Newman's Own Movie Corner

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

2009-05-02T16:48:00.001-07:00

This movie made me: Kinda Pissed

I think we can all admit that the X-Men franchise took a big step backwards with X-Men: The Last Stand. That retreat continues with X-Men Origins: Wolverine, where Hugh Jackman once again finds himself as the moody antihero surrounded by clichés, explosions, and a whole lotta nuttin’.

Logan (Jackman) and Victor (Liev Schreiber) are two seemingly ageless brothers fighting in every war they can get their hands on. Both of them are blessed (cursed?) with unusual powers – including the bony claws that extend from Logan’s hands. Soon they are drafted into a ragtag bunch of mutant fighters, led by Colonel Stryker (Danny Huston.) But that life doesn’t appeal to Logan, so he takes off to life in isolation with his true love (Lynn Collins.) But Logan’s is a power that can’t be ignored, and those who want to rein him in will stop at nothing to get him back.

When someone shouts “NOOOO!” while the camera takes off into the air every ten minutes, you know you’re veering more into The Last Stand than X2. The filmmakers throw as much as they can at Wolverine without wasting time for explanations or anything. Even when he is finally injected with the adamantium coating (which takes too long to get to, by the way), we’re not even really sure why he did it. More than once, he simply glares at someone and asks, “Why?” The answer is always, “Because it’s a movie! That’s how it’s supposed to happen!”

We get one glimpse of a shiny rock early in the movie, and about a half hour later Stryker’s been able to manufacture enough adamantium to coat an entire skeletal system. No explanation other than, “You remember that rock? Well I found more.” The script zips from here to there, never quite deciding what it wants to be. It starts off as a comic (albeit unfunny one) adventure about a bunch of quirky mutants. Five minutes later, it changes its mind and morphs into a “someone’s-hunting-down-mutants” thriller. Five minutes later… let’s make it a revenge movie instead.

It’s to Jackman’s credit that this film is even slightly watchable – he’s still the perfect Wolverine. He can simultaneously balance strong heroism and dramatic angst, no matter what bile he’s stuck with. Unfortunately, he’s the only saving grace. Dominic Monaghan, Taylor Kitsch, and Ryan Reynolds have mere minutes onscreen, and none of them have the chance make the best of it. And as the doomed love, Collins pretty much just looks nice and spews out a bunch of cringe worthy “love will always find a way” speeches.

Director Gavin Hood (Tsotsi) has no idea how to make a big-budget action movie. The explosions look pretty, but that’s the best you can say about the action in this movie. You’ve seen everything else before – and much better, too. Couple that with some terrible CGI work – Wolverine’s claws sometimes look like three lines drawn on screen with a silver sharpie – and you’ve got one big summer bust.

As sad as I am saying this, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is even worse than The Last Stand. At least that one had some fun set pieces to offset the sucky. Wolverine is just morose and mind-numbing. If this downward spiral continues, the X-Men movies could soon be on the level of Batman and Robin – they’re already in the Fantastic Four danger zone. It’s not the humans who need saving anymore. It’s the X-Men.

Observe and Report

2009-04-10T13:05:00.000-07:00

This Movie Made Me: Shocked (In a Good Way)

Let’s get this straight: Ronnie Barnhardt is more Travis Bickle than Paul Blart. Despite arriving only a few months later than this year’s other mall cop movie, Observe and Report is in no way a rip-off. Writer/director Jody Hill gives us an awkward comedy on steroids, where we’re the ones who are wonderfully disturbed by what we see.

Ronnie (Seth Rogen) is a bipolar mall cop at the Forest Ridge mall. He spends his days dispensing knowledge to his mall cop underlings, harassing a Middle Eastern vendor, and pining over make-up counter girl Brandi (Anna Faris.) But when a trenchcoat-wearing flasher appears in the parking lot, assaulting various women – including Brandi – Ronnie realizes he has a mission. He will be the one to track down the pervert, even as the city sends a snide detective (Ray Liotta) to head the investigation.

But instead of laughing at the deluded Ronnie, we’re troubled by him. Hill treats his illness with the utmost seriousness – and the violence that ensues from it is shockingly real. Ronnie’s life is incredibly dark – he still lives with his pass-out-on-the-floor drunk of a mom, and he’s completely unaware of how stupid people think he is. But that’s all part of the edgy humor. When vicious drug dealers on a street corner surround Ronnie, we’re genuinely afraid. But his bone-crunching, face-smashing revolt is at once hilarious and horrifying.

It’s to Rogen’s credit that Ronnie is as heartbreakingly ignorant as he is. He isn’t the lovable yet despised goof that Ace Ventura was – he’s a genuinely troubled individual whose delusions are more sad than funny, but Rogen and Hill find humor without shortchanging reality. Faris (America’s preeminent ditz) brilliantly channels her comedic strengths while making Brandi as realistic as Ronnie. She’s a heartless creature; when Ronnie takes her on a date and mistakes her increasing drunkenness for affection, we can’t help but cringe. Even so, Faris turns Brandi into one of the most hilarious onscreen drunks in years. And when the night ends in a decidedly unromantic tryst, we’re shocked once again.

Time and again, Hill pushes the limits of decency and challenges us not to laugh at it. Nearly every filmic taboo smashes us in the face – drug and alcohol abuse, rape, disturbing male nudity – but he manages to make it all right in the end. Ronnie is dangerous but earnest. Even if we’re afraid of what he might do, we want him to win. But when something goes right for Ronnie, we're both cheering and scratching our heads. We're happy he's happy, but we're also questioning our own sanity when we support him. It takes a lot of guts and skill to create such a deranged but likeable character (especially in a comedy), but Hill and Rogen pass with flying colors.

This comedy is as dark as dark can get. Ronnie is an unhinged person, and is often frightening in his intensity. We never know what he’s going to do next – but that’s all part of the fun. Observe and Report will probably be the most polarizing movie of the year, and I have to credit the studio for releasing the film the way it is. You may end up disgusted, but if you’re in the mood for a film unlike any other… Observe and Report is for you.

Fast & Furious

2009-04-03T15:24:00.000-07:00

This Movie Made Me: Neither Fast Nor Furious

The newest installment of the “Fast and the Furious” franchise is SO exciting, they don’t even have time to waste on stuff like “the.” For all those people who thought the best part of the original film was its cast (and not something like… the cars), their prayers have finally been answered. And it only took Hollywood two films to hear them. But even with the reunited cast a couple of cool cars, there’s nothing in “Fast & Furious” to get remotely excited about.

Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and girlfriend Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) are living the high life south of the border snatching oil and speeding under tumbling, fiery gas tanks. But when someone close to Dom is killed, he finds himself back in L.A. on a mission for revenge. His target: a Mexican drug lord who traffics goods over the border via a shaky (and completely CGIed) mine shaft in the mountains. Also on the case is FBI agent and former rival Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker), who puts his life and career on the line to bring the villain to justice. Dom’s terse sister Mia (Jordana Brewster) shows up once in a while, as do a few high-speed car chases.

But the film is focused on two men; one driven by revenge, one driven to do what’s right. So it’s clearly strong on plot. (Snicker.) But anyone who goes into a “Fast and Furious” film expecting a lot of plot is hopelessly deluded. What really matters is the awesome action. Unfortunately, the action here is decidedly unawesome. A race through the streets of L.A. is a pale imitations of the other movies, even with regular traffic providing lots of veering and horn honking. The rest of the film lets computers handle all the hard work. Only one problem: the graphics are at the level of a good Nintendo 64 game at best. It’s like watching someone else play “Cruis’n.”

A big point in the advertising has been its reunited cast – four of Hollywood’s best and brightest… eight years ago. Does it make a difference? Well, not really. No one is really required to do anything besides posing and looking nice. The most challenging thing Diesel and Walker have to do is be Aggressive (with a capital A!) – a.k.a. punching each other and shouting when any emotion is called for. While watching, one can’t help thinking that the only reason this movie was made was because none of them had anything else to do.

I’m willing to bet most moviegoers weren’t clamoring for a fourth “Fast and the Furious” movie, and this gives us no reason to be glad they actually did. Yes, they may have brought back all the original stars. But for all they’re given to do, they might as well have brought back all the original stunt drivers instead. It would be the same film. There was one exciting moment, however. Halfway through the first car chase, two people in the theater stood up and started yelling at each other. Now that was fast and furious!

Race to Witch Mountain

2009-03-15T13:09:00.000-07:00

This Movie Made Me: Bored

Disney’s 1975 sci-fi family flick “Escape to Witch Mountain” is a classic example of the House of Mouse’s output at the time – not all that good, but enough to enchant kids long enough to make it a family mainstay. Now it gets the high-tech, big budget updo with “Race to Witch Mountain,” starring Disney’s newest family man Dwayne Johnson. But despite Johnson’s affable sense of humor, explosions galore and a pair of precocious aliens, the film is more of a walkathon than an actual race.

Jack Bruno (Johnson) is a down-on-his-luck cab driver in Las Vegas caught in the middle of a UFO convention – one that introduces him to everyone from two nerdy Storm Troopers to a va-voomy astrophysicist (Carla Gugino.) But suddenly Sara (AnnaSophia Robb) and Seth (Alexander Ludwig) appear in his cab with thousands of dollars in cash and geographic coordinates for a destination. After a high-speed chase with a couple of black vans and a terrifying encounter with fireball-spewing assassin, Jack begins to realize there’s something… otherworldly about those kids. They’re soon on a breakneck race to Witch Mountain, a top-secret military base that’s housing their spacecraft. And if they don’t beat the government and the assassin tracking them, Earth’s very survival will be at stake.

If that’s not how you remember the original, don’t worry. “Race to Witch Mountain” is one of those that purports to be a “re-imagining” instead of a remake. But this re-imagining throws out everything imaginative in favor of a standard let’s-run-away-from-the-bad-guys shtick we’ve seen a million times before. The villains are a bunch of government suits, distinguishable only as the serious guy, the smart guy, and the whiny guy. The brother-and-sister aliens still have their powers, though this time around they can do cool stuff like wreck cars and pass through solid materials.

These new super kids should have made this movie all the more exciting, right? Not really. Looks like director Andy Fickman (“The Game Plan”) had no idea how to make an action movie. The chase is pretty much relentless, but the movie is so dark, shaky, and fast that it is often incomprehensible. They were clearly trying to emulate the “Bourne” style of action; but the end product is messy, not masterful.

Johnson is a genuinely entertaining performer, and he tries his best here. The problem is that the script gives him no opportunities to showcase his macho-chicken sense of humor, or even his action prowess. It doesn’t give anyone any opportunities, really – except to run and spew sci-fi babble. The characters don’t have any motivation other than “that’s what you’re supposed to do in an action movie.” Case in point: when Jack and his alien chums are cornered in a small-town diner, the town sheriff and a friendly waitress come to their aid without hesitation. Why? Probably because they’re played by the original film’s stars, Kim Richards and Iake Eissinmann. It’s a nice throwback to the film’s roots, but you’d think they’d at least wonder why a guy and two kids are being chased by the government.

It’s not like a “Witch Mountain” remake/re-imagining/whatever was a bad idea, especially one molded around Johnson’s comedic action antics. But you can’t help but be bored when the best joke is an alien asking, “Are we there yet?” Too unexciting to be an action film, too unfunny to be a family comedy, “Race to Witch Mountain” is a perfect definition of “meh.”

Watchmen

2009-03-06T16:37:00.000-08:00

This Movie Made Me: Kind of Disappointed

It’s been a 23-year-long trek to the screen for Watchmen. Handed from director to director and studio to studio, the heralded graphic novel has finally hit screens courtesy of Warner Brothers and director Zack Snyder (300.) Adapting the dense work is no small task for anyone, but Snyder and company are so slavishly faithful the film loses most of the suspense and subtext that made the graphic novel so thrilling.

In an alternate version of 1985, where Richard Nixon is still president and U.S./Soviet tensions are higher than ever, society has shunned all forms of costumed heroes. The reclusion takes a violent turn when The Comedian is violently beaten and thrown to his death. Sociopathic vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) decides to track down the killer, convinced there’s a force determined to rid the world of costumed crime fighters. He reconnects with his former partners to warn them, but they’ve got problems of their own. But after a former hero survives an assassination attempt and Rorschach is framed for murder, the Watchmen begin to realize that Rorschach’s suspicions may be true.

The graphic novel’s strength lied in its complicated, compelling characters. These former crime fighters are all struggling to adjust to normal lives: the truly powerful Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) is becoming increasingly less concerned with human matters, much to the distress of his ex-partner/girlfriend Laurie (Malin Akerman). The former Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson) is aging and dealing with impotence. Only Adrian Veidt (Matthew Goode), the world’s smartest man, seems to have adjusted to post-hero life by licensing his alter-ego and becoming a successful businessman. But with this fresh-faced cast, their world-weariness comes off as whininess. Akerman and Goode are especially miscast, short on years and dramatic subtlety. Their one-note performances shortchange two of the film’s most intriguing characters.

Thankfully the cast is not uniformly bland. Haley and Crudup are tailor-made for their roles, giving remarkable life and vitality to their characters. Haley’s diminutive stature makes him an unlikely hero, but his frightening determination and hard-edged voice are something to behold. Dr. Manhattan, astonishingly rendered, becomes tragically conflicted in his alienation – all thanks to Crudup’s tender, quietly contemplative voice. And Carla Gugino is alluring and affecting in an all-too-brief performance as Laurie’s mother.

Not that Snyder gives them much time to grow. It’s easy to admire Watchmen for retaining as much of the graphic novel as it did. But by doing that, they’ve lost what it all really means. Plenty of images are taken directly from the novel, as well as a great deal of dialogue. It’s as if the filmmakers saw the graphic novel and figured if they replicated it exactly, they’d get the same meaning. The whole film is rushed through, with the exception of an irritatingly slow and indulgent sex scene (which shouldn’t surprise anyone who’s seen 300.) The big moments are sped through, and have no more dramatic weight than Superman rescuing a kitten in a tree.

Even more frustrating are the things they got right. The two major diversions from the book – the opening credits and an altered ending – are among the most exciting moments in the film. They’re different, but they are completely faithful in spirit. If only the filmmakers had taken more chances. The use of music is often brilliant, from Nat King Cole’s “Unforgettable” echoing through the violent opening scene to Philip Glass mythologizing the creation of Dr. Manhattan.

This film could have been directed by Gilliam. It could have been directed by Aronofsky or Greengrass. Instead we got the guy who thinks slo-mo is the most awesome thing ever. As a fan of the book, it’s all anyone could ask for. As a fan of films, it’s playing it too safe. Watchmen could have been a whole lot worse, for sure. But in the hands of a more daring director, it could have been so much more.

Two Lovers

2009-03-01T10:44:00.000-08:00

This Movie Made Me: Meditative

The chamber room dramas of the 1970s are perhaps some of the greatest films ever made. Kramer vs. Kramer, Interiors – character studies that were quiet, contemplative, and ultimately shattering. With Two Lovers, director James Gray (We Own the Night) takes these sensibilities and a few strong performances to create a bleak but transformative tale of love.

Leonard (Joaquin Phoenix) recently moved back in with his parents. Still reeling after a failed engagement, Leonard teeters on the brink of suicide. His parents set up a meeting between him and Sondra (Vinessa Shaw), the daughter of the man taking over his father’s dry cleaning business. Soon after, Leonard meets upstairs neighbor Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow), an exciting but destructive woman having an affair with a married lawyer.

Leonard is desperately in love with Michelle, but she can’t break things off with the lawyer. Sondra adores Leonard, but he’s ready to throw everything aside for a relationship with Michelle. Leonard must decide who to turn to – the woman he adores but may never reciprocate, or the woman who would devote herself to him entirely.

Sondra is in the same place as Leonard; they both love someone who only wants friendship. He implores Michelle to accept him, telling her she’ll learn to love him with time. Should he follow Michelle and risk rejection, or should he turn away and save Sondra from the same kind of rejection?

At the heart of Two Lovers is the enigmatic Leonard, brought to stunning realization by Phoenix. His speech is slurred, and he shuffles around with a world-weary look – he is completely real, a broken soul looking for a reason to live. He’s quiet and earnest with Sondra, outgoing and jokey with Michelle. Phoenix splits Leonard into two people, and seeing which side survives is absolutely thrilling.

Paltrow’s Michelle is wild and exciting – teetering on the edge of control. Shaw’s Sondra is quiet and sweet, too devoted to speak out when Leonard turns away. They create completely different scenarios, and Shaw and Paltrow put in fine, thoughtful performances. As Leonard’s mother, Isabella Rosselini also puts in an impressive performance where looks mean more than words.

The screen is filled with images that constantly infer Leonard’s place between Michelle and Sondra. As Leonard and Sondra make love, the camera drifts over to Michelle’s window across the courtyard. The style and mechanics of the film become almost invisible, paving the way for the elegant writing and natural performances to lead the way.

Two Lovers shows how dependent love can be – how a relationship cannot be fulfilled without reciprocation. It seems like a no-brainer, but Gray and Phoenix show it isn’t as simple as it seems. If Two Lovers is remembered only for being Phoenix’s last performance (apparently), then that’s all the better. With any luck, future filmgoers will turn to it and find an honest reflection on the things that affect us all.

Coraline

2009-02-08T18:04:00.000-08:00

This movie made me: Unsettled

You know how the old saying goes: be careful what you wish for. Not everything is as it seems. When young Coraline discovers the family she always wanted, she soon learns that dreams can quickly turn into nightmares. And courtesy of author Neil Gaiman and director Henry Selick, those nightmares transform Coraline into one of the most inventive and mature animated films in years.

Coraline (voiced by Dakota Fanning) has just moved into a creaky old house, and she isn’t happy about it. Her parents are too busy working to notice her, the neighbors are unbearably eccentric, and nearly everybody calls her “Caroline” instead of her real name. Then, one night, she opens a small door in the house that leads to an exact replica of her apartment. Her family is there, too – or her Other Family. The people of this world are filled with affection and love for Coraline. The only thing off is the black buttons sewn in place of their eyes. But when Coraline refuses the Other Mother’s offer to stay forever, the sinister truth behind this new world begins to show.

