with awards potential, this is the place. Things really heat up in the fall and when it gets closer to the show itself. You can also follow the editor, Sasha Stone, on Twitter: @AwardsDaily

Film Experience Blog- online journalist Nathaniel Rogers runs this blog which has a greater personal feel to it than the previous sites. I would be lying if I didn't say some of the things I'll be doing on here weren't inspired by his work. He's also on twitter: @nathanielr

Neal Reviews- Good friend of mine Neal Tucker reviews many things, and his film reviews are very insightful.

The Auteurs, or MUBI- It was once called The Auteurs and now it seems they're trying to switch the name to MUBI, though I'm not sure why. It's a social networking site, a la Facebook, for serious movie buffs. I'm a member. Shouldn't you be?

Those are the places I go the most often. Now a couple of things you should see:

Seriously, how fantastic is this trailer? When I first heard about the movie, I was skeptical, but the more I see the preview, the more excited I get. Hopefully the movie will live up to it.
The Social Network:

This movie, Howl is based on the publication of the titular poem by Allen Ginsburg. Looks promising, great cast. And of course, since it's set in mid-20th century America, it has Jon Hamm.

Great Scenes- Fort Apache (1948)

2010-07-26T23:34:00.000-05:00

Today's great scene comes from John Ford's Fort Apache. I was inspired to make my way through all the John Ford Westerns after watching Stagecoach the other evening (My Darling Clementine predates this one but I'll be going back to it tomorrow). The film depicts life within a frontier outpost, with its military hierarchy, formal and informal relationships, and some humor along the way. The Indian question comes into focus in the second half of the film, and the climax presents the American forces, led by Henry Fonda, riding against the Apache forces led by Cochise and Geronimo.

The scene, comprising the last ten minutes or so of the film, is notable for both its camerawork, showcasing Ford's familiar mastery with the Monument Valley location, and the way it brings most of the narrative questions of the film to a head all at once, as great climaxes are known to do. John Wayne's character, Captain York, is at odds with Colonel Thursday, played by Fonda. The regiment splits into two factions, following each officer, and Fonda's by-the-books approach becomes his downfall.

Without giving away each plot point, the moral ambiguity of the scene is central to the film's understanding of native American policy. It doesn't serve as a fully realized criticism of the government's treatment of the various tribes, as the film's final moments glorify the American troops who, within the story, still continue to fight to tame the West. However, it does stop short of imbuing the troops with moral certitude.

The final portion of the battle scene features a wonderful shot of Captain York standing tall against a cloud of dust kicked up by the Apache troops. He often serves as the film's moral center, but he is forced to make some concessions. When he is speaking with reporters a couple of years after the battle, we can see the conflict as he remembers his former commanding officer, and we get the sense that the way he glorifies his comrades may not be wholly sincere, but an act of public relations demanded by his new post.

Salt (2010)

2010-07-25T16:22:00.000-05:00

(Quick disclaimer. Yes, I've seen Inception. Yes, I really liked it. However, I am waiting to write about it until I've seen it a second time. It's the kind of movie that requires it. So expect some thoughts on it next weekend.)

It's easy to see why Salt was originally designed with Tom Cruise in mind. There's a lot of running. However, I'm not sure Cruise would have maintained the ambiguity that the main character requires in the way that Jolie does. For a significant portion of the film, you are unsure of whether Salt is a patriot or a traitor. Remembering that this is a big budget Hollywood movie will quickly dispel that confusion, however it is a tribute to Jolie that we find Salt potentially duplicitious in the least.

Much has been written by critics about the implausibility of the plot. Is it outlandish? Yes, at times. But I am confused as to why non-realism is being used as a way to critique a spy film. There have been some "realistic" spy movies in the past. The Bourne series is probably as realistic as any successful spy movies have ever been. However, audiences have never expected realism in this genre. They want false identities, double agents, cool gadgets, and outrageous stunts. Salt delivers those in spades.

While not being realistic, I think, is not a valid criticism, the way the movie handles its inherently unrealistic plot is a different matter. What the movie really needs is a sense of humor. It's not a problem to ask the audience to believe certain silly things. That's central to enjoying a lot of movies. However, to take it too seriously on top of that is dangerous, and that's where Salt gets into trouble.

I've been intentionally vague about the plot, because I'm assuming some degree of familiarity about the basic premise. Any other information on my part would fall into the realm of spoiler. Overall, I did enjoy myself to a certain extent. The movie has its thrills, yes, but is ultimately a slight affair. Though the ending promises sequels (rather heavy-handedly I must say), I can't say I'm dying to see them.

Stagecoach (1939)

2010-07-24T12:56:00.000-05:00

I picked up the Criterion blu-ray edition of John Ford's Stagecoach yesterday (I highly recommend it, great transfer). A bit of background if you're unaware: the first major Western by John Ford since the mid-20s, the first serious Western made by anyone in a good while, first star turn by John Wayne, first major collaboration between Wayne and Ford, nominee for Best Picture, winner of Best Supporting Actor for Thomas Mitchell (the inebriated doctor), and placed amidst one of the best years of American cinema ever (other films that year: Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Ninotchka).

The film tells the story of several strangers thrust together in a perilous stagecoach ride across the desert, with the constant threat of attack by Apache Indians, as well as the threat of sabotage from within. The group is a microcosm of society: an outlaw, a prostitute, a society lady, a doctor, a salesman that everyone mistakes for a reverend, a Southern gentleman/gambler/cad, and a couple of trusty cowboys.

Pauline Kael calls it "Grand Hotel on wheels" and David Thomson describes the characters as being dipped in a "marinade of cliche." Both of these statements make perfect sense, particularly the latter, as the film does have a nostalgic feel in hindsight, but it's difficult to gauge how audiences might have received it back at its release. Frank Nugent's original NYT review tells us: "He (Ford) prefers the broadest canvas, the brightest colors, the widest brush, and the boldest possible strokes. He hews to the straight narrative line with the well-reasoned confidence of a man who has seen that narrative succeed before. He takes no shadings from his characters: either they play it straight or they don't play at all."

One gets the sense that audiences had seen all of these characters before, but never in such an artistically satisfying form; up until this point, most Westerns were B-pictures. For our purposes, it's as classic as a classic Western gets. And as with many great movies, knowing exactly what's going to happen next isn't a detriment. And at a breezy 96 minutes, it's incredibly economical.

The movie has its famous flourishes: John Wayne (as The Ringo Kid) has one of the greatest entrances in one of the most exciting shots I've ever seen. It's such an appropriate first appearance for one of the greatest stars who ever lived. The chase sequence through Apache country is brilliant, with stunts that baffle you. It's one of those moments that makes you realize just how cheap CGI can be. And you can see some classic Ford touches, such as his doorway shots and appropriate balance of moving and static shots.

In all, it's a must-see if you haven't already. If you've never seen many films by John Ford, this is a good place to start. It's him at his most crowd-pleasing. Sometimes, because of his influence, it's hard for modern audiences to get what kind of style Ford worked in. His language has become so absorbed that it seems average at first glance, but there's something about Stagecoach that hooks you so quickly that you can't help falling in love and wanting to see more.

The blog returns...really. I mean it this time.

2010-07-24T12:30:00.000-05:00

Some of the posts on the main page are a year old. I regret that. The past year has been probably the busiest ever. I took a lot of classes, directed two shows, and generally ran around like crazy. That, combined with the general lackluster nature of this year in film, has not exactly inspired me to write much. In general, my movie-watching habits have suffered. I do not watch as many older films as I used to. But I miss that, and I miss studying the films I watch and writing about them. So in order to be more regular with the blog, I'm establishing a schedule that I'm going to try to keep up with. It will be as follows:

Sundays: Review of a new or recent theatrical release
Mondays: Thoughts on a favorite scene in a great movie
Tuesdays: A roundup of links and pieces online that I recommend reading
Wednesdays: Some thoughts on a certain actor, writer, director, etc.
Thursdays: Wild Card!
Fridays: A fun list to generate thought and discussion
Saturdays: A review of an older or classic film

I am fully aware that I have lost any and all readers that I had. Hopefully people will be drawn to the blog again over time. However, at the end of the day, this is for me, not anyone else. That being said, if you do read the blog, comment often! This will help me stay motivated to continue this. I want this to be a forum for discussing movies, not just me talking about them at length. Let's have fun.

2010-03-22T23:54:00.000-05:00

"There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. 'The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.' ...I never gave much thought to what it meant. ... See, now I'm thinkin': maybe it means you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could mean you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. And I'd like that. But that ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd."

(In an effort to get back to normal with this blog, I've decided to just start posting something from or a reflection on whatever movie I've been thinking about most on a given day. I usually refer back to movies far more than is probably normal, but oh well. Hence this blog. This scene kept ringing in my ears today. Probably one of my favorite bits of dialogue in all of cinema. In fact, Jules is probably one of the best characters Tarantino ever wrote, with Hans Landa coming at a close second. I digress, but at any rate, this is how I feel today. I'm trying. I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd.)

The Best Films of 2009

2010-03-07T14:27:00.000-06:00

I’ll skip the usual apologies for not updating the blog in so long. I was busy. But now it’s back. At least for this year’s top ten. I can’t say 2009 was a great year for movies. Especially compared with some recent years, like 2007. As usual, except for the number one slot, all the others are ordered in a relatively arbitrary fashion. After the list, my personal picks for some of the awards being given tonight (whether they are nominated or not), and then some notes on the Oscars. I’ll try to update tomorrow after we know who’s gone home with what. But now, without much further ado:

The Ten Best Films of 2009

1. Inglourious Basterds

One of the most cathartic film experiences of the year. Tarantino was firing on all cylinders, and there are few films I have seen in the past few years that utilize all the qualities and potential of the cinema as well as this did. I’m sure this movie isn’t “for everyone” but it has something for everyone. Much has been said about Christoph Waltz, and it’s all true, but let’s not forget the rest of the cast: Diane Kruger, Michael Fassbender, and Melanie Laurent all turn in wonderful performances. It won best ensemble at the SAG Awards, and it really truly feels like one. It’s visually, audibly, and textually brilliant, and gets better with each viewing.

2. Nine

I seem to be one of the lone defenders of this strange concoction, but I enjoyed it on an emotional level perhaps more than any other film. The critics wanted 8 ½, and when it wasn’t, they panned it. Audiences, I think, were confused as to what they’d find, and so stayed away. But history will vindicate this spectacular movie. The showmanship, from director Rob Marshall, that made Chicago work so well finds a better match here in dealing with issues of cinema, illusion, and performance. It’s an intimate character study with a theatrical twist, and the most underrated movie of the year.

3. A Serious Man

Not many people make movies about religion anymore. Some are set in the world of religion, but few films actually tackle the inner workings of faith and theology, and so it is in that regard that the Coen Brothers’ latest film is a bold one, and one of their best. As a result, it has the freedom to ask some of life’s biggest questions, and doesn’t shortchange its audience in the process.

4. The White Ribbon

I don’t have a lot to say about it at this time, because I’ve only seen it once. It is one I will definitely watch again, and I know there is much more to be had than what I gleaned the first time around. I can with certainty say this: it is a wonderfully-shot, expertly-directed, and, at times, disturbing film. If you have not heard of it, you should see it anyway. It would not help for me to tell you much about it, it’s something you need to encounter for yourself without any preconceptions.

5. Public Enemies

A movie that really didn’t come alive for me until the second viewing (perhaps because I was exhausted the first time). It’s another one of this year’s underrated wonders. An old-fashioned gangster film with a modern sensibility. Every time I want to write off Johnny Depp as a pop-culture fad, he surprises me with a performance like this. And, between this and Nine, Marion Cotillard proves she is one of the world’s best film actresses.

6. Bright Star

Films about Romantic English poets aren’t probably going to attract a ton of attention, but this one deserved it. Great performances all around, and director Jane Campion is able to lead us to an inevitable ending with patience and serenity, where other directors would probably lapse into melodrama. It’s a movie I’ve been eager to watch again since I first saw it back in October, just to make sure it’s as good as I thought it was that time. I’m certain it is.

7. A Single Man

Much has been made of its cinematography and music, both of which are gorgeous. But what makes this film work is the excellent performance at its center: Colin Firth (finally proving what I’ve always suspected about him as an actor) as a broken man stuck in a world that doesn’t allow him the right to grieve.

8. In the Loop

I could go on for ages about the stupidity of the prejudices that many artists have about comedy as opposed to “drama.” Here is a film about the lead-up to a war in the Middle East, but rather than beating you over the head with rhetoric and political commentary, it cracks you up and works better than perhaps any film yet dealing with the war on terror/Iraq. The screenplay is rightly nominated tonight, but Peter Capaldi deserved a nomination, if for nothing else than one particular scene in which his Malcolm Tucker almost breaks down. If you’ve seen any of the BBC show the film is based on, it’s a truly memorable moment.

9. Fantastic Mr. Fox

The best animated film of the year (sorry Pixar). I’ll admit that it’s possible I’m just a Wes Anderson junkie, but the general acclaim it got makes me feel my praise is warranted. Appropriate (i.e. non-gimmicky) voice acting and old-fashioned animation make this one of the fullest expressions of Anderson’s style. It ranks right up near The Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore.

10. Star Trek

I bet I’ll take some flack for this one. I already wrote a short review of it, so I’ll be brief. It’s fun, excellently-made, and one of the most purely entertaining movies this year. At the end of the day, sometimes you just can’t beat a thrill ride.

The Second Tier

11. (500) Days of Summer
12. Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call- New Orleans
13. Un Prophete
14. Il Divo
15. The Road
16. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
17. Up
18. Away We Go
19. The Young Victoria
20. Up in the Air

Honorable Mentions (Five films that don’t belong on any best-of list, but I still really enjoyed)

District 9
Me and Orson Welles
Observe and Report
Avatar
2012

Best Actor: Colin Firth, A Single Man

Best Actress: Abbie Cornish, Bright Star

Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds

Best Supporting Actress: Marion Cotillard, Nine AND Public Enemies

Best Director: Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds

Best Original Screenplay: Joel and Ethan Coen, A Serious Man

Best Adapted Screenplay: Armando Iannucci, In the Loop

And I won’t pretend, like others, to know enough about the craft of any of the technical categories to pick what’s best. I’ll leave that to the Academy.

Quick Oscar Thoughts: You’ll probably notice a glaring omission in this list: The Hurt Locker. Is it a bad movie? No. Good movie? Perhaps. Overrated? Most definitely. While a win for it would not be as infuriating as Slumdog’s triumph last year, it would still be another example of the Academy getting behind what it thinks is an “important” movie and letting that carry it all the way to the finish line. The movie has its virtues, and I do think it’s pretty good, but I just can’t get behind calling it one of the best movies of the year. I believe the fact that it’s probably the best of all the Iraq movies, something that Oscar has felt the desire to comment on in the past few years, has brought it to the podium.

Avatar: I enjoyed it, as I indicated above. Yes, yes, it’s a technological breakthrough that’s probably changed movies forever, etc. But a place in the top twenty? I think not. It is visually dazzling, no doubt about that. It deserves the Visual Effects Oscar it receives tonight. But the melodrama and faux-profundity kept me from truly engaging with it. But as I said, I did (and will continue to) enjoy it.

The Ten: I seem to be one of the few people out there who likes the return to ten best picture nominees. If you look at the best director lineup, you can see what are the five “real nominees,” and the inclusion of The Blind Side gives the sense that the rest of the list is the Academy checking off demographic categories (Fanboys? Check. Middle America? Check.) But I like the chance to include more genre entries like District 9 and Up. Plus, the change in the balloting system has resulted in one of the least-certain best picture races in recent history.

So here’s to you, Academy. Here’s hoping you don’t embarrass yourself like last year. Here’s hoping that, despite the glaring omissions in your list of nominees, you manage to make some decent picks. Here’s hoping you’ve learned your lessons.

Who am I kidding? Bring on the headache.

Inception

2009-08-24T22:31:00.001-05:00

Watch This:

Movie Review Haiku!

2009-08-24T12:48:00.000-05:00

Seen quite a bit, and things are starting to get busy. So here they are: short reviews in Japanese poetic form.

Funny People

A weak narrative
Keeps dragging on forever
Boring, not funny

The Hurt Locker

Intense action film
Possibly overrated
But still, it's quite good

(500) Days of Summer

It's a great delight,
Similar to Annie Hall
Knowing and witty

District 9

It's filled with gore
Surprise! It's very thoughtful
Quite original

Ponyo (on the cliff by the sea)

Striking imagery
But why such a weak climax?
Hello Tina Fey

Inglourious Basterds

Christoph Waltz is great!
Full review is forthcoming.
Must see it again.

Presenting the Sixth Film by Wes Anderson

2009-07-30T15:36:00.000-05:00

Coming Soon

2009-07-28T16:07:00.000-05:00

If you've never watched, it's time to start.

The Beatles

2009-07-28T15:39:00.000-05:00

A Hard Day's Night
The first and best of the Beatles films. It's a testament to their talent that they are as photogenic and personable as their music is enjoyable. As a group, they wreak havoc on peaceful communities as Beatlemania follows them around. As individuals, they get into mischief and have surprisingly humorous adventures considering they are playing themselves.

There's no real plot. They are in a town to do a television broadcast. Paul's grandfather, a "king mixer" according to Paul, accompanies them and serves to fill people's heads with false notions, particularly Ringo, who decides to go "parading" late in the film, leading to the narrative's only moment of real crisis.

The scenes of Beatlemania, from all accounts, are toned down. The craze was often more frantic and at times more violent than what the movie shows. And of course the music is great, with the first Beatles album of completely original music. The title track was written over a couple of hours at the behest of the producers, who needed a song to go along with the name of the film.

It's a hugely entertaining film, with a kind of silliness that is missing from a lot of modern films. Every once in a while you need a good flick with little plot and plenty of personality.

Help!
Even more silly than Night but with more plot, which becomes problematic at times. Ringo has randomly come into possession of an Indian sacrificial ring which a cult will stop at nothing to get back. For whatever reason, the ring means that Ringo will soon be covered in red paint and killed as a sacrifice. The film follows the Beatles as they travel around evading the cult and playing music along the way.

It's also a good deal more surreal than their previous film. For instance, the house that the Beatles all live in is a cross between a funhouse and a barracks. George's room features a lawn equipped with a gardener who uses fake chattering teeth to trim the grass. John has a bed built into the floor.

The events are sometimes transitioned by humorous intertitles, telling us what to expect or what happened in between scenes. At one point, Paul is shrunk and his impending journey is announced as "The Exciting Adventure of Paul on the Floor."

It's not quite as charming as their first film, and in some ways is one of the strangest films I've ever seen. But The Beatles are all there, with their personalities in tact. And because of that, and the music, it's still a very entertaining movie.

Update at Large

2009-07-28T14:57:00.000-05:00

A few updates on some films I've seen in the theatres, most of which haven't inspired a full review:

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3
Much better than most of the reviews would have you believe. I haven't seen the original, but that doesn't really matter. It's a solid thriller with two good performances at its center. This is one of those John Travolta roles that pops up every once in a while and reminds you of why he's a star, and helps you to forget some of the drivel he's done in the past decade or so.

I will agree with the critics who were unhappy with Tony Scott's style. At times, the style works, like in Man on Fire. But this story has enough adrenaline that the frenetic editing and music becomes overkill. Still, as I said, it's mostly consistent and a good piece of entertainment. It is what it is, and if that's what you're looking for, you got it.

Year One
There's some good, clever ideas here. But in the effort to make it a more accessible Jack Black vehicle, it becomes an unqualified mess. And I mention Jack Black specifically because this is the film in which he has officially worn out his welcome. I don't want to see him and his usual schtick for a long, long time.

The tinkering results in scenes that go nowhere, gaping plotholes, and narrative lapses, such as two or three scenes in which a character is in mortal danger only to cut to the next scene in which they are perfectly fine, with no hint of how they escaped certain peril. It's not a good film by any means, but a few bright spots remain, particularly the show-stealer David Cross.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Much has been said, so I won't devote a lot of space to it. Any charm that the first one held has been squashed in the sequel by Michael Bay's doubling of everything. Since the first film had one dog, the second has to have two, and so on. It's silly and medicore at best. However, a phenomenon has to be pointed out: for the most part, audiences have really enjoyed it. In some sense, it gives people exactly what they want. And for whatever reason, that includes Robot Heaven.

Public Enemies
A fascinating and entertaining look at one of America's last great outlaws. In a sense, it has feet firmly set in both the classic gangster genre and the 21st century, mostly owing to the high-definition digital cinematography. While it might be a tad bloated, Johnny Depp keeps our attention riveted on Dillinger. Christian Bale serves his purpose, but without much flair.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
One of the highlights of the series so far. There has been some rumbling among fans about the ending and other differences from the book. I'll say it again, you can't judge a film by its faithfulness to the source material. Period. End of story. Get over it. It's a lovingly painted portrait of a year at Hogwarts, and the last bit of innocence that these characters get to have. It's as enjoyable as the series has ever been, owing largely to the central characters, who have grown into fantastic actors. Jim Broadbent makes a wonderful addition to the cast. In a way, it's a transition piece, sort of in the vein of The Empire Strikes Back. There's no real beginning or ending, but it's a great ride nonetheless.

Best Pictures: Going My Way, 1944

2009-07-12T23:57:00.000-05:00

I feel rather bad calling Going My Way a simple film, but it kind of is. I feel guilty, in some kind of religious way, almost, in not recognizing some kind of deeper significance to Leo McCarey's 1944 Oscar winner. But still I stumble through to my verdict- a kindly film without a whole lot else beneath it.

It's the story of a priest trying to modernize a parish at the behest of his bishop. He intially butts heads with the elder priest in charge, but they reconcile. There are a few subplots, including one dealing with a banker trying to foreclose on the church and his son who is in love with a girl from the streets (providing the film with its edgiest material- a vague reference to prostitution).

The priest (Bing Crosby) also nurtures a boys' choir and uses their talents to get a song ("Going My Way") published so he can raise money to save the church. The priest is more worldly-wise than the elder (Barry Fitzgerald), going so far as to take the kids to baseball games and movies (gasp!). It's almost like a kind of anti-Doubt.