There are several frightening images in this other world, and the audience isn’t spared a bit. It’s refreshing to see a family film put so much faith in its audience’s maturity, and it is legitimately unsettling. Coraline’s nightmare is truly that – a terrifying place where the worst will happen without a moment’s warning. It moves from charming to unnerving on a whim – thanks in no small part to Teri Hatcher’s inspired work as the Other Mother, a surprisingly subtle mix of sweetness and wickedness. This twisted darkness only sets it apart from more generic kid’s fare, and enhances its brilliance.

Every inch of talent Selick displayed in The Nightmare Before Christmas has been increased two-fold. Every frame bleeds with Gothic frenzy; the drab and angular real world is perfectly contrasted with the colorful Other World filled with dancing mice, talking bugs, and flowers that tickle. It is a feast for the eyes, and easily the most accomplished stop-motion animated film in over a decade. No amount of praise is enough for Bruno Coulais’s magically creepy and brilliantly unconventional score.

It’s easy to say that Coraline is too scary for kids – indeed, it takes animation to more intense levels than most filmmakers would dare go – but to advise anyone against seeing it would be a crime. A triumph of boundless creativity and masterful storytelling, it is simply a film that must be seen to be believed. Like the best nightmares it is disturbing, unsettling, and – most importantly – unforgettable.

New in Town

2009-01-30T12:43:00.000-08:00

This movie made me: Indifferent

Wasn’t Fargo a great movie? Don’t you just love Minnesota, where the women have names like Trudy and Blanche, and where the men ice fish and drive pick-ups? Wouldn’t it be awesome if there were another movie like that? That’s what the makers of New in Town hope you’re thinking. But by pulling out every romantic-comedy joke in the book, this wintry flick is blander than casserole without green beans, dontcha know.

A Miami-based corporation is in the midst of restructuring several of its plants, including one in remote New Ulm, Minnesota. When no one volunteers to oversee the process, driven businesswoman Lucy Hill (Renee Zellweger) reluctantly accepts the job. In Minnesota, she finds herself fighting against over-friendly neighbors, skeptical co-workers and the bitter cold. As she begins to restructure the plant, she finds herself at odds (both personally and professionally) with the local union rep, Ted Mitchell (Harry Connick, Jr.) He’s a handsome widower who hates Lucy at first sight… so you all know what that means. And as Lucy spends more time in the snow-covered town, she discovers that the little people mean more to a company than figures and paychecks.

There is a certain romantic allure to snowy forests and small town Christmases, but we can only take so much. The film so drab, dark and sparse it recalls the snowy landscapes of last year’s X-Files movie – not the image you want while watching a romantic comedy. Jokes about the weather, scrapbooking and tapioca aren’t doing any favors either. There are tired, clichéd Midwestern jokes galore – so many that it transcends reality. I don’t know about you, but an entire town gathering around a giant Christmas tree and singing carols is more Whoville than Minnesota.

With her round face and pouty lips, Zellweger adds the same kind of spoiled humor she’s been doing for years. The shtick has lost its brilliance since her early ‘00s heyday. Here, she’s nothing more than a perpetually cold Bridget Jones. The cast has its share of genuinely funny character actors – including Siobhan Fallon Hogan, Frances Conroy and J.K. Simmons – but they don’t have much to do other than roll out the same old “Ya, you betcha” thing we’ve seen for years.

New in Town is Fargo without the wood chipper – and that’s not meant to be an endorsement for family-friendly audiences. Entirely inoffensive but completely riskless, the film is never anything more than “cute.” When a comedy exclusively relies on stereotypes that were used brilliantly years ago, it's clear the filmmakers were about a decade too late.

Underworld: Rise of the Lycans

2009-01-25T11:04:00.000-08:00

This movie made me: Mildly Disoriented

Regardless of its lack of originality (vampires vs. werewolves) or distinct style (a bluer riff on The Matrix), but Underworld and its 2006 sequel Underworld: Evolution managed to entertain in spades. Now it takes an unfortunate step towards bloated epicness with Underworld: Rise of the Lycans, an almost entirely unnecessary prequel.

A long time ago in a land that’s probably somewhere in central Europe, werewolves (or Lycans) were the daytime guardians of the vampires. They were treated as animals, and ruled over by the icy and imposing Viktor (Bill Nighy). The one Lycan who appears to have Viktor’s favor is Lucian (Michael Sheen), born and bred in captivity. Lucian has fallen in love with Viktor’s beloved daughter, the predictably feisty Sonja (Rhona Mitra). A love between the two species is forbidden, and as Lucian sees the injustices his kind suffers, he begins to realize his true calling.

Perhaps the biggest thing the filmmakers got wrong was something they did years ago – they already told the story. Lucian’s rise against the vampires was told (albeit in quick flashbacks and narratives) in the original Underworld. And other than adding some dialogue and a few fights, the film offers nothing new. Any battles between the main characters are totally devoid of suspense, as viewers familiar with the series already know their ultimate fates. Sheen, hot off his critical successes in prestige pics like The Queen and Frost/Nixon, makes for a slightly more dynamic hero than what’s usually seen in horror films. Nighy remains a genuinely frightening vampire, but Mitra seems there only for her resemblance to Kate Beckinsale.

The film’s saving grace could have been its action. But with its endless barrage of breakneck handheld shots and frenetic editing, it just becomes confusing. In some cases, literally nothing can be understood. We must wait until the action dies down to actually determine what happened. This is a dizzying task that teeters on the edge of headache-inducing.

So for fans of the Underworld series, this film is here for you in case you didn’t understand something about the history lesson in the first film. Prequels are a tricky thing. But when your prequel doesn’t say anything that hasn’t been said in the other films… you’ve probably done something wrong.

Valkyrie

2008-12-26T12:23:00.001-08:00

This Movie Made Me: Sufficiently Anxious

As the age-old saying goes: actions speak louder than words. That is particularly the case with Valkryie, Bryan Singer’s new thriller depicting the true story of a failed assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler. Perhaps it’s all for the best, since the actors spew out a hodgepodge of accents that hinder the film. And despite genuine thrills, a stiff Tom Cruise performance makes Valkyrie just another run-of-the-mill thriller.

Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Cruise) is stationed in Africa during the latter years of WWII. After an attack leaves him wounded and blind in one eye, von Stauffenberg returns to Germany. His animosity towards Hitler lands him in a group of high-ranking officials plotting to overthrow Hitler and start a new government. Von Stauffenberg presents Operation Valkyrie, meant to be used in case of a SS revolt, as the perfect means to assassinate Hitler and end his reign of terror.

Singer’s talent for making unbearably tense sequences is on full display here. Even though the ultimate end of the plot is obvious, the assassination attempt is an expertly crafted nail biter. Intricately detailed and as drawn out as possible, it is impossible not to be spellbound by the time von Stauffenberg has Hitler in his sights. This is filmmaking much more focused than his work in the X-Men series and in Superman Returns.

If only the rest of the film kept up with him. Cruise seems to be unable to emote properly with only one eye. Having the only American accent doesn’t help either. There are accents abound in Valkyrie – mostly British, and most of the actual German accents are reserved for the bad guys. While it may have saved Cruise the embarrassment of ridiculous accents, the eclectic mix takes away more from the film than it adds to it. It is a particular travesty that Carice van Houten (mesmerizing in Paul Verhoeven’s Black Book) has only a few precious minutes of screen time. As von Stauffenberg’s wife, her character seems almost an afterthought as written. But van Houten speaks volumes without saying a word. And in the end, it’s her we remember.

Valkyrie is a solid thriller – an accomplishment enough, given how obvious its ending will be. The detail constructed in the suspenseful sequences is top-notch and not to be missed. Whether or not it returns Tom Cruise to box office glory remains to be seen. But if Valkyrie does, it will be because of film power – not star power.

The Day the Earth Stood Still

2008-12-14T10:44:00.000-08:00

This Movie Made Me: Bored

Keanu Reeves is learning. Not learning how to act, but learning how to use his lack of expressions effectively. His latest inexpressive character is Klaatu, the foreboding alien at the center of The Day the Earth Stood Still. This effects-laden remake is about as exciting as listening to Reeves reading a senate environmental bill.

A mysterious space object lands in Central Park. (Because anybody who’s anybody attacks New York first). But instead of an asteroid, scientists find a large glowing orb. Two beings emerge from it: a surprisingly retro robot/alien hybrid named Gort and an alien life form quickly reborn as Keanu Reeves. When the alien’s intentions become clear, the government tries to strengthen its hold on him and he takes off with a sympathetic scientist (Jennifer Connelly) and her son (Jaden Smith).

Sounds exciting, right? Not really. Aside from a few scenes that can best be described as “creepy,” the film is all talk. The scientists wonder what the alien could want, a government bigwig (in this case, Kathy Bates) feeling threatened, the alien escapes and then… they talk some more! It’s not that the film suffers from too much set-up and too little pay-off. The talking just moves around in circle and, despite all the talk of impending doom, no one ever actually seems worried. And when the apocalypse finally arrives, it can best be described as mind-numbing. Never before has the destruction of mankind been so boring.

And it’s not as if the film suffers from a lack of ambience. Director Scott Derrickson (The Exorcism of Emily Rose) fills the film with appropriately eerie scenes of misty forests and sparse landscapes, all of which tie into the film’s unabashed green sensibilities. If only the script gave the filmmakers some thrills to work with. Reeves’ lack of versatility actually serves him well – let’s face it, no one seems more natural at being flat than him. Connelly, Jon Hamm and Kyle Chandler provide sufficient support, even if they all looks the same. It’s almost as if mankind already suffered an alien attack that obliterated everyone with brightly-colored hair.

Whether or not The Day the Earth Stood Still warranted a remake is beside the point. When the results are this mediocre, there’s no point in arguing for or against. It shows that the director can make pretty pictures, but not much else. And it shows that Keanu Reeves can convincingly play an unemotional alien. But we already knew that.

Australia

2008-11-26T10:34:00.000-08:00

This movie made me: Entertained and Affected

If nothing else, Baz Luhrmann’s Australia will make you reminiscent of the films of yesteryear. Old-fashioned epic-ness is everywhere in Australia. The film never reaches these heights, of course, but it’s nice to get swept away by its unabashed romanticism and scope.

The film is a fairy tale that takes place in a faraway land called Oz. Just as WWII breaks out, Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) finds herself transported from England to the outback when she inherits her husband’s sprawling ranch. It is not a match made in heaven; Sarah is so stiff and British she carries a riding crop with her most of the time. And the natives aren’t exactly welcoming – ranch hand Fletcher (David Wenham) is working with the major Australian power in cattle herding to force Sarah out of business, and the drover she hires to help her (Hugh Jackman) can’t stand the sight of her. But as they work together to save the ranch and its inhabitants and as the Japanese begin to invade, Sarah and the drover must fight to prove that love can conqueror all.

Like Luhrmann’s other films, Australia starts at a breakneck pace – but without the flashing lights. It’s an odd absence, but it works. The film is definitely epic – the sets, costumes and cinematography are not to be beat. But despite valiant efforts, Luhrmann cannot muster the same devastating resonance that made Moulin Rouge! so effective. The audience knows Sarah and the drover are meant for each other, so it’s almost as if the filmmakers figured there’s no point in creating truly compelling characters.

But thanks to strong performances, the film is deeply emotional. The Drover is an Australian Rhett Butler, and with his rugged adventurous personality and intense emotionality Jackman is more than qualified to fill Clark Gable’s shoes. Kidman moves from side-splittingly funny to desperately earnest with ease. She is never more compelling than in her scenes with newcomer Brandon Walters. As a mixed-blood Aborigine child, Walters gives the film its heart. With his wide, dark eyes and endless enthusiasm, it’s very difficult not to fall in love with him.

There’s an element of magic realism that sets it apart from other epics. Filled with musical references to “Over the Rainbow,” classical and Aboriginal music, the importance of music becomes an active part of the film – bringing this world to something other than reality. There’s no denying its pure entertainment. Australia is an experience unlike any other you’ll see this year.

Let the Right One In

2008-11-24T18:42:00.000-08:00

This movie made me: Stunned

Vampire love in cinema is a bit of a hot topic right now… I don’t think I need to say why. But while a certain tween sensation invades movie theaters across the country, another take on the vampire genre is sneaking in. Swedish export Let the Right One In is both a chilling and complex variation of the classic vampire story and a heartbreaking melancholic study of doomed first love.

12-year-old Oskar (Kare Hedebrant) is a shy, bullied kid in a small snowy Swedish town. Unable to stand up to the bullies in school, Oskar takes a knife to trees outside his apartment at night. It is here he meets Eli (Lina Leandersson), who’s just moved into the apartment next door. She tells him she can’t be his friend, but Oskar cannot stay away. As their friendship blossoms bodies begin to pile up around the town – all of them drained of blood. Eli is clearly not what she seems, but she and Oskar continue to watch their friendship grow.

Perhaps the most shocking thing about Let the Right One In is how much of it is grounded in reality. For once, it’s actually plausible that the townspeople never guess there’s a vampire in their midst. Every bit of Eli’s story that stretches into mythic regions feels new. New questions are raised about vampires – their gender, the relationships they have with normal people. Young Leandersson is truly remarkable, showing more depth and subtleties in her film debut than many actors ever manage. She shows an astonishing understanding of Eli’s complexities – the extent of her relationship with Oskar, and whether it is one of benefit or of love.

Director Thomas Alfredson’s stark and unwavering style supports the film’s moments of horror and tenderness without changing anything. Alfredson doesn’t throw any tricks or gimmicks – everything is presented as straightforward and clearly as possible. He has the power to make an audience squirm or break their hearts on the turn of a dime. Each sequence rises to a new level of mastery of suspense and emotionality, culminating in a finale so shocking it’s bound to be left out of the inevitable American remake.

In the end, Let the Right One In is hardly just a vampire film. It’s a coming-of-age story, a story about first love, about the loneliness of a broken childhood and an examination of the positive and negatives of friendship. Emotionally devastating and chilling, Let the Right One In is a film that seeks to reinvent the vampire and actually succeeds in doing so.

Quantum of Solace

2008-11-16T11:53:00.000-08:00

This movie made me: Moderately Excited

“Bond is running wild.” These four words, spoken midway through Quantum of Solace, perfectly describe the 22nd Bond adventure. Daniel Craig continues to reinvent Bond in new and thrilling ways, even if the film can’t keep up with him. Filled with frenetic action but not much else, Quantum of Solace is far from the greatest Bond adventure. But fans have suffered through much worse.

The action picks up only minutes after the conclusion of Casino Royale. In his effort to seek revenge against those responsible for the death of his love Vesper, Bond begins to uncover information about Quantum – a group so secret no one knows about it. His leads send him around the world and eventually into the presence of Dominic Greene (Matthieu Amalric), one of those sinister businessmen seeking to control the world. Bond soon crosses paths with Camille (Olga Kurylenko), a brazen beauty with her own revenge mission. It’s all very Licence to Kill, but leaner, meaner and without the Wayne Newton cameo.

Craig’s Bond has never been so determined, vicious and downright frightening – just as he should be. Anyone who still doubts him as Bond is in severe denial. But it suffers from the second-movie syndrome. At the film’s conclusion, there are more questions than answers – Quantum is just a name and a few faces. Instead we watch Bond tracking a Peter Lorre-esque middle man the entire time – the type of figure that would get killed off halfway through a typical Bond picture.

But it’s not that important, since what director Marc Forster (Finding Neverland, Stranger Than Fiction) clearly wants us to notice how cool the actions scenes are. And there are plenty of them: Bond gets chased in a car, in a boat, on foot, in a plane, etc. Sometimes, he even does the chasing! The first meeting between hero and villain at an outdoor may is the most artistically ambitious set piece in the series. And the (literally) explosive finale in a desert hotel showcases some of the coolest Bond sets in 40 years.

Instead of concocting a two-hour romance between Bond and Kurylenko’s Camille, the filmmakers pair them as something much more complex and rewarding – two desperate people after the same thing. They are able to relate to each other because of the tragedies they’ve faced – they are the ideal match for each other. When Bond and Camille, dirty and exhausted, walk in silence through the Bolivian desert, they are united in their loneliness.

In the years to come, Quantum of Solace will probably be come to known as the arty James Bond movie. Director Forster adds a lot of little moments into the film – fancy fonts, soundless montages, etc. – that are interesting, but only occasionally succeed. Bond is still on a mission that will presumably be continued in the next film. But as far as 106 minute long set-ups go, this ain’t too bad.

Repo! The Genetic Opera

2008-11-10T21:22:00.000-08:00

This movie made me: Confused

In the past, the phrase “and it’s a musical!” has often been used to make hypothetically ridiculous movies sound even more absurd. Now, at long last, people can use that phrase with complete honesty. Repo! The Genetic Opera takes place in the not-too-distant future where an epidemic of organ failure led to the creation of an organ lending system. People sign a contract with the all-powerful GeneCo, and are granted a new lease on life. But if any loaners miss a payment, the Repo Man appears and takes the product back in the most gruesome way possible… and it’s a musical!

With a premise such as this, director Darren Lynn Bousman (of Saw fame) should be expected to deliver something on the level of The Rocky Horror Picture Show by forgoing all sense of reason in favor of something bombastically bizarre and entertaining. Unfortunately, his pedestrian approach to the material only forgoes reason, with little of the bizarreness that the film desperately needs. It’s weird, all right, but for most of the film the characters simply sit and sing about their feelings, or about how the world sucks – hardly the kind of material that will make an audience go along with it.

The film follows Shiloh (Alexa Vega), a teenage girl with a blood disease so dangerous that her father Nathan (Anthony Stewart Head) keeps her locked up in her room. This is all the better for him, since it means he can hide his true identity from her – he is the vicious and unforgiving Repo Man, who stalks the streets to reclaim organs from unpaying customers. After a horrible accident that left Shiloh’s mother dead, Nathan found himself in debt to GeneCo’s president, Rotti Largo (a warbling Paul Sorvino), who has his hands full with his own children: dangerously violent Luigi (Bill Moseley), unhinged face-stealer Pavi (Orge), and spoiled surgery and drug-addicted Amber Sweet (Paris Hilton, obviously a stretch for her). But as Shiloh’s desire to know the outside world grows stronger, Nathan’s guilt over his horrendous actions grows with Largo’s need to find the new head of the company keeping the world alive.

To say Repo! isn’t scary is pointless, given the nature of the film. This is straight-up Victorian melodrama, from the complicated bickering families all the way to the blood-soaked finale (set, appropriately, in an opera house). But there must be something said for the lack of suspense the film creates. Most of the film has characters sitting (or occasionally pacing) and singing about what’s troubling them. It’s only a few times where people actually do something. And even when the Repo Man goes out to do his dirty work, the images are surprisingly subdued. Given that the director rose to fame as the helmer of the Saw sequels, one should certainly expect the deaths to be more gruesome than they are. It’s not that the film isn’t violent, but its violence is simple, and the effect watered down by the rambling inner monologues that follow and precede it.

The film actually works only a few times, and it’s probably not a coincidence that classical crossover singer Sarah Brightman (in her film debut) is present in all of them. As Blind Mag, GeneCo’s spokeswoman and opera star, Brightman’s wide eyes, crystal clear voice and Elvira-ish appearance is perfectly suited to what the film should be. Not to mention she is one of the few cast members who can actually sing, though Head displays a fine rock voice as well. Her duet with Vega, “Chase the Morning”, is exactly what the film should have been; it shows Bousman at his most inventive and is one of the few times where we completely understand what’s going on.

Shot in the kind of fuzzy light usually reserved nowadays for flashbacks, it comes as no surprise that when the flashbacks actually show up in Repo!, they’re rendered in comic book-style. We read and see pictures of the characters’ pasts, which is surely a case of the “show, don’t tell” rule that filmmakers are told to avoid in school. But that sums up the entirety of Repo! in a way. It tries to break the rules and redefine what a musical and a horror film can be, but ends up being an unexciting and confusing exercise in monotony. Filled with bland songs blandly performed by the cast (with one or two exceptions) Repo! should only be recommended for the curious who seriously don’t expect anything, because they’ll get exactly that.

Burn After Reading

2008-09-12T22:23:00.000-07:00

After NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, I think we’d all appreciate something lighter from the Coen Brothers. Well, relatively speaking. Putting their darkly comic twist on the paranoid thriller, the Coens give us BURN AFTER READING, a film that raises questions and staunchly refuses to answer them. Featuring spirited performances by an energetic ensembles and flashes of genuine Coen genius, BURN AFTER READING may not be the new American classic, but we’re having too much fun to care.

The whole ordeal begins when CIA analyst Osborne Cox (John Malkovich) is unceremoniously dismissed, with his superiors citing his drinking as the problem. In his malaise he decides to write his memoirs, much to the chagrin of his cold and detached wife Katie (Tilda Swinton). Meanwhile, some of Cox’s personal files end up in the possession of two gym workers. One is the dispirited Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), who is trying to finance some cosmetic surgeries. The other is bright, chipper and mostly clueless trainer Chad (Brad Pitt) who jumps at the sign of excitement. As they begin their mission to blackmail Cox, Linda becomes involved with womanizer Harry Pfaffer (George Clooney) who is also having an affair with Katie. And if you think this sounds convoluted, you’ve only cracked the surface.

The Coens have set out to create the most ridiculously complex plot they could, and they’ve succeeded with flying colors. Late in the film, when two agents muse how pointlessly confusing the whole thing is the audience is right there with them. The entire film is an hour and a half of pointless confusion, but it couldn’t be more hilarious. When events take the trademark dark Coen Brothers twist, the film becomes even more convoluted. It relentlessly parodies the look-over-your-shoulder paranoid thrillers and the every-word-has-a-hidden-meaning spy films that is purposely loses itself as it winds to a ludicrously messy finale.

Part of the reason the mess never gets tiring is because of its top-notch cast. Each gifted with characters a step above reality, the lead actors take their parts and run. Every performance is crafted to perfection. From Swinton’s icy wife who instantly sees the worst in everybody to Clooney’s ultra-paranoid bumbling fella who’s in over his head. But fine as these two actors are, they can’t compare to the film’s three leads. Coen Brothers vet McDormand puts in another classic performance that is a masterpiece of earnest lunacy. The audience simultaneously feels for Linda as she laments over her body image and roars with laughter as she bursts into each new twist with blind confidence and an apparent determination to mispronounce names. Malkovich is sways wildly from screaming matches to complete despair in the most exaggerated way possible. But the life of the film lies with Brad Pitt. Chad is a jock who forgot that he graduated from high school, more dedicated to his job and his bicycle than seems humanly possible. He completely shreds his cool-guy personality and still manages to be cool. With his almost giggly outbursts and his pumped dances, he may be the coolest idiot around.

Even if it’s relatively free of the visual inventiveness seen in their other films, BURN AFTER READING packs a punch with its smart script and freewheeling performances. Its jokes are sharp enough to forgive INTOLERABLE CRUELTY and reteaming with a few familiar faces has done wonders for the brothers’ sense of humor. It may not be the most thought-provoking film out there and you’d be hard-pressed to justify why it all happened. But when the results are this fun, who cares?

***/****

The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor

2008-08-06T21:24:00.000-07:00

When Rick O’Connell and his beloved Evie sailed off in a ramshackle dirigible at the end of 2001’s THE MUMMY RETURNS, moviegoers everywhere wished and hoped they would see their tomb-raiding, mummy-obliterating friends again. Well, 7 years later their wish has been granted, though its as if Imhotep himself granted the wish. With the painful absence of original costar Rachel Weisz, original mummy Arnold Vosloo and original writer/director Stephen Sommers, THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR will leave audiences shaking their heads sadly, wondering why they even bothered.

The evil Dragon Emperor (a mostly silent Jet Li) is determined to find the secret to immortality so he and his army can rule for all time. But long, long ago a witch (Michelle Yeoh) cursed him by turning him into chocolate and statue-fying him… which apparently makes him a mummy. Flash forward to 1947 and intrepid adventurers Rick (Brendan Fraser) and Evelyn O’Connell (Maria Bello) have hung up their hats to enjoy a quiet married life in England. But a supposedly simple secret mission brings them to Shanghai and throws them into the path of their more adventurous son Alex (Luke Ford), who has just uncovered the remains of the Emperor and his army. Faster than you can say “predictable turn of events”, the Emperor is resurrected and it’s up to the O’Connell clan (with the help of brother/uncle Jonathan) to stop the “mummy” and save the day.

It’s difficult to decide which aspect of the film is most ridiculous. I suppose it could be the title, which is misleading. There isn’t actually a mummy in the film. Sure, there are ancient figures raised from the dead, but they’re more like cursed zombies than mummies. Unless they cut out the actual mummification process, that is. Regardless of the villain’s post-life status, Li pales in comparison with the evil and all-powerful Imhotep. Aside from the desire to rule and control all, there’s really nothing to the Emperor. And how exactly he got all his magical powers is really anybody’s guess.

The other newcomers don’t fare very well either. Although Maria Bello is a fine actress in her own right, she seems next to useless trying to fill Weisz’s shoes. The key ingredient to the success of the first two films was the endearing charisma between Fraser and Weisz – Bello can’t help but fall short. And the last time we saw Alex O’Connell, he was a plucky British schoolboy with a sharp tongue and a taste for trouble. This time around, he’s still got a taste for trouble, but he’s been morphed into an All-American boy (rather odd, since he appears to have been born and raised in England) that’s nothing more than a blander version of Fraser’s character. Yeoh manages to make the most with what’s she given… which is basically nothing. But it’s always nice to see her.

There is none of the excitement, old-fashioned thrills or plain old fun jokiness of the first two films. This is likely due to Stephen Sommers’ absence; while it’s true his style of comedy and filmmaking spelt doom for VAN HELSING, it was perfectly acquitted in the world of THE MUMMY. In his place is Rob Cohen, who recently gave the world XXX and STEALTH. Working from an unexciting, unfunny and basically inept script, Cohen shows none of the visual grandeur or old-fashioned decadence that made the franchise so successful. Instead he employs an overabundance of handheld camera shots, which looks incredibly cheap in an epic such as this.

The final moments seem to promise yet another addition to the franchise (in the worst possible way, of course), but since the filmmakers have forgotten nearly everything the first film was about, they would be better off not wasting the time. One could assume, should another film come to pass, that it can’t possibly get any worse. But I have a sneaking feeling that, should the present team reunite, they would finally manage to surprise us.

*/****

The X-Files: I Want to Believe

2008-07-25T01:19:00.001-07:00

It’s been a few years since we last saw our favorite alienated (bad um chik) FBI agents, and much has changed. But with THE X-FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE, the world learns that we can still get the same old Mulder and Scully we’ve always loved. Built on a much smaller scale than its 1998 theatrical predecessor, the film’s strong and weak points rely on its similarity to the hit television show. Fans of the show will be more than happy to see some familiar characters, but this film will not show outsiders what the big deal was.

It’s been several years since the X-Files unit was shut down and the FBI finds another case with possible paranormal ties. Several young girls have disappeared and a local holy man (Billy Connolly) claims to be having psychic visions that relate to the case. Unable to find a connection, Agent Dakota Whitney (Amanda Peet) turns to the only two people she can think of for help – Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson). As the two are driven further into the case, they must both decide what they really believe and whether they want to return to the work they abandoned all those years ago.

One of the biggest problems with the original film was its lack of individuality. It didn’t serve as an introduction at all; if you weren’t an avid follower of the series, you likely wouldn’t have a clue what was happening. The film was designed as a stand-alone adventure and it certainly is that. There are only a few references to the series in the film, and none that will detract from the actual film. But unfortunately, there isn’t enough to set it apart from a standard cop thriller. The supernatural quotient is second to the recovery of the missing girls. The film is basically an extended episode of the television show. A strong episode to be sure, but nothing that really takes advantage of the filmic format.

Where the film really succeeds are in the scenes with Mulder and Scully. The performers fit back into their characters as if they had never left, and the insatiable charisma and sexual tension remains entirely intact. Anderson is particularly spectacular; her always-compelling Scully kicks up a notch as she balances the case with her day job in a hospital. Anderson could always be relied on to give the series enough pathos and emotion to make it something more; she delivers magnificently here. With each performance, she proves that she is one of the best actresses working today, able to lift any material she’s given. It’s a shame she isn’t seen more often, and the makers of the film should be lauded simply for giving her a vehicle to demonstrate her tremendous abilities.

While the film may not be a major step in the X-Files canon, it’s a more than welcome return. The lack of an ultimately compelling plot, no matter how suspenseful, is more than made up for by Duchovny and Anderson’s memorable performances. The filmmakers have crafted something that relies much more on dramatics than thrills to deliver the final product, and to be even moderately successful is a big achievement. THE X-FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE is an exciting and entertaining piece of nostalgia, and most fans will be itching to see their favorite agents again.

**1/2/****

The Dark Knight

2008-07-18T12:03:00.001-07:00

Having vividly revitalized arguably the most successful comic book franchise in film history with 2005’s BATMAN BEGINS, director Christopher Nolan now gives us the full extent of his abilities with THE DARK KNIGHT, a thrilling and momentous achievement that takes succeeds in taking itself seriously and becoming something much more than a mere superhero movie.

The mysterious Batman (Christian Bale) has been guarding the streets of Gotham City for some time now. Combined with his efforts and a new sense of hope, courtesy of charismatic District Attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), the city is far from the crime-infested cesspool it once was. Gangsters and criminals are now afraid to go out at night, instead holding their meetings in the safety of broad daylight. But for some people, such cowardice is unforgivable. Enter The Joker (Heath Ledger), a maniac for whom crime is fun regardless of the financial possibilities. As he begins his reign of terror on Gotham, Batman/Bruce Wayne must decide how far he must take his quest and what he must do to protect Gotham and its newfound sense of hope.

Nolan has set the film in a world that seems almost too-real, and therein lies its greatest strengths. Gone is the CGI aboveground subway that pervaded every block of the city in the first film, and the villains with mystical flowers and water vaporizers. In its place is a man who is referred to as a terrorist on more than one occasion. Ledger’s astonishing performance is a testament to this. For once, the villain manages to be truly terrifying. With his cackling giggle and magic disappearing tricks, The Joker is supremely effective because he’s so real. He is the type of madman who could easily be living in any large city around the world, waiting to strike. Ledger completely disappears into the role – unknowing viewers would never have guessed this was the guy from BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN or 10 THINGS I HATE ABOUT YOU. He creates a completely different monster than Jack Nicholson’s iconic Joker in 1989’s BATMAN. With his wild swagger and make-up that appears to have been applied by gunshot, Ledger gives a performance for the ages and gives his life and career a lasting legacy.

While Bale once again proves that he is the first actor to completely pull off both Batman (albeit his Batman voice, which sounds more gravely and incomprehensible than before) and Bruce Wayne, he doesn’t make as much of an impression as in the first film. This isn’t necessarily a deterrent; if anything, this is as close to an ensemble piece that an action film is ever going to get. Everyone gets their time to shine, from Morgan Freeman’s wry Lucius Fox (who gets the biggest laugh in the film) to Gary Oldman’s James Gordon, who continues to prove that he is one of today’s most versatile actors. Maggie Gyllenhaal makes a wonderful replacement for the bland and whiny Katie Holmes, toning down her indie quirkiness for a more serious role without seeming shallow or out of place. Eckhart’s performance, while not nearly as dynamic and mesmerizing as Ledger, is totally compelling; kudos should be given to him and Nolan for masterfully introducing his dual identities without seeming overtly obvious.

Nolan has taken his already-solid directorial skills on BATMAN BEGINS and improved them ten-fold. Where the action was muddled and confusing before, it is now crisp and thrillingly clear. Cinematographer Wally Pfister switches the first film’s black and brown canvas for a bright and cold blue without losing any of the underlying darkness. Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard’s score has now captured this Gotham City as well as Danny Elfman captured Tim Burton’s Gothic nightmare. All of these elements combine in the film’s breathtaking final moments, where Batman’s mission becomes clear and everything he is about makes sense to him and the world.

Snootier filmgoers will be hesitant to even label THE DARK KNIGHT a comic book movie. Nolan has done what few (if any) other filmmakers have successfully done; take an out-of-this-world premise and make it so totally real. THE DARK KNIGHT is just as much a crime thriller and psychological drama as it is a superhero movie. To say it may be the best superhero movie ever could be an understatement. To say it is one of the best movies of any kind in years? That’s more like it.

****/****

Wall-E

2008-06-30T23:17:00.001-07:00

It seems that with every new release from Pixar, critics hail a new breakthrough in the world of animated features. Pixar’s can be called “entertaining” in the least, and in many cases they are truly something special. But from time to time, the endless admiration can be a bit much. This time around, the praise is completely justified. WALL-E, the story of a brave little robot with a little more personality than intended, is nothing short of a masterpiece. Showing a remarkable display of risk and bravery for a company sitting on top of the world, director Andrew Stanton and the folks at Pixar have ultimately crafted a simple moralistic tale that at its core is one of the most touching love stories seen in years.

Over 700 years from now, mankind has so trashed the Earth that they have left. A small envoy of robots was left behind to clean up and purify the planet while humans are gone. Those robots have all shut down – all save one. Wall-E continues his task day after day, stacking piles of compacted garbage that stretch higher than skyscrapers. And aside from a friendly cockroach and an old VHS copy of his favorite movie, he spends his days in isolation. That is until an aggressive probe robot named EVE (no doubt the newest Apple product) lands on Earth and Wall-E is smitten at first sight. He follows EVE back to the enormous ship holding the rest of mankind to fulfill his quest for love. And in the meantime, he may just save the world.

The film takes a page from the beginning of cinema, emphasizing its visuals over any kind of dialogue. While Wall-E and EVE are constantly making sounds, few words are ever shaped. And the film is all the better for it; the bleeps and squeaks become far more endearing than if Wall-E actually spoke. Extended coherent dialogue isn’t even introduced until well into the film when the humans actually appear, and everything that comes before it is sheer genius. Wall-E wheels across the deserted planet with his cockroach friend and with a single raise of the eyes, we know everything about him. His romance with EVE is the purest film romance since Charlie Chaplin gazed at the blind girl in CITY LIGHTS. The climax of the film (an emotional climax, rather than action-oriented) rightfully deserved such lofty comparisons. Filled with enough honesty and genuine feeling to melt even the hardest of hearts and draw tears from anyone, the filmmakers have accomplished something extraordinary; they’ve made the world fall in love with two of HAL’s cousins.

Not that there aren’t robots closer to our favorite red-eyed villainous PC to be found. The ship’s autopilot is basically HAL 2.0, complete with monotonous voice and unblinking red beam. But instead of being a rip-off, the grandfather of all sci-fis is lovingly paid homage throughout the film, including snippets of the Blue Danube and Also Spach Zarathustra in the soundtrack. But even a menacingly distant autopilot computer cannot be adequately described as a villain, nor can any of the other characters in the film. Like the beloved Wall-E and EVE, everyone has a flaw. From the endearing personality flaws of the main characters to the passivity of the humans to the relentless loyalty of the film’s supposed villains. This is another brave step; though the film is set far in the future, Stanton has crafted a story much more realistic than most narratives. Add in a surprising amount of social commentary (including a shocking inclusion of today’s “stay the course” mantra) and the filmmakers must be saluted for their achievement. Yes, there are environment and anti-corporation themes, but that doesn't make the film political at all. It's a love story, first and foremost.

Rather than churning out an easy fluff exercise, Pixar has made something truly special. Risking a lot in telling a story about a robot who cannot speak and setting it in a serious-minded dystopian future isn’t exactly the key to success in a G-rated family film. But WALL-E is a film that should be ranked alongside SNOW WHITE, FANTASIA, THE LITTLE MERMAID, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and TOY STORY as a milestone in animation storytelling. And more than that, it deserves to be included among all the other love stories that will last forever.