That's probably too much plot, but there's not much else that inspires me to write. It's a solid, friendly narrative, capably directed by McCarey, with a couple of good performances to anchor it. Beyond that, it's not what I'd call great, or "best."

A bit of data: The other nominated films that year were Double Indemnity, Gaslight, Since You Went Away, and Wilson. I'm a fan of Wilder's Indemnity, but I can see where the Academy would go for something like Way over the sometimes ambiguous tone of the former.

Best Pictures: How Green Was My Valley, 1941

2009-06-10T20:15:00.001-05:00

It's the film that beat out Citizen Kane for Best Picture in 1941, and today that seems to be it's only claim to fame, but unfairly. It's a solid picture, well-directed by John Ford. On the surface it seems to be rather simple, but underneath brews a myriad of interesting topics that provide an eeriness that underscores some of the beautiful images such as the one pictured above.

The narrative, simply put, concerns a family living in a valley in Wales, one that is dominated by a coal mine through which all men must pass. The family experiences its ups and downs, all seen through the eyes of young Huw Morgan(Roddy McDowall). He lives in a house with his parents and his many brothers, and one sister (Maureen O'Hara) who is pressured into an unsatisfying marriage. It's one of those slice of life stories that Oscar seems to favor so often, covering great lengths of time and showing you the life of people long ago and far away. However, because of plot points I won't divulge, it's not merely a memoir, but more like a eulogy.

But the film also deals with themes like unionization, corporal punishment, religious discipline, and environmental decline. These revolve around an emotionally satisfying and dynamic pastoral drama, and help to keep it from becoming pure sentiment. Uniting it all is a restlessness about the status quo and man's place in society. If the film has a singular focus it is the tendency of politics to ruin a community (an idea which resonates particularly well with me).

So while it may not have the technical innovation and proficiency of Kane, it's probably got just as much heart and insight. In terms of Ford's body of work, it's not as memorable or iconic as, say, The Searchers, but it's consistent. Part of that is due to the lack of a standout performance, despite Walter Pidgeon's strong turn as the humanistic minister. Part of what makes The Searchers so fascinating is because its part of that mythos of The Duke. While Valley can't claim that kind of Hollywood glamour, it still excels on its own terms.

Up

2009-05-31T12:59:00.000-05:00

You'll have to forgive me for this review. It will probably devolve into a string of superlatives. I would love to be able to provide a thoughtful, balanced, and grounded analysis, but I'm not sure it's possible, at least after only one viewing. But at the same time, I won't apologize for my response, since Up provided me with one of the most profoundly emotional experiences I've had at the movies in a long time.

I don't want to go into much detail, because you should see it all for yourself. You probably already know a little about the plot, and that's fine. It's a unique story, part old-fashioned adventure serial, part fairy tale. But what makes it so compelling is its central character, the elderly but spry Carl Fredericksen, voiced by Ed Asner.

The movie is artistically brilliant as well. If it's one thing that the animators at Pixar know it's cinematography. One shot in particular sticks in my mind. I won't give the context but it happens at sunset, as we see Carl and his floating house silhouetted against a backdrop of purple, orange, and red. It's a breathtaking sight.

I'm not sure what else to write about. It's incredibly enjoyable, not just for children. If you don't feel something while watching it, you're a rock. There's something so elemental about animation, especially in the hands of Pixar. The characters' performances can cut through to us in a way that live action performances can't. We don't have any preconceived ideas about the actors; we've never seen these people before. The emotions are distilled down to their pure essences, and they're very effective. At least they were for me.

Best Pictures: The Great Ziegfeld, 1936

2009-05-31T12:46:00.001-05:00

Right from the opening titles, you know to expect big things from The Great Ziegfeld, a biopic chronicling the life and times of one of America's greatest showmen. The concept of the showmen is a curious one, and almost obsolete. But in this film you see it fully realized in the life of Ziegfeld and the lavish musical numbers mimicking those Ziegfeld actually did.

And its the musical numbers that provide the biggest thrill of the film, and they occupy most of the middle section of the film. After an hour of traditional biography material, detailing Ziegfeld's romantic entanglements and development from glorified ringmaster to true impresario, we get several huge production numbers that truly befit Ziegfeld's reputation. One particularly lavish number features a large circular stairway (pictured above) which the camera climbs, incorporating Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue to great effect. It's the highlight of the film, and for good reason.

However, these numbers also cause problems for the film's structure. They are the film's centerpiece, but everything around them dulls in comparison. The work is the meat of Ziegfeld's life. His offstage dalliances are far less interesting, though William Powell makes good use of what he is given. I suppose we, in the twenty-first century, are just very used to seeing tales of men going through numerous women that we're jaded. Part of the problem, though, is that the film sanitizes and lessens these flings so as to soften the scandals.

Still, we are given a lavish biopic with a good cast to boot. Myrna Loy, though given second billing, has very little to do in her role of Ziegfeld's second wife Billie Burke. Luise Ranier is the real standout in her role of Anna Held, though her scenes are allowed to go on far too long. She's humorous, but we grow tired of her by the time we are meant to pity her. We also get some good turns from members of Ziegfeld's troupe playing themselves, namely Ray Bolger and Fanny Brice. All in all, it's a pretty standard biopic with some fabulous highlights, and for those we have Ziegfeld himself to thank.

Best Pictures: Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935

2009-05-17T12:42:00.000-05:00

Directed by Frank Lloyd, Mutiny is a surprisingly compelling film that is remarkable for its tonal shifts. The first thirty minutes imply a jaunty nautical melodrama that later showcases cruelty unexpected in a film from this period. One minute a drunken peglegged surgeon is being hoisted aboard the ship to laughter and applause. The next minute Captain Bligh (Charles Laughton) arrives only to have a corpse beaten with a cat of nine tails in front of his crew.

For most of the film, we see an ideological conflict in the form of Bligh and his first mate Fletcher Christian (Clark Gable), who wants more humane treatment for the men. One of the best features of this film is when that conflict is muddied by the harsh actions of Christian during the mutiny, leading to the climax of the film when a departing Bligh delivers a powerful condemnation to the mutineers. The moment presents us with a villain who is heroic and a heroic rebel with no real plan and debatable leadership qualities.

Unfortunately, the climax comes about 45 minutes before the end of the film. Once Bligh and Christian are separated, the main conflict is gone. Christian wanders about Tahiti with the other mutineers, bedding a native girl who gives him a daughter. Indeed, between Bligh's cruelty and Christian's dalliances, we get a picture of sovereignty and imperialism run amok. Of course, the natives in the film are more than happy to accommodate their invaders, and the native women go weak at the knees whenever a shirtless white man walks by.

The film is well constructed, with some notable editing techniques reminiscent of that other great film less than a decade prior that also dealt with mutiny on a ship. There's also some good performances, with an interesting picture of British and American acting techniques at work in the film's central conflict. Laughton, in technical terms, acts circles around Gable, but there's no matching Gable's charisma and heroic qualities. Even when his character becomes less than noble, Gable makes Christian very enjoyable to watch.

Angels and Demons

2009-05-15T16:22:00.000-05:00

Back when The Da Vinci Code came out, I decided to read the book to see what all the fuss was about. Historical lunacies aside, one thing shocked me: how badly written the book was. It was cheap and simple, and I was a little surprised (though not much) that the world could be caught up in such a mediocre piece of work. The movie wasn't much better, as most critics noted, and frankly, quite dull.

For the first hour and a half of Angels and Demons, that problem is fixed. It's not the most intelligently written plot, but it maintains a level of suspense that works. Like last time, there are still moments where Hanks's Professor Langdon rambles on about history that is interesting but inappropriately placed when the lives of popes-to-be are on the line. But despite this, I was still entertained.

Then came the last 30-45 minutes. I won't divulge any details, because it is genuinely surprising. But not in a good way. The last act presents twist after twist that would make M. Night Shyamalan proud, ranging from the improbable to the ridiculous to the unnecessary twist for the sake of being a twist.

The movie had me pondering the fate of Ewan McGregor. After Moulin Rouge came out, I was really impressed with him and wanted to see more. After the Star Wars prequels, I chalked it up to Lucas's bad writing. But Angels is just one in a long string of performances that haven't impressed me, and I'm wondering if he's just not trying or if he's just not that good. Time will tell.

LOST

2009-05-14T18:38:00.001-05:00

Utter confusion never felt so amazing.

Star Trek and Disappearing Worlds Strikes Again

2009-05-14T17:43:00.000-05:00

I have returned, dear readers. So as usually happens, school caught up with me and I was unable to post for a couple of months there, but never fear. This summer I plan on being spectacularly productive on the moviegoing front and so I'll be back in full force. More on what that force entails a little later.

Bur first let me get the obsession du jour out of the way first. If you haven't had the chance to see Star Trek yet then go. You really can't ask for more fun at a summer movie. And I'd say it's not just a good summer movie, but a good movie period. I was more throughly entertained by its opening than I have been by any Star Trek movie I've seen in the past. And I've seen them all. But I never really liked Star Trek, mostly because I found it dull and too wrapped up in its own mythology to get down to the root of things. When watching this movie I finally felt like I was able to enjoy Star Trek, for whatever its worth, for what it was meant to be. Finally, all of the Trekiness didn't get in the way, if that makes any sense.

Many others have written mostly the same (except for Ebert's uncharacteristically nitpicky review, which, frankly, missed the point). The cast is spot on, the futuristic effects finally look, well, like something from the future, and if there was a dull moment I didn't see it. I could go on, but just take my word for it. Go see it and enjoy yourself. I promise you will.

As for my own future:

Coming to a blog near you (this one here, right here, Disappearing Worlds) this summer!

A look back at my last two months of movie watching, both at home and in theatres!

Fellini: I'm going to go back and watch all the Fellini films I own to do at least one in depth study this summer on a director. I've been wanting, for a while, to go back and do this with a number of directors and Fellini seemed like a good place to start, especially after I watched the trailer for Nine: (http://www.apple.com/trailers/weinstein/nine/).
My study will consist of: The White Sheik, I Vitelloni, La Strada, Nights of Cabiria, La Dolce Vita, 8 1/2, Juliet of the Spirits, Satyricon, Roma, and Amarcord.

I will finally finish watching all of the best picture winners (except for the notoriously unavailable Cavalcade)!

Reviews of all the movies I see this summer!

I think those are some pretty good goals. We'll see if I keep them. First up: a look back at two months of home viewing (give or take a few).

David Watches the Watchmen

2009-03-10T16:07:00.000-05:00

"...But the world is so full of people, so crowded with these miracles that they become commonplace and we forget...I forget. We gaze continually at the world and it grows dull in our perceptions. Yet seen from another's vantage point, as if new, it may still take the breath away. Come...Dry your eyes, for you are Life, rarer than a quark and unpredictable beyond the dreams of Heisenberg; the clay in which the forces that shape all things leave their fingerprints most clearly. Dry your eyes...And let's go home."

You won't find that beautiful passage in the film version of Watchmen. It's my favorite part of the book. The moment in which all the despair and deconstruction gives way to an optimistic center, reminding us why any of it matters at all. Before that, we start to wonder. What if Dr. Manhattan's right? Why should he save the world? What does it matter if the Earth is destroyed? It is here that we, and he, get our answer.

But it's not in the film. And it's here where I illustrate one of my chief dilemmas in writing about this film, and formulating my convoluted reaction. It has been my chief contention concerning adaptations that a film's faithfulness to the source material doesn't matter. A film can't be a book, or vice versa. Therefore, to hold a film to the same standards as a novel is inherently silly. In past years when I've heard Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings fans complain about the differences between the books and films, I've inwardly scoffed. Who cares if Hermione tries to save the house elves? Does it really matter if Frodo meets Tom Bombadil? The film can't be the book, so don't expect it to be.

So on that level, as I still cling to that dictum, it doesn't bother me that the part I have quoted above is not in the film. The scene is there, but not the dialogue. However, I find myself with a different dilemma in reviewing the film. Here is a case in which one of the chief merits of this movie, in my opinion, is its faithfulness to the source material. Very little is cut from the twelve chapter graphic novel, and many shots are copied exactly from the book. It was as if Snyder just took the book to be his storyboards and shot from there.

To put it out there, yes, I did enjoy the movie. But there's my problem. Did I enjoy the movie because of the book, or because of the movie? I find it to be some of both, and so collapses my critical standard. I find myself at one moment a fanboy and the next a snob. But I find I can console myself with my oft-repeated motto: "There are always exceptions."

Watchmen, the film, has many merits. The story is pretty much completely intact, and it remains one of the most complex and fascinating studies of the superhero genre ever created. If you are a novice to the material, let me just warn you: this isn't X-men. It isn't Spider-man. Throw all of your preconceived notions about superhero movies out the window, because this film/book tears them apart anyway. The casting is surprisingly appropriate. Jackie Earle Haley is great as the sociopathic Rorschach. The scenes later in the film where he truly shows his chops make me wish he could have gone maskless for more of the film. Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Patrick Wilsom also fit their characters quite well.

The directing, however, is a harder nut to crack. Zack Snyder has been one of the most frustrating directors to try to critique. There are many beautiful parts of the movie, many shots that are profound and composed. However, who do I credit? Snyder or Dave Gibbons? Therein lies my frustration, but the fact that Snyder chose to go with so much of what Gibbons drew is a credit I have to give to Snyder, though begrudgingly.

For Snyder has a lot of bad habits that pop up in the film from time to time. His obsession with slow motion, his love of graphic violence, and his uncanny ability to create the most awkward sex scenes I've ever seen. 300 was overwhelmed by these habits and so I could not enjoy it. However, the faithfulness that Snyder shows to the source material makes it almost impossible for him to screw it up, so to speak.

So, did I like it? Yes. With reservations. I liked it as a filmgoer and as a fan of the book. Did it have problems? Yes. But they did not overpower the more poignant and beautiful material that Moore and Gibbons created and Snyder chose to use verbatim. While the way to critique this film is problematic for me, I can still, in the end, say that I thought it was a good film. Did I completely invalidate my opinion during this review? Possibly. But these kinds of gray areas just highlight the complexity and ambiguity that comes with encountering material of this kind. The book is famous for its deconstruction of superheroes, uncovering messiah-complexes, sexual subtexts, and latent fascism. All of that's here, if you look for it. It just may take more than one viewing to see it all.

The Top Ten Movies of 2008 (More or Less)

2009-02-26T01:24:00.000-06:00

So here it is. I realize it's quite late, but movies don't really come to Baton Rouge with the speed and quantity I'd like. So this is as good as I could do. A couple of disclaimers:
A) I didn't see near all the films that came out this year. I really didn't see any of the foreign films, and only saw one documentary. So this list can't possibly be comprehensive. It might be if I were writing this years down the line, but I prefer to get it out in a relatively timely fashion. (If you can call two months after timely. Hey, it's a few days after the Oscars. Has to count for something (?)).
B) As with every other top ten list, the order is pretty arbitrary, with a couple of exceptions, but not worth noting. Suffice to say, the films are on the list because they deserve to be there.
And so without much further ado:

The Top Ten Movies of 2008

1. The Dark Knight
You can say I'm biased to put it at number one. Suit yourself. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find a movie that more for a genre this year. Or a movie that excited more people. There are so many stellar achievements in this film on several levels, this movie deserves its placement. You can read my review if you want to hear more praise.

2. The Wrestler
Haven't posted my review of this yet, but its spot here should let you know how much I liked it. Linear, simple, character-driven dramas were a bit of a rarity this year, and to have this one come from a director like Aronofsky is a surprise indeed. Much has been said of the performances, particularly Rourke's, and it's all true. While it may not have had the flash or pizzazz of the best picture nominees, it quietly established its supremacy over all of them.

3. Wall-E
You only have to look at the other animated films this year to realize how special this movie was. Look a few years into the past and it will stand out even more. Pixar has made a name for itself in the past with engaging stories and technical achievement, and has recently added to that a cinematic sensibility that draws on the best styles throughout film history, with Wall-E drawing on some of the best, including Chaplin.

4. Synecdoche, NY
Like several other Charlie Kaufman films, this one has been polarizing, to say the least. I'm thinking that time will smile upon his first directorial effort, and it will be looked back on as a work of thematic depth, visual brilliance, and an audacity matched by few filmmakers out there.

5. Gran Torino
Posted a review of this a few weeks back, but a second viewing has cemented my opinions. This will be one of those sadly undervalued films that people will rediscover when examining the work of Eastwood, and while it may not rank as one of his masterpieces, it contains one of his best performances.

6. Man on Wire
As far as documentaries go, this may not have the scope or ambition of others, but that's a good thing. Rather, it's an intimate study of one man's dream and the rather insane lengths he went to in achieving it. One of its marvels is its ability to communicate the kind of devotion and love that others had for Philippe, devotion he might have taken for granted but desperately needed.

7. Rachel Getting Married
Probably one of the only films that employs the handheld camera technique and makes it truly work. The reality of the characters and the setting permeates every frame, and makes it one of the most engaging films of last year. And Anne Hathaway shows us that she has a bright future ahead of her.

8. Doubt
Based on one of the best American plays of recent years, Shanley's film version showcases a solid cast manuevering through an emotional and ethical mindfield. Rather than trying to overly embellish the play, it employs an admirable focus that may in fact answer the question that the play set out to obscure. But still, at the end, it's up for you to decide.

9. In Bruges
Martin McDonagh's feature debut is probably the most curious and interesting comedy of the year. It defies easy categorization, as expressed in my blurb about it a couple of weeks ago. It has some of his trademarks of random violence and simpletons dealing with moral conundrums, but it allowed him the chance to visually interpret it exactly as he wanted.

10. The Visitor
Like Milk, takes a political issue and discusses it rationally and empathetically without beating the audience over the head. In fact, it's hardly a political film at all, and so it's rare that the message ends up being one of the most memorable parts. That and the brilliant performance by Richard Jenkins.

Honorable Mentions

11. Vicki Cristina Barcelona
12. Milk
13. Revolutionary Road
14. Pineapple Express
15. Ghost Town
16. Iron Man
17. Burn After Reading
18. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
19. Be Kind Rewind
20. Frozen River

Here's to the end of the 2008 movie season. I'm glad it's over. Compared to 2007, this past year was a let-down, but still yielded some gems. Here's hoping that next year Hollywood will take the inspiration and success from films like The Dark Knight and truly up its game.

The Reader

2009-02-17T21:10:00.000-06:00

This is my third attempt at this review. I'm a little bit stonewalled. I'm not sure if there's actually much I can say about this film. There's some good acting, it's directed decently, and the story is relatively interesting. I'm just not sure it works, for whatever that means. Whatever sympathy it was trying to garner for the main character, it didn't get it from me.

Perhaps the main thing I'd criticize about this film is something that's becoming more and more prevalent in films today. I'm talking about non-linear narrative structure. In fact, all five of the best picture nominees are structured this way. The strongest of the bunch, Milk, utilizes this to the least extent. In The Reader, it reaches almost a fever pitch. While Ralph Fiennes is capable enough to carry his portion of the story, what is the purpose? This may seem like a very shallow question to ask, I think it's valid. I think that what started out as innovative turned into a gimmick and has now become so commonplace that it's lost whatever spark it might have had. What's really the point of showing us the end of the story first? Sometimes it can work, don't get me wrong, but nowadays it seems like it would be stronger to write a linear story and have to keep the suspense going the old fashioned way.

So that's not much of a review, but it's more in tune with what I want my entries to be. I want the films to spark forays into larger discussions.

Oscar Thoughts 2009

2009-02-16T10:40:00.000-06:00

So any that know me probably know how disappointed I am about the Oscars this year. The best films of the year had a chance. They had all the makings of nominees and even winners. But then the Academy had to fall back (for the most part) on medicore Oscar-bait films and a couple of movies that got stuck in everyone's heads like a bad song. I'll withhold my own thoughts on what the best films of the year were (i.e. My Top Ten for 2009) until later this week, but first I'll take a look at the nominees, generally. I would take the time to go category by category, but frankly, they don't deserve it.

Most people who follow the Oscars probably saw the freight train that was The Dark Knight for a while. The guild nominations, the critical acclaim, the popular support, it all should have led up to a Best Pic nomination. But alas, the academy anti-populist bias won through. They seem to have this attitude that they are the mystic guardians of what constitutes good film, and the Oscars are the general public's precious access to that secret knowledge. Sorry to break it to you, Academy, but now you've almost invalidated yourselves into oblivion.

The films that did make it through to the final five are largely undeserving. The only one out of the five that probably deserves to be there is Milk. It's solid, powerful, beautifully acted, and so on. It's not in my personal top five, but I can understand why it's in theirs. And on some levels, I can understand Benjamin Button. I liked the film in a lot of ways, but it just doesn't measure up when compared to the best films. But again, I can kind of understand why the Academy went for it. And got to give them at least some credit for going with a fantasy.

And that leaves the rest, including the frontrunner-apparent. A film that's got everybody wrapped up in some poverty-stricken wonderland that doesn't really exist. A film with all with all the visual capacity of a Michael Bay film. A film that just simply isn't "Best." It's not even great. It might be good, but at this point all the attention it's getting has just made me embittered toward it. And the future will prove me right. The backlash is coming. Of course, I'm talking about Slumdog Millionaire. And that's where I'll stop. The movie doesn't deserve my attention. Or anybody else's. That's all from me.

The other two, Frost/Nixon and The Reader are Oscar bait through and through. While I enjoyed Frost, it's nothing without those great performances, particularly Langella's. The Reader probably wouldn't be on anyone's radar if it weren't for its now deceased producers Minghella and Pollack. That's not to disrespect them in anyway, they both made some really great films, and they will be missed. But I have a feeling that if they weren't involved, the Academy wouldn't have taken notice like it did. And there's also Harvey to contend with. But oh well, my review on that later.

The acting categories are a little more varied, allowing for great performances from non-best picture nominees like The Wrestler and Rachel Getting Married. Mickey Rourke has my vote, but as you probably know, he's going to be neck and neck with a still-deserving Sean Penn. I'd love Anne Hathaway to win, but I think the Academy's going to give Kate Winslet her due, even if she's given better performances. Heath Ledger's got it wrapped up for supporting, and at this point it's Penelope Cruz's to lose for her subtly chaotic turn in Woody Allen's great Vicki Cristina Barcelona.

In most Oscar years, I try to see all the nominees right down to the shorts. This year, the spark is gone. Maybe it'll be back next year. It depends on the nominees. This year the nominations made me so bitter that I haven't been as into the whole race as I usually am. So I don't have much to say about the tech categories. As far as I can see, the evenings going to end up with more statues going to Slumdog than it deserves.

It's shaping up to be a big week for the site, as I hope to post reviews for The Reader, The Wrestler, He's Just Not That Into You, and Revolutionary Road. And then on Thursday, my top ten. I'll also try to update on what I've been watching on dvd (i.e., not as much as I'd like). So stay with me reader(s), there's more to come.

Frost/Nixon

2009-02-03T22:46:00.000-06:00

In a way, it takes a very particular set of circumstances and artists to put out a good movie that reliess completely in dialogue. Maybe that's why Frost/Nixon was originally a play. Now, in this visual dimension, it achieves much of the same excitement and tension without becoming a necessarily great film. It's satisfying in a historical and dramaturgical way, but not really cinematically.

Theatre, of course, has a visual dimension. But it also has the luxury of being able to rely on dialogue in a way that film can't. Theatre, as I'm generally realizing, has much in common with law proceedings based on their root in ancient Greece. Ancient rhetoric had much in common with ancient drama, and vice versa. But film has to extend beyond the words (if it has to use them at all) and show us something. And because this source material is entirely reliant on dialogue, it is here where Ron Howard's skills almost fail him.

I did say skills. He has them. A lot of people love to tear down Ron Howard, but I think that's mostly a matter of audience. Ron Howard's audience is mostly made up of older people. In his long career in the business, he's more familiar with their style than the one of the new generation. Now there's nothing wrong with knowing your audience, and nothing wrong with having an older audience. It's just simply a matter of mismatched material.

Howard's never out to dazzle us with his skills. He maintains a quiet technique of solid storytelling and a balance between overt artistry and subtlety. But often he has material that is well-suited to his skills. Here, he lacks the style to really give the material its punch.

That's not to say the results are all bad. They're in fact quite-good. It's just not exactly great filmmaking. The confronation between the titular characters is very interesting to watch. I'd think that for a generation that remembers the Nixon era it would be even more poignant than it was for me. The acting is superb, but without it the film would be nothing. It's a solid film, and easily communicates its purpose. It's good in many regards. Just not great. Just not one-of-the-five-best-pictures-of-the-year great. I'm bitter.

Last Chance Harvey

2009-02-03T22:25:00.000-06:00

Last Chance Harvey is a slight if entertaining film with a host of flaws that just can't seem to keep it down. One of the most suprising things about the film is the ability to enjoy it. Most of that is due to its star duo, Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson, who do their best to play sad sacks for the first half of the film, as the script flits annoyingly back and forth between Harvey's journey to London for his daughter's wedding and Kate's feeble attempts at blind dates and dealing with a high-maintenance mother.

The forty-five minute collision course finally comes to an end and the movie heads in exactly the direction we knew it would. We suspend our disbelief at Kate's ability to put up with Harvey's pushy flirtations. We play along with the arbitrary twists of fate that conspire to keep Harvey and Kate apart. But we know they'll come together in the end. And that's okay.

I guess what works best about the film is the way it lovingly allows these things to happen, because after all, by this point in their lives the characters deserve some happiness. There are distractions and side trips, like Kate's mother's paranoia about her Polish neighbor, but the movie ends up where it should, and is almost cathartic in its conclusion.

Weekly Viewing Roundup: January 2-10

2009-01-11T13:43:00.000-06:00

So this is the first of what I hope will be a weekly series where I write brief comments on what movies I watch outside of the movie theatre each week. I'll reserve the longer reviews for new films, and sometimes I'll write longer posts on individual films, but I'll try to write at least something on the films I watch at home. This post includes a couple of days from last week since I'm late getting started. As I said, my goal is at least five movies a week (last year I watched 227 films!). And without further ado:

Chaplin
A capable biopic directed by Lord Richard Attenborough, but it has one central flaw. The movie takes the cliche biography film path by focusing on all the women in Chaplin's life. Sure there were a lot, and that's an interesting sidenote. But what makes Chaplin's legacy endure and what makes him most interesting are his films. Attenborough chooses to focus on the sordid gossip in lieu of film production. There's barely a mention of the great lengths he went to to film The Gold Rush, hardly a mention of the bravery of filming a silent film during the emerging sound era, the film that went on to be the greatest film of all time: City Lights. They don't mention clearly the formation of United Artists. Chaplin changed film history, but what we get is a laundry list of infidelities. The performances are capable enough, though Downey is a little too mumbly for my taste. Interesting, but ultimately comes up short.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Like the Star Wars prequels, it generated a lot of interest and fans early on but as time goes by it earns more detractors and more ire for George Lucas. And I do, like so many others, blame Lucas rather than Spielberg. I have the common problems with it: gophers, monkeys, waterfalls, etc. But I think I have an easier time getting past those than some. I still enjoy the film. As a piece of escapist entertainment it's just fine. And maybe that's all we can really expect from Indy. But I would have enjoyed a better script and a better conceived plot. In the end, one of the lesser entries in the franchise, but not as bad as everyone says. It will survive with the rest of them.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Unfortunately, kind of overlooked this summer. And it's box office performance seems to have tanked the next installment (unless another studio picks it up from Disney, anyone? anyone?). I am one of the very few people to have thought it better than the previous film. It's more mature and thoughtful than Lion, Witch and takes more time to develop the characters. The special effects are some of the best this year. It still has that feel of being Lord of the Rings Jr. but if the series is allowed to continue, it might stand as one of the strongest installments. Let's hope it finds a renewed life on dvd so we can find out.

The Godfather Trilogy
What can I say that hasn't already been said? It took me a few viewing to really appreciate the first film, and on this second viewing of the second film I can already begin to feel myself warming to it. They're not the most accessible films, oddly enough, but they are rewarding once you get into them. The third film has those flaws that most people mention, the second is one of the greatest sequels, to be sure. But it's that first film that ranks the best for me. It's rich and complex, and is famous for all the right reasons. Perhaps I'll write on the trilogy later on in more depth, but for now, kudos to Coppola and his team for creating a purely dramatic trilogy.

The Hidden Fortress
One of Kurosawa's lesser efforts, but even that is better than the work of most directors. A great exercise in, if not style, clear and entertaining storytelling. Part of it was the inspiration for Star Wars, and it shows. What made the first Star Wars film so successful owed a lot to this and other Kurosawa films, and Lucas seems to have completely lost that in the prequel trilogy. Kurosaswa's chief actor Toshiro Mifune is once again fantastic as the general, and the supporting players, with the exception of perhaps the princess, play along beautifully. It's gorgeously shot and works as a great entertaining adventure, proof that great art and populist entertainment need not be mutually exclusive.

In Bruges
Is this the darkest comedy ever made? Possibly. It's classified by most as a comedy and will be competing for the best comedy prize at tonight's Golden Globes, but I didn't laugh for most of it. But that doesn't mean it's not a comedy. It's the kind of humor that makes you laugh on the inside, the kind of humor that lends levity to what would have been a violent drama. It helps to balance the mood, slightly tipping it into the comedy range without being a laugh-out-loud riot. The acting is excellent, and McDonough's script deserves an Oscar nom this year. If you're familiar with his plays you will likely love the film, and the film's critical success will hopefully give him enough clout to make more. Let's hope so.

Gran Torino

2009-01-11T13:29:00.001-06:00

Based on what I see in trailers, there is sometimes a huge gap between what I am expecting from a film and what I get. Gran Torino seemed like it was going to be a very generic tale of an old man getting to know the people he hates, having his heart softened in the process, and then having to protect them from violence. The storyline was just that, but generic it wasn't. The film turned out to be one of the best surprises of the season.

I've always respected Clint Eastwood as an actor, but here he truly carries the picture and the results are moving. He turns what could have been a racist old geezer into a humorous and, at times, charming, though still racist veteran. The supporting players can't quite match his caliber, but in a way that's okay. He's the heart and soul of the story, and his performance matches that responsibility.

I return again to the humor, which caught me off guard. Some of it is racial in nature, almost a laughter of disbelief at a person saying the things that he says. But it's not limited to that. The way he treats people is cruel at times, but he thinks it's hilarious, and because of that, we do too. It helps lift the film from its possibly cliche trappings.

I'm still kind of processing the film, so I'm not sure of what to say. And that's okay, I think. Suffice to say that it is a very poignant and tender exploration of racism and friendship. It deals with racism in a much more complex and intelligent way than a lot of other films that purport to explore it. It's not the cut and dry violent force like in Crash, and it almost continues the conversation started in 50s and 60s films like Giant or In the Heat of the Night.

In terms of violence, it can also be seen as Eastwood's answer to the violence of some of his earlier films, particularly the Dirty Harry films, in the same way that Unforgiven was his answer to the violence of his Westerns. Parts of it are a little simplistic at times, plotwise, but it never ceases to couple that with further depths of the central character, which Eastwood will always be remembered for.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2009-01-10T12:30:00.000-06:00

I never quite understood the appeal of Forrest Gump. I mean, I get it. A man lives through a lot of history and stumbles into major world events and throughout it all he's just trying to find his love and take care of his mama. Interesting concept I suppose, but not particularly well made. Definitely not deserving of a best picture Oscar. Just goes to show the infectious power of optimism to ride a movie to awards season glory (as we're about to see happen again with Slumdog Millionaire.

But enough about mediocre films. I bring up Gump because The Curious Case of Benjamin Button shares with it both a plotline and a screenwriter (check other sites for detailed breakdowns of similarities between the two films, culminating in what might be a case of self-plagiarism). That said, Button has the distinction of being a well-made film.

Visually, it's quite stunning. This might be one of the best uses of computer-generated effects ever seen, because it's actually put to good use for character portrayal rather than merely background painting. Brad Pitt is able to extend his performance beyond the limits of his body and what makeup can do. It's quite a feat.

The story has surprising drive for its type, being able to pull interest from an audience for over two and a half hours with not many clear goals and objectives for the title character. But it's as much Daisy's (Cate Blanchett) picture as it is Benjamin's. So we watch in hope that these two satellites orbiting the breadth of the earth will finally collide.

That said, when they finally collide, it becomes a little less interesting, for a time. It's a sad fact that happiness is not as interesting to watch as pain. But things don't stay that way. For most of the picture, indeed in its most interesting parts when Benjamin is traveling, Benjamin's strange malady is almost an afterthought. It consumes the physical nature of the character but his spirit is enough to push it into the foreground. The attention that must be paid to it by Benjamin and Daisy toward the end sparks new life into the plot for the last section of the film. It's strange and almost off-putting in a way. It mirrors real life, where for most of our youth we don't have to think about our physical limitations. We can do anything. Then suddenly, our bodies put limits on our dreams. Things cannot be as they once were, and we start to despair.

The film has many of these interesting insights, stemming from Fitzgerald's original story, and, to a lesser extent, Eric Roth's screenplay. But it's David Fincher and his actors who breathe great life into it. They meander and detour, sometimes frustratingly, but always come back to the central point: that we have a finite number of opportunities in life, and they will end. It's a flawed film, but a good one, and one that shows that David Fincher does have some heart in him, beyond the flashy tricks and creeping dread showed in films like Fight Club and Zodiac. He took good advantage of this opportunity, and it shows.

Valkyrie

2009-01-10T12:16:00.000-06:00

After some of his previous efforts, Valkyrie seems like an odd choice for Bryan Singer. No superheroes, and no crazy twist ending. In fact you already know the ending. But it's a marvel that it doesn't lessen the suspense. We know Hitler survives this assassination attempt (at least I hope you know enough about history to know that). But it's still an exciting film.

It's not a particularly great one, but it's solid. It's able to keep the audience going and move the plot without it falling apart. The performances, again, aren't Oscar material, but they move the story. And in the end that's what the movie is all about, the story. About the central fact that some Germans wanted Hitler dead. It's an important point to make, and the film's focus is admirable.

That said, there are drawbacks. The points where the film does deviate from that central purpose spoil the flow. We don't need so many diary entries by Tom Cruise's Count von Stauffenberg. We don't need to see every argument made to get people on the side of the resistance. We get the point early on: Hitler is bad and something must be done.

All in all, quite capable and satisfying for what it is. May not be remembered as one of the great war movies (a genre I've always been a little bored with) but an effective outing to the theatre. I hesitate to call it escapist, but maybe that's what it is. It doesn't break any new ground necessarily, despite the film's advertisements as "the story that has never been told...until now." It's escapist in the sense that it's an exciting suspense thriller made just that much more authentic by its historical trappings.

Semester Round-up, Part II

2008-12-29T22:43:00.000-06:00

Continuing on throughout the semester...

Rachel Getting Married
I can say this for certain: it caught me off guard. In many ways. It's a completely different kind of film than anything else I've seen this year. Anne Hathaway finally comes into her own, and will deserve her Oscar nomination. Jonathan Demme continues to be one of the hardest directors to predict. Though the handheld style always pinches a nerve in me, it was used to good effect here. Beyond that, I'm finding it hard to find the words to describe it. It's sort of like my own wedding: I remember fleeting images, the general impression, but the details are hard to recall. It's a unique experience to be sure.

Quantum of Solace
I adored Casino Royale, and I think Craig's terrific as Bond. And so some of that charm made Quantum pretty enjoyable. The plot's not fantastic, but then again neither are many of the plots of Bond films. That's not the reason you go see a Bond film. You go see it for Bond, and with Craig in the role, it's worth watching. I wanted to nail the camera to the floor sometimes, and maybe strangle the editor. All in all, not particularly well-made, but again, Bond movies aren't about great filmmaking, they're about a memorable character once again saving the day and getting laid. Add to that some emotional momentum from the last film and you've got a movie that will be better respected as time goes on.

Role Models
I think Paul Rudd is hilarious. I kind of despise Seann William Scott. So it was a coin toss to begin with. But I actually really enjoyed it. It may not have the biggest emotional range, but it made me laugh. A lot. It's exactly what the trailer to it promised, no more, no less. And it also proves that McLovin is not just a one-hit wonder.

Australia
I seem to be one of the lone defenders of this movie, but I think I really understood what Baz was going for. As I've discussed with friends, I don't think he was quite finished yet. As in, I think the director's cut will be shorter, not longer. The stuff in the movie was great, I just think there could have been less of it. That would clarify the style, which wavered uneasily from over-the-top melodrama to social realism. It would make Nicole Kidman's performance make more sense. It would give the aborigine scenes more grounding. That said, if you're expecting a sweeping epic, a la Gone with the Wind, you will be better prepared than if you're expecting something along the lines of his earlier films.

Twilight
Let's hope this incredibly silly adaptation stops this teen phenom in its tracks. I don't understand this new vampire chic trend. Vampires are evil, they kill people, end of story. I prefer the traditional side of that story. So to try to change it up (giving the vampires super powers) and adding several heaping helpings of teen angst (imagine watching an entire season of Dawson's Creek) makes the whole affair a big waste of time, to me at least. Although no scene in any "drama" this year has made me laugh as hard as when we discovered that when vampires go in the sunlight, they don't die, they just become fabulous and sparkle like diamonds. Wow.

Synecdoche, New York
One of my favorites of the year so far. I've been fascinated by Charlie Kaufman since first seeing Adaptation, and seeing him direct his own work is a stroke of genius. The film is a manifestation of some of the theatrical theory I've been reading this past semester, and so it all came to a visual head in this film and the experience was wonderful. There are layers upon layers upon layers, and to begin to try to explain the plot would be futile. You just have to see it. Great acting, great direction, great script. A truly original film.

The Day the Earth Stood Still
The latest unnecessary remake from Hollywood is not as bad as most critics believed it to be. But it's not that great either. Keanu Reeves is just as good as you'd expect him to be playing an alien. And for Keanu Reeves, that's actually pretty good. The rest of the cast goes through the paces, though there's a distinct lack of urgency in any of the characters. They're not excited or scared enough, if that makes sense. I understand the thematic reasons for remaking the film, but at the end of the day, as I said, it's just simply not necessary. The old film stands up just fine on its own.

Milk
I'm kind of indifferent to biopics. They neither excite me nor bore me. So there's a level playing field there. Like a lot of biopics, however, the film rides on the performance of the central figure, and on that level, the film excels. Sean Penn is just great. A lot of people won't go see this film, I expect, because of the subject matter or political reasons or whatnot. Since I'm apolitical, that wasn't an issue for me, but if you are political I urge you not to let politics come between you and a good film. The movie is very good at selecting the parts of Milk's life that were most important/intersting through the framework of Milk himself recounting his past achievements. He is proud of them, and we are proud of him, by the end. No matter what you believe about the issue, you'd have to be a rock not to be moved by the courage of a man who takes the podium at a rally with the promise of being shot once he's up there. If the film weakens it's in its supporting players, who, while performing wonderfully, seem to fade around the central light of Penn. When he's not onscreen, we want him to come back, and some of the sideplots suffer for it.

Slumdog Millionaire
I agree with whoever it was that pointed out that it's a strange and off year when a film by Danny Boyle is a contender for best picture. I've never been particularly impressed by Boyle, and this film is no exception. Everyone seems to be getting caught up in the wave of the film's optimism and life-affirmation, but if the movie didn't have a happy ending, would it be as popular/successful? I think not. It's not a bad film per se. It's actually a good film, but not a great one. The filmmaking is capable enough, the acting not particularly notable. It's the story that is catching people afire, and I wish more people were level-headed enough to see that when they are proclaiming it as the best picture of the year.

Doubt
A fascinating play becomes a fascinating film, but with conditions. The play is famous, rightly so, for the ambiguity of its conclusion. Did he, or didn't he? I'm wondering if the film, directed by the playwright John Patrick Shanley, is his answer to the question, since he did have it in mind when writing the play (he also told the Broadway stage actor, and I'm sure he told Hoffman). I won't tell you my conclusions as to the answer, but suffice to say that while it doesn't totally erase all doubt, it does provide a slant that the play does not. And this is inherent in the form of film. By its nature, and this has been pointed out before, it is less ambiguous than theatre. That doesn't weaken the film, however. It remains very engaging, and its performances, while not entirely consistent, make it terribly entertaining and engrossing to watch.

So that's the semester round up. All the movies that I saw in the theatres from the end of August to today. From here on in I'll be trying to post slightly longer individual posts on movies I see in the theatres, as well as some posts on movies I watch at home. I'm making the goal of watching 4-5 movies a week in 2009, and I'm going to try to post weekly updates as to what I watch and what I think about them. Some will be movies I've seen before, maybe even written about before, but I'll try to say something. Got to keep the conversation moving.

Semester Round-up, Part I

2008-12-15T09:48:00.000-06:00

I know I said I was going to do this for the summer movies as well, but that's a little far back and far too many movies to cover. So here's what I've seen since school began, and some short thoughts on them.

Vicki Cristina Barcelona
Anyone who knows me knows I'm a big Woody Allen fan. Needless to say, I enjoyed it. I thought it was much better than his previous two efforts, Scoop and Cassandra's Dream. The actors are all pretty great, though I tend to think that Scarlett Johansson's best work is ahead of her, meaning I think one day she'll be really great, but sometimes she just doesn't have the experience and insight to make a performance truly great. That said, she's more than competent in this role, and holds her own against the greats Bardem and Cruz. Spain is beautiful and this movie makes me want to visit. The film is beautiful too, and gets the right amount of emotion while still retaining that slightly cynical Woody edge.

Burn After Reading
I'm never quite ready for the body count in a Coen Brother's comedy. And this one is particularly violent, and it always caught me off guard. I thought the style and tone of it were great, with performances to match. It's refreshing to see a comedy that, and I know this sounds counter-productive, doesn't invest too much emotionally in its characters. It's able to keep its distance and see the people in all their idiocy, which is what screwball is all about.

Ghost Town
What an incredibly pleasant surprise this was. If you saw the trailer and thought it looked like a mediocre romantic comedy, you were right, it did look like that. The advertisements were awful. But the actual product was so much more, and delivers some of the most genuine emotions you're likely to see in a comedy this year. Though the concept is a little cliche, the way it transforms itself, especially toward the end, makes it all worthwhile. If you are a fan of Gervais, you especially need to see it. It's a fitting beginning to what I hope is a long film career.

Appaloosa
Being a fan of Westerns, I went to see this without knowing really anything about it. And I'm glad I did. Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen have such great report, that without it the film would absolutely fail. I could have done without Renee Zellwegger's character, for the most part, though some of her silliness provided great material for Ed and Viggo. Jeremy Irons is great, and I'm always glad to see him.

Blindness
There were critics who thought it intriguing and critics who found it unbearable. I find myself in both camps. The initial premise is really interesting and it is intially really engaging, but I was glad when it ended. Some of the scenes of savageness and brutality that humankind supposedly descends into when confronted with a global outbreak of blindness were a little hard to bear, and the ending seems very false after all that comes before it. An interesting exercise for director Meirelles, but little more than that.

W.
If you know me, you know I like politics as I like getting my lip stuck under a man hole cover. So I was surprised at myself for wanting to see this. The good thing about it, and I know other critics have said this, is that it is relatively free of overt bias. It's fairly balanced, but in the end, not that interesting. We don't really learn anything we didn't know before. I think that his life and presidency are something we won't truly be able to judge until several years down the road. So this film will not be as influential as it could have been.

The Duchess
Extremely conventional, but that doesn't make it bad. There are always going to be films retreading the same dirt as previous films. There are always going to be movies about women being oppressed by a patriarchal society. This filmi in particular covers some of the same ground as the superior Marie Antoinette two years ago. That said, it's capable enough, especially in the nuanced and detailed performance by Ralph Fiennes. Keira Knightley does what she can, but this isn't her best material. For some reason, this film just feels out of place this year. Don't look for any attention come awards time.

Check back later for Part II!