****/****

Wanted

2008-06-27T01:22:00.001-07:00

It will probably be proclaimed as the coolest thing since THE MATRIX. With a visual style and kinetic energy never before seen, WANTED is one of the few films nowadays that can truly be called an experience. Tense and violent enough to make almost anyone squeamish, the film’s unflinching nature will repulse as many as it will impress. But for those willing to go along, they’re in for one hell of a ride.

Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy) is a small, anxiety-ridden accountant going nowhere in life. When an alluring and mysterious woman (Angelina Jolie) appears beside him one night, telling him that his father was an assassin murdered by the man now hunting him, Wesley is literally thrown into the world of The Fraternity – an age-old organization of assassins driven by fate to their hits. Wesley immerses himself into intense training to transform him into the kind of assassin needed to avenge his father’s death.

The entire film can be summed up in two words: sheer insanity. How insane are we talking? Think exploding rats and looms of fate. Director Timur Bekmambetov has taken a breath – albeit a very short one – between now and in 2004 when his too-frenetic-to-comprehend NIGHT WATCH was unleashed on the world. The film features some of the most mind-bending action seen on screen in years; people are thrust inside moving cars and bullets bend around obtrusive objects, but Bekmambetov is quite successful in taking all these wild elements and combining them into something even vaguely understandable. Even the most ridiculous occurrences – say, a person jumping out a skyscraper window and making it to the building opposite – are acceptable in Bekmambetov’s abnormal vision of Chicago.

Wesley is an unusual hero, and so it only makes sense for an unusual action star to appear. Coming off his acclaimed turn in last year’s ATONMENT, McAvoy adds another diverse credit to his resume. Just as Wesley molds himself, McAvoy molds himself into a small bottle of fury, dorky and passive at first but intimidating when he unleashes himself. The amount of pain Wesley goes through during training is so extensive and genuine that even the hardest of viewers cannot help but cringe. McAvoy keeps the film grounded; without such an atypical performer coming into his prime, WANTED would become too ridiculous and far-fetched to be a success.

WANTED is definitely unlike anything we’ve seen before. The exhilaration and suspense is such that cannot be adequately described. Walking the fine line between frenetic and nonsensical, the film is a roller coaster ride from start to finish with little time to let up or take a breath. Without a doubt, some will find it too much; too violent, too ridiculous and over-the-top, too nonsensical. But this exercise in over-the-top filmmaking is not without merit. It’s insane, yes. But it’s damn fun.

***/****

The Incredible Hulk

2008-06-15T17:58:00.000-07:00

In Ang Lee’s 2003 comic book adaptation THE HULK, the titular character was much more likely to grunt “Hulk thinking pensively!” than any of his more well-known sayings. Audiences disagreed with that more internal visioning of the green antihero, and they demanded a change. Well, five years have passed and we’ve gotten something different. THE INCREDIBLE HULK, which may hold the record for fastest franchise reboot in film history, certainly delivers on the action so many missed in the first film. Unfortunately, it doesn’t offer much else.

The film takes place a few years after the first Hulk incidents (though one can safely assume this includes none of the events in the first film). Scientist-turned-anger-management-case Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) as fled to Brazil to try and keep his emotions in check. Unfortunately, the military officials who created the monster (led by a particularly blue-eyed William Hurt) haven’t forgotten about him. After recruiting a small envoy of specialists to track down Banner, he realizes that the only way to get rid of his problem is to find a cure. Tracked by a violent man (Tim Roth) with a desire to capture Banner’s power himself, Banner must travel back to the U.S. and find his old flame Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) and end his rages once and for all.

Since the filmmakers assumed that most audiences will be familiar with the character, they decided to get rid of most of the more psychological problems Banner experiences. Even with Norton as the lead, Banner himself is rather bland. Despite casting a highly respected dramatic actor (and rather unexpected choice) as a superhero, the film is not set apart from your average B-action movie. Couple this in with some poor special effects, especially during Banner’s transformation, and you’ve got a film that plays it too safe in comparison to the first movie. Lee’s film, whose riskiness was flawed but underappreciated, tried to make something more than a guy turning into the Jolly Green Giant. No such explorations are made here. At least they’ve finally realized that pants don’t grow and shrink as one’s body does.

This film was made purely for the fans. It’s chock full of cheeky references to the original comic and the 1970s television show. Yes, the purple pants make an appearance. Yes, there’s a Lou Ferrigno cameo. And yes, that sad walking away music even makes an appearance (although no one’s walking away when its heard). But for those not avid readers/watchers of its previous incarnations, the whole affair is a little boring. Aside from the requisite Stan Lee cameo that makes good on his proclamations during his appearance on THE SIMPSONS, nearly every attempt at humor falls flat. Most of the action sequences are standard chases until the finale, when the subpar CGI work becomes most obvious. And aside from Norton, no one in the cast really registers.

At least the film doesn’t take itself too seriously. It’s an entertaining enough film, though one would wish they would try to improve on the intriguing storytelling methods introduced in the first film. But instead of learning from their mistakes, the filmmakers decided to scrap all they had before and start again in a safe-as-safe-can-be style. However, the film is likely to be successful enough to merit sequels, as most potential franchises seem to do nowadays. Maybe the third time will be the charm.

**/****

Kung Fu Panda

2008-06-09T22:45:00.000-07:00

It seemed like animated films were mostly being relegated to one-joke exercises in banality based entirely off of cute animals doing unusual things. Dancing penguins, neurotic zoo animals, etc. The list seemingly goes on and on. For a while, it seemed like any animated film without the Pixar stamp were being churned out solely for the purpose of making money. But with KUNG FU PANDA, DreamWorks has found a perfect balance of cutesiness and genuine artistry. Developing a sharp and funny script alongside an extensive and detailed style, it is set apart from the lame one-joke nature that so many films have become victims of.

Portly panda Po (voiced by Jack Black) is a lowly assistant in his father’s noodle restaurant in a small Chinese village, dreaming of something more. Specifically, to be a kung fu master and be counted among the Furious Five – the masters and defenders of their world. When the ancient turtle Oogway declares that the Dragon Master (the one who will have limitless power and be able to restore peace to the land) will be unveiled soon, the entire village gathers for a demonstration of the Furious Five’s powers. But much to their surprise Oogway declares that Po is the destined warrior, and it is now up to Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) to train him. Meanwhile, crazed warrior Tai Lung (Ian McShane) learns of the events and breaks free to track down Po and claim the title that was denied him many years ago.

If the plot is just a slight variation on the hero’s journey, it more than makes up for it with its inventive and fresh humor. Lovingly paying tribute to countless martial arts films while remaining broad enough to attract a wide audience, KUNG FU PANDA is one of those films that have something to offer everyone. There are surprisingly little of the typical martial arts jokes; the quick camera zooms are few and far between and there isn’t any mismatched dialogue in sight. Instead, the most successful gags in the film come from Po’s exaggerated physical comedic style and lovably geeky personality. Po is perfectly brought to life by Black, who proves once again that he deserves to be at the front of the comedy film world, going the lengths and stretching himself in ways that most other comedy actors avoid.

If KUNG FU PANDA were to be seriously faulted, it would be the filmmaker’s reliance on Black to deliver all of the jokes. Every member of the Furious Five – which includes the voices of Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, Lucy Liu and David Cross – are tragically wasted. Chan in particular is left with only a few lines of throwaway dialogue. Hoffman and McShane make an impression, but mostly to provide a skeptical foil to Black’s excited enthusiasm. With the kind of voice cast that was assembled for the film (one that had the potential to be very funny), it’s a bit of a disappointment to see that it’s such a one-man show, no matter how hilarious that one man is.

But the film’s most important achievement is its impeccable design. Detailed to a point that put most other animated films to shame, KUNG FU PANDA is a pure joy to watch. Every image is beautifully rendered with a clear sense of style in mind. It’s been quite a while since the word “art” could be thrown at a non-Pixar, non-Ghibli film, but KUNG FU PANDA’s art is undeniable.

KUNG FU PANDA is a pure joy to watch for nearly every kind of viewer, children and adults alike. It accomplishes a rare feat in actually delivering on its amusing, if gimmicky premise. In a summer that’s relying on darker action epics, parents will be grateful for KUNG FU PANDA – something that will not only enthrall their children, but entertain themselves as well.

***/****

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2008-05-22T14:22:00.001-07:00

After 19 long years, Indiana Jones is back and better than ever. Well, maybe not. But he’s in a much better shape than pretty much everyone expected in INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. Creative forces George Lucas and Steven Spielberg reunite with star Harrison Ford and other familiar faces and images to bring Indy into the Cold War years and the 21st century world of filmmaking. While the adjustment is not an easy one to make, all the old-fashioned action and humor that made the old films so enduring is still mostly intact.

The year is 1957, and Indy finds himself caught up with the Soviets. They are led by ruthless Communist Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett), who demands that Indiana help them locate an artifact known as a crystal skull- a mythic object that holds unknown powers. To say more about the plot would ruin the film’s many twist and turns. Suffice it to say has enough moments of humor, action and suspense to appease all of Indy’s loyal followers with a decidedly 1950s and early Spielberg mixed into the proceedings.

Thanks to the change in setting, the film contains quite a bit more apparent CGI work than the earlier films. It examines multiple forms of American culture in the 1950s, most notably the Red Scare and the weapons being developed to fight it. But Spielberg wisely balances the fake stuff with exhilaratingly real action that reminds us of what good movies used to be. A chase sequence featuring Ford and co-star Shia LaBoeuf on motorcycle outrunning a car of KGB agents is a particular standout, as is a fencing match between LaBoeuf and Blanchett across two speeding cars in the jungle. Spielberg once again proves that he is the master of action set pieces, eschewing modern trends and returning to what worked so well for him in the 1970s and 80s. And surprise, surprise- it’s just as exciting now as it was back then. As expected, every inch of the film is expertly constructed. This is Spielberg’s brightest and purely exhilarating film in at least ten years. The final moments of the climax are particularly stunning – it’s an ending only Spielberg could pull off. It’s his entire career come full circle.

Returning as the titular hero, Harrison Ford gives a more invigorated performance than he has in years. It’s peculiar that Ford’s freshest performance this decade comes from a character he created over 25 years ago, but here he proves once again why he is who he is. Balancing the heroic action with a surprisingly sharp sense of humor and some good-natured ribbing at his age, Ford is just as capable if not more so than he was in the first film. Karen Allen makes a delightful return as Marion after a four-year absence from the screen, even if she is a bit more wishy-washy than we remember. The supporting cast, including John Hurt, Ray Winstone and Jim Broadbent, are all in fine form as well.

As with the technology, the film is just as much about the new as the old. This is most clearly shown with the presence of Shia LaBoeuf. From the moment he rolls on screen (literally) LaBoeuf’s infectiously likable performance as the greaser Mutt further solidifies his position as Hollywood’s new it actor. He proves himself as an able action star, pulling off the film’s most complex stunts and action sequences with charismatic goofiness. Spielberg and Lucas clearly wanted to shape Mutt into the next Indiana Jones – heroic but flawed. And they mostly succeeded.

There are only a few setbacks in the film; remarkable, considering how wrong things could have gone after nearly two decades of waiting. And aside from a CGI overload in the film’s finale, it superbly reconstructs the realistic, B-movie serial feeling that the original three films excelled at. In some cases, it even surpasses the other two sequels in its ability to create suspense through action and humor. In INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, Spielberg, Lucas and Ford prove they haven’t lost any of their magic and could easily continue the series without ruining a thing. Let’s just hope is doesn’t take 19 years next time.

***1/2/****

Prince Caspian

2008-05-16T15:40:00.001-07:00

“You may find Narnia a more savage place than you remember.” Never have truer words been spoken. Fans of the 2005 blockbuster hit THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE will doubtlessly be surprised if they come into PRINCE CASPIAN expecting the same kind of fun and wonder that enchanted millions three years ago. Incessantly dark and serious, the film is a worthy successor even if it ultimately proves too downtrodden and frightening for its audiences.

Hundreds of years have passed since viewers last saw Narnia, and much has changed. The familiar Narnians have been pushed into the woods and the vicious Itali- er, the Telmarines- have taken control. When the self-proclaimed King Miraz (Sergio Castellito) discovers his wife has given birth to a son and heir, he realizes that the only thing that stands in the way of unending power is his young nephew Caspian (Ben Barnes). Caspian escapes into the vast woods with a magic horn in his possession. Suddenly, the four Pevensie children (Georgie Henley, Skandar Keynes, William Moseley and Anna Popplewell) find themselves transported back to Narnia. They soon realize that they must help Caspian rally the Narnians to fight for their very survival.

Where the first film was concerned mainly with the tight bonds the siblings felt for each other, PRINCE CASPIAN is concerned with battles. Much of the first film’s humor is gone; this sequel is a mostly serious affair. The lighter moments are only passing, quickly taken up by scenes of the oncoming enemy or questions about mortality that are surprisingly earnest for a family film. The sense of wonder has also been replaced by a large amount of violence. It is rather disconcerting to see the young stars of the film kill so many people without a second thought, especially when it is presented in such a straightforward manner. It is quite surprising that the film was only given a PG rating; it’s easily the most violent PG-rated film in decades.

There is also a lack of magic in the characters. While they are actually supporting characters, the Pevensie children are not nearly as compelling as they were before. While Peter (Moseley) and Susan (Popplewell) are given interesting subplots, Edmund (Keynes) and Lucy (Henley) are left to lurk more or less in the background. Lucy still is the series’ most likeable and innocent face, thanks to Henley’s easygoing charm; unfortunately, this means she is entirely absent for long portions of the film when the other characters go off to battle. As Caspian, newcomer Barnes makes a fitting and sympathetic hero. The film also suffers in its lack of a strong villain. Miraz is nothing more than a stereotypical evil warrior king – a far cry from the spellbinding figure Tilda Swinton crafted in the first film. When she appears midway through the film, it suddenly kicks into high-gear; her all too short appearance gives the film the edge it was trying to get at all the while.

Still, the film is more than a worthy successor. While lacking in magic, it reflects the maturation of its characters and audiences. It may have taken a step too far and become too serious and frightening to recapture moviegoers as the filmmakers did three years ago, but those that follow it adamantly will likely appreciate the higher stakes and wider scope. While solid, the film takes another step towards LORD OF THE RINGS rather than attempting to create its own style and voice.

**1/2/****

Speed Racer

2008-05-09T21:25:00.001-07:00

Perennially popular anime SPEED RACER makes the jump from cartoon to live action, courtesy of the Wachowski Brothers. Unfortunately, these once-heralded directors showed signs of being a one-hit wonder with their preposterous MATRIX sequels, and this film pushes even further towards that description. Using a dizzying visual style that can only be compared to exploding paint cans, the film vainly tries to revolutionize “cool.” And in doing this, they forgot to add in the fun that would seem obvious when adapting a kid’s cartoon show.

Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) is a young hot-rod making history on the racetrack. Driven to succeed by the memory of his dead brother Rex, Speed only knows how to race and he does it well. But when he refuses a deal from a monopolistic CEO (Roger Allam), he finds himself and his entire family (including father John Goodman and mother Susan Sarandon) in the mercy of the powerful company. Determined to destroy the corporations’ hold on the world of racing, Speed teams with the mysterious Racer X (Matthew Fox) and girlfriend Trixie (Christina Ricci) to defeat the corporate-sponsored drivers race by race, starting with the same treacherous rally that took the life of his brother.

There’s a lot of drama in a movie supposedly aimed toward children; hardly surprising, looking at who’s responsible for the film. The Wachowskis seem to forget they were making a fun action movie; most of the film is spent on long dramatic scenes surrounding each member of the Racer family that slows momentum to a complete standstill. There is so much time spent on studying the inner working of Mom and Pops Racer that Speed seems a mere afterthought until well into the film. As a result, the film is easily a half hour too long and the action sequences never quite rouse the viewer out of the distant stupor the rest of the film puts them into.

Not that any inkling of sense or understanding can be gotten from the action sequences. The film’s color scheme, obviously the filmmakers’ attempt to create a real-life anime is even more dizzying and headache-inducing than their 2D counterpart. The editing is so fast and the movement so mind-boggling (in the worst way possible) that we are forced to wait until the race ends to get a semblance of what happened. The only sequence that elicits any real excitement is one of the few hand-to-hand combat scenes in the film, and also one of the few that are devoid of extensive special effects. Even if that sequence does start off with an act that is either a strangely-placed homage to James Bond or evidence that the Wachowskis have simply run out of ideas.

The cast certainly doesn’t do any favors, though they aren’t given much to begin with. As Speed, Hirsch clearly looks the part but looks and sounds awkward when forced to deliver the stereotypical “let’s see what I can do” lines to his competing racers. Sarandon and Goodman invest into their characters far too much, with their teary-eyed performances out of place in the bright colors and flashing lights. And as Speed’s younger brother Spritle, Paul Litowsky finds himself stuck with some of the least funny comedic relief dialogue seen in quite some time and gives the worst child performance this side of Spencer Breslin. Only Ricci makes a positive impression, mostly due to the fact that she is the only element of the movie that looks like an anime convincingly brought to life.

If the Wachowskis wanted to make a serious action drama about racing, they shouldn’t have chosen SPEED RACER as their inspiration. Their heavy melodramatics conflict wildly with the Candyland/Japanese infused world they set the film in. While some will likely see this film as the next phase in the evolution of cool, thanks to its bloated script and completely incorrect sense of self importance, there’s only one thing to say: SPEED RACER drags.

*1/2/****

Iron Man

2008-05-03T16:23:00.000-07:00

The summer season starts off with a bang as IRON MAN explodes into theatres everywhere. Thanks in no small part to an invigorated and energetic leading man in Robert Downey, Jr., the film is fast, fun and smart – everything that a successful superhero film should be. Balancing Batman-style dramatics with the sense of humor that made the first Spider-Man films so popular, IRON MAN proves to be a film that comic book haters can enjoy.

Billionaire weapons manufacturer Tony Stark (Downey Jr.) is on a business trip to Afghanistan when he is attacked and kidnapped by a terrorist organization. After installing an arc reactor in his chest to keep shrapnel from entering his heart, the terrorists demand that Stark build them an all-powerful rocket that will wreck havoc all over the country. Stark uses the pretense of working on the rocket to build a seemingly indestructible suit to craft his escape. After witnessing the widespread damage his products are inflicting on both sides of war, Stark uses his newfound technology to transform him into an indestructible flying weapon on legs. All the while, he juggles intrusions from his business partner Obadiah Stone (Jeff Bridges) and the military, embodied by Air Force officer Jim Rhodes (Terrence Howard) and an increasingly personal relationship with his ever-capable assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow).

Superhero movies have never been more grounded in real life than here. The film’s entire set-up, a weapons manufacturer captured by terrorists in the Middle East to build their weapons, seems like a situation that could easily be seen on the news. Combined with the military presence and the ever-popular “how corrupt are major businesses?” scenario and you’ve got one realistic comic book movie. But thanks to Jon Favreau’s tasteful direction and the smart script, the film is topical without seeming preachy or drawn-out; when a script has two co-writers of Alfonso Cuaron’s CHILDREN OF MEN, it’s a safe assumption that the film is going to be deftly topical. But this doesn’t mean there isn’t plenty of fun to be had. The action scenes, while rather small in number, are intense, exciting and spectacular. And thanks to the strength of Downey’s performance, there’s always fun to be had.

It’s unusual that a big-budget summer action film these days would star Robert Downey, Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow, but each prove more than able in their roles. While Pepper doesn’t do much more than the standard superhero love interest, Paltrow successfully sheds the alienating snootiness that’s affected her in the past. And as Stark, Downey may have found his signature role. Tony Stark isn’t merely a character Downey is playing; it’s an extension of the man himself. Imbuing every line with his trademark humor, Downey channels his public perception into Stark’s womanizing and careless lifestyle, making the transformation into Iron Man an examination of what the public doesn’t see. Downey completely embodies the role, finally giving the world a superhero that can truly balance the lightness and darkness of his personality with superb skill.

IRON MAN is a rip-roaring start to the summer. It doesn’t rely on in-jokes that would only be understood by fans, nor is it too broad in a vain attempt to appeal to everyone. Instead, it tells a solid story with a surprising injection of real-world drama and finely-tuned comedy. The film is a thrill ride from beginning to end, never letting up or losing steam. In a day where only bleak action films can be called smart and only dumb action films can be called fun, it’s a breath of fresh air to see something that excels so easily at combining the two.

***/****

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

2008-04-19T18:09:00.001-07:00

It’s a familiar story: someone spurned by their ex-lover goes abroad to escape, only to find their ex everywhere they go. Yet in FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL, actor/writer Jason Segel uses the type of R-rated humor that made producer Judd Apatow’s films so popular to amusing effect, even if the film struggles to reach the genuine emotion that made the producer’s works so critically acclaimed.

Composer Peter Bretter (Segel) was just dumped by his longtime girlfriend, television star Sarah Marshall (Kristen Bell). Unable to forget his past girlfriend and unable to attempt a physical relationship without bursting into tears, Bretter goes to a luxury hotel in Hawaii, a place he remembered Sarah talking about. Sure enough, the first people he runs into are his ex-girlfriend and her new beau, British rock star Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). He tries to avoid them, but finds himself near them all the time. The only way he manages to escape from them is to turn to his burgeoning relationship with hotel employee Rachel (Mila Kunis). As he spends more time in the hotel, he begins to know more about himself and about the value of living.

As has been common with recent comedies, Segel and director Nicholas Stoller strive to create a film that’s not just about the laughs. And although it does contain a level of sweetness and sincerity that is still surprising in such a raunchy comedy, it is no more genuine or sweet than an average romantic comedy. Peter is a flawed character, but the negative effect his behavior has on people is touched on all too briefly. And aside from the always affirming “stop worrying and just live life” sentiment, the film is primarily successful in making jokes.

And the film is funny. Very funny. Segel already has gotten notices for his daring full-frontal nudity (which begins mere minutes into the film), but as a leading man he’s a bit on the bland side. He handles the jokes extremely well, but is nothing more than serviceable when trying to be dramatic. He is lucky that the amount of real drama required is rather small, and clearly knows where he excels. Bell and Kunis are pleasant as the women in Peter’s life; they inject their characters with mounds of personality but obviously got the short end of the stick when it comes to the jokes. Cameos from Apatow regulars give the film some of its lightest moments. However, the film truly belongs to Russell Brand. As the philandering and ridiculously spiritual rock star, every line he speaks packs a punch. He steps just across the line of being over-the-top, but does it with enough confidence to keep attention on him at all times.

FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL will never be the juggernaut that films like KNOCKED UP and SUPERBAD turned into, but that shouldn’t speak for its quality. It is still a tremendously enjoyable film that keeps you laughing throughout. It moves past the shock laughs of the frank nudity and sex jokes typical in a film like this to demonstrate a great deal of thought and wit. Slim but fast-paced, the film is a perfect exercise into escapism.

***/****

Leatherheads

2008-04-04T21:38:00.001-07:00

George Clooney has often been called the Cary Grant of our generation, a comparison he clearly hopes to capitalize on in LEATHERHEADS, a true sports story via screwball comedy that makes one long for the cleverness of the old days rather than fondly recall them, as a good homage should do. While the filmmakers mean well, the script is not snappy enough and the stars not as charismatic as their 1930s counterparts to be consistently funny.

The year is 1925, and the Duluth Bulldogs are struggling to survive in the failing world of professional football. Coach Dodge Connelly (Clooney) sticks as many dirty tricks into plays as he can to ensure his team’s success, but they are nearing the end of their rope. Suddenly, Dodge has an idea; recruit a major figure onto the team to get publicity. He sets his sights on Carter Rutherford (John Krasinski) a college football star and decorated war hero. He lures him to the team with a large contract, but finds a snag accompanies it. Newspaper reporter Lexie Littleton (Renee Zellweger) has been sent by her editor to interview Rutherford and expose the truth behind his supposed heroics. Soon, Dodge and Rutherford are fighting for Lexie’s affections as national football, led by the Bulldogs, begins to gain momentum.

Most sports movies deal almost exclusively with the bond between the players, but this film has almost none of that. In fact, Rutherford is rarely seen speaking to the other players, since most of his scenes are either tender interviews with Lexie or jealous bantering with Dodge. This is one of the film’s main faults; the story is set around a very significant time in the world of sports, but it is rarely touched upon. Aside from a few montages and the obligatory Big Game climax, actual scenes of playing are rare. Instead, Clooney focuses on the romantic triangle of the film and the screwball nature of their relationships. Here again is another one of its faults. The lines are meant to be delivered fast, a la HIS GIRL FRIDAY, but they have little of the zip or wit of its inspiration.

The cast is likable enough, even if they are underserved by their roles. Clooney puts himself in full Cary Grant comedy mode, all extorted facial expressions and one-step-ahead delivery. Krasinski charms throughout, even if his actual comic abilities are only allowed to show in a few scenes; a drunken argument between the three main characters is the highlight of the film, thanks to Krainski. Zellweger proves a decent match for both men, though she is far too sweet and demure to convincingly fill the Rosalind Russell-esque role of ruthless newspaper gal.

Clooney seems far less adept at directing comedy than performing it. While the production values are spectacular and the film is beautifully shot, there is little excitement in the comedic sequences. Any laughs gotten from the film come exclusively from the actors, and while Clooney does inspire humor from his co-stars as an actor, he does them no favors stylistically. So while the film offers fantastic production values and a rousing score from Randy Newman, it never manages to be anything more than cute. And considering the talent involved, cute is a major disappointment.

*1/2/****

Stop-Loss

2008-03-29T11:23:00.001-07:00

Acclaimed director Kimberly Peirce’s second feature length film (after 1999’s BOYS DON’T CRY) is the latest entry in the recent wave of war-themed films that appear to be anti-war while never really pushing the envelope. STOP-LOSS could best be described as “VARSITY BLUES Goes to War” – a rather unsurprising connection, since both were produced by MTV Films. A melodrama that targets twentysomethings instead of the generation that made this war, it gives a few poignant glimpses of the devastating affects war has on soldiers while never being brave enough to show the outrage it feels.

The film centers on a small group of Texas All-Americans (friends since elementary school, all championship football players in high school, etc.) returning home after fighting in Iraq. The troop was recently caught in an ambush that left two of their friends dead, one seriously wounded and their leader, Sgt. Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe) a decorated hero. It is the last deployment for Brandon and his best friend Steve (Channing Tatum), until he discovers that the army has stop-lossed him; he is to report for duty to serve another tour in Iraq. Infuriated, Brandon and Steve’s fiancée Michelle (Abbie Cornish) flee their small town to try and find a way out. In the process, he will challenge everything he knows about patriotism, friendship, family and honor.

The film does well on examining the humanity of war and the devastating after-effects it has on its soldiers. Unfortunately, the film is plagued with wooden or over-the-top performances that never fully translate the impact of the characters’ actions. As Steve, Tatum remains expressionless most of the time, marginally summoning actual emotion only when it is absolutely essential. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who delivered a fantastically nuanced performance in last year’s THE LOOKOUT, rants and raves here. He fills the typical role of dark, moody wild child but adds no further dimension to it between his manic ups and downs. Couple that in with spotty southern accents from most of the cast and you’ve got what this film offers; a bunch of attractive, marketable faces with no real substance underneath.

However, any success the film has must be credited to Phillippe and Cornish. The real impact of the film rests on Brandon’s journey, and Phillippe does not disappoint. He gives the most layered and focused performance of his career; showing genuine emotion in spades when the others cannot. The film teeters on near-ridiculous melodrama as it is, but Phillippe remains genuine throughout. In the hands of a more bombastic actor, the film would have veered into soap opera-like dramatics with no chance of recovering. Cornish acquits herself too in a rather limited role; when faced with the possibility of being stuck between friend Brandon and fiancée Steve, she sidesteps being the wishy-washy girl who can only watch, as the script points her to.

Director and co-writer Peirce clearly set out to make an anti-war film; the only character in the film who doesn’t find the stop-loss procedure completely repulsive is the army general. But she never drives the film to a point of ending as anti-war, seemingly for fear of offending anyone. It may be because the focus was meant to be aimed at the characters rather than the war itself, but when every person in the film is negatively affected by the war (whether they are stop-lossed, wounded, killed, experience violent flashbacks or return to a destroyed home life), the viewer doesn’t really come out of the film feeling that these people were glad for their experiences.

The filmmakers make it clear that the act of stop-loss is a terrible thing, but focuses its argument almost exclusively on that. The affects of war are touched on explicitly, but no statement is ever really defined, leading the film to an ending that feels incomplete. While it does raise questions for the viewer to contemplate themselves, they will inevitably be influenced by the anti-war track followed throughout most of the film. And despite the strong presence of Phillippe and Cornish, add in the mixed message with the unconvincing performances and you’ve got STOP-LOSS. It is a film that has all the makings for greatness but settles for mediocrity, so as not to offend anyone.

**/****

Funny Games

2008-03-17T12:53:00.001-07:00

Acclaimed German filmmaker Michael Haneke makes his English language debut with FUNNY GAMES, a remake of his 1997 film. Unlike most American remakes of foreign films, FUNNY GAMES manages to retain the same visceral impact of its source, especially to those who have never seen it before. For those who have, there are no surprises (it is, after all, a shot-for-shot remake) save for the uniformly spectacular performances and the sadistic joy of watching the uninitiated become more and more disturbed.

The premise is simple. A small family of well-to-do vacationers (Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Devon Gearhart) is settling down in their blindingly white home-away-from-home when two strange faces (Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet) come to the door. After a small number of decidedly eerie encounters, the two young men reveal the real reason for their presence; they are sadistic killers who throw the family into a series of violent and degrading “games” to make the whole process entertaining. Who is being entertained, however, is the question.

The film is made with no intent to be liked by anyone. In fact, anyone who says they love it should be ready for all sorts of strange looks from the others who’ve seen it. The family makes all the wrong decisions when attempting to escape, and Haneke relishes devilishly in what we expect from it. The film is alienating and accusatory in the same way it was before. Unfortunately, Haneke takes a slightly subtler approach to the film’s meaning and it loses some of its bite. It will still shock and offend many, even if it isn’t as wicked or biting as before.

Aside from a few entirely plausible cell phone-related additions to the film, it remains entirely the same. The main interest for viewers to revisit the film’s world is the performances, which are very strong. While Roth and Pitt suffer in comparison to their German-language counterparts, they still commit strong, manipulative and gut-wrenching performances. Pitt in particular eschews his typical whiny poutiness and manages to be truly intimidating. However, Watts and the young Gearhart provide the film with the images that will stay in audiences’ minds. Any sympathy that one feels while watching is due largely to them. Their perpetual state of humiliation and terror is exhaustive; the audience often feels just as traumatized as they do. As Ann, Watts has never been better. Her desperation is emotional without ever being melodramatic. Ann walks a fine line between being sympathetic and being cold and unlikable but Watts maneuvers around it perfectly; a feat that Susanne Lothar was not always successful at in the original film.

FUNNY GAMES is essentially an American translation of the original Austrian film. It is a shocking and thrilling experience, daring you to stay and expecting you to leave before the film is over. Those going in having seen the original will know exactly what to expect and will put themselves in for another exercise in hopelessness. Unless they want to see the others squirm.

***/****

The Other Boleyn Girl

2008-03-03T19:12:00.000-08:00

There’s nothing more fascinating than royals. When it involves Henry VIII’s relationship not only with Anne Boleyn but her sister as well, it was only a matter of time before Hollywood caught on. Adapted from the trend-setting 2001 bestseller, THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL is a bodice-ripper of the most melodramatic kind. The whole film is a bit ridiculous, but made manageable by its outstanding production values and a surprising performance from Scarlett Johansson.

Young Anne (Natalie Portman) and Mary (Johansson) are the Boleyn sisters, growing up in the midst of Henry VIII’s (Eric Bana) court. But his marriage with Catharine of Aragon is failing; after the latest failed attempt to give birth to a male heir, the girls’ uncle (David Morrissey) is certain that the king will be looking for a mistress, and believe Anne is the perfect candidate that could catapult the entire Boleyn family into wealth and power. But not all goes as planned; the king turns his eye to the recently-wed Mary, and a bitter rivalry ignites between the sisters. The tryst goes on for years, with both sisters playing for the king’s affections until Anne decides to put herself in the highest place of all; as Henry’s queen.

The film would not be quite so insufferably soap opera-ish were it not for the jealous, seething and ruthless portrayal of Anne Boleyn. Midway through the film, when Anne is called from France to return to court and seduce the king, she is given a montage as if Freddy Kruger or Michael Meyers were being resurrected. What surrounds it is a large quantity of Anne either glaring at people or delivering sexually-tinged comebacks. It is a credit that Portman manages to lose her typical cutesiness and inject a few moments of genuine smolder, but she becomes rather trying and overtly weepy towards the end. It’s understandable that one would be upset when about to be decapitated, but when all she does is cry for the final half-hour of the film, it gets a bit old.

The real (and only) surprise here is Johansson, who gives an impressive performance playing against type. Anne is every bit the demure and innocent girl who finds herself in over her head. As she begins to realize the extent of the relationship between her sister and the man she loves, her emotions are effective without falling into the level of melodrama that everyone else falls victim to. As Henry, Bana is not much more than a thing to be looked at or, more often, talked about.

The production values are understandably impressive, with the exception of the film’s grubby cinematography and curious use of handheld cameras. Director Justin Chadwick tries to inject the film with the same kind of modernity found in the most recent PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, but seems to think that shaking the camera around a bit is the only way to do this. Peter Morgan’s script is a far cry from the sharp wit and affecting nature of his work for THE QUEEN two years earlier.

All in all, the film may be a diversion for those who appreciate a decent period film, especially if they can get past the historical inaccuracies, which are doubtlessly many. The premise has enough potential, but when the entire thing plays like an expensive episode of DAYS OF OUR LIVES, everything comes off a bit forced and fake. Royals are still fascinating, but surely they must have done something other than betray each other, have sex and cry. Supposedly they ran countries as well, but THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL apparently doesn’t find that worthy of examination.

**/****

Be Kind Rewind

2008-02-25T13:09:00.000-08:00

In an age where films like WITLESS PROTECTION even exist, we could use a reminder of why the cinema has become such an important facet of our culture. Leave it to Michel Gondry to show just how affecting the transformative magic of movies can be. BE KIND REWIND is a hilarious and surprisingly touching gift to movie fanatics everywhere. Extending beyond its gimmicky premise, Gondry gets spirited performances from all involved and crafts perhaps the sweetest and most heartfelt film-related finale since CINEMA PARADISO.

Be Kind Rewind is a old-fashioned VHS video store and pawn shop in Passaic, New Jersey, and the birthplace of legendary jazz musician Fats Waller. But the store has fallen on hard times, and owner Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover) faces pressure from chain DVD rental stores and city zoning commissions to close the place down. He goes away for a weekend, placing the only other employee, adopted son Mike (Mos Def) in charge of the store with one strict rule: he must not let his unhinged, paranoid friend Jerry (Jack Black) in the store. Unfortunately, after being magnetized in a freak accident, Jerry does make his way into the store and, in the process, erases all the video tapes. In order to appease the store’s most frequent customer (Mia Farrow), the two quickly tape themselves acting out the movie GHOSTBUSTERS. Soon the tactic catches on, and the store is more crowded than ever, bursting at the walls with customers demanding to see more cheaply remade films starring the two.