Apologies

2008-12-15T09:41:00.000-06:00

I must apologize for the lack of posts since, oh, September. School has been incredibly busy this semester. While I have still seen many movies, I have not had the time to write lengthy reviews. But one of my whole points with this project was to break my reviewing mold. So what you're going to get in the next couple of posts are some short paragrpah length reviews of movies I saw this semester. I'll try to cover them all, going down a list that I keep. I'm going to do my best to stay current throughout the next couple of months, as this is Oscar season and I want to have my say in it all. I absolutely love Oscar season. The Oscar race is more important to me than the presidential race ever was. And let it be said that until I see something better, I'm rooting for The Dark Knight all the way.

R.I.P.

2008-09-27T21:09:00.000-05:00

Paul Newman

Synecdoche, New York

2008-09-19T00:00:00.000-05:00

'Synedoche New York' Theatrical Trailer @ Yahoo! Video

This excites me in so many ways. And it looks like it just might break my heart.

The Dark Knight and the return of Disappearing Worlds

2008-09-12T23:19:00.000-05:00

I just reread my review of Iron Man, written way back on May 16. Wow. Since then, so many changes have occurred, mostly personal ones. I'm in a new city at a new school with new goals. And obviously my writing about film has suffered for it. But I like to think I'm back now. It may be sporadic at times, but I'm committed to keeping up the habit. In the next couple of days I'll be putting up a few posts detailing what I thought of the movies I saw in the theatres this summer. I'm going to try my best to keep up with the movies I've been seeing lately, which unfortunately has been next to nil. That said, I'm also going to try to post comments about older movies I watch at home, movies I am looking forward to seeing, movies I've seen again and have changed my mind about, etc.

My goal? In short, I want to move away from a formal review column. Writing a full-fledged review is a bit too daunting. It's fine when I have an actual deadline and people to report to, but it appears that self-motivation I was going to rely on just isn't enough. At least for now when I've got so much going on. I want to move toward this site being just a general discussion of film, so if you actually read this, feel free to comment with appraisals, agreements, disagreements, information, etc. I don't want a news site or a rumor blog, this is an outlet for my cinematic opinions, pure and simple. Feel free to let me know what you think.

Why now? As I said, I just reread my review of Iron Man. I stand by what I said about that movie, but I was struck most by the comments I gave about the state of comic book films. About how they were in a holding pattern. About how they needed that last artistic push. Well, odds are you saw that push this summer. Of course, I'm talking about The Dark Knight.

I've seen it three times now. The last two times I was determined to go home and write a review about it. But I never got around to it. Each time afterward there were just so many thoughts running through my head. What could I possibly say that hadn't already been said? But what struck me most about my dilemma was how it was so difficult each time to get past the raw emotions and thoughts raised within me after each viewing. There was just no way for me to formulate them all into coherent thoughts.

In short, obviously, I really really liked it, as I'm sure many of you did. It seems to have won a wider acclaim than I can ever remember for a film. It's truly a film that almost everyone can agree on. In a way, for me, I was destined to love it. I've loved Batman ever since I was a wee lad. I loved lots of superheroes. But while I seemed to grow out of several of them, I seemed to fall more and more in love with Batman as I grew older. It's a testament to the richness of the character and the depth of the material. What could be a novelty is instead, now, one of the most compelling stories in American popular culture. And seeing how it's all based on twisted psychoses, it's success is all the more amazing.

Psychology is what spurned my second phase of Batmania. I started reading more of the recent graphic novels like The Killing Joke and Arkham Asylum: Serious House on Serious Earth. I felt validated. Here, finally, was an intellectual and mature reason for my boyhood fascination. Batman's psyche became much more complex, and with that, his relationship with The Joker. Relationship is not a word you can use with all superheroes and their archnemeses. But it exists here, not just on a personal level but on a literary, archetypal level. The Joker is telling the truth when he tells Batman "you complete me."

All of that psychology and that wonderful, macabre, twisted relationship was all there in the film. Heath Ledger's performance is exactly what it has been made out to be. Jack Nicholson's Joker was Jack Nicholson playing the Joker. Ledger is how the Joker has always been meant to be. I find him endlessly fascinating, not just for the acting technique, but for the fleshing out of so many facets of the Joker character that had hitherto gone unseen on film. His philosophy, his drive to "just do things" is especially poignant today. Indeed, along with Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men, The Joker makes The Dark Knight one of the most significant post-9/11 films yet. Both grapple with rational people trying to contend with completely irrational violence. The randomness they employ is the most frightening weapon they have.

The Joker enough would have been enough to make me love this film. It gave me all I wanted. But The Dark Knight sparked a third phase of my Batmania. I was moved. In fact, I'll go ahead and admit that I found myself on the verge of tears with each viewing. And for the most part, it was because of Harvey Dent.

Two-Face was always interesting to me, but his transformation into such a tragic figure gives this film its emotional punch. In an age where political systems have become truly useless, he was enough to give me hope. He builds on that hope, that hope for a true change you can believe in, all throughout the first half of the film. When it comes crashing down, only then do we see the real menace behind The Joker. In Batman Begins Bruce found he could fight evil by becoming more than just a man. In The Dark Knight The Joker finds he can fight Batman by doing the same thing.

If The Dark Knight had to be boiled down to one theme, I think that would be it. That people can be more than just their life. More than a biological existence. This series of Batfilms are brilliant because they have finally shown a reason for Batman beyond the tired conventions of a revenge melodrama. That's enough to twist Bruce to the point of taking action, but by transforming into a metaphor, he starts a journey that is so much bigger than one man's desires. Harvey was more than one man's desires. He was not about wanting power. He was actually righteous. One of the most moving moments to me is Jim Gordon's desperation as he screams "We have to save Dent! I have to save Dent!" Harvey's destruction and perversion at the hands of The Joker is the most diabolical scheme in the film. It truly is The Joker, and Christopher Nolan's, "ace in the hole."

So there it is, folks. The comic-book movie I dreamed of almost four months ago. It looks beautiful, it's written beautifully, acted beautifully, directed beautifully, etc. And that's the best I can do at describing it. Sitting here writing this has made all those emotions come up again, and they're still fresh. In a way, it's hard to believe a summer blockbuster made me feel this way, but it's apparent this film has rewritten the definition of that term. It may be presumptuous to say, but The Dark Knight has put us into a whole new ballgame in terms of the film industry. I can't wait to see what happens next.

Iron Man

2008-05-16T21:52:00.000-05:00

(Note: from here on out, reviews will be a bit shorter now that I'm not first writing them for the newspaper. I've graduated, and I'm going to rely on my own personal motivation to keep this blog going. Let's hope it works.)

Marvel's newest, and first independent, effort is both highly conventional and fairly unique. It's probably no surprise, especially if you've read other reviews, that Robert Downey Jr.'s casting as Tony Stark the stroke of genius it was destined to be. That said, without his presence the film would be much more ordinary, and not the standout of its genre that it is. That's not to say there's not some great work being done elsewhere.

Jeff Bridges is probably one of the best comic book movie villains to come along in recent years. There's not a whole lot of depth to his role as it's written, but he makes it so interesting to watch. And Gwyneth Paltrow is just as good as you'd expect her to be in the role. With a name like Pepper Potts, you wouldn't expect much from the character, and while it doesn't quite rise beyond quirky sidekick, it's still great to see her having fun with the role.

As far as the story and script go, it's your average superhero origin story. Jon Favreau's direction is capable enough, but his real triumph is putting together such a solid package all-around. Perhaps it's the character himself that makes the movie work so well. While the sequel will most likely deal with Stark's more colorful flaws, like his alcoholism, this first outing wisely steers clear of such provocative material to allow us to grow to love Tony. His personal revelation is unique as well. Instead of just stepping up to take responsibility for himself, there's a lot more at stake.

Comic book films have entered a holding pattern. While a new renaissance began with X2 and Spider-man and peaked with Batman Begins, most of the films post-Superman Returns have been a bit lackluster. X-men: The Last Stand and Ghost Rider have shown us that the material is sophisticated enough to require an intelligent director to make it work, something that only the Nolans and Singers of the industry have been able to pull off. They've grown in respectability, to be sure, but they're going to need that last extra push to convince everyone that they're just as worthy as other film art. What would happen if Scorsese were to tackle The Flash, or David Lynch were to do Doctor Strange? Only time will tell.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

2008-05-16T21:50:00.000-05:00

“I’m finding it hard to believe that things are going to get better.” If you’re familiar at all with the plot of “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” you might assume that this line is spoken by the main character, Peter, who has just been dumped by his girlfriend, Sarah Marshall. But it’s not spoken at all. It’s sung. By a puppet.
It’s an appropriate gesture for a film that doesn’t necessarily wear all its feelings on its sleeve, though Peter does. After getting dumped we see him break down crying, probably more than any other male character ever seen on film. He’s not your traditional masculine protagonist.
He’s sensitive, and so is the film. Produced by Judd Apatow and written by actor Jason Segel, who also plays Peter, it’s the kind of comedy that has a lot more underneath than it wants to let on at first. It doesn’t indulge in stereotypes or easy laughs, though there are plenty of laughs to be had.
The plot is quite simple. Peter, tries to get away from his pain by going to a Hawaiian resort that he remembers Sarah (Kristen Bell) talking about once. Of course she’s there, with her crude English rock star boyfriend Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). Awkwardness ensues.
As Peter attempts to get over Sarah, he starts to fall for a customer service representative named Rachel (Mila Kunis), and quickly bonds with her and the other colorful characters who populate the hotel.
One of the strengths of the film is the supporting cast. Whether it’s an oblivious surfing instructor (Paul Rudd), a star struck waiter (Jonah Hill), a nervous conservative newlywed (Jack McBrayer), or Peter’s overly-sensible stepbrother Brian (Bill Hader), there’s always someone around the corner to console Peter and provide some laughs.
Unfortunately the laughs aren’t always very consistent. The blend of comedy and poignancy is not always balanced, and a few of the jokes now and then fall flat. It’s not as polished a film as it could be, or should be considering those involved.
But still, there’s a lot going on here, and if you pay attention it’s worth your while. For instance, watch the character of Sarah Marshall. You start the film wanting to hate her because of how she left poor Peter. But instead of letting her remain a villain, Segel’s script lets her have her own feelings and conflicts, and we gradually see why she initially made the instigating decision.
The same can be said for Peter, in a way. We pity him as sort of an underdog, but eventually realize it’s of his own doing. The film doesn’t answer all the questions of how he got to be who he is, and the story is better for it. Ambiguity isn’t a staple of modern comedies, so it’s nice to see it here.
Still, there’s plenty of crude and unusual humor, culminating with a hilarious climactic scene involving the aforementioned puppets. I won’t spoil it for you here. Good comedies rely on surprise, but also remind us why we should care. Though it’s not perfect, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” will most likely prove to be one of the better comedies of the year.

Smart People

2008-04-18T10:30:00.000-05:00

I’m sure we’ve all had at least one professor like Lawrence Wetherhold, played by Dennis Quaid in the new film “Smart People.” As the title infers, he’s smart, and he knows it. And he has no problem lording his intellectual superiority over his students, much to their, and our chagrin.
It is a bit painful to watch a character who we should view as sympathetic act in such a singularly self-destructive manner. In fact, most of the “smart people” in the film do the same, but it’s a testament to the filmmakers that such masochism never causes us to lose interest.
We get the sense that Lawrence has always been a misanthrope, but since the death of his wife, his attitude has worsened. His high school age daughter Vanessa (Ellen Page) seems to be a chip off the old block, even mimicking her father’s indifference toward his adopted brother Chuck (Thomas Haden Church).
Lawrence becomes involved with a former student (who he doesn’t remember) named Janet Hartigan (Sarah Jessica Parker), who is now a doctor. As expected, Lawrence’s sour disposition isn’t exactly great fodder for a good relationship, and the two start to have problems.
There’s not really that much of a central plot, just scenes from a specific point in all these characters lives where they must ultimately decide if they will take the necessary steps to become happy again. Considering their personalities, one doesn’t expect much, and the film doesn’t necessarily spell out a certain happy ending.
So why would anyone want to spend an hour and a half with such unpleasant characters? I’ll admit it takes a certain mindset and patience, but it can be rewarding. It works, pure and simple, but not in an easily identifiable way.
That’s not to say it’s perfect all the time. Dr. Hartigan comes off as particularly ill-developed and confusing. It’s no wonder Lawrence has a hard time figuring her out. And an odd subplot involving Vanessa and her adopted, emphasis on the adopted, Uncle Chuck may fit the theme but doesn’t fit well with the rest of the comparatively realistic story.
Dennis Quaid continues to be one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood today. Considering his choice of projects, it’s no wonder. He usually seems content to be involved in mediocre action films or shallow comedies. But when he’s given a chance, like he is here, to really stretch himself and show his chops, he never disappoints.
The rest of the cast is capable enough, if not particularly brilliant. Ellen Page shows considerable range in being able to play a completely different kind of smart-aleck than we saw in last year’s “Juno.” It would have been easy for her to repeat characters, but she goes the extra mile to make sure she doesn’t.
It’s refreshing to see a film that doesn’t necessarily give into artificial character arcs or forced poetic justice. Their lives are just as messy at the end of the film as they are in the beginning, but for whatever reason, there’s just a little bit more hope.

Leatherheads

2008-04-11T10:15:00.000-05:00

George Clooney’s new film “Leatherheads” seems to be wandering between two worlds. On one side is a relatively realistic period picture, depicting the formation and popularization of the National Football League. On the other side is a nostalgic view of the 1920s gleaned from classic early Hollywood screwball comedies.
There’s merit on both sides, particularly in the screwball portions. You have the familiar character types: the sassy female reporter, the blustery newspaper editor, the quiet pretty boy, and the more rugged and world-weary leading man.
The female reporter is Lexie Littleton, played by Renee Zellwegger, who is assigned to cover a supposed war hero turned college football star, Carter Rutherford (John Krasinski). She’s been tipped off that his combat stories may not be all true, and she’s determined to get to the bottom of it.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to save his financially scrapped NFL team, ‘Dodge’ Connelly (Clooney) has recruited Carter to lend his star power and skills to the team’s profile, launching them into the heights of victory and fame.
The central comedic conflict comes when Dodge and Carter both fall for Lexie, leading to a series of misadventures and drunken brawls. There’s no sense in saying anything more, because you can probably predict how it will end.
But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Clooney’s goal seems to evoke a bygone era, which fits the tale about the end of an era when people like Dodge could play football in a more interesting, albeit dishonest, way. The legitimization of football becomes the harbinger of doom for Dodge.
So while at times it seems uneven to be bouncing back and forth between screwball antics and a mellow swan song, it oddly enough seems to work. The film is consistently enjoyable, despite some plot devices being a tad out of place, like Dodge and Lexie dressing up as cops to escape a raid on a speakeasy.
But such over-the-top flourishes can be welcome, in a way. They keep things interesting and pique your interest before it has a chance to wane. It’s a hard balancing act to manage, but the cast is more than capable.
As a director, I think Clooney is still maturing. His previous efforts, the underrated “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind” and the overrated “Good Night, and Good Luck” showed good promise, and “Leatherheads” continues to show that potential, though it’s clear he hasn’t hit his peak. He still seems a little bit too concerned with style over story.
Still, it’s refreshing to see a group of stars led by such a socially-conscious figure as Clooney taking the time to let loose and have some fun. Watching his previous two films would not lead you to expect such lighthearted fare. In its own way, it’s quite the bold move.
It’s not a perfect film; few are. But it’s a riskier film than many have given credit for. With everyone so concerned about the future, it’s nice to see someone looking lovingly at the past. If it leads viewers to discover the old films it’s referencing, then I’m all for it.

R.I.P.

2008-04-08T15:53:00.001-05:00

R.I.P.

Charlton Heston

1924-2008

Actor

"The shadow of death will pass over us tonight,

and tomorrow we will see the light of freedom."

-The Ten Commandments

Shine a Light

2008-04-04T10:01:00.000-05:00

For me, concert films are a mixed bag. To me, it seems counterproductive for a film to try to reproduce the feeling of being at a live performance. It simply can’t work. But that hasn’t stopped people from trying.
Director Martin Scorsese has been in this avenue before, having directed his chronicle of The Band in “The Last Waltz.” His Bob Dylan documentary, “No Direction Home,” worked so well because it was mainly a documentary with some concert footage sprinkled throughout.
But in “Shine a Light,” which many are labeling incorrectly as a documentary, he returns to a more straightforward concert format. It has some interview excerpts between some of the songs, but it is mainly a recording of a concert by The Rolling Stones in New York City as part of their “A Bigger Bang” tour.
The film seems to presuppose a couple of things if you are going to be able to enjoy it. One: you must either consider concert films an accurate similar experience to actually being there, or consider the concert film a different animal altogether but something still worthwhile. And two: you are a Rolling Stones fan.
If you can agree with both statements, then more power to you. This film is for you. I’m not a huge Stones fan, and thus it was not a pleasant experience. My feelings were equal parts indifference, boredom, and, by virtue of seeing it on an IMAX screen, nausea.
That’s not to say it’s badly made. Scorsese knows how to put together a nice looking product, whatever the subject. The opening is the most interesting, chronicling his own efforts to organize the documentary amidst the flurry of preparations for the concert, coupled with a visit by sponsor Bill Clinton and his family and friends.
We see the difficulty he encounters in getting the musicians to commit to a set list, which he finally receives mere seconds before the show begins. We see Mick’s hesitation at the presence of so many cameras. Whether this is all staged is up for debate.
Then the concert kicks in, as did my malaise. The main event is visually frenetic, with quick editing marring some of the momentum that could have contributed to a true-concert-feeling experience. However, seeing the way Jagger moves, it becomes clear that the approach was necessary.
The Stones are great performers, there’s no doubt about that. To have that much energy when they’re that old is a wonder. They all seem to be at the top of their game, and loving the ride. Some guest performers like Jack White and Christina Aguilera pop in to contribute.
Despite the performances, the film just suffers from a lack of a destination. Perhaps it’s just the way I’m used to looking at films. It’s difficult for me to have interest in a film that I realize is going to be the same thing for two hours.
But that said, it’s a relatively unique experience. Be warned though, if you are easily prone to motion sickness, skip the IMAX version. It may be the closest you can get to the real thing, though in my opinion, such an attempt is ultimately futile.

R.I.P.

2008-04-02T11:28:00.000-05:00

Jules Dassin

1911-2008

Director

Rififi, Brute Force, The Naked City

21

2008-04-02T11:27:00.001-05:00

“21” is about very smart people. They are math students at MIT who are able to count cards in games of blackjack at Las Vegas casinos, and in turn win hundreds of thousands of dollars. They have an intricate system, unbreakable codes, and even some clever disguises.
We may not be math prodigies, but it’s unfortunate that the filmmakers do not consider we audience members to be smart enough to figure out a basic, predictable plot such as the one presented here. While the movie manages to entertain, it begins to get tedious by the end.
Jim Sturgess stars as Ben Campbell, a boy genius with dreams of medical school but without the funds to realize those dreams. Enter shady math professor Micky Rosa (Kevin Spacey) who has put together a crack team of stellar students to take Vegas for all its worth. All Ben has to do is join and he will have the money he needs.
He joins. We know that he must join, because if he doesn’t, there is no film. At least not the one promised us through the advertisements. Still, we have to sit through a refusal, a failed recruitment and another refusal before Ben finally joins the team. I hope I wasn’t the only one to see that coming.
Other blatant foreshadowing abounds. Ben notices a girl named Jill (Kate Bosworth) that he finds attractive. Guess what! She’s on the blackjack team and they are soon living it up in Sin City with lots of cash to blow. We know by the rules of poetic justice, and coming-of-age films, that Ben’s misdeeds must catch up to him. They do.
If I seem overly sarcastic, I must apologize. It’s not a bad film, really. It’s just that little grinds my gears more than a film that insults my intelligence. They do not even try to clearly explain the team’s card-counting method. I suppose they did not think we could grasp what they repeatedly call “basic math.”
Still, it’s entertaining enough. All the glitz and glamour of Vegas is on display, with plenty of flashy and perhaps overly frenetic camerawork to go with it. The performances are satisfactory. We are left satisfied by the ending.
Perhaps the root of my problem with the film is its billing as “based on a true story.” The film adds in lots of artificial plot devices to move the story along, and you can tell they are not part of the factual events.
Elements of chase films and heist pictures fall in, turning the movie into average escapist fare. It’s better than many films out in theatres now, but won’t be remembered once the summer arrives.
Perhaps I have been overly critical. Perhaps, comparatively, it is a good film, one that makes intellectuals into heroes for a change, a film that does not paint virtue and vice in clear-cut terms. And, as I said, it’s entertaining. It just seems to me that maybe we can aim higher, that maybe the movie industry should try to deliver films that challenge instead of spoon-feed.

Drillbit Taylor

2008-04-02T11:25:00.001-05:00

I’ll go ahead and make this admission: I can sympathize with the young protagonists of “Drillbit Taylor.” Maybe some of you can, too. That’s right, I was not one of the popular kids in school, nor was I particularly adept at most social situations. Luckily, I encountered no bullies like the character of Filkins, who engages in some of the most outlandish tactics you could imagine. It’s that level of impossibility that ultimately kills the film.
The film is produced by Judd Apatow, who brought us last summer’s hits “Knocked Up” and “Superbad,” both of which were marked by a certain universality that anchored the humor. “Drillbit Taylor” contains such sympathetic situations, but the film is doomed from the beginning by a plot that denies the possibility of such universality.
The unfortunate victims, Wade, Ryan and Emmit have just started high school and are at the mercy of Filkins, until they hatch a plan to hire a bodyguard to protect them. Since they are strapped for cash, all they can afford is Drillbit (Owen Wilson), an army deserter and local homeless person who latches onto the kids as a source of cash and easily pilfered items.
Drillbit poses as a substitute teacher and becomes popular with the teachers, especially an English teacher (Leslie Mann) who finds him attractive. Meanwhile, Filkins gets a little comeuppance, but gets angrier at his frustrated attempts to pummel the boys.
All of this heads toward a very predictable conclusion. Drillbit is exposed, illusions are shattered, and the boys must fend for themselves. This mirrors the pattern of the entire film: interesting developments or opportunities for humor are set up and then cancelled out by some mediocre gag.
This script is co-written by Seth Rogen, who should really know better, having starred in some of Apatow’s previous hits, including “Knocked Up.” One wonders, watching this film, if he was just as strapped for cash at the time of writing it as its titular character is.
The film is not necessarily awful, it’s just so frustratingly average. There’s always the promise, the possibility, but no one seems able to make it materialize. Not even Owen Wilson, one of the most likable actors working today, can turn the material into something worthwhile.
Part of the problem is its young cast. It’s not that they are incompetent, it’s that they are rather inexperienced, and it shows. They are meant to anchor the film, but they’re not skillful enough to provide a range of emotion that makes us care. Having them at the center of the film gives the whole thing an amateurish feeling. Like the film, you know there is potential there, but they just can’t fulfill it.
It’s the kind of film that is hard to review. There’s so many out there like it, and writing about it makes me feel like I’m repeating myself. Perhaps this drivel must exist for us to recognize the true comic gems. I just wish they weren’t so few and far between.