The film is Gondry’s most mainstream production by far. The visual styling that made his previous films, particularly ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND and THE SCIENCE OF SLEEP, so distinctive is relegated to a few brief sections in the middle of the film and the end. But where there is less visual experimentation, there is a greater emphasis on storytelling. The film’s plot, especially in its second half, flirts with clichés but sidesteps them with its honesty and unabashed sentimentalism. It wisely goes beyond the mere premise of two guys remaking famous films, though the recreations are extremely funny. Black and Def’s version of GHOSTBUSTERS and DRIVING MISS DAISY in particular are pitch-perfect homages to everyone who reenacted their favorite films in their basements. But Gondry is smart enough to realize that to really make the film a memorable experience, more is needed. As the film rides into its second half, the laughs are set aside and the core of the film is really examined.

The film is performed with vigor by its cast. Black once again takes on a not-so-expected role in a not-so-expected film. After KING KONG, MARGOT AT THE WEDDING and now BE KIND REWIND, he is establishing himself as one of the riskier comedic actors out there today. He still brings his trademark sense of humor to his role, but he proves to be surprisingly well-fitted for Gondry’s quirkily eccentric voice. Glover gives his most invigorated performance in years. Gone is his usual tendency to deliver lines at just above a whisper, and his aged weariness gives a great deal of heart to the film. Def is appropriately wide-eyed and hopeful, and it’s always nice to see Mia Farrow in a new film.

BE KIND REWIND is made for people who believe in the power movies can hold over a culture. Midway through the film, a discussion between three main characters about THE LION KING soon includes everyone that surrounds them; for a few brief moments, people of all walks of life are united. And as the finale shows, when enough heart is poured into a film, its reach can be endless. BE KIND REWIND has that heart and isn’t afraid to show it.

****/****

The Spiderwick Chronicles

2008-02-16T21:09:00.001-08:00

The family-friendly literature-based fantasy film trend continues this weekend with THE SPIDERWICK CHRONICLES, a Nickelodeon-produced adventure based on the bestselling children’s book series. But where most recent films have been underdeveloped and overproduced, director Mark Waters (of MEAN GIRLS) strikes a nice balance between the two. Introducing audiences to a new world without skimping over details or getting too bogged down in plot, the film is an often thrilling and always entertaining diversion for children and audiences alike.

The Grace family has just moved into an old deserted family house in the middle of nowhere. While mother Helen (Mary-Louise Parker) and children Simon (Freddie Highmore) and Mallory (Emma Bolger) remain optimistic, moody and violent Jared (Highmore again) sees the place as a dead-end. That is, until he discovers a dumbwaiter leading into the house’s dusty attic, where he uncovers a major secret; a bound leather book with a warning telling any prospective readers to turn away. Jared, being a typical film hero, naturally breaks the seal and reads the book; Arthur Spiderwick’s guide to every magical creature on Earth. Soon enough, Jared learns that every word Spiderwick wrote was true. When an evil ogre sets his sights on the book, he enlists his siblings to help defeat the monster and save the other creatures that surround them.

The plot is that of your typical children’s fantasy, but it keeps things brisk and doesn’t let its familiarity become a crutch. A lot of explanation is required to explain the various creatures and what they do, but it avoids the faults of other recent fantasy pics by not dropping their name once and then assuming viewers will catch up. The real world is melded with the fantastical elements quite well; the reasoning behind the creatures’ existence and why most people cannot see them is convincingly illustrated, and does lead to some shocking moments late in the film. Waters keeps the film constantly moving; once the action starts, it never really stops. Even the requisite pause for dramatic development just before the finale isn’t as momentum-killing as it could have been.

It is successful, in no small part, to the charisma and likeability of Bolger and Highmore. Highmore in particular continues his streak of being the most sympathetic and emotive of the wide-eyed child actors out there today and injects several noteworthy traits to differentiate his two characters. Truth be told, Simon and Jared are like night and day, but the differences in Highmore’s speech patterns and vocal inflections are something to be admired. Throw in some entertainingly spirited vocal performances from Martin Short and Seth Rogen as two magical allies, and you’ve got a film where the actors are having as much fun as the audience. Some younger viewers may find the tenser moments of the film too scary, but it’s all worth it in the end.

THE SPIDERWICK CHRONICLES is a light, fun introduction to a world not too different from our own. Making sure to develop all possibilities in story, rather than finding the quickest way to the action and throwing caution to the world, it is a genuinely well-plotted and well-made film. With likeable performances and action audiences of all ages can enjoy, the film is a perfect retreat for families; something that will keep kids entertained will keeping adults from rolling their eyes in boredom.

***/****

Jumper

2008-02-15T20:25:00.001-08:00

Anywhere is possible in JUMPER, but most people who see the film will wish they were somewhere else. A dismal and disappointing distraction from director Doug Liman, who has taken a step back from his previous action successes (THE BOURNE IDENTITY and MR. AND MRS. SMITH) thanks to a shoddy script, muddled performances and a too-frenetic editing job.

David Rice (Max Thieriot) is the typical picked-on kid in high school. Broken family, poor social skills, and a crush on the most intriguing girl in school. When a potentially sweet moment becomes a life-threatening trip into an icy lake, David suddenly finds himself transported to the local library. With the revelatory line, “Did I just teleport?” (Which is what I say whenever I can’t remember how I got somewhere), David realizes he has a gift; he is a Jumper. He grows into a wealthy young man (now played by Hayden Christensen), thanks to his ability to jump into banks undetected. But soon he finds a league of deadly stalkers (led by a white-haired Samuel L. Jackson) on his tail, and he must fight to save himself and the one girl for him (Rachel Bilson).

David becomes superhero-like with his ability to instantly appear anywhere, and often makes reference to it (this comes as little surprise, since the film was co-written by one of Hollywood’s resident comic geeks, David S. Goyer). But as the plot develops, viewers are left with a, “yes, and…?” feeling. David’s only real ability is to teleport. Nothing else about him is remarkable; in most cases, he is even unable to make competent decisions. This likely explains the rushed nature of the film; at only 88 minutes, it only barely scratches the surface of its possibilities. The film’s blink-and-miss-it climax is the most criminal act. The final showdown doesn’t last much longer than two minutes. What we see is probably all the filmmakers could think of, and it certainly is disappointing, since David is adamant about not resorting to violence to save himself. One wonders whether he does this out of the goodness of his heart, or if it is completely unbelievable than Christensen could actually defeat Samuel L. Jackson in a fight.

Which brings us to the cast. While the parts aren’t challenging in the least, with every character filling one of the action film archetypes, the performers don’t do any favors. Christensen has improved since his Star Wars days, but he still hasn’t proven himself dynamic enough to secure his spot in stardom. Jackson and Bilson are only serviceable; the former being moderately menacing while the latter is relegated to pouting most of the time. The only bright spot in the cast is Jamie Bell, playing a squirrelly fellow Jumper. Bell, who manages to actually get laughs out of his lines, rises above the material with ease, committing himself to having fun rather than being serious. He has long been touted as one of the next big things, and his performance here is only more evidence for the case.

Liman’s action sequences, which were smooth and thrilling in films past, are jumbled and confusing here. The jumping effects, often occurring several times in a shot, are impressive, but when the editing becomes too frenetic and the camera becomes too shaky to make sense of much, we are left to wait distantly to see how things turn out. The rather short length of these sequences worsens the situation; more often than not, the action is over before the audience is really given a chance to get into it. Though when a person can just teleport away from his attackers instead of risking harm, I suppose it’s justified. But who wants to see a movie about that?

*1/2/****

In Bruges

2008-02-08T23:51:00.001-08:00

Renowned playwright and Academy Award-winning filmmaker Martin McDonagh makes his feature film debut with IN BRUGES, a smart and tight thriller that will astound some while irk others. McDonagh’s signature violence and dialogue successfully makes the transition from stage to screen, though those who do not understand his motivations will be left wondering what the big deal is.

After a bungled job in London, Irish hit men Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) are told by their employer (Ralph Fiennes) to wait for further instructions in scenic Bruges. (It’s in Belguim.) While the seasoned veteran Ken distracts himself with sightseeing, Ray begins to realize the extent of his actions. The two connect and share their views about life and the world around them. All the while, they become introduced to the more eclectic side of life in Bruges, including a beautiful Belgian dealer (Clemence Poesy) and a forward American dwarf.

McDonagh is a very self conscious writer and director and immediately adapts to the realm of feature length film, introducing himself with a brash, take-it-or-leave-it style. In one scene, the famous one-shot opening sequence of “Touch of Evil” plays in the background. It is no small coincidence that the scene surrounding it is one extended shot as well. He proves himself more than a capable director; most of the film is dialogue-based, but the action packed finale will have viewers on the edge of their seats. The final sequences themselves are rather simple, yet extremely effectively filmed and edited. The film’s violence is very high, yet McDonagh has a visual mastery for the grotesque, finding a sense of darkly comic beauty in the carnage.

But the film’s main strength, and the thing that will have people talking, is its dialogue. Showing absolutely no restraint, the words the characters say are deliberately designed to shock and certain to offend many groups of people. Yet none of it is meant seriously, and all of it adds expertly to the film’s dark and edgy humor. Obesity, retardation, dwarfism, race and ethnicity are all ruthlessly dragged through the mud. Expletives abound and derogatory terms muttered every minute, yet the film grows funnier every time a new line comes around that tops the others in its lewdness and sheer audacity.

The cast takes what they are given and have a ball, each member of the ensemble relishing in their roles. Of particular note is Farrell, who offers surprising heart and genuine emotion that keeps the film from being completely cynical. Gleeson’s world-weary Ken seems strictly supporting at first but grows into compelling reality as he takes matters into his own hands. Fiennes has the most fun role and knows it; he relishes in each sharp-tongued line he is given, creating a villain that is at once menacing and hilarious. The film’s only major fault is its missed opportunity to develop Poesy’s beauty and charm into a truly substantial character. While she has a few intriguing quirks, she serves the purpose of being supporting love interest and nothing more.

IN BRUGES will introduce the world to McDonagh’s distinctive voice and style. If this film is any indication, he could easily become the next big voice in cinema. The film is brash and forward in a way most filmmakers would be too afraid to even dream of. McDonagh goes the extra mile to say things others refuse to say, but instead of taking himself seriously, he finds a way to laugh about it. The film’s shocking violence and surprising humor make it a must-see, certainly for anyone who want to catch the beginning of a major talent coming into his own.

***1/2/****

The 2007 Newmie Nominations

2008-02-06T20:18:00.001-08:00

Well, this year was a great year for films. Actually... it was more like a pretty good 9 months and an astounding final 3 months. So, since I was fortunate enough to see many films (and even more fortunate to see them for free more often than not), I have compiled the nominations for the 2007 NEWMIE AWARDS. It was a very difficult list to create, and I'm still frustrated that I could only use 5 slots in the categories. I still am lost when it comes to deciding the winners as well, so don't expect them any time soon. Well... without further ado...

BEST PICTURE
Atonement
Juno
No Country for Old Men
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
There Will Be Blood

BEST DIRECTOR
Paul Thomas Anderson, "There Will Be Blood"
Tim Burton, "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street"
Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, "No Country for Old Men"
Sidney Lumet, "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead"
Joe Wright, "Atonement"

BEST ACTOR
Christian Bale, "Rescue Dawn"
Steve Carrell, "Dan in Real Life"
Daniel Day-Lewis, "There Will Be Blood"
Johnny Depp, "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street"
Emile Hirsch, "Into the Wild"

BEST ACTRESS
Helena Bonham Carter, "Sweeney Todd"
Julie Christie, "Away from Her"
Marion Cotillard, "La vie en rose"
Nicole Kidman, "Margot at the Wedding"
Ellen Page, "Juno"

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Casey Affleck, "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"
Javier Bardem, "No Country for Old Men"
Marcus Carl Franklin, "I'm Not There"
Hal Holbrook, "Into the Wild"
Tommy Lee Jones, "No Country for Old Men"

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Cate Blanchett, "I'm Not There"
Romola Garai, "Atonement"
Jennifer Jason Leigh, "Margot at the Wedding"
Kelly MacDonald, "No Country for Old Men"
Imelda Staunton, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix"

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Diablo Cody, "Juno"
Tony Gilroy, "Michael Clayton"
Todd Haynes, Oren Moverman, "I'm Not There"
Kelly Masterson, "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead"
Adrienne Shelly, "Waitress"

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Paul Thomas Anderson, "There Will Be Blood"
Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, "No Country for Old Men"
Christopher Hampton, "Atonement"
John Logan, "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street"
James Vanderbilt, "Zodiac"

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
Atonement
The Golden Compass
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
There Will Be Blood

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Atonement
La vie en rose
Lust, Caution
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
There Will Be Blood

BEST SOUND DESIGN
Atonement
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
No Country for Old Men
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
There Will Be Blood

BEST EDITING
Atonement
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
No Country for Old Men
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
There Will Be Blood

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
The Golden Compass
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

BEST MAKE-UP DESIGN
Atonement
La vie en rose
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Atonement
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
There Will Be Blood

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Atonement
Lust, Caution
Ratatouille
There Will Be Blood

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
Come So Far, "Hairspray"
Falling Slowly, "Once"
Rise, "Into the Wild"
That's How You Know, "Enchanted"
To Be Surprised, "Dan in Real Life"

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
The Lives of Others
Lust, Caution
The Orphanage
Persepolis

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Persepolis
Ratatouille
The Simpsons Movie

So there you have it! Sweeney Todd and Atonement lead the pack with 11 nominations, followed by There Will Be Blood with 10 and No Country for Old Men with 8. I still haven't decided the winners, but expect them before the Oscars... just so I can say I picked 'em first.

The Eye

2008-02-01T20:56:00.000-08:00

The recent trend of horror movies released on Super Bowl weekend continues this year with THE EYE. No, it’s not a Sauron biopic (ba dum chik) but the American remake of the popular Japanese thriller in the vein of THE RING and THE GRUDGE. But horror would be an odd way to describe the film; there are barely any frights to speak of. Instead we are subjected to 100 minutes of Jessica Alba doing her best to act terrified and concerned.

Blind violinist Sydney Wells (Alba) whose sight is restored after a double corneal transplant, but her reconciliation with the visual world does not go as smoothly as planned. She begins seeing things she shouldn’t; people who aren’t really there, rooms shifting into others and dark, unsettling shadowy figures following people around. At first, her sister (Parker Posey) and doctor (Alessandro Nivola) attribute it to mental confusion, but Sydney is convinced there is something supernatural going on. She becomes determined to find whose eyes she has inherited, and what dark secret they possessed that has now been passed to her.

The genuine scares are few and far between. In fact, the scariest thing about THE EYE is the directors’ apparent belief that jump-scares are the only way to frighten an audience these days. Very little effort is put into creating a suspenseful mood. Instead, the film relies mostly on clichés to let an audience know what they should find frightening (people walking too slowly, children repeating lines over and over, flickering lights, etc.) Alba is just barely adequate in her role; she occasionally musters an expression that passes for terror, but she delivers most of her lines in a bright, chipper I’ll-get-through-it-somehow manner. And when she attempts pure drama with gems like, “These eyes aren’t my eyes!”, she doesn’t come off as remotely sincere. Also, I don’t know in what world Jessica Alba and Parker Posey would be sisters, but whatever.

The intriguing premise is shortchanged by its screenplay, and not just because of the golden dialogue as seen above. It seems to have been broken up into parts: set-up, the scary part, the discovery part and the big climax. The scary part isn’t really all that scary, unless you’d be scared by anyone grabbing your arm at any time and in any place. And after that, it gets even worse; it gets boring. The film completely ignores all need to be suspenseful when it begins answering questions, and the answers are far too typical and bland to sustain interest. And the film’s “big” climax may be the shortest, unexciting sequence in a horror film in years.

THE EYE is another step down in the Japanese horror remake trend. Understandably, this is a downward spiral that began when the trend did, but this film is a missed opportunity. It takes a clever premise and only half develops it, favoring instead to churn out something quick that horror junkies and teens will rush to on the first weekend. Well… at least Alba was given better contacts than she was in FANTASTIC FOUR 2. That’s about all that can be said.

*/****

Cassandra's Dream

2008-01-25T21:51:00.001-08:00

No doubt hoping to recapture the success of his 2005 thriller MATCH POINT, legendary writer/director Woody Allen returns with CASSANDRA’S DREAM, a family thriller that is slight but manages to be entertaining if one is willing to accept several lapses in common sense or reason. It doesn’t rank with Allen’s best by any means, but thanks to some intriguing performances, the film manages to stay just barely on the good side of melodramatic.

Two working class London brothers Ian and Terry (Scottish Ewan McGregor and Irish Colin Farrell) have just found the sailboat of their dreams. Thanks to a prolonged stroke of luck at cards and at the dogtrack, Terry is able to secure the money and “Cassandra’s Dream” becomes theirs. Both brothers are barely able to survive financially; Terry works as a mechanic when not betting or drinking and Ian finds himself arranging numerous business ventures while keeping an eye on his father’s failing restaurant. Both are constantly reminded of what could be when they talk about their Uncle Howard (Tom Wilkinson), an extremely successful plastic surgeon. But soon Terry’s gambling catches up with them and Ian is caught up with a beautiful young actress (newcomer Hayley Atwell), and both are in desperate need of money. Uncle Howard will solve all their financial problems, if they do a favor for him in return. He’s come under investigation, and some old partners of his need taking care of.

Much like MATCH POINT, there is a crime involved and the psychological complications that result. But where the inadequacies in planning and production of the act were tantalizing in the former film, here they just feel like carelessness. Even the set-up of the plot has glaringly obvious complications. But if the viewer is willing to accept these faults, the film becomes much more enjoyable. After all, the point of the film appears to be irony (the word itself is muttered many times), maybe it’s all part of Allen’s master plan. Indeed, so many integral plot points veer between laziness in writing and execution and apparent intentional stupidity. Yet as the film winds down to its close, it becomes more focused on family (the other big point of the film) and it is all the better for it. The final sequence, though plagued by a disappointing “tell-don’t-show” epilogue, is the most suspenseful part of the film by far.

There are some very intriguing aspects to the film, things one might not find in a Woody Allen. Most noticeable is its original score by Philip Glass, a rarity for an Allen film. The score adds a great deal of suspense to the proceedings, and ranks among Glass’s finest compositions for the screen. And for once, no one takes on the “Woody Allen” role- there are no comically neurotic characters stuttering over every word. Unfortunately, this leads to a parade of endlessly serious people, so the absence of the wannabe neurotic is a mixed blessing. Allen’s once unmatchable dialogue also sputters and falters here; this may be the only film you see this year where two adults describe having sex as “doing it”. But the film is performed admirably on all counts, minus Colin Farrell’s tendency to overact (only when he is speaking, of course). Most intriguing are the film’s lead actresses, newcomer Atwell and the charming Sally Hawkins as Terry’s girlfriend. Both are relegated to strictly supporting roles and are sadly two-dimensional. Yet they craft the most complex portrayals, and the viewer often longs for their appearance.

Allen still appears to be riding on his newfound wave of creativity that began with MATCH POINT. Though it is far from perfect, compare CASSANDRA’S DREAM to CURSE OF THE JADE SCORPION or ANYTHING ELSE and you’ll find a world of difference. It’s an entertaining little thriller, one that could definitely have used some improvements, but is fine enough as it is. This type of story has been told before, likely more effectively. Yet for Allen’s fans, there’s always something special to find.

**/****

Cloverfield

2008-01-18T00:38:00.000-08:00

A surefire marketing campaign ongoing for months has already insured producer J.J. Abrams’s disaster film CLOVERFIELD’s initial success; most of its audience will likely know next to nothing about the actual film before seeing it. In this day and age that is a feat in itself, but does CLOVERFIELD live up to the hype? The answer is mostly yes. Taking the hand-camera “realism” popularized with THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and pushing it to the highest possible level, the film puts the viewer in the characters’ shoes as never before and it sticks strictly to that code, which is one of its biggest assets. CLOVERFIELD is all about being in the moment and doesn’t waste time with answers, all leading up to one hell of a thrillride.

The film, shot entirely from the P.O.V. of a camcorder, starts off casually (and boringly) enough; a farewell party for Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who’s about to take an important job in Japan. But, as is required when large groups of attractive twentysomethings come together, there is drama; the meeting between Rob and his true love Beth (Odette Yustman) is their first since their one-night-stand weeks ago and she storms out early in the party. Only a few moments later, Manhattan is shaken with what appears to be an earthquake. A few firebolts and one flying Statue of Liberty head later, the partygoers realize there’s something attacking the city. They make to flee, but Rob gets a call from Beth; she’s hurt and only he can save her. So Rob, along with four other friends venture back into the city to find Beth and outrun the terrifying presence stalking the city.

The filmmakers seemed to hold realism above all else; there are jumps in the tape during explosions, cuts to earlier shot footage when the camera is turned off and all the shakiness a stomach can handle. The film’s many visual effects (such as the now instantly-recognizable flying statue head) are integrated into the handheld footage incredibly well. Many of the film’s most effective scares come from how well the effects fit in with the real action, a strength only emphasized by the failure of films like THE MIST to do so in the past. Match this with the intricate and masterful sound work done here and you’ve got yourself a genuine experience. What is heard is just as important as what is seen, and since the images are often too shaky to be clear, what we hear is our only clue to what is happening. While not much can be said about the film without spoiling something, it is indeed very tense and, at times, genuinely frightening.

Despite all its strength, there were a few nagging flaws that detracted from the whole. For a film that strived for as much realism as possible, there certainly are a lot of coincidences. The characters just seem to happen upon every major event in the attack on the city, from the Statue of Liberty’s head landing on their street to, well, everything else. The camera operator, aside from being emotionally stunted (sticking in tired jokes whenever he can), must have had his hand glued to the camera. A reason for filming everything is given early on- “people will want to see how it all went down”- but still. The film prides itself on realism so much, showing its characters as archetypes of what anyone would do in such a situation, but it seems much more likely that any extra objects slowing people down (such as the camera) would be dumped after a while, under the circumstances.

But still, CLOVERFIELD accomplishes what most horror films cannot do these days; manage to be decent. In fact, it’s much more than decent. It may be the most effective horror film to come out in quite some time. Unrelenting and unforgiving, it will keep audiences in perpetual terror once it gets going. While its end result may leave some cold and unaffected, its power during the heart of the film is undeniable. In the end, it’s nothing revolutionary, but it does push boundaries and succeeds quite nicely.

***/****

There Will Be Blood

2008-01-08T14:57:00.000-08:00

Most will agree that Daniel Day-Lewis is in the uppermost echelon of working actors today, if not the best. Unfortunately, he only appears every few years to appear in a film, so when he does it becomes a big deal. Couple his return to screens with the first Paul Thomas Anderson film since 2002’s underwhelming PUNCH DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD becomes a must-see sight unseen. Inspired by the Upton Sinclair novel “Oil!”, Anderson’s film is an ambitious work that stretches his abilities as a writer and director, resulting in a piece that may surprise fans of BOOGIE NIGHTS and MAGNOLIA. It is a difficult film to like and the makers don’t do the viewer any favors, but it is an achievement to be respected nonetheless.

Oil man Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis) is an unforgiving man moving from town to town, scavenging for oil wells. He works up from a small, single hand-made well in the middle of nowhere (entrancingly depicted in the film’s prologue, completely devoid of dialogue) to a sizable envoy of men. After receiving an enigmatic tip, Plainview and his young son H.W. (wide-eyed Dillon Fraser) travel to the small Sunday ranch in Little Boston, where Plainview finds “an ocean of oil” beneath their feet. Yet his giant success does not come easy; he finds an enemy in Sunday’s son, self-proclaimed healer and church leader Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), who uses his power to sway members of the congregation for his own vanity and financial needs.

Plainview is not a likable person; in many cases, he is as corrupt and jaded as the film’s supposed villains. Yet Day-Lewis is completely mesmerizing, keeping the viewer enthralled by his sheer determinism and terrifying demeanor. In certain scenes, he emits such a ferocity without words that is truly frightening. As such, the film carries a great deal of suspense, automatically sending viewers into winces and shivers when Day-Lewis turns his eye to madness. His brilliance is perhaps emphasized by Dano, who turns in a rather unintentionally funny performance. As Eli, he is menacing enough and quite effective when performing in his chruch, yet he squeals and twists his face in a manner meant that quickly grows irritating. He suffers when put up against Day-Lewis, whose masterful and polished performance emphasizes the faults in Dano's.

Anderson shows tremendous growth as a director. Completely rejecting the intellectual quirkiness that defined BOOGIE NIGHTS and MAGNOLIA and hampered PUNCH DRUNK LOVE. He immerses his style completely in the era, working with cinematographer Robert Elswit to create a cold, sparse world, a place that perfectly reflects Plainview’s outlook on life. Johnny Greenwood’s unusual and electrifying score keeps the film from becoming just another period piece, emphasizing the alienating and unnerving aspects of the film; a great source of the film’s tension comes from Greenwood’s screeching violins.

The film moves at its own pace, taking more than 2.5 hours to tell its story. The extended sequences of quiet, apart from the wordless dialogue, will likely try the patience of some viewers while thrilling others. Anderson is not afraid to stray from the main storyline, no matter how inconsequential it may seem. Yet there are sequences of sheer brilliance that will stay in memory long after the film is done; the aforementioned prologue, the explosive discovery of oil at the Sunday ranch, Plainview’s humiliating introduction to the church and the curiously-set finale, among many others. THERE WILL BE BLOOD is definitely a film that must be seen to be believed. It will likely have as many lovers as haters, and that is perhaps the clearest sign of its achievement. Anderson and Day-Lewis have contributed outstanding work after long absences. One can only hope their next appearances will not take as long.

***1/2/****

Walk Hard

2007-12-28T00:07:00.000-08:00

With three R-rated comedy mega hits under his belt, it would appear that Judd Apatow could do no wrong. With co-writer and director Jake Kasdan, Apatow takes a stab at the spoof, which has become the lowest form of cinematic “comedy” these days (see DATE MOVIE, EPIC MOVIE and the upcoming MEET THE SPARTANS). Deriding the recent wave of musical biopics, WALK HARD: THE DEWEY COX story is only moderately successful. It’s side-splittingly funny in parts, but 96 minutes spent spoofing two or three movies leaves the viewer with a rather empty feeling.

Taking mostly from WALK THE LINE, the film tells the epic life of music superstar Dewey Cox (John C. Reilly), a Johnny Cash-like guitar man who rises to fame in the early 60s, falls in the 70s when he interacts with drinking and drugs, and finds redemption just in time to receive a lifetime achievement award. After losing his prodigal brother in a machete accident, young Dewey channels his inner guilt and rage at his father’s alienation into a new kind of music that angers elders and drives youngsters to grinding dances. He quickly rises to fame, despite being stuck with a skeptical and usually pregnant wife (Kristen Wiig). He goes through the roller coasters that seem to strike every musician; his band members introduce him to drugs and later desert him. He meets his true love (Jenna Fischer) while still married, though he doesn’t quite realize how that system works.

Most of the jokes are based on 2005’s WALK THE LINE, and the main storyline is a near copy; there are a few dashes of RAY thrown in (Dewey suffers a lost sense of smell). The problem is that with a spoof, making fun of only one film quickly grows tiresome. What made early spoofs like AIRPLANE successes were the amount of films referenced in them, no matter whether they had anything to do with the plot or not. There are a few related bits that remain funny throughout; machete motifs and the constant references to characters’ ages are a few. But the more successful bits are actually the raunchy R-rated jokes that hold no bearing on the plot. The film’s many songs are likely its greatest attribute. Performed wonderfully by Reilly, they display the writers at their most creative and cleverest. From the innuendo-filled “Let’s Duet” to the catchy title song to the genuinely affecting “A Life Without You”, the songs quickly become the most memorable thing about the film.

Unfortunately, star Reilly doesn’t bring much to the table. Playing basically the same character he did in last year’s TALLADEGA NIGHTS, his comic abilities seem to have lessened in the transition from supporting role to leading. He sings admirably, but the “aw, shucks” dumb guy shtick grows as tired as the jokes. His other bits seem taken directly from his past co-stars, the most notable being his Incredible Hulk-fused version of the running around in underwear made, Will Ferrell style. Wiig and Tim Meadows come off with the best gags in the film; Wiig manages to make her one-joke character humorous throughout while Meadows’s spirited protestations against the effects of pot and cocaine are probably the funniest thing in the film. In the end, however, WALK HARD isn’t as funny as its spoof predecessors, though it is mercifully a step above recent offerings. The musical biopic genre is ripe for parody, but every spoof requires a wider eye to keep from growing stale or repetitive.

**/****

The Kite Runner

2007-12-23T20:02:00.000-08:00

Khaled Hosseini’s wildly popular 2003 novel THE KITE RUNNER arrives on screens this holiday season in the form of a treacly, cliché-ridden that raises the big issues people think Oscar voters love. Though there are aspects to admire, it is clear the filmmakers believed that simply retelling the story would have been good enough to hit a homerun, but it leaves its viewers cold and unaffected at the end.

The film tells the story of Amir (Zekeiria Ebrahimi as a child, Khalid Abdalla as an adult), an Afghan immigrant novelist living in California. He receives a phone call from an old friend in Pakistan, asking him to return to his homeland so he can “do good again”. Amir reflects on his early life in Kabul, where he and his best friend Hassan (Ahmad Kahn Mahmidzada) flew kites everyday, practicing for a city-wide kite tournament. When a violent attack on Hassan splits the boys apart, the entire world seems to unravel. The Soviets soon invade and Amir and his father are forced to flee, eventually winding up in America. Amir grows to into young adulthood, missing his friend all the while. He returns to Pakistan, where he finds a chance to repay his dear friend; he must rescue Hassan’s son Sohrab from the Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

The film’s most crippling flaw is its by-the-numbers and passionless screenplay, courtesy of David Benioff (who’s other work includes gems like TROY and STAY). It adapts the book with a mind to being as straightforward as possible; little to no time is taken to develop characters in a purely cinematic form. The depth of Amir and Hassan’s friendship must be assumed, because there is no explicit demonstration of it in the actual film. A revelation late in the film explains a bit more about the characters, but Amir’s drive to save Sohrab rests almost exclusively on what is said in clichéd preachy dialogue, not what is shown. It is understood why Amir returns to Pakistan to help Hassan, but because of the weak writing, it feels more like an obligation than a chance to ease a terribly guilty conscience. Another irritating trait in the script is its use of language. The sequences of Amir’s youth are told in dialects spoken in Kabul (a brave choice for a big studio-funded film). But makes makes it irritating when the characters switch back and forth between English and Middle Eastern dialects in Amir’s adulthood. Characters start conversation in their native languages, then switch to English when important points must be made.

Director Marc Forster retains the interesting visual eye he displayed in FINDING NEVERLAND and STRANGER THAN FICTION, but it sometimes causes the film to feel like a family-friendly look at life in the Middle East. There is danger there, but the true horrors seem skirted around. In some instances, the restraint shown works quite well (and is quite necessary), but most everything else remains curiously bright and cheery. It reflects the mindset of the young boys early in the film, and it works there; this is mainly because of the spirited and heartwarming performances from Ebrahimi and Mahmidzada. Some of the technical work is spotty as well; though the kite tournament is vibrantly rendered via CGI, the all-computerized shots of the kites flying and the live action shots of the children on the ground never really connect, and the film looses the sense of excitement it should have. Alberto Iglesias’s score is an oddity; starting off melodic and evocative but quickly turning overbearing and terribly orchestrated.

The filmmakers likely assumed that the popularity of the book would guarantee them a success, and that was their first mistake. It has happened many times with high-profile literary adaptations; not enough care is put into making it an actual film. The chief problem here is the screenplay, which does not adequately describe the characters and their emotions. Oh sure, they say how they feel, but a viewer can handle only so many heavy-handed speeches with statements about life we’ve heard before. There is some joy and truth to be found in THE KITE RUNNER, but it is not nearly as effective as its source.

**1/2/****

I Am Legend

2007-12-15T00:03:00.001-08:00

It’s a story that’s been told many times before, yet always seems to get the shaft in its purest form. Richard Matheson’s famed novel I AM LEGEND gets its third big-screen treatment (following 1964’s THE LAST MAN ON EARTH and 1971’s THE OMEGA MAN). This time around, the original work has been fused with a 28 DAYS LATER-type bent, removing the vampiric creatures of the original and replacing them with frenzied, zombie-like beings. But although the film does take many brave turns and unusual choices, it ends up as nothing more than a really expensive slim horror movie.

Robert Neville (Will Smith) is the last surviving man in New York. Three years after an outbreak of a virus aimed to cure diseases, most of human civilization has been wiped out. Only a small portion survive, and most of those have been mutated into animalistic creatures who ruthlessly feed on all forms of life and are allergic to sunlight. (Basically, as explained in a brief prologue and a few flashbacks, Emma Thompson kills us all). Now Neville is alone in New York, which has become overgrown with wildlife. He leads an empty existence; interacting only with his dog while desperately trying to find a cure for the virus. His desperation begins to increase as time goes on, and Neville notices that the creatures are becoming more violent and less hesitant to shield themselves from the sun. After capturing a creature for study, he angers the apparent New Yorkian king of the creatures and they begin to attack.

Much of the film is Smith by himself, silent except for the occasional remark to the dog. The portions of him roaming through the deserted New York are stunningly rendered; the overgrown grass in Times Square, the slow decay of the empty skyscrapers, every bit of the city is shocking and downright eerie. The filmmakers haven’t skipped a step in this regard; even the billboards are rendered time-appropriate (including an ad for a huge superhero pic due in May 2010, so get ready folks). How disappointing it is to learn, then, that director Francis Lawrence (2005’s CONSTANTINE) did not show this amount of care throughout the whole film. The most crippling flaw in the entire thing is the creatures themselves. Obviously rendered completely through CGI, they never become truly terrifying because they never look real. It suffers when compared to recent films like 28 DAYS LATER, which clearly inspired the look of this film. Sure, when they jump out from around a corner screaming the audience is startled, but there are many more effective ways of scaring people.

That’s not to say there isn’t anything else to admire. Smith gives one of his better performances to date, and certainly the most focused. Gone is the grin-filled easygoing humor he displays in all his other films, a trait with often undercuts certain dramatic aspirations. The biggest laughs here are nothing more than amused chuckles and Smith really triumphs in the dramatic scenes. The slow-building paranoia, desperation and loneliness that seeps into his behavior is uncomfortable and sometimes painful to watch, in a good way. It seems odd to happen in a film like I AM LEGEND, but here Smith finally proves that he has what it takes to become a great dramatic actor.

In the end, the film is a mixed experience. There are admirable qualities, but the failings become glaringly obvious as the film comes to a close. The finale in particular will be maddening to some, straying far from Matheson’s novel. But it is to be expected in a big-budget Hollywood film in this day and age and the filmmakers likely placed commercial success over artistic bravery. I AM LEGEND is worth seeing for its stunning opening scenes and for Smith’s complex performance, but those seeking that level of complexity on all counts will be disappointed.

**/****

Juno

2007-12-12T12:08:00.000-08:00

Diablo Cody makes an admirably heartfelt and genuinely funny screenwriting debut with JUNO, a tween pregnancy comedy that masterfully walks the line between self-parody and real emotion. Directed by THANK YOU FOR SMOKING’s Jason Reitman and featuring some of the most compelling (and most surprising) performances of the year, the film manages to be cute without cloying and dramatic without plodding.

It all starts with a chair. When a sarcastic and laid-back 16-year-old (Juno, played by Ellen Page) discovers she’s pregnant, her first thought is to get an abortion. Yet when she finds herself unable to through with the operation because, among other things, the clinic smells like a dentist’s office, she decides to do the decent thing: give the baby up for adoption. Enter Mark and Vanessa Loring (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner), the upper-middle-class yuppie couple who want to adopt but have had bad past experiences. And as Juno’s pregnancy develops, she finds herself thinking more and more about the baby’s father, a dorky track runner (Michael Cera) with an unusual fondness for Tic Tacs.