The Bank Job

2008-04-02T11:22:00.001-05:00

It’s a credit to the filmmakers that “The Bank Job” is not a three hour film. It could have been. It’s a marvel that they were able to distill so many plots into just under two hours. With that much plot, though, there’s little room for anything else.
The movie is supposedly based on a true story, but the facts are a bit hazy; there’s clearly lots of conjecture here. Rather the point is to try to explain away the mystery surrounding one of the biggest bank robberies in history amidst an atmosphere of vice and corruption in the 1970s.
The basic premise is this: a member of the royal family is photographed in a compromising situation on a Caribbean island, and the photo ends up in the hands of a black revolutionary figure. He uses it as leverage to get out of any legal trouble he runs into.
The government is tired of his evasions, and so it secretly contracts a group of thieves to rob the bank and unknowingly recover the photograph. Meanwhile, it also sends a spy into the black revolutionary gang to try to obtain any copies that might exist.
Unfortunately for the thieves, the robbery also draws the ire of the regular London police who don’t know of the government’s plan, a pornography magnate who has to recover evidence of his bribing other London cops, and other government officials whose photos were taken in compromising situations by a conniving brothel owner.
It’s a large amount of characters to keep track of, and with so many different allegiances, particularly among the various government and law enforcement types, it can get a bit confusing. Luckily director Roger Donaldson is up to the task, imbuing the narrative with all the certainty of a Scorsese film.
However, by the time all the plot devices are in place and the story is running at full speed, there’s no time left for character development, or reflection of any other kind. The story’s entertaining enough, but the weight of it crushes everything else in its path.
Still, there’s an interesting style here, with a muted color palate trying to reflect memorable 70s films. It would have been easy to try to make an intricate Tarantino-esque odyssey with lots of quick shots and frenetic visuals, but Donaldson wisely keeps things more conventional. It’s more like “Rififi” than “Reservoir Dogs.”
The cast is led by perennial British tough guy Jason Statham, who thankfully shows more humanity than in the truly awful “The Transporter.” He doesn’t have the greatest range, but his previous work in Guy Ritchie movies serves him well here. The rest of the cast is capable enough, and because the movie’s all plot, they never have to dip deep into the well of emotion beyond anger or excitement.
Now that I think about it, the whole movie is a little like a Guy Ritchie film. It’s essentially a 70s “fact-based” version of “Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels,” which has its merits. Thankfully the filmmakers here seem to have a better handle on their style, and a better sense of purpose.

Semi-Pro

2008-04-02T11:20:00.000-05:00

I am making a new law. Let’s call it the “Law of Diminishing Shorts.” This law will state that any film featuring Will Ferrell in 70s-style basketball shorts, that is, short shorts, cannot try to be serious. Ever. So let it be written, so let it be done.
Such is the central flaw of Ferrell’s latest 1970s farce “Semi-Pro.” The story takes place in the world of the American Basketball Association (ABA), facing its waning days and the promise of a merger with the NBA. All the ridiculous grandstanding and flamboyancy of the 70s combined with the almost-ludicrous energy of professional basketball makes for a rather exotic locale.
And this is the kind of world that Ferrell does best in. His pompous fools Ron Burgundy and Ricky Bobby could not exist in a normal world; they need to be surrounded by characters just as silly as they are. The same is true for Jackie Moon of “Semi-Pro.” When he starts the film by singing his love ballad “Love Me Sexy,” you think things are off on the right track.
So you can imagine the disappointment every time the filmmakers try to plug in a serious subplot or a relatively serious emotional moment. It doesn’t jive with Jackie Moon, and so he wanders through the picture, occasionally wrestling a bear or jumping over cheerleaders while wearing roller skates. Besides the occasional scene with Andy Richter or Will Arnett, there seems to be no one who will play along.
The serious moments I refer to mostly revolve around an aging ex-NBA player (Woody Harrelson) who is trying to connect with his ex-girlfriend. The pieces of the subplot are sparse and random, and create nothing but sluggishness as we wait for Ferrell’s next crazy stunt.
Also in the mix are a couple of mismatched commentators, the afro-hooded “Coffee” Black (Andre Benjamin), and a clueless hippie (Jackie Earle Haley). These are the characters that make Jackie feel at home, and the comedy is strongest when it indulges in their ridiculous banter. The best scene of the film is the one that most feels like improvisation. It features poker, a gun, and Tim Meadows, and that’s all you need to know.
Some might consider this a sign that Will Ferrell needs to move on, forget the 70s, and start doing some more sophisticated comedy or serious roles. I would have to disagree. In the right hands, Ferrell’s energy and persona can work wonders. They just have to be harnessed to the right task, in the right world. A clown’s just not as funny outside of the circus.
One thing is for sure, though. He stills has that manic energy and conviction that makes him talented, in my eyes. Few comedians will jump through the hoops that Ferrell does with such gusto, and a feeling of genuine investment in the often foolish concerns of his characters. It takes a sort of courage that you don’t often find. Unfortunately for him, “Semi-Pro” was a losing battle from the beginning.

Penelope

2008-03-01T19:42:00.001-06:00

Once upon a time, there were these fantasy stories that people called fairy tales. Kids loved them, adults respected them, and so on. Then came the modern age. Yes, kids still like fairy tales, for the most part, when they’re not playing video games or watching television. Adults, it seems, are too busy to be interested. But that doesn’t stop movie studios from trying to create quirky comedies that they can bill as “fairy tales for adults.”
Producer/actress Reese Witherspoon has found one such tale to present in the movie “Penelope.” It’s not exactly for kids, really. But I’m not sure adults will like it either. Indeed, there seems to be a battle throughout the film about whether to make a sweet children’s story or a hip deconstructionist morality play for grown-ups. Either way, I doubt either group will be completely satisfied.
The film stars Christina Ricci, who finally seems to be breaking out of her eccentric macabre teenager mode, as the title character who is stricken with a family curse that caused her to be born with the nose and ears of a pig. Now nearing adulthood, she is pressured by her parents (mainly her mother, played by Catherine O’Hara) to find a fellow aristocrat to marry, since falling in love with “one of her own kind” will break the spell.
Naturally, her face frightens off most every suitor, including one spoiled brat who goes to great lengths to get revenge by hiring a diminutive reporter to help him get a picture of Penelope and clear the charges of insanity leveled at him by the public.
To infiltrate Penelope’s mansion, they hire Maxwell Campion (James McAvoy), a gambling addict who has lost all his money and is desperate enough to go on the mission for them. Oddly enough, and probably predictably, he falls in love with her, but a secret he carries keeps him from declaring his feelings for her.
And so begins the star-crossed love story with themes that echo “Beauty and the Beast” and other nursery stories. It’s a simple theme, but one that is burdened by an overly complicated story. It seems that ff you’re going to present a complex story, you should then present complex emotions and themes.
While the story is smack in the middle of the modern age, albeit in some imaginary cross between London and New York City, the emotions are a little too simplistic for a modern, adult audience. But kids will likely be confused by some of the more subtle machinations of the plot.
Still, it has some charm. Ricci and McAvoy make good romantic leads, and Peter Dinklage gives a surprisingly memorable turn as the reporter. There is some comedy here and there, but there’s too many failed eccentricities and quirks for the humor to remain consistent.
To its credit, there is a very fine line here, between juvenile and adult fantasy. To balance it, the filmmakers would need to employ both that knowing adult edge and a refreshing kind of innocence. Here, the alternating lopsided game of tug-of-war just wears thin.

Vantage Point

2008-02-26T16:10:00.000-06:00

About halfway through the film, the groans started. The audience was audibly frustrated, and they had no qualms expressing it. By the third or fourth time that the film “Vantage Point” rewound to start the events over again from someone else’s perspective, that frustration was starting to get loud.
Such is the inherent problem with the gimmick behind the film. The basic premise, of at least the first hour, is that you will see several different viewpoints of a presidential assassination and terrorist bombing during an international summit in Spain. Owing an obvious debt to Akira Kurosawa’s “Rashomon,” the goal is that each viewpoint holds different clues to unraveling the mystery at hand, which in this case is who assassinated the president and set off the bomb.
You’ve got the secret service agent Thomas Barnes, played with an ever-present grimace by Dennis Quaid. There’s an American tourist, Howard Lewis, played by last year’s Best Actor winner Forest Whitaker. There’s a Spanish police officer, Enrique, who is enigmatic and possibly useless to the story.
And let’s not forget the President (William Hurt) and the terrorists themselves, who occupy the last frame of reference. Between each section, the director employs a rather obnoxious and obvious rewind effect and then displays a ticking clock showing us that we’ve gone back to the beginning. After a while it feels like several episodes of “24.”
But the clock is not the only thing that makes the film feel like television. Each section ends with a cliffhanger, and it starts to feel very contrived. There’s enough to this story to keep us interested, so why rely on artificial suspense?
There are some merits to the style, though. It’s a fresh take on what could (or might be) a very average story. And we are allowed the perspective of people who would not normally be caught up in a thriller like this.
It could be done well, but it gets to be a little too messy. The timelines don’t always match up and the aforementioned rewind effect and other elements tend to dumb it down a little, as if we could not pick up on it on our own.
Luckily, after an hour, that technique is exhausted and we get to the payoff: a thirty-minute non-stop action sequence that is meticulously choreographed and finally gives us the gratification the audience deserves by then. Car chases, espionage, betrayals, kidnappings, murder, all boiled down into a frenetic and tight scene that almost makes up for what’s gone before.
When it all comes together, it makes sense and we can sit back and enjoy. It just makes you wish the rest of the film had just dispensed with the gimmick that it could not employ flawlessly. There’s the end of a good movie here, but you have to settle for less in order to get there.
It takes expert filmmakers to pull off the kind of film that director Pete Travis has tried to present here. You have to have a certain respect for your audience’s intelligence and a strong sense of narrative momentum. I’m just not sure those involved were up to the task this time.

The Best Films of 2007

2008-02-23T16:04:00.000-06:00

It was a great year for film. No doubt about it. About midway through the fall I started to worry: I haven’t written a bad review in a while. Am I losing my edge? My credibility? My discretion? I was writing one good review after another. But they deserved them. I can’t remember a time so saturated with good cinema as this year has. There were a lot to choose from, but here’s my favorites.

The Top Ten

1. There Will Be Blood - The most ambitious, audacious, epic, classic, groundbreaking, thoughtful, evocative, engrossing, and memorable film of the year. This film is a cut above in so many ways. If you haven’t seen it, go. Now.

2. Sweeney Todd: the Demon Barber of Fleet Street- It’s my favorite musical. Perhaps there’s no way I couldn’t have enjoyed it. But I also know all the ways it could’ve gone wrong. And it didn’t. Wonderfully performed and visually rich. And Tim Burton has never been better.

3. Ratatouille- I don’t think I’ve ever used the word sublime in print before, but I will now. Because I think that’s the best word to describe the joy at work in this film. Artistically, the most fully realized and satisfying computer animated movie ever. All that would be enough to make the list, but on top of that it’s incredibly enjoyable. I’m convinced that if this film doesn’t warm your heart, you don’t have one.

4. I’m Not There- Bob Dylan is my artistic hero. One of the reasons for that is his refusal to be pigeonholed, to give into the impulse to satisfy anyone. He is solely ruled by his own artistic instincts, a quality I hope I could develop one day. Therefore, there’s no way to do justice to such a man by making a movie trying to depict him as just one man. Six actors was the right way to do it. Todd Haynes has given the biopic a well-deserved kick in the pants.

5. No Country for Old Men- I’m not sure what I can say that hasn’t already been said. Well acted, excellently adapted, deftly directed. The consistent mood sustained in this film creates an atmosphere I don’t think I’ve ever encountered before. And I liked the ending, for the record, because the movie’s conclusion is correct. What can you really do in the face of such irrational, senseless violence?

6. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford- One of the most underappreciated movies of the year. Surprisingly good performances all around in what amounts to our American version of the story of Judas. It’s at once a legend and a deconstruction of that legend, with images that tap into our collective American unconscious. Watching it is an experience unlike any other.

7. Atonement- The movie was marketed incorrectly, I think, as a kind of classic wartime romantic drama. There are elements of that, to be sure, particularly in the central love story. But to boil the movie down to that would be an injustice. It’s much more complex than you would expect, with a final message that’s artistically relevant and heartbreaking at the same time.

8. Once- The simplicity of this film gives it a charm not found in any of the big studio releases this year. It might not reinvent the genre, but it does unearth a kind of musical that doesn’t rely on big dance numbers and operatic discourse. More than any other musical, here the characters are truly singing from the heart.

9. Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead- one of the most straightforwardly tragic and intense dramas in recent memory. The display of acting here is an achievement in itself, and Sidney Lumet doesn’t pull any punches in his old age. It’s brutal and sorrowful, like a Greek tragedy, but with the kind of energy of a truly modern story.

10. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly- Kudos to the filmmakers for turning what might have been an average sob story into a truly unique experience. A story that’s always engaging with emotion that’s not the least bit artificial. And Max von Sydow will break your heart.

The Second Tier

11. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days- Really brutal, at times painful and frustrating, in terms of the characters and their choices. Artistically, confident and thoughtful direction never shy away from the harsh realities.

12. Lars and the Real Girl- one of the best original screenplays of the year. It’s genuinely moving, with a tenderness found in few films of the past few years.

13. Across the Universe- a fitting companion to the musical innovations of the greatest band in history. A weak story is forgiven by surreal musical numbers that never cease to surprise.

14. 3:10 to Yuma- A hopeful sign that exciting, thrilling Westerns are making a comeback. This is the genre we Americans do best. It’s about time we got back to it.

15. The Savages- A serious comedy indeed. It feels real and genuine, with one of Laura Linney’s best performances.

16. The Bourne Ultimatum- the smartest action movie in years. It’s good to see such a well-made product in such an underappreciated genre.

17. Michael Clayton- a fine directing debut for Tony Gilroy. It could be called a thriller, I suppose, as some do classify it. But it’s much more thoughtful than that label would suggest.

18. Juno- A little overrated, I have to say, but a good film nonetheless. The script drove me nuts sometimes, but it’s much more emotionally complex than I originally gave it credit for. Good performances all around, and good to see the Arrested Development alumni thriving.

19. Into the Wild- from Sean Penn, I had expected a politically liberal hippie tribute/odyssey, but what I found was a film that refused to glorify this flawed person, mourned the tragedy of wasted potential, and managed to make him into a hero.

20. Romance and Cigarettes- John Turturro’s crazy surreal/realist musical is hard to classify, even harder to judge. For sheer audacity and experimentation, it earns a place here. Though the ending is a mess, it’s one of the most artistically brave movies this year.

Honorable Mention

21. Grindhouse
22. Charlie Wilson’s War
23. The Darjeeling Limited
24. No End in Sight
25. Eastern Promises

Guilty Pleasure of the Year Award:
Transformers

Worst film of the year (tie):
Year of the Dog
Waitress

R.I.P.

2008-02-10T22:31:00.001-06:00

Roy Scheider

1932-2008

"I can do anything. I'm the chief of police."

Youth Without Youth

2008-02-10T20:52:00.000-06:00

I’m starting to think that Francis Ford Coppola wants to be immortal. Two of his last three films, though they span over a decade, deal with the trouble of aging. The peculiar “Jack” starring Robin Williams depicted a boy who ages at several times the normal rate, and so becomes a boy trapped in a middle-aged man’s body. Now, with “Youth Without Youth,” his commentary on aging becomes even stranger, and incredibly convoluted.
The director of “The Godfather” brings us the story of Dominic, played by Tim Roth, a professor who we first see at age 70 in 1938. He is struck by lightning and suffers terrible burns, but when the doctors remove the bandages, he looks no more than 35 or 40 years old. The doctors are baffled, but the appearance of Dominic’s strange doppelganger, seen only to him, seems to hint that Dominic knows more than he is telling.
With the renewed youth come strange powers, none of which are explicitly explained. He can sometimes see the future, read books without opening them, or read minds. His abilities and reverse aging make him the target of a mad Nazi scientist who is doing experiments with electricity to change human evolution.
The aforementioned story takes the first half of the film. Throughout, Dominic keeps trying to finish his “life’s work,” which is a study of the origin of language and human consciousness. This study comes into the foreground in the second half of the film, which seems to be another film entirely.
That hour shows Dominic encountering a woman who randomly starts spouting ancient languages. She keeps regressing back to older and older tongues, and Dominic thinks she will eventually arrive at the first language. He is excited to complete his research, but when she begins to age at a rapid rate, he knows he cannot sacrifice her for his work.
I have given a great deal of plot synopsis, which I normally don’t like to do, but I feel that doing so for this film is a personal achievement in itself. The film’s editing and cinematography make following the narrative difficult, with two Dominics often wandering the same frame, or flashing back to different parts of Dominic’s life, which, since he aged backwards, are difficult to distinguish.
I could easily call the film a mess, and it probably is. Yet Coppola still has that kind of directorial confidence that makes me still wonder if there was something I didn’t see, if there was something he was hiding from me. I almost feel stupid that I didn’t “get it,” but then again maybe it’s not meant to be “got.” Either way, I can’t say it was a very satisfying cinematic experience.
If the story I told confused you, then the ending won’t help. I am always very annoyed by films that end with the doubt that everything that happened before may not have actually occurred. Indeed, we are not even sure when the ending happens in the long, complicated chronology. If Coppola meant to give us a grand statement on human consciousness or existence, then I have to say he has failed. There may be something to this film, but I just don’t think I have the patience to try to revisit it again.

There Will Be Blood

2008-01-25T11:01:00.000-06:00

“I’m going to bury you underground.” “I’m gonna come inside your house, wherever you’re sleeping and I’m gonna cut your throat.” “I told you I was going to eat you!” From these words, we can clearly see that Daniel Plainview means business. That business is oil, the oil industry of the early 1900s, in fact. But to boil “There Will Be Blood” to just another epic film depicting some bygone era would be a gross misunderstanding.
The film is as emotional and reflective as director P.T. Anderson’s other great films, “Magnolia” and “Punch-Drunk Love.” But combined with that is an indictment of capitalism that’s as relevant today as it’s ever been. And at the center of it all is the oilman Plainview, played by Daniel Day-Lewis, who is at once a family man, a community leader, a criminal, and a monster.
He starts out scratching in the dirt for silver and gold but eventually builds up an oil empire across the Southwest. His son, H.W. Plainview is always at his side, at first. Besides him, however, Plainview keeps all people at a distance. As he confides to one person, “I look at people and I see nothing worth liking.”
To watch Day-Lewis make the transformation from grizzled prospector to refined entrepreneur to the end result in the film’s final harrowing moments, which I will say little about, is one of the greatest cinematic experiences of the last few years. He delivers no wrong choices, no missteps; indeed it is as flawless a performance as I’ve ever seen.
This character is shown to us through the skillful lens of Anderson’s epic vision. Few directors know how to move the camera as well as he does, and the cinematography is always engaging and engrossing. Anderson knows how to use both short and long cuts to great effect, and so brisk montage is coupled with lengthy meditation to craft not just an interesting story, but an experience all its own.
There are so many other elements of the film that I could go on and on about. There’s Anderson’s script, based on Upton Sinclair’s Oil!, that is filled with dialogue that will be remembered for years to come. Or I could discuss Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood’s unique score which truly deserves the oft-used label of “haunting.” And there are the other performances, which are notable perhaps not for their own virtuosity, but for the ability of each actor to hold his own against the force of nature that is Day-Lewis.
It may seem like I’m on some sort of high with the way I’ve been gushing, but it’s all true. It is rare to see a film where all of the people involved are at the top of their game. It is hard to imagine any of them topping themselves. But they never outdo each other. It works as a great fluid union, sweeping us along with it. That’s how you make the best film of 2007. That’s how a classic film is made.
All of this is enough to make a great film, but then you have the ending, which truly cements it in your memory. Without divulging any plot details, I found it strange how the audience reacted differently both times I saw it. I don’t know if there’s a right way to react, but I know that it is the only way to end that movie. The madness to which it descends is delivered with such gusto by Day-Lewis, that no matter how we react to it, there is a part of us that becomes truly afraid, not necessarily of what is in front of us, but that it might be inside of us, too.

R.I.P.

2008-01-22T23:00:00.000-06:00

Heath Ledger

1979-2008

Cowboy, Clown, Star of Electricity

The Orphanage (El Orfanato)

2008-01-19T21:20:00.000-06:00

It’s a credit to the filmmakers of “The Orphanage (El Orfanato)” that it takes so long to figure out just what is going on. We’re not sure if the reason for Laura’s son Simon’s disappearance is supernatural or the work of a creepy old woman. We’re not sure if Laura is crazy or if there really are ghosts in her childhood orphanage that she has now bought. And, as viewers, we’re not always sure when we should be apprehensive, which is more than a little disconcerting.
It helps to have such a command of atmosphere in the face of a rather cliché story. Laura, played by Belén Rueda, moves into her childhood orphanage to open a home for kids with special needs. Her son, displaying that rare sense of the supernatural that all children in horror films apparently have, starts to play with a new imaginary friend named Tomás. He soon disappears, and Laura and her husband Carlos begin a frantic search lasting for months.
Possible culprits include an old woman who used to work at the orphanage, or a supernatural sinister force embodied by the spirits of children. At the risk of giving too much away, I’ll go no further, but suffice to say that it’s not exactly a story you’ve never seen before.
Other ubiquitous scenes include the visit of a medium, played by the linguistically versatile Geraldine Chaplin. Monitors and microphones are hooked up, and the others watch as she makes her way through the spiritual realm of the house, encountering the ghostly forces within. But of course, there are skeptics, and soon Laura is left alone.
The last thirty minutes of the film are its strongest part, and Laura’s struggle becomes much more personal and intimate. We get some answers to the puzzle, but not all of them. Even so, the film features one of the only times I’ve felt truly satisfied at the end of a horror film.
Despite the tired story, the film is very well made and well acted. The cinematography creates just the right mood, without overly relying on darkness or fog to make us frightened.
Also, I suppose we should be thankful every time we get a decent horror movie that doesn’t rely on torture, films that are more like Hitchcock and less like “Hostel.”
One of the producers of the film is Guillermo del Toro, the man who brought us last year’s “Pan’s Labyrinth.” This has sparked many comparisons between the two, but I don’t know if I would go that far. This film is less like that dark fantasy, and more like a cross between “The Ring” and the all-but-forgotten “Legend of Hell House.”
Overall, it’s admirable and more than decent, especially if you, like me, feel it’s been a long time since a horror film was made that didn’t disgust people. It may not go so far as to be an homage to classic thrillers, but at least it reminds us, in some vague way, about the subtlety and class of the best films of the genre.

The Dark Knight

2007-12-17T10:31:00.000-06:00

The trailer you've all been waiting for...

http://atasteforthetheatrical.com/deathtrap/default.htm

I'm Not There

2007-12-16T22:44:00.002-06:00

Robert Zimmerman once said, “Chaos is a friend of mine.” He also said, “I accept chaos. I’m not sure whether it accepts me.” Zimmerman once said “I consider myself a poet first and a musician second. I live like a poet and I'll die like a poet.” He also said, “I think a poet is anybody who wouldn't call himself a poet.” Stranger still, Zimmerman once said, “There is nothing so stable as change.”
Of course, you know Zimmerman better by his popular moniker of Bob Dylan. And that name has been the most consistent aspect of the man that we have seen. For as the film “I’m Not There” portrays, Dylan has gone through numerous transformations, moving from one to the next just as the public was getting familiar with the old one.
And as you might have already heard, the way that writer/director Todd Haynes handles these transformations is the revolutionary part of the film. Six different actors play versions of the artist, each with different names, but none named Bob Dylan. They are revealing in their differences, and each occupies a distinct world of his own.
Consider the peculiarly precocious eleven-year-old Marcus Carl Franklin, who embodies Dylan as a guitar-playing boxcar tramp traveling under the name of Woody Guthrie, the folk hero of Dylan’s youth. Or the young philosopher Arthur Rimbaud, played by Ben Whishaw, who is only seen in interview-style clips, spouting mantras like and including some of those mentioned above.
There’s also Christian Bale as Jack Rollins, an embodiment of Dylan’s protesting folk hero of New York City. Heath Ledger appears as Robbie, an actor who starts out portraying Rollins in a film and encounters some marital troubles. Plus there’s Richard Gere as Billy the Kid, lifted from Dylan’s appearance in Sam Peckinpah’s western “Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid.”
The most talked-about performance in the film is sure to be Cate Blanchett as Jude Quinn, Dylan’s post-folk personality. Her segment begins with the Newport Music Festival where Dylan outraged fans by going electric. The scene is both true to history and fanciful: Pete Seeger runs around with an axe threatening to chop the power cords while Jude and his band blast the audience away with machine guns.
That marriage of the metaphorical and the historical permeates the whole film. This may be news for those who may not know much about Dylan to begin with. However, if you are familiar with him, you are sure to get more out of the film. A good resource for catching up would be Scorsese’s documentary “No Direction Home: Bob Dylan.”
The film flits back and forth between all the different characters, albeit at times confusingly. But the point here is not plot, it’s persona. The genius of Haynes’ method is that he’s found a cinematic language to handle both Dylan’s life and his poetry, not an easy feat, to be sure.
It’s been a few days since I saw the film, and I find I am still processing it, trying to work out this puzzle in my head to make a whole. But that is an erroneous approach. The parts exist simultaneously, but never in the same place.
And that’s how it should be. I find that all I can do is watch it again. And again. It’s one of those rare occasions when an unsolvable puzzle is a blessing, especially when it sounds so good.

No Country for Old Men

2007-12-16T22:44:00.001-06:00

Not since “Bride of Frankenstein” have we seen hair this creepy. It may be strange to start out a review that way, especially a review of a film like “No Country for Old Men,” a modern western set in Texas, circa 1980. Yet in a way, a mentioning of hairstyle may be the best starting place for trying to process one of the most frighteningly evil characters in recent film history: Anton Chigurh.
Portrayed by Javier Bardem, Anton is an amoral yet principled villain, that is, if he says he’s going to kill you, then he has to keep his word. There is not a shred of mercy in him; the most he can offer you is a coin toss to decide your fate. On the bright side, if you win he lets you keep the lucky quarter. His weapons of choice are a large shotgun with a silencer, producing a strange whining sound whenever shot, and also a compressed air tank that can literally blow someone’s brains out.
It is a testament to Bardem’s acting, his convincing malevolence, that every one of his appearances on screen elicited some kind of noise from the audience I was watching it with. He manages to be so stoic in the act of killing, yet he is still very human, albeit in a predatory sort of way.
His prey is Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), an unemployed Vietnam veteran who stumbles upon body-strewn scene of a drug bust gone awry in the middle of the desert. Amidst the carnage, he finds a satchel with two million dollars. As he realizes that someone is hunting him, he goes to great lengths, traversing the plains of Texas, to keep the money and keep himself and his wife Carla Jean (Kelly McDonald) safe.
Hunting Anton are the Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, played beautifully by Tommy Lee Jones, and gun-for-hire Carson Wells (an unconvincing Woody Harrelson). Sheriff Bell is a man who has been jaded by violence but refuses to let on. However, even he is shocked by the things he finds in Anton’s wake. He finds an environment that he may not be equipped to handle.
Written and directed by the Coen Brothers, “No Country” travels through the bleak, barren landscapes of the desert to dark alleys and seedy motels, and does so with an unsettling silence. There is no musical soundtrack for the film, just silence, gunfire, sparse dialogue (based on Cormac McCarthy’s novel), and more silence.
It is a methodical western that doesn’t overstate its poetry. There is plenty of savagery, and the only real nobility comes from Sheriff Bell. It recalls the various anti-heroes of the Coen’s first film, “Blood Simple;” a group of people stuck in a spiral of violence that could be easily prevented if someone had a good head on their shoulders.
I am still processing the ending to the film. It is hard to swallow at first, but it is fitting. In fact, it’s one of the bravest endings of recent memory, brave in its refusal to deliver answers and brave in its defiance of convention. Some may be disappointed by it, but if you think about it, in such capable filmmaking hands as these, can you really be unsatisfied?

Lars and the Real Girl

2007-12-16T22:43:00.000-06:00

It’s rare these days to see the kind of town envisioned in “Lars and the Real Girl.” Not only does everyone know everyone else, but they generally like them all. They are a true community. They spend time with one another, and when someone is hurting, the rest are there to support them. It’s idyllic in its own way without being overly fanciful.
And it’s a good thing that Lars Lindstrom, played by Ryan Gosling, lives in such a town. If the film was set in a big city, Lars would probably be the victim of scorn and possibly violence. It’s odd that in such a diverse setting Lars would probably face derision for being different, while here in this primarily white middle-class setting he is accepted. For, you see, Lars’s new girlfriend has come to town. Her name is Bianca, and he met her on the internet. She also happens to be a life-size doll.
Such is the central joke of the film. Lars is delusional, and thinks Bianca is a real person. The only human contact he can muster the courage for is directed for someone inanimate. His brother Gus and sister-in-law Karin cannot understand this phase, but at the insistence of Dr. Dagmar (Patricia Clarkson), they go along with it so that Lars can work out this problem on his own. He gave life to Bianca; he is the only one who can take it away.
They soon convince the other townspeople to support Lars in this emotional crisis, and everyone soon warms to Bianca and treats her as one of their own. The second act of the film is filled with numerous examples of Bianca’s newfound popularity, with Lars increasingly grasping for time with her. As Bianca gets to know everyone, so does Lars, and so he is able to come out of his shell, albeit painfully.
Nancy Oliver’s script is a great achievement in the way it handles such an outlandish premise. Most other writers would probably automatically latch on to the obvious crude humor that could be implied, but here the issue of physical relations between Lars and Bianca is only mentioned once or twice, and never dwelled upon.
For Lars’s problem is not sexual but emotional, and Ryan Gosling’s performance makes this perfectly clear. It’s a testament to both the script and the acting that the film is able to achieve such a unique sense of reality. Instead of dwelling on the inherent silliness and miring itself in running gags, they make you feel that emotional foundation.
Consider a scene in which Lars kisses Bianca. A man kissing a life-size doll is ridiculous, let’s face it. But when that scene happened, the audience I saw it with was almost completely silent, maybe even reverent. People were moved.
But all that’s not to say that the film isn’t funny. It is quite funny. But it balances that humor with the charm and tenderness of a great romance. Some may call it an offbeat film, but in its way it’s more romantic than most any other romantic comedy made these days.

The Darjeeling Limited

2007-12-16T22:42:00.000-06:00

In Wes Anderson’s films thus far, it seems there are always troubled father-child relationships. In “Rushmore,” Max is uninspired by his barber father and seeks out a parental figure in a rich CEO. In “The Royal Tenenbaums,” Royal tries to connect with his adult children after a long absence, much to their chagrin. And in “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou,” the title character tries to act as a father to a young man who may or may not be his son.
In “The Darjeeling Limited,” the father is dead, and he is missed. It is debatable as to whether his three adult sons, Peter (Adrien Brody), Jack (Jason Schwartzman), and Francis (Owen Wilson) are ready to face the world without him. They squabble over his possessions, and, in a joyously frantic flashback, go to desperate lengths to get his old car back.
The family has fallen apart since the father’s death, and to bring them together again, Francis calls them all to India for a highly organized spiritual journey, complete with laminated daily itineraries. They travel to various villages and shrines, hoping for some kind of enlightenment, all the while keeping and spilling secrets, bickering, giving good and bad advice, and finding more about each other than they ever really knew.
Because the family has lost its anchor, they wander throughout the country, confused and unstable. Francis has recently been involved in a not-so-accidental wreck, Peter is afraid of becoming a father, and Jack is stuck in a destructive relationship.
Like the family, the film is free to wander as well. It’s an interesting departure from the meticulous storytelling of Anderson’s previous films. It’s not a slow film, but one that stops to ponder rather than get wrapped up in intricate details.
Indeed, it is the lack of such details that distinguishes this film from Anderson’s other work. Elaborate production design and motifs like a book, a play, or an education film marked the others, while this is a bit freer. The complex visual approach that some thought overloaded “The Life Aquatic” has found a better balance with the subtle emotions Anderson is so good at instilling in his characters.
Story and acting wise, Anderson’s films are all about understatement. The signature deadpan performances from Schwartzman and Wilson are back, and Adrien Brody fits quite nicely into the traditional ensemble. Bill Murray and Anjelica Huston pop up in smaller roles, as do a few bit players from the other films.
The familiar faces add to the effect that, though this movie has a different approach and flow, you know you’re watching a Wes Anderson film. “The Darjeeling Limited” is destined to stand with “Rushmore” and “Tenenbaums” as some of the best modern examples of masterful balance between a director’s personal stamp and emotions that are universal. In a way, some scenes seem to wrap up and put to rest some of the questions and themes of the other films, as if the director is finally putting the “father” to rest.
“Darjeeling” is also accompanied by a short prequel film, “Hotel Chevalier,” starring Schwartzman and Natalie Portman, which adds a nice bit of back story for Jack’s character, helping to explain his character as you see it in the feature.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

2007-12-16T22:41:00.002-06:00

Twice in the film “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” we see a man moments before his own death, and each of them knows it. But they do not scream or beg for their lives. They do not run away, hide, or exhibit other such displays of cowardice, though one of them is known for it. Neither do they fight back, or try to act heroic, for neither one is a hero. Instead, they seem to face the reaper with indifference.
Death, depending on your point of view, is either the most poetic part of life, or the most horrific undertaking a human being can undergo. Somehow, the death scenes of this film seem to convey both sides. Director Andrew Dominik imbues the entire film with a similar layered approach to create remarkably sustained, intense, visual poetry.
Some of these layers are the multiple perceptions of each character, evident throughout the film. One of the title characters, the famed outlaw Jesse James, played expertly by Brad Pitt, is a celebrity to most of the American public. He is a romantic figure of the west, mysterious and larger than life. Yet, to some, he is a menace to society who must be brought down at all costs.
Robert Ford, played by Casey Affleck, idolizes Jesse James as the film begins. “Do you wanna be like me, or do you wanna be me,” Jesse asks him. Yet, as he is slighted by Jesse and ridiculed by others, he becomes embittered and decides to commit the heinous act referenced in the film’s title. After that moment, he likes to think himself a hero, but has to face the reality of the situation when the public vehemently disagrees.
The film also spends a surprising amount of time on supporting characters, showing them interact with each other, and most importantly, with Jesse. All this seems to be working toward a grand hypothesis of honor in the West, but like the character of Jesse James, it remains enigmatic to the end. Some of the subplots are not necessarily present because they are vital to the plot, but rather they fit nicely within the flow of the picture, providing more moments of poignancy and varied stanzas within the longer poem of the film.
Indeed, the bulk of the film is not so much the story of the last year of Jesse’s life, but rather meditations on what he was to America and the people close to him. Such a narrative method requires a strong visual approach, and Dominik does not disappoint.
Fast moving clouds, slow moving people, busy city streets, and lonely, snowy meadows make each scene flow like music, provoking nostalgia and anticipation. Figures loom and lurk in shadows and fog, silhouetted in sunlight and headlights, stalking like the heroes and villains of tall tales. This is not the past you may be aware of, but rather it is the Western of our collective American unconscious.
In case I haven’t been clear up to now, let me say that this film is a masterpiece. It’s a film that is so singular an experience that it is almost hard to pinpoint the reasons you enjoyed it. Rather than staying in front of you on the screen, it flows around you, immersing you. I could spend more time trying to explain the merits of the film, but it is truly something you need to experience for yourself.

Across the Universe

2007-12-16T22:41:00.001-06:00

“Is there anybody going to listen to my story?” Jude asks the audience. This question at the beginning of “Across the Universe” is deceptive, masking what the film is truly going to be. In a movie musical based totally on the work of The Beatles, “listen” would seem to be the operative term. However, like all good films, it is primarily about what you see.
Another deceiving word is “story,” implying that a narrative will be the primary focus of the film. While there is a distinct arc for the characters, the musical numbers are what the film is really about, and because they are so expressive and experiential, so much like the songs themselves, you probably won’t mind the thinness of the plot.
What little story there is revolves around characters named after famous Beatles songs. Lucy (without the diamonds), Jude, Maxwell (sans silver hammer), Sadie, Jojo, Prudence, Dr. Robert (who is apparently, also the walrus), they’re all here. Even Mr. Kite, played by Eddie Izzard, makes an appearance in a spectacular carnival scene depicting his show on trampoline.
Jude has come from (guess where) Liverpool, to find his father at Princeton. There he meets and becomes friends with Max, and soon accompanies him to New York City. They move into an apartment with Sadie, Prudence, and Jojo, who have all come in search of meaning in the midst of the chaotic 1960s. Soon, Max’s sister Lucy joins them and quickly falls in love with Jude. As the political movement against the Vietnam War heats up, Lucy finds herself marching and protesting while Jude withdraws to express his frustrations through art.
There are also a myriad of subplots involving the other characters, but Lucy and Jude’s is really the only one of much consequence, as it helps deliver the film’s delicious final moments their emotional push. It’s best to realize that the story is mainly meant as a vehicle to get from one musical number to the next. It was a wise decision to fit the story around the songs rather than the other way around.
If you go see the movie, you’ll probably go to see those musical numbers, anyway. And they are everything you’d want, and more. Director Julie Taymor, well known in the theatre for her inventive visual style, brings the perfect blend of surrealism, choreography, collage, and montage. It’s hard to imagine many of the scenes being done any other way because they fit so well.
Consider “I Want You”, accompanying a scene where Max is drafted into the army to fight in Vietnam. Instead of romantic obsession, it depicts the dehumanization of American soldiers as they (literally) carry the nation on their shoulders. Or there’s “Come Together” where it seems that all the diverse denizens of the Big Apple, led by Joe Cocker no less, take to the streets to welcome the characters to the city. I could go on.
Films like this are rare, these days; works of art that try to achieve an experience, a barrage of feelings, rather than a progression of logic. It’s a fitting tribute to the greatest rock band of all time. You’re practically guaranteed to see things you’ve never seen in a film before. So take advantage while you can. After all, with a soundtrack like this, how can you really go wrong?

In the Valley of Elah

2007-12-16T22:38:00.002-06:00

Our country is in peril and we can’t do anything to save ourselves. With one last bold stroke, Paul Haggis cements this bleak political commentary at the end of his new film “In the Valley of Elah.” Unfortunately, this moment is unnecessary, as any discerning viewer could have picked the idea up along the way.
Such obvious gimmicks are characteristic of Haggis, and his Oscar-winning film “Crash”, in the opinion of many, suffered under the weight of them. Luckily, this movie has fewer of them. Overall, it is more subtle, mature, and intelligent than its predecessor. This makes the presence of such general statements even more of a nuisance, and they might even keep it from being a great film.
That aside, there is much to admire here. The cinematography is more thoughtful and less staged. Whereas “Crash” jumped through locations and scenes rather quickly, in this film shots linger longer; some of the moments of silence seem to carry more weight than any of the dialogue. And because there is one central storyline, there is much to be said for the strength provided by such narrative focus.
That storyline centers on Hank Deerfield, played by Tommy Lee Jones, whose son Mike has apparently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq and has now disappeared. Hank, a former military police officer, travels to the base and begins his own investigation with the help of local detective Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron). What he finds is unnerving, and unfortunately gets manipulated into one of Haggis’s political statements.
Without any exploitation, the central secret that Deerfield uncovers is horrifying enough, and raises questions on its own that Haggis doesn’t really need to answer explicitly, mainly because we know the answers already. What happens when violence becomes second nature to a person? How does war affect a person’s psyche? These have been answered in other films before, but rarely so chillingly and so quietly as in some of the scenes here.
I’ve mentioned the silence of this film, and one of the best examples is Tommy Lee Jones’s performance. In a film where the director at times over-exerts himself, it’s refreshing to see an actor who is able to do so much with seemingly little effort. He is portraying a man who has lost his son, and he plays it just as a military man like Hank would, devoid of overdramatic wailing and weeping.
As previously mentioned, the political commentary comes in sparse but concentrated bursts, which to some might carry a lot of power. I suppose we could be thankful that there weren’t more politics. To Haggis’s credit, he doesn’t get wrapped up in being preachy regarding the current administration as most Hollywood people like to do these days. Rather than pervading the film, the political atmosphere lingers overhead. It’s always there if you want to find it.
Overall, it’s a conflicted film. Much of it is of high quality, even moving at times. Yet those punctuated moments, for me at least, brought it down. The last shot of the film is the heaviest one. It’s a bit hard to stomach such despair, particularly when coupled with the fear that it might be true.

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

2007-12-16T22:38:00.001-06:00

“Tommy was stupid.” That’s part of the short eulogy that poor Tommy Darden gets after being killed by his boss, the notorious outlaw Ben Wade. As his fellow gang members drink whiskey in his memory, Wade can notice they are uneasy. To reassure them, he quotes a passage of scripture to justify the murder.
It’s a significant clue to one of the major themes of “3:10 to Yuma”: the conflict between honor and survival, between nobility and harsh reality. The protagonist Dan Evans, played by Christian Bale, must decide whether to take the shortcuts repeatedly offered to him in order to ensure the prosperity of his farm, or to earn his family’s respect by bringing a notorious bandit to justice.
There is a mix of both paths in Dan’s actions throughout the film. The first time he encounters Ben Wade (Russell Crowe), he is shown great mercy. The second time, Wade gives him a lot of money. However, Dan helps capture him, and is subsequently hired by a railroad employee to make sure he gets Wade on the 3:10 train to Yuma prison.
However, Wade is just as dangerous without his gun. He has a seductive personality, and uses his words cunningly to inspire equal measures of awe, guilt, curiosity, and fear. Dan sees just what Wade is capable of in both violent and more subtle ways. What starts out as a practical plan to save the family farm ends as a mission to ensure that justice is served. It might be futile, but like in most westerns, honor is a powerful thing.
The filmmakers, led by director James Mangold (“Walk the Line”), seem to be at a similar crossroads. Some portions of the film seem to espouse the romantic notions of the West seen in John Ford or Howard Hawks films. After all, it’s a remake of a Glenn Ford western from 1957. But with such scenes as a high speed stagecoach chase akin to an armored car robbery in a modern action film, it’s clear that a modern sensibility is vying for exposure.
Oddly enough, the duality works. The western has seemed to be in a holding pattern for a few years now, waiting for someone to give it direction. This film won’t be seen as revolutionary or groundbreaking by any means, but maybe it’s just what the industry needs to prove that there is still vitality in the genre after all. There may not be many surprises here, but is that what westerns are really about?
Perhaps it’s wise that the main goal of the filmmakers seems to be to create a solid, entertaining period piece. In that, they succeed wonderfully. Bale and Crowe deliver their usual great performances. Other notable turns come from Peter Fonda as a hired gun and Ben Foster as Wade’s right hand man.
All of this comes down to the usual frantic gunfight at the end. It’s a furious and violent scene, more like “Rio Bravo” than “High Noon”. What will distinguish it from other movies, however, is the fact that the turning point comes from an emotional decision, rather than a practical one. In a genre of archetypes and unshakeable men, it’s refreshing to see a character change. Or does he?