The film’s strength lies in its performances, and most importantly Page’s portrayal of the titular character. Juno is sarcastic but not unlikable; she fully accepts her faults and mistakes, and the viewer cannot help but do the same. She is a modern teen in every way; ready to dismiss the words of her elders with a disinterested roll of the eyes. Yet she has a maturity that develops along with the baby. As Juno gains a more worldly wise view of those around her, she becomes all the more compelling. Page has put in noteworthy work in lesser films (HARD CANDY, X-MEN 3), but it is JUNO that people will remember her for. But Page does not put in the only memorable performance; solid work is done by all, and there isn’t a weak link in the cast.

Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner especially come as a surprise. As the adoptive parents-to-be, both delve into previously untapped area in their ranges. While Bateman still relies on his charming, staring-in-disbelief comedic timing, his more dramatic scenes display an uncertainty and reluctance that resonates far past the words he speaks. Garner is a revelation here. The dramatic work she’s done on ALIAS only hints at the multilayered performance she gives her. Her desperation that shows even through her strict reticence is often heartbreaking; the flaws in her character are apparent, yet her strive for the end goal makes all her fussing filled with fright instead of superficiality.

Cody’s smart and snappy script successfully balances comedy and drama. At first insistent on teen slang (almost annoyingly so), the true measure of Cody’s accomplishment becomes apparent later in the film, when the drama rings truer than most comedies of its type. Yet it never becomes bogged down in the dramatics; by the time it turns away from total comedy, the viewer is already too invested in the characters to be lost. But Cody and Reitman realize how important comedy is in such serious situations. Like Juno herself, they never let things get too serious. There’s always something to laugh at just around the corner.

***1/2/****

Atonement

2007-12-10T16:03:00.000-08:00

Ian McEwan’s bestselling novel ATONEMENT was a work so completely absorbed in language and writing that a successful cinematic adaptation seemed unlikely. Yet in the hands of director Joe Wright (of 2005’s delightful PRIDE AND PREJUDICE) and Oscar-winning screenwriter Christopher Hampton, the film arrives with its messages largely in tact, if slightly less subtle than before. Still, the film is quite an achievement; sumptuously and carefully designed and admirably performed by its actors.

The decade-spanning story begins on a hot 1935 summer day in the middle of the English countryside. Young Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan) is a would-be writer who’s just completed a play to celebrate the return of her older brother. As she tries to wrangle her younger cousins into rehearsals, she spots her sister Cecilia (Keira Knightley) apparently arguing with the housekeeper’s son Robbie (James McAvoy). Later, Robbie asks Briony to deliver a graphic confession to Cecilia. Matters only get worse when Briony spots the two making love in the library. When Briony spots her cousin being assaulted by a man, she tells police Robbie is the culprit, and he is taken away. Four years later, the world is embroiled in World War II and Robbie is drafted into service. As he wanders aimlessly through hundreds of deserted troops trying to fulfill his promise to return to Cecilia, 18-year-old Briony (Romola Garai) is now a nurse and just beginning to realize the effect she’s had. Did she actually see what she said she saw, or did her childish mind misunderstand how her words would affect the son of a servant?

Thanks to Wright’s careful direction, part of ATONEMENT’s fascination is the intricate design. This is most apparent in Dario Marianelli’s luscious score that bridges the gap between diegetic and non-diegetic sound in a way never seen before; the music perfectly layers in the sounds of a typewriter, soldiers singing and playing harmonicas. A great deal of the film’s effectiveness comes from the wrenching music. The cinematography is equally impressive; the sun-drenched images of the beginning create a mood of intense heat without losing beauty. Wright favors long, often stunning tracking shots, culminating in a nearly six minute long take surveying the horror and tragedy of retreat. It is one of the most stunning films of the year aesthetically.

The entire film relies on what Briony saw; more and more of what really happened is revealed as the character ages. It culminates in a devastating revelation from Briony in her later years, where she is portrayed by Vanessa Redgrave in a mesmerizing performance that is sadly not much more than a glorified cameo. The finale of the film will determine how the viewer sees the entire product; not just the final scene, but all that came before it as well. It is a risky choice, but Wright and Hampton made the best decision in keeping it exactly as it is. They must have known the revelation would lose viewers, but that increases the film’s effectiveness. The characterization of Briony is the film’s other key to success, and maybe the most fascinating aspect of it. Each actress carries the character through in an astonishing level of connection; Ronan’s Briony lays the foundation, Garai’s Briony builds on that and finally Redgrave’s Briony brings it all to a tragic close. Everything, from hairstyle to dress to facial imperfections to vocal inflection is impressively identical. Though all three actresses are uniformly excellent, it is Garai who stands out the most. Portraying the Briony that comes of emotional age, both to her past and to the violence around her, Garai is endlessly fascinating. Hers is a quiet, subtle portrayal; one that stays with the viewer long after the film is over.

Unfortunately, the characters other than Briony do not make much of an impact. Most disappointing are Robbie and Cecilia, the doomed lovers highlighted in the film’s marketing. This is no fault of the actors; both McAvoy and Knightley give solid performances, and in McAvoy’s case, often compelling. Yet they are not the main characters of the story, and when the film focuses solely on Robbie for an extended amount, the pace begins to drag. And unlike her triumphant performance in PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, Knightley is not given much to do besides look beautiful and silently brooding (and smoking). Robbie and Cecilia make an adequately tragic couple, but their circumstances are less than compelling when Briony is nowhere to be found.

Wright and company have done more than an adequate job in adapting a tricky work onto the screen. Those unfamiliar with the work (and even some who are familiar with it) will either be blown away or left in the cold. ATONEMENT is a compelling study in what makes truth and what makes honesty. And as the film makes very clear, the two terms are not necessarily one in the same.

***1/2/****

The Golden Compass

2007-12-08T21:22:00.001-08:00

Clearly wishing to find a successor to their LORD OF THE RINGS films, New Line Cinema has graced us with THE GOLDEN COMPASS, the first in the successful and controversial HIS DARK MATERIALS trilogy by Philip Pullman. Known to many for its oft-discussed views on religion, anyone walking into the film must be curious as to how the filmmakers would present such a work on screen in today’s society, which is so touchy about religion. The answer is as carefully as possible, setting as many of the big issues aside for the assumed sequels. The result is mixed, showcasing a few set pieces between a lot of rushed talk and breezed-through set up.

The film serves as an introduction to a world parallel to our own, where a person’s soul is represented by an animal being, daemons, that moves beside them. Lyra (newcomer Dakota Blue Richards) is an orphan student at Jordan College, placed there by her powerful uncle Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig). While spying on a meeting led by him, Lyra learns of the “dust”; particles that attach a human to their daemon and stretch into alternate worlds. Asriel seeks to travel to the North Pole in an attempt to bride universes, but the Magisterium (headed by a man with a dorky comb-over and clichéd wide-eyed suspicious glares) declaims such acts as heresy. Meanwhile, Lyra is drafted into the employ of Mrs. Coulter (a wonderfully icy Nicole Kidman), a woman whose motives may not be all they seem. Before departing the school Lyra is given an Alethiometer, a truth-telling compass outlawed by the Magisterium. Lyra soon hears her school friends are being kidnapped, and as her suspicion against Mrs. Coulter mounts, she decided to take manners into her own hands. Along the way she drafts a cowboy-like air pilot (Sam Elliot) and a gigantic polar bear into her envoy as well as interacting with the mysterious witches (led by Eva Green).

It sounds like a lot of plot, and indeed it is. THE GOLDEN COMPASS races from one important point to another, leaving no time in between for a breather. It acts as a 101 course to Pullman’s world; most of the scenes involve someone sitting Lyra down and explaining things. The viewer is talked at almost relentlessly; something that becomes rather irritating in a film that proclaimed to be an epic adventure. It doesn’t help that the action sequences are far too short; any set piece doesn’t last longer than five minutes, if that. It really is a shame, as they start off so promising. A fight between two (wonderfully rendered) polar bears is particularly exciting, though its knock-out ending cuts the action off abruptly. Particularly frustrating is the film’s finale, which tries to wrap things up too quickly to leave the viewer with a warm, fuzzy feeling.

As said, the source’s more controversial points have been severely eased. Anyone coming into the film without prior knowledge would find the film’s stance against the Magisterium to be a mild attack on the current government, and nothing more. The entire situation is very vague; sure, they’re villains, but no one really explains why, other than a few “well, they’ve kinda done this” statements. Writer/director Chris Weitz was clearly frightened about how he was going to present the material. But unfortunately, the most controversial material is yet to come, should the other books be adapted.

Still, there are aspects to admire. The film is dazzling to behold; the film reportedly cost around $200 million to produce, and it shows. Every aspect of the technical design is impeccably rendered, especially the film’s extensive visual effects. The viewer may not be fully attentive through the whole film, but everything sure does look pretty. Add to that several admirable performances, particularly from Richards and Kidman. As Lyra, Richards brings a smart, assured portrayal; her almost otherworldly face perfectly brings us into a level of fantasy. And though she is crippled with limited screen time, Kidman is at once seductive and menacing. Her face and eyes move from grace to ferocity in the blink of an eye, making her Mrs. Coulter a villain of the most memorable kind: the kind that befriend you before showing their true faces.

THE GOLDEN COMPASS is a promising start to a new series; there are improvements that can be made, but the biggest challenges are yet to come. But in today’s age, “just all right” will not be enough. The filmmakers have serious ground to make up, should the sequels be made. Weitz will have to show more bravery in dealing with the material, which will remain controversial no matter how much he waters it down. But the film is still enjoyable, and sure to be a favorite among fantasy film fans. It still works, just not as well as it should.

**/****

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

2007-12-05T20:51:00.000-08:00

Ever since its legendary original production in 1979, SWEENEY TODD has been heralded as one of the great masterpieces of musical theatre. Rumblings of a film adaptation have been circulating for years, with directorial duties signed to Tim Burton in the late 90s and Sam Mendes earlier this decade. For a while, there were rumors of Russell Crowe making his directorial debut with the film. Now it has finally arrived, back in Burton’s hands, perhaps the ones best equipped to handle such a piece. SWEENEY TODD will likely come to be known as Burton’s best film, one where his penchant for visuals finally coincides completely with a satisfying story.

Returning to London years after being imprisoned and sent away, master barber Benjamin Barker, now calling himself Sweeney Todd (Johnny Depp), returns to his former shop in hopes of finding his wife and daughter waiting for him. Instead he finds Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), an untalented pie maker whose shop lies below his. She tells him his wife is gone and the judge who sentenced Todd now keeps his daughter. Incensed with fury, Todd vows to get revenge on those who destroyed his family. And he will complete this the best way he knows how; through his skills with a razor.

The material is already filled with the kind of dark macabre humor that Burton is so fond of, and he clearly relishes in it. Every last bit of the film is intricately designed: the art direction and costume design bring Burton’s vision of period London beautifully to life. The masterful production work here is enhanced by Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography. The nighttime images lit seemingly by flames alone send chills down the spine. The color saturation is also something to behold. The film is awash in a colorless world save for a few items; occasional pieces of clothing, a side-splitting trip to the sea with Mrs. Lovett and, most importantly, the blood. Much has been made of the film’s gruesomeness, and it is indeed gory; the violence only gets worse as Todd’s victims begin to pile up. But it never feels out of place; the blood drips like paint, almost glowing in relation to the rest of the image. The violence is meant to make the viewer squirm, and Burton sells that point. It is meant to make you laugh, not scream.

Longtime Burton collaborator Depp contributes another fantastic performance, more layered and affecting than his other recent roles. His Todd is gaunt, single-minded and frightened; viewers will not be trying to guess which figures he’s based his characterization on his time. He successfully is alternately sympathetic and repulsive; his goals are cheered but the monster he becomes is terrifying. His distinctly rock-ish singing voice may not be the best suited for Stephen Sondheim’s score, but he delivers it with the utmost dedication. Like Depp, Helena Bonham Carter is clearly not a trained singer, but instead of ignoring it, she bases her Mrs. Lovett around her weak voice. She is a quiet, desperate woman yearning for companionship but scared to admit it. She imbues her lines with a wearied tone, displaying her sharp comic timing with perfect flat-faced delivery. She also arises much more sympathetic than other Mrs. Lovetts; some of her scenes, particularly ones with the child Toby (newcomer Ed Sanders) are heartbreaking. Together, Depp and Bonham Carter create a subdued couple, but one that works perfectly for the film.

This is the film Burton was born to direct, and he’s pulled it off magnificently. This is thanks in no small part to John Logan’s screenplay, one which is likely to be ignored, sadly. Large cuts have been made from the source, but the transitions are tightly crafted and it doesn’t feel like anything is missing. Even with the cuts, the film remains faithful to its source, sticking in images that will be familiar to fans of the original production. So often Burton has valued style over substance, leading to a handful of films that start off well before going downhill. SWEENEY TODD has none of that; it is compelling from start to finish, at times hilarious, heartbreaking and horrifying. Drawing strength from performances that embrace their performers’ flaws and adapt them, Burton’s film is a tremendous achievement. He has more than merely done justice to the material. The film could not come any better. This could very well be the greatest work Burton has ever done.

****/****

The Orphanage

2007-11-29T21:01:00.001-08:00

In this day and age, it seems unlikely that a haunted house movie would be the scariest to come along in years. But here we are with THE ORPHANAGE, a not-so-ordinary ghost story that draws upon the horror classics of yesteryear; the frights come from what we cannot see but know is there. Director J.A. Bayona and screenwriter Sergio G. Sanchez (under the guidance of producer Guillermo del Toro) have crafted a modern masterpiece of less-is-more. Yet in many ways, the film’s greatest strengths lie not in its sequences of harrowing suspense but its dramatic aspirations.

Laura (Belen Rueda) is an orphan who’s returned to her former home to open a school for special needs children. Living with her in the large, creaky and maze-like former school is her husband and adopted son Simon who suffers from a debilitating illness, a secret kept even from him by his parents. Simon has always had imaginary friends, but Laura becomes increasingly unsettled when he meets six new invisible friends while scouting a nearby cave. Then things take a turn for the worse: a strange woman enters the house, claiming to be a social worker. Laura later finds her hiding in a storage shed. A game that Simon’s friends lead him into reveals that he knows more about his past than he lets on. And during a welcome party for the new children, a figure wearing a sack mask violently forces Laura into the bathroom and locks her in. When she is released, Simon is gone. Months pass without a clue to his disappearance, and Laura begins to suspect that Simon’s new friends may not be imaginary after all.

The film strives on techniques that have been around for ages. Creaking floors, thumping footsteps, doors closing by themselves, flickering lights, etc. The story is definitely old fashioned and the filmmakers do not stray from that mood. Still, the mounting suspense that builds to an almost unbearable level makes the film more effective than trying to gross-out its audience with excessive gore. There are jump scares and a particularly disturbing and graphic scene, but the film is incredibly restrained. When the final stages are entered and Laura is isolated in the large house, the tension reaches dizzying heights. Expectations skyrocket and for once, the viewer is not shortchanged. There are no cheap tricks, no glaringly obvious plot holes to keep us from getting the ending before it arrives. Bayona’s strengths clearly lie with creating this kind of heavy mood, thanks to excellent sound design and editing.

But what is most surprising about THE ORPHANAGE is its sense of drama. It is every bit as much a drama as a horror. Most horror films are content will developing their characters just enough to get the viewers to care, but Belen Rueda’s performance will tear hearts out. Her desperation and panic as time passes is devastating; her devotion to her missing son truly touching. The climax of the film is not effective because of its suspense (though it is terrifying), but because of Rueda. It may be the only film that will have people screaming in fear while tears gather.

THE ORPHANAGE takes horror conventions we all know; conventions that seem unlikely to be effective today. But the film proves just how frightening darkness can be, and how we still can be scared of things we cannot see. We must often rely on what the characters say they see, forcing us to listen to the terror of what is going on around them. It’s a simple story effectively done. This is a film for people who want to really be scared at the movie. Not just grossed out.

****/****

August Rush

2007-11-26T21:56:00.001-08:00

One would imagine that the depressing-when-you-think-about-it world of Dickensian literature would be even direr and saddening when transported to the here and now. Yet AUGUST RUSH completely rejects that notion. A music-driven update of OLIVER TWIST without most of the strife and with extra heart to spare, the film is nonsensical but charming and touching to those willing to go with it. The titular character says, “I believe in music the way some people believe in fairy tales”, which aptly describes the entire film in itself. A fairy tale about the power of love through music.

Evan Taylor (the seemingly unaging Freddie Highmore) is an orphan believes that his parents are still alive and looking for him. But he doesn’t cling to a hope, he knows for sure; he can hear them in the music that surrounds him. Realizing that he’ll have to move into the outside world so his parents can hear him, he runs away from his small-town orphanage and into the crazed midst of New York City. As the beginnings of Evan’s story are told, we are given the story of his birth; a one-night romance between an Irish rocker (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) and a classical cellist (Keri Russell), whose connection is inspired by a harmonica/guitar rendition of Van Morrison’s “Moondance”. In the present day, Evan’s mother, believing her son dead, lives a meager existence. When the truth is revealed to her, she begins a frantic search to find him. His father is also on the search, desperately trying to track down the source of his inspiration. All the while, Evan’s astounding musical talents are being cultivated by his very own Fagin, a cowboy named Wizard (Robin Williams), who gives him the stage name “August Rush” and sets him on his way to fame.

The story owes more to OLIVER TWIST than mere inspiration; it’s practically a remake. Yet none of Dickens’ urgency is present, and though August faces problem after problem, there’s never a doubt in our minds that all will turn out well. August is actually pretty lucky for an orphan living alone in New York City. Not only does he find a homeless guardian who is not a pedophile, even though he has a horde of young children in his care, his extraordinary gift seems to instantly dispel any punishment coming his way. Near the finale, when the film attempts to create a villain, it suffers. Sure, August is sad, but everything