Waitress

2007-12-16T22:37:00.001-06:00

I believe it can be said that pies are the highest valued things in the film Waitress. Unlike the main character’s unborn child, they are never accused of making someone unhappy. Unlike the various spouses in the film, no one ever cheats on the pie. So much feeling and meaning goes into each one that I ended up wishing that as much care had been put into the weak and troubling story that makes up the late Adrienne Shelley’s Sundance hit.

If it seems too simple, that’s because it is. It tells the tale of Jenna (Keri Russell), a waitress in a small town who is unhappily married to Earl (Jeremy Sisto), and suddenly finds out she is pregnant. Her co-workers can’t understand her unhappiness about the baby, and frankly, neither did I. I can understand how it happened at an inconvenient time, but it did not seem to merit the kind of resentment directed toward him or her.

Meanwhile, Jenna embarks on an affair with Dr. Pomatter (Nathan Fillion), which makes her happy but forces her to lie to Earl. By the end it doesn’t really mean anything. She’s not the only one having an affair, though. Many of the characters are jumping in and out of love/lust, with little regard to the feelings of anyone else. At a few moments it seems the film is going to address these ethical issues, but it backs down. To do so would only complicate things, and that would not work for this comedy. This is a comedy…right?

The only real bright spot of the film for me was Andy Griffith. I’m not sure why, but seeing him from time to time, a cross between a curmudgeon and a saint, was a breath of fresh air in comparison to Jenna’s whining and all the shallow flings. He also brings a sense of pedigree to what is mainly an amateurishly written and directed film.

It seems to build itself up as a character film, but then denies itself the chances to really explore each person. Instead we are met with sitcom-style situations and the ludicrous Southern stereotypes which seem to pervade every depiction of the area. I will give it this much: it really made me hungry for pie.

Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters

2007-12-16T22:36:00.002-06:00

In a way, the incredibly long title of this film immediately signals what kind of experience you are about to have. But before the opening credits begin, we are treated to something completely different. In a spoof of concession stand ads, a group of surly snacks screams instructions to the audience through a heavy metal song. They alert you to turn off your phone, don’t talk, don’t explain the plot to anyone, or else they will hurt in incredibly imaginative ways.
From these opening moments, the ordinary movie going experience is torn apart. This is not your “average” film in any sense of the word. It defies all the conventions of Hollywood while still managing to be as entertaining as a studio product. “Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theatres” could quite possibly lure you into a brave world of cinema not seen on the screen in many years, if you are able to get past its absolutely ridiculous elements, that is.
Based on the popular late-night cartoon, the movie centers on a trio of anthropomorphic fast food products: Frylock, Master Shake, and Meatwad. Also central to the plot(?) is their trashy neighbor Carl, who unwittingly becomes a key to a scheme of world domination when his new exercise machine, the Insanoflex, comes to life and threatens to overthrow the balance of the universe.
While the combo meal tries to help Carl escape the machine, the Plutonians try to get a straight answer out of the Ghost of Christmas Past from the Future as to who exactly is meant to create the Insanoflex in years to come. Other aliens, including the Atari-style animated Mooninites and a piece of watermelon named Walter, also try to get a piece of the action. And let’s not forget the infamous Dr. Weird, who might be behind the whole plot, might also be the father of the Aqua Teens, and has definitely ripped his own brain out of his head one too many times.
If you’re still with me and this is intriguing you, then the movie is definitely for you. If you’re a fan of the television show, then, again, it’s definitely for you. Compared to the source material, the situations are even more outlandish, the plot twists even more random, the characters even more arbitrary, and the ending even more inconclusive.
If you’re still with me and you’re wondering why I’m wasting time and space writing about such a ludicrous movie, let me explain. I will admit that the appeal of it is going to be very limited. However, it is part of a tradition of art that is often misunderstood and ridiculed. It’s hard to pinpoint its exact heritage, but it’s possibly absurdist, surrealist, maybe even Dadaist. At its heart is an attempt to make sense of a seemingly random universe by satirizing it in an equally random way. Nothing is predictable, nothing is sacred, and everything is subject to change.
Writer/directors Matt Maiellero and Dave Willis have crafted their own personal New Jersey where literally anything can happen and does. It’s a world that puzzles and mystifies, yet also manages to strike some kind of chord, even we’ve never heard it before. It’s a world where meat talks (hilariously), chickens catch fire, and literally everything explodes upon impact.

Vacancy

2007-12-16T22:36:00.001-06:00

It seems that every weekend there’s a new horror flick. The reason being that, no matter how good or bad they may be, they usually do good business. As the genre has become more prolific, so has its outlandishness and its senselessness, each film trying to outdo the others in terms of gore, cheap thrills, and imaginative means of creating excruciating pain.
With that said, let me tell you about “Vacancy.” It features none of the following: mutants, diabolical puppets, zombies, vampires, werewolves, extravagant technological death traps, or a low-cost European lodging establishment. There are no self-righteous maniacs trying to teach people the error of their ways by brutally murdering them. There are no killers who find the need to come back from the dead to exact revenge. These are all reasons why this film will likely stand out from this year’s already crowded crop.
It’s a decidedly simple concept: possibly-psychotic hicks trying to kill two unsuspecting victims. The unfortunate duty this time around belongs to David and Amy Fox, played by Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale. After the Hitchcock-style opening credits, we are launched immediately into their story. No annoying prologue or back-story, just a bickering couple lost on a highway at night.
Their car breaks down and they are forced to walk back to a hotel they spotted. After checking in with the odd manager, the menace begins. There’s no labyrinthine secret or legend they have to uncover, they merely have to escape with their lives. They slowly figure out the killers’ methods, and are able to get the upper hand more than once.
It’s a refreshingly straightforward take on a tired genre. It’s short and tight and every action has a reason. We don’t care why the killers’ are after them, we only know they’ve done it before to others. The only advantage they have is a knowledge of the layout of the motel and some 90s era video equipment. Because the villains are not invincible, it makes the possibility of David and Amy’s escape that much more probable, and the film becomes more exciting as a result.
Directed by Nimród Antal, the movie revels in inexpensive and easily produced scares that still manage to be frightening. Heavy knocking on one or more doors or the simplicity of light and shadow are enough to get us going. We never doubt that the killers are just creeps in masks, but that doesn’t make them any less terrifying.
The film is weakest when it tries to indulge the sentimentality of David and Amy’s floundering marriage. Their child has died before the movie begins, and while he is not overly mentioned, there is just a little too much talk about their emotional problems. Another weak spot is Luke Wilson’s performance. Poor guy, you can tell he’s trying, but he can’t conjure the emotional honesty needed to get him through some of the scenes.
If you’re looking for a good simple thriller before the onslaught of the summer blockbusters begins, then this is your ticket. It’s one of the few horror movies of the past few years that can give you a good scare without becoming extremely ridiculous.

The Hoax

2007-12-16T22:35:00.000-06:00

It is important to note right at the start that this film is not necessarily based on a true story. Yes, the events in question did happen, but the words “Based on the book by Clifford Irving” are central to understanding the way the events are depicted. Because this is a story being told by someone we will come to find is a very great liar, it puts a spin on our view of the film’s reality. The man behind “The Hoax” might just be putting another one over on the unsuspecting public.
Because you cannot implicitly trust the source material, this gives the film rich depths to exploit the central conceit of the story in many ways. There are conspiracy theories thrown in that seem like Irving’s way of explaining or justifying his forgery of an autobiography by eccentric aviation mogul Howard Hughes. We get glimpses of delusions that might shed light on Irving’s motives in the scandal. Should we take these as facts, desperate attempts to exonerate himself, or just clever tricks from a master of deception?
Clifford Irving, played by Richard Gere, starts the film as a struggling author whose most notable work is a poor-selling profile on an art forger (footage and commentary on both these figures can be found in the Orson Welles film “F For Fake”). In a last grasp for survival, Gere promises his editor Andrea (Hope Davis) the most important book of the twentieth century, and to make good on this promise he concocts a scheme, with the help of his friend Don (Alfred Molina), to forge Hughes’ account of his own life.
Because Hughes is so notably eccentric, Irving’s ways of covering his tracks succeed even better than he hopes for. As he tells Don, “The more outrageous I sound, the more convincing I am.” Soon, covering the truth becomes harder and harder, and he ends up putting his wife Edith (Marcia Gay Harden) in danger, as well as implicating Don. Hughes begins to try to discredit the book, and some of the aforementioned conspiracies come to light, one involving Richard Nixon (according to this film, Irving’s book is responsible for Watergate). These mysterious forces, whether they actually interacted with Irving or not, contribute, along with his constant lying, to his downfall.
Despite the film being about a lie, director Lasse Hallström is able to maintain a very realistic feel throughout, staving off the melodrama that he lapsed into on “The Cider House Rules.” The look of the film seems to match the 70s setting. Irving’s flights of possible fantasy match the tone and pace almost seamlessly, making it hard to tell fantasy from reality without some serious thinking. It’s as it should be: the truth is not handed to you, instead you have to work for it.
Richard Gere delivers a very strong performance, making both his portrayal and Irving’s lies completely believable. He pulls us onto his side; after all, what good would it be to make a story about a con man that you didn’t want to succeed? Both the fake autobiography and the reality presented in this film, with the help of the filmmakers, make Irving one of the supreme con artists of all time.

300

2007-12-16T22:34:00.000-06:00

At the beginning of “300”, we hear the background story of King Leonidas of Sparta narrated by one of his men. We hear of his upbringing in the traditional Spartan way: he learns to fight from the time he can walk and is entrenched in violence throughout childhood to train him into a fierce warrior. This has the added effect of introducing the audience to the culture of violence at work in the film.
Throughout the movie, combat is glorified, and because of the historical background of ancient Greece this is not out of place. The battles are brutal; decapitations and blood spurts abound, magnified in great details by the grainy, colorful cinematography. But while the action fits the ancient feeling of the film, the approach is decidedly new, in ways that weaken the film.
It’s directed by Zack Snyder, whose only major previous credit is the remake of George A. Romero’s “Dawn of the Dead.” Perhaps just as important to the film’s concept is the source material: a graphic novel by Frank Miller, whose work was also the basis of 2005’s “Sin City.” From what little I’ve seen of the novel, it seems that Snyder stayed as true as he could to the source.
Visually, this is interesting. It’s not an ancient Greece we’ve ever seen before. Much of the frame takes on a dusty golden brown hue, while striking colors like the red of the capes and blood and the blackness of the hair stand out. Objects are arranged in the frame in a decidedly bold way, giving the film a dynamic and mythic tone.
The element that ultimately weakens this visual concept is the movement of those objects. Snyder employs a very “Matrix”-influenced approach to his camerawork, with much of the action scenes featuring numerous slow motion shots. At times it gets so repetitive that I felt I was watching a DVD that was skipping. What originality the imagery has on first glance becomes pedantic soon after.
The story is based on history and is fairly compelling. Sparta is being overrun by the massive armies of the Persian king Xerxes. King Leonidas, played by Gerard Butler, being the warrior that he is, is predisposed to fight back rather than submit. However, because the city council has not approved open war, he can only take a small number (you guessed it, 300) of soldiers to fight back the invaders in a narrow canyon.
The weaker subplot that often distracts from the narrative is the plight of Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey), who must somehow convince the council to declare war, and has to ward off the ambitious councilman Theron (Dominic West). Also distracting is the constant narration of the aforementioned soldier, played by David Wenham, whose words serve little purpose than to describe to us what we are already seeing.
Overall, it will be known for its bold visual approach, but that cannot mask some of the amateurish directorial choices and the weaker elements of the script.

Inland Empire

2007-12-16T22:32:00.000-06:00

“Inland Empire” isn’t your typical film. Made by the equally atypical David Lynch, it’s difficult to review because Lynch seems to transcend your expectations of movies with each of his projects. So while I will do my best to describe and unearth the various levels of the film, keep in mind that it can’t be judged with conventional standards.
Lynch has long been famous for his unsettling psychological stories that frequently flit in and out of consciousness. His work ranges from the odd (“Mullholland Dr.”), to the oddly conventional (“The Straight Story”). “Mullholland Dr.” was acclaimed for its labyrinthine tale that played with the worlds of dreams and their emotional effects. Some of his other work has been along this vein, if not as obviously. Yet, if “Mullholland” depicted a dream, “Inland Empire” depicts a psychotic episode.
The story, as best I can describe it, revolves around Nikki Grace, played by Laura Dern, who gets cast in a film directed by Kingsley Stewart, played by Jeremy Irons. The film, as they discover, is actually a remake of a Polish film that was never finished because the lead actors were murdered under mysterious circumstances. As they work on the production, Nikki starts to have feelings for her costar Devon (Justin Theroux), reflecting their romantic link in the story of the movie they are acting in.
That story occupies the first third of the film. Then, things start to get hazy as the lines between reality, the original Polish film, and the remake are blurred. For more than an hour it is difficult to tell just which story a scene is from, and sometimes, things happen that don’t belong in any of the stories. Characters take on traits of their film counterparts, and then interact with characters from the Polish film, and so on. Time means nothing; people die and then you see them again later.
In a way, Lynch is defying the normal film logic that one shot somehow relates to the next shot. Much of the film is a series of random scenes, all linked by an overhanging peril facing Dern’s character, the name of which you are not even sure of by the end. In short order you are taken from a backyard barbecue to Hollywood Blvd. and then onto a television sitcom featuring the actors in full size rabbit suits.
This is definitely bold filmmaking, but as a whole, it gets to be a little much. At almost three hours, for many the film will feel like a test of endurance. Because there is little semblance of a story arc, there is not much to compel you to keep watching. While such experimental portions of his other films led to a deeper sense of mystery and discovery, here it’s too much to handle.
The last portions of the film at first seem to hold the promise of some kind of resolution, but don’t be fooled; Lynch hardly ever makes it that easy. All of the growing tension and unsettling tone lead to a violent and illusory end. Followed by what has to be the strangest ending credits sequence in film history, “Inland Empire” stakes its claim as one of the most confusing films in Lynch’s varied career.

Breach

2007-12-16T22:31:00.000-06:00

From the very first moments of the film “Breach”, we know we are enmeshed in history, and from the presence of former Attorney General John Ashcroft, we know it’s recent. Ashcroft’s speech tells the end of the story we are about to see, and because Robert Hanssen’s destiny is already laid out before us, what follows becomes a strong character study rather than the latest cliché spy thriller.
The film stars Chris Cooper as Hanssen, the infamous traitor in the F.B.I. who sold secrets to the Russians from the mid-eighties to his capture in 2001. He has been highly elusive and very adept at covering his tracks, even at one time being appointed to find a mole in the Bureau; he is essentially asked to find himself. As the film begins, the top minds at the F.B.I., played by Laura Linney and Dennis Haysbert, are preparing their last push in gathering evidence to indict him before he hits the mandatory retirement age.
They enlist Eric O’Neill, played by Ryan Philippe, who serves as the film’s protagonist. He is a surveillance operative who is trying to reach agent status when he is pulled into a seemingly boring desk job alongside Hanssen, presumably to keep an eye out for Hanssen’s reputed lewd conduct. When he is informed of what is really at stake, he has to employ all his skills of manipulation into getting Hanssen to incriminate himself.
The bulk of the film follows O’Neill as he delves further into Hanssen’s treason, and his attempts to assist the Bureau in their investigation. All the while, the job strains things between him and his wife, exacerbated by Hanssen’s constant attempts to interfere in Eric’s home life.
Through Cooper’s performance, Hanssen becomes a fascinating character, and the exploration of his actions and his reasons for them become the strongest part of the film. Hanssen is a family man with seemingly strong Catholic convictions, and he continually pressures Eric to attend church and convert his wife.
This upstanding moral behavior seems contradictory to his treasonous acts, and indeed, that complexity seems to be the center of Cooper’s approach. What would lead a man to such despicable measures? No easy answers are given in the end, although Hanssen gives several possible reasons for his actions, though as to which is the correct one, it is impossible to say.
It is said a couple of times in the film and in the trailers that this was the worst security breach in U.S. history. This is certainly ample fodder for a film, but the writers do themselves credit by leading the focus away from the cold hard facts and not indulging in conventional spy thriller elements.
The rest of the acting is quite solid. Philippe does a good job of making his character believable in his ability to manipulate Hanssen, who is most likely the smartest character in the film. The power play between the two men is the central conflict. While it’s significant history, the human drama that plays out is more interesting than any leaked information or stolen documents.

Venus

2007-12-16T22:29:00.000-06:00

He’s in his seventies. She’s in her twenties. Not exactly a match made in heaven. Yet Maurice and Jessie form the unlikely couple at the center of “Venus”, a British film directed by Roger Michell. This is not a feel good romance, nor a twisted tale of carnal obsession. The film exists somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, and its wavering is ultimately its weakness.
Maurice, played by screen legend Peter O’Toole, is an aging actor who is relegated to small parts in small movies, even playing a corpse in one scene. He meets regularly with his other elderly friends, including Ian (Leslie Phillips), who is suffering great pain and agony at the hands of his grandniece Jessie (Jodie Whittaker). Upon meeting her, Maurice is smitten, and they start to spend time with each other. Their friendship grows, but Maurice wishes that it could be something more.
The bulk of the film is a series of meetings between the two, and eventually Jessie’s youthful actions start to hurt Maurice, as he confides his feelings to his friend Valerie (Vanessa Redgrave). All the while, his friends feel alienated as he spends more and more time with Jessie, and their relationship takes twists and turns toward its inevitable conclusion.
The distinctive part of the film is, of course, the relationship between Maurice and Jessie. Indeed, it is a hard relationship to imagine, and the film has a hard time pinning down what exactly it entails. It is not an inspiring eccentric relationship, a la “Harold and Maude.” Maurice makes sexual references and clearly expresses such intentions. However, there is a platonic level of attraction, manifested in his nickname for her, “Venus.”
The film flips back and forth between the two levels of the relationship, and in some ways it reveals the complexity of such a pairing. However, the filmmaking style also switches back and forth, and this unevenness is frustrating. As Maurice’s life is interrupted by youthful bursts from Jessie, the quiet thoughtfulness is often interrupted by flashy camerawork or a loud sappy pop tune.
The movie’s strength lies in O’Toole’s performance. He is once again nominated at this year’s Academy Awards, and this is his eighth performance, having never won competitively. He did win an honorary Oscar last year, but almost refused it, saying he is still in the game and did not want to be out of the running for a competitive award. This movie proves that he’s still got it, bringing the right amount of pathos to a potentially disturbing role.
The other performances range in their quality. Redgrave is good as usual, as are Phillips and Richard Griffiths as Maurice’s friends. Whittaker has moments of inspiration, but at times she is a bit one-noted. As good as some may be though, it is O’Toole’s show, and the film’s focus does not waver in that regard.
The part of Maurice’s life depicted here is one of sadness with brief glimpses of humor. The characters are the same way, switching from kindness to cruelty. In order for the film to charm us, the film could have used more of the kindness. The cruelty makes a point, but it is not enough to make a profound connection.

The Last King of Scotland

2007-12-16T22:27:00.000-06:00

The main character in “The Last King of Scotland”, Nicholas Garrigan, played by James McAvoy, begins by doing something a lot of us may have done at one point or another. He spins a globe and put his finger down, picking a random spot in the world. The only difference is that Garrigan actually goes there, beginning a long series of rash decisions that puts him in the middle of one of history’s notorious atrocities.
The film, directed by Kevin MacDonald, is based on events surrounding the presidency of Idi Amin, who ruled Uganda from 1971-1979. As his rule progressed, he became increasingly paranoid and unstable, giving himself the title of “Lord of all the beasts of the earth and fishes of the sea”, and ultimately being responsible for the deaths of more than 300,000 people.
After sticking his finger on Uganda, Garrigan, a Scottish doctor, joins a clinic in a provincial town. Amin, played by Forrest Whitaker, having taken control of the country, visits the village and meets Garrigan, immediately admiring his upfront manner and his heritage, having an admiration for all things Scottish. Soon, Garrigan finds himself Amin’s chief physician and most trusted advisor.
Things begin to go awry, and as much as he tries to ignore the murders and extortion, he eventually wises up. However, Amin will not let him leave, considering him to be like a son. Compounding this problem is Garrigan’s affair with one of Amin’s wives. Garrigan must escape the country and tell the world what is going on, but doing so proves dangerous.
Sadly, this story is the film’s weakest element. Garrigan’s actions throughout the movie are so impulsive and often stupid that it becomes extremely frustrating. You would hope that the main character in the film about a madman might have some sense about him, but in this case we have no such luck. A film without a hero of some nobility is a hard pill to take, and often ultimately meaningless. An occasional misstep can be accepted, but Garrigan’s constant entanglements with the wrong women and general ignorance of what is going on around him make him not innocently naïve, but idiotic.
Without a central axis on which to turn, the rest of the film seems empty. Even the atrocities that Amin commits do not have the weight that they should because they are largely ignored by Garrigan, our emissary into that world. There is also a void visually, with the film looking like the filmmakers took a cue from “The Constant Gardener” in their depiction of Africa. However, without the strong human connection, this is just bells and whistles.
Of course, the biggest draw of the film is Forest Whitaker’s performance as Amin, the role which will most likely win him the Best Actor prize at this year’s Academy Awards. He is totally transformed, and brings the right amount of charisma to the role to justify people’s willingness to follow him.
Amin is certainly an interesting enough figure to build a film around, but this isn’t the right vehicle. While Whitaker’s brilliance is enough to carry some scenes, as a whole the film falls apart, and many of the filmmaking choices feel as arbitrary as placing your finger on a spinning globe.

Little Children

2007-12-16T22:26:00.001-06:00

As the title would suggest, the world of “Little Children” is populated by the immature, but not all of them are age-appropriate. In the suburban neighborhood where the film takes place, adults and children alike deal with playground politics, bullies, and puppy love. The difference is, with the adults, grave consequences abound.
Directed by Todd Field, whose previous efforts include “In the Bedroom”, the film deals with Sarah Pierce, played by Kate Winslet, who, at the “dares” from the other playground moms, meets and forms a friendship with the “Prom King”, an attractive father they have not had the confidence to talk to yet. Meanwhile, the King, played by Patrick Wilson, has joined up with a nightly football league, and the whole neighborhood is dealing with the arrival of a “bully” in the form of a convicted sex offender.
These immature dealings dominate the first half of the film, and for that time, the film works as a satire. With interesting literary narration, the script plays up the inherent silliness in the actions of the adults. They are constantly forced into awkward confrontations and deal with them in juvenile ways, all the while ignoring the more significant issues at play. In the second half, however, everything changes.
Sarah and the King start an affair that they both aim to commit to long-term, and the King’s wife, played by Jennifer Connelly, responds accordingly. The pedophile begins receiving threats from a member of the football team, while the true “bully” is revealed. In the end, all of the decisions and plans and desires come to a head that leave some characters on the verge of death, and some with a chance at redemption.
The turn in the middle of the film is its biggest flaw. It plays out as if the writers had begun writing a comedy, arrived at the middle and realized the dramatic potential, and then continued from there. The dichotomy proves problematic when very serious events are presented with inappropriate levity or juxtaposition. Inversely, when some of the sillier actions of the adults are given a dramatic bent, it seems rather ridiculous and implausible.
The direction is thoughtful, with the finale photographed in a kind of beautiful darkness that it belongs in. The performances are all quite good, with especially strong turns from Kate Winslet, Jackie Earle Haley as the pedophile, and Noah Emmerich as his antagonist. Also, the underrated Patrick Wilson gives another great performance with just the innocence and naiveté that the film needs.
In the end, however, it comes down to the subject matter. Yes, the suburban lives of ordinary Americans can be poignant and moving, but the conflicted nature of the story always keeps the viewer at a distance, never letting us get close enough to really identify with any of them. What results is a sort of snow globe effect. “Little Children” looks pretty and moves appropriately, but never lets us get in the midst and feel the chill.

The Painted Veil

2007-12-16T22:24:00.000-06:00

“The Painted Veil” is a story about love in the time of cholera, but it’s not based on that novel. Rather, it’s based on the W. Somerset Maugham book of the same name. The story has been around for quite a while, having been on the screen before with Greta Garbo in 1934. Whether you know this or not, you might still get the sense that you’ve seen it all before.
The film, directed by John Curran, stars Naomi Watts and Edward Norton as Walter and Kitty Fane, a not-so-loving couple who meet in 1920s London and, after their wedding, move to Shanghai in China, a land still under British imperialist rule. He is a bacteriologist, and soon drags her along to a remote village that is suffering under a cholera epidemic.
It is not a pleasant trip, with Walter having recently caught Kitty in an act of adultery. He has essentially manipulated her into staying with him and coming along, and she is most definitely unhappy about it. Kitty tries working in an orphanage, befriending the children and the French nuns who have stayed amidst the increasing suffering. Walter tries to help the suffering people, all the while facing antagonism from the growing nationalist feeling. However, in that remote location, their love manages to blossom, and, of course, they discover things about themselves and each other.
You probably saw that coming. Indeed, there aren’t many surprises in this often stodgy film. The scenery is beautiful, but filmed in uninspiring ways by the relatively inexperienced Curran. It looks and plays out like most any other typical period piece you’ve seen before, with the story taking all the usual turns, and the characters behaving in all the usual ways.
In fact, the only thing that really caught me off guard was the ending. I kept waiting for significant things to happen, for a revolution, a breakthrough, something that would make these characters’ lives unique, but it never came.
The acting is rather typical as well. Naomi Watts is decent enough, but there isn’t enough to make us really care for her character. Norton delivers an unusually dry performance, and both are upstaged by strong supporting turns from Toby Jones and Liev Schreiber, who are able to give enough commanding presence to make their roles their own, rather than carbon copies of literary characters.
There is also a failure in the script to really decide what it thinks about the issues exhibited in the story. Conflicts over government, race, and social class are brushed over, seemingly in hopes that we will want to focus on the love story which is meant to be the film’s heart and soul. Sadly, it’s just not interesting enough.
It could have been compelling, complex, and filled with inspired moments, but the film seems to have used a period drama mold and just forced all of the different details into it. They fit perfectly, but with these kinds of films having been done so well so many times, it’s time for someone to smash that mold into tiny pieces.

The Queen

2007-12-16T22:23:00.000-06:00

Stephen Frears’ “The Queen” begins with a quote from Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part 2: “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown”, and in a way, the movie is a bit Shakespearean in nature. There are struggles for power, swayed allegiances, troubled monarchs, unhappy masses, and familial issues.
However, you won’t find any grand fight scenes with lots of flowing blood. There are few speeches that literally reveal a character’s thoughts. A character’s death does dominate the story, but you won’t see it on screen. That’s because “The Queen” is a film where the beauty is found in the particulars.
The story, when laid out plainly, might seem a bit slow. It revolves around the death of Princess Diana in 1997. This occurs near the beginning of the story, and then follows the response of both the Royal Family, headed by Queen Elizabeth II (Helen Mirren), and the new Prime Minister, Tony Blair (Michael Sheen).
The main struggle is over the Royals’ refusal to acknowledge Diana, whom they deeply dislike, as a member of the family, since she and Prince Charles (Alex Jennings) have divorced. Blair recognizes the love that the public has for Diana, and through several phone calls seeks to convince the vacationing Queen to act accordingly with the people’s wishes for an official expression of grief.
That acknowledgment comes slowly and stubbornly, and as time goes by, it is found in details that might seem minute: a flag at half-mast, the presence of the Queen in London, a television address, etc. However, these details are important to the British, and similar details are important to the film.
One such detail is the absolutely fabulous performance by Helen Mirren as Elizabeth II. She is a woman used to keeping up appearances, with her every move being analyzed and linked into a responsibility to provide the nation with a symbol of elegance and grace. Because such a façade is required, she cannot let herself be overcome by emotion. Emotion does come, though, and Mirren’s handling of this duality makes the role shine.
The nature of the film and its direction seem to reflect a line spoken by the Queen early in the film, when she has heard about Diana’s death. She tells Blair, “We do things in this country quietly, and with dignity.” While the tragedy causes grief around the world, Elizabeth and the Royal Family show calm and restraint, but also a detachment from reality that comes from living a mile high above the rest, and ends up becoming a dangerous flaw.
Similarly, the film is not aggressive in its theme or emotions, but maintains a quietness that allows the film’s impact to develop without being forced. The dialogue is crisp and witty, and the power struggles play out over rational conversations that present a logical progression of the film’s ideas, rather than through bold statements.
Ultimately, it is a tale about a ruler out of touch with her subjects, and examines what it means to be a monarch in today’s world. Is there a place for a king or queen in this era? It does not present a definite answer. What it gives is a patient story of near-Shakespearean themes told with a coupling of grace and power, and unexpectedly, humor.

Marie Antoinette

2007-12-16T22:22:00.002-06:00

At first glance, “Marie Antoinette”, directed by Sofia Coppola, might seem like your average historical biography movie. It follows the life of the famed French queen from her arrival in France to the end of the monarchy. Many people are familiar with this story, the tale of the queen who told the hungry people of France to eat cake, then lost her head.
However, while most biography movies tend to cover what happened to the person and their major achievements, this film takes a different path. Instead of just hitting the highlights, Coppola’s movie covers what Marie’s life might actually have been like on a day-to-day basis. Yes, it covers all of the major historic points, but much of the film serves as an example of what it must have felt like to be her.
The story starts in Austria, where young Marie (Kirsten Dunst) is being shipped off by her domineering mother to marry Louis Auguste (Jason Schwartzmann), the heir to the French throne, as part of an alliance between the two countries. The marriage is an awkward one, and it takes a long while before it ever amounts to anything.
Meanwhile, Marie is having a great time living the good life thanks to the riches of the French monarchy. During this time, the French people begin to starve, and by the end of the movie, the revolution has begun.
The description might indicate that the movie is thin on plot, and in some respects, it is. There are a few notable events to speak of, and they mostly occur in the second half. The first half is a look at the wide-eyed Marie’s reaction to the elegance of the French court.
It is that elegance which is the driving force of the film. Beautiful sights are beautifully photographed. Much of the film is a cavalcade of opulence, with one extravagant scene leading straight into another. The visuals are indeed dazzling, and there is so much detail in each frame of the film that it would take several viewings to catch half of it.
Behind all this is a slower-paced story about the maturity of a girl displaced from her home into one of the most insane settings in history. Coppola, who directed “Lost in Translation”, is a director who takes her time. She doesn’t want to rush the story, and adds in delightful nuances to her characters along the way. The main danger of this film is those nuances getting lost amidst all the razzle-dazzle, but that danger is for the most part bypassed, especially due to the help of a strong performance from Kirsten Dunst.
A main criticism from early reviewers has been that the film is very shallow, with the visuals masking a lack of depth. Perhaps this is one of the points of the film. It is a look at a place in history notorious for its refusal to acknowledge reality. The French court continued to spend while the people starved. They are shallow by nature, raised to regard only their own comfort. That is the kind of people they are, and that is what the film reflects.
This is all brought to a point in the end when the monarchs are forced to face the discontent of the people that now threatens their lives. The scenes near the end are near terrifying, as the mood of the film so far comes crashing down like the monarchy itself. It’s a dissolution that is not only central to history, but to the film as a whole. It turns the joyride into a tragedy, the opulence into significance.

The Departed

2007-12-16T22:22:00.001-06:00

In Martin Scorsese’s latest effort, the title of the film refers to those who have died. The irony of the movie lies in the adjective most used by other characters to describe them: faithful. In this story about broken loyalties and misplaced allegiance, no one is truly faithful. The tangled and intriguing plotlines of the main characters intersect at so many points that it often requires a lot of mental effort to discern who is working for whom against whom, and so on. These intricacies, in the hands of any other director, might have been disastrous, but in Scorsese’s hands, they’re very powerful.
The film revolves around two “rats”, as Jack Nicholson’s Irish mob boss Frank Costello likes to call them. Leonardo DiCaprio plays an undercover policeman who has infiltrated Costello’s gang that runs the Boston underworld. Matt Damon is a detective who was groomed since childhood by Costello to serve as his mole in the Boston state police. The story follows the two men as they try to subvert the operations of the organizations they’ve infiltrated, while adamantly trying to snuff out the mole on the other side. Through the course of the film, they constantly stay one step ahead of the other, all the while oblivious to the ways in which their lives coincide more than they intend.
Sound complicated? Try adding several other moles, informants, and subversive operations and you have the makings of a potentially baffling story. This is where Scorsese’s skill serves him best. He continues to have one of the best storytelling minds working in film today; he knows just where the story is going and just how long it takes to get there. The style is similar to his 1990 film Goodfellas in its handling of exposition and development of characters from boys into men. In this movie, that meticulous narrative construction carries the entire story. From the first few moments, the film is constantly moving, telling the story at a near dizzying pace. What keeps it from careening over the proverbial cliff is the expert camerawork, employing some of Scorsese’s most intense visual techniques to date.
Nearly every aspect of the film is hard-hitting. No character is totally safe from the brutal violence that constantly threatens to engulf them all. They are soldiers engaged in a war, but with little sense of loyalty that in the end might keep them honorable. Scorsese keeps them literally and figuratively in the dark, with the littlest bits of information carrying the weight of life and death. It is intense from beginning to end, with not just the possibility of death hanging over them, but also the possibility that, despite all of their best intentions, they might lose their identities forever.
All this is accompanied by great accomplishments on other levels. Jack Nicholson is great as mob boss Costello, and DiCaprio and Damon carry the weight of their stories excellently, helping to strengthen the convoluted narrative. Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, and others back it all up with interesting supporting characters.
Overall, it’s a masterful film that never fails to entertain. While I could have done without one or two of the several plot twists in the final moments, Scorsese still delivers a powerful story with surprisingly interesting issues at its core.

Hollywoodland

2007-12-16T22:20:00.000-06:00

Look up in the sky! It’s one of two Hollywood murder mysteries that came out in the first half of September. The other was the Brian de Palma film “The Black Dahlia”, which suffered from a lukewarm reception at the Venice Film Festival and an even worse welcome from American critics. Which is why I opted for “Hollywoodland”, the true story of the mysterious death of 1950’s TV Superman George Reeves.
In real life, the police ruled George Reeve’s death a suicide. However, rumors started to fly that there may have been some foul play. To this day, it is not known for sure what really happened, and that is how the film approaches it. The film takes its time, pausing to examine each detail instead of racing and building toward a grand conclusion that assembles all the miniscule facts, a la “The Usual Suspects.”
It is this patience that gives the film its strength. There are a lot of factors to consider, many eyes to see through, and director Allen Coulter deftly handles them all, showing them through the eyes of private investigator Louis Simo, played by Adrien Brody. He starts out with a tip from a former partner, and slowly uncovers connections between Reeves and a studio mogul’s wife, played by Diane Lane. Her husband, played by Bob Hoskins, has a definite motive for murder, as does Reeve’s jilted fiance.
The film plays through each of the scenarios and also shows the suicide that the police envisioned. It ends without any single explanation being favored. The point of the film is the impact of the death on the people Reeves knew and the American people. What should a child think about a world in which Superman kills himself?
Besides the investigation, the film is also a look at the nature of working in Hollywood, being a star, and failing to achieve your dreams. Reeves was never a star, and despite being involved in such films as “Gone with the Wind” and “From Here to Eternity”, still remains in obscurity in spite of the Superman role. It is this part of the film that delivered the biggest surprise.
I’ve never really been a fan of Ben Affleck. Then I heard about him winning the Best Actor award at the Venice Film Festival for this film, and I knew I had to see for myself. And the rumors are true; he really does an excellent job. He brings a surprising amount of emotion and poignancy to the role of George Reeves. Though the character exists only in flashbacks, Affleck manages to maintain a great presence in the film, turning Reeve’s death into a human tragedy that is just as compelling as any amount of mystery and intrigue can garner.
This is a film with a lot of layers, and a surprising amount of pathos. Coulter’s direction manages to handle all of the strong wills that come with a story set in Hollywood and still focus on the main tragedy of the story: that sometimes people die without ever achieving their dreams. That sometimes even Superman can fail.

Junebug

2007-12-16T22:19:00.000-06:00

It starts out with yodeling. An odd beginning, indeed, and it is never explained or mentioned for the rest of the film, but it immediately catapults the viewer into the world of Junebug. Directed by Phil Morrison and recently released on home video, the film is a Southern slice-of-life that defies stereotypical depictions of our region. It is able to reach beyond the average treatment of Southern people to delve into real emotions and characters that are as genuine as the outsider that arrives and observes their many quirks and tendencies.
It tells the story of Madeleine, an art dealer from Chicago who hears about an eccentric artist in North Carolina who would be perfect for her “outsider” gallery. However, her trip to see him serves a dual purpose, as her new husband’s family lives nearby and is ready to meet and scrutinize their new daughter-in-law. They consist of Eugene and Peg, the father and mother, Johnny the angry younger brother, and his very pregnant wife Ashley. Johnny is less than enthusiastic to see his successful older brother, since he himself has never graduated high school. Peg is very skeptical, and Eugene quietly listens to his wife’s misgivings. Ashley is ecstatic and quickly peppers Madeleine with a thousand questions about her lifestyle.
Based on the plot, one would expect a typical story about culture-clash with hilarious results. Indeed, there are humorous moments, but there are serious issues to be dealt with. The characters have real problems. Johnny is frustrated with his life, but instead of just sulking the entire film, he makes (albeit feeble) efforts to better his life and his relationship with his wife, whom he has habitually neglected. Eugene obviously has opinions of his own, but is never comfortable sharing them in the presence of his domineering wife.
This is the world of problems into which Madeleine falls. However, instead of trying to optimistically adapt and fit in, her own tendencies come out just as strong and the story becomes a conflict of wills rather than lifestyles, making the narrative that much more compelling. Instead of expecting the southern lifestyle to shift to include her, she must find a way to relate to them as an equal rather than someone descending from on high with sacred knowledge and customs.
Usually the South is shown in jest in films. This has sometimes resulted in Southerners underestimating the value of art in our region. However, Junebug, in the tradition of William Faulkner and Flannery O’Connor, is a prime example of the kind of compelling art that can play out under the cover of our sometimes eccentric way of life.

Paradise Now

2007-12-16T22:18:00.000-06:00

Filmed by Palestinians in the midst of their conflict with the Israelis, Paradise Now, directed by Hany Abu-Assad, is a chronicle of two young men recruited for a suicide terrorism mission in Tel-Aviv. Yet even though the film clearly favors the Palestinians, it still raises questions as to the methods that they use, namely the violence that only perpetuates more violence. It is a violence that the crew of the film witnessed first hand, as they had to endure airstrikes and the kidnapping of a crewmember. Yet somehow, in the midst of all this conflict, the film manages to be more objective than you would expect.
The story centers on Khaled and Said, and immediately we begin to see how the story might play out. Khaled is more than willing to die for his faith, and while Said is also a firm believer, we can see that he has doubts about the methods that he is about to employ. Some of these doubts come from his talks with a lady named Suha, who provides the voice of passive resistance in the film. However, as the film progresses, the typical roles that Khaled and Said seem to inhabit in the beginning become blurred, leading toward the shocking yet inevitable conclusion.
From the outset, we can see that the film is definitely criticizing the Israeli “occupation”. The first scene in the film shows Suha crossing a border from Israel into Palestinian territory. The side she leaves is deserted and quiet, but the moment she crosses over she is in a crowded street with people walking and driving everywhere. Other conversations in the film reveal this bias, including a scene with an Israeli who is so unfaithful that he has no qualms about being paid to usher the bombers into Tel-Aviv.
Yet even though the film is pro-Palestinian, the story questions the logic of using unending violence as a solution to the problem. Suha is clearly championing peace, but other moments also highlight the objectivity. For instance, the path to the bombings is fraught with error; mishaps highlight the inherent flaws in the methods they employ. Even when they are filming their statements before their mission, someone forgets to put tape in the camera, and then the camera stops working entirely. Later problems involving the mission itself provide tension. Yet in the end, we see that the methods are not necessarily the problem, as is the white-hot passion that drives the act in the first place.
That passion is the real terror at work. But whose fault is it? Is it Israel, who crowds the Palestinians in as seen in many shots in the film? Or is it the Palestinians who stubbornly refuse the seemingly-futile means of peaceful negotiation? There is clearly no right answer, but this film gives an unparalleled look into the motivations of terrorism, which is at least one step closer to resolution.

Match Point

2007-12-16T22:17:00.000-06:00

Sorry New York, but one of your best homegrown artists has decided to cross the pond. Woody Allen is remembered for vowing never to leave New York ever again to make a movie after he returned from Europe where he filmed the hilarious Love and Death in 1975. After a 30-year stint in the Big Apple, Allen decided to retract his pledge and film a movie in London; and has crafted a thoughtful thriller that reminds viewers why he is often considered a genius.
Match Point, which was mostly (sadly) neglected by this year’s Oscar nominations, is a suspenseful philosophical thesis on the sometimes underestimated role of luck in peoples’ lives. It revolves around a former tennis pro, Chris, played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers, who falls in favor with an extremely well to do family. He ends up marrying the daughter and working for the father, but soon finds himself entangled with the brother’s American girlfriend, played by Scarlett Johansson. Soon Chris finds himself with a moral dilemma on his hands, and in the end can only hope that his luck will keep him afloat.
Characters in Allen’s movies are often living in a world without a moral center. The problems they get into are problems not because they offend a higher good, but because they make the characters’ lives more painful and complicated. The events of this film indeed complicate Chris’s life, but unlike Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors, Chris is not plagued with guilt so much as the overhanging dread that he might be caught; that dread, coupled with several plot twists and turns, is what makes the film so suspenseful. The viewer is drawn into a conundrum without realizing it: Chris is doing terribly despicable things, but for some reason, we want him to succeed.
Woody Allen is a filmmaker who rewards intelligent viewers. Those who have read Crime and Punishment will see obvious parallels, and Allen’s themes always provide interesting springboards for philosophical discussions. Some of his films can alienate broader audiences by including too much high-brow humor. This film contains enough suspense and emotion to keep any viewer interested right down to the tense finale.

The New World (2005)

2007-12-16T22:04:00.000-06:00

The best film of 2005 was all about one moment. While it clocks in at two-and-a-half hours, Terrence Malick’s The New World is really about the emotional ripples caused by that moment throughout history, shaping the destiny of an entire nation that came after. The moment I speak of is the first meeting of the Jamestown settlers and the “naturals” of Virginia. This is the story we are all familiar with: white men come to America, John Smith meets Pocahontas, we know the rest. We know how it happened, but what we have forgotten is how that collision of two worlds entirely “new” to one another would have felt. It is a moment full of curiosity, wonder and fear. It seems cliché to say that a movie makes history come alive, but this film does that in a way that is different from most others: it focuses on one emotional point and lets the audience feel it the entire time.
That is the beauty of The New World: that one moment shapes the destinies of all the characters entwined in it. Colin Farrell’s John Smith becomes entranced in that other culture, in both their traditions and their princess, Pocahontas. Other settlers are immediately fearful, reacting with both confrontation and isolation. Soon the two worlds become so wrapped up in one another that it is clear they will never again be complete and intact. It is both a violent and wondrous discovery.
Malick’s skilled direction makes this emotional journey much different than expected. Instead of resorting to historical epic stereotypes, he tells an extremely visual story keen on emotional impact. Rarely do I find a contemporary production so in tune with the basic nature of film as this one is. With most of the dialogue done with voiceovers, Malick lets his images tell the story. That is not to say that he is lacking in his use of sound; indeed, he knows how to use both silence and James Horner’s driving score to full effect. The performances are also notable, especially 15 year old Q’Orianka Kilcher as Pocahontas, as well as Christian Bale and Christopher Plummer, in smaller roles.
All of these actors and production elements come together to create a beautiful and moving story, one that resonates as an American legend and as basic human drama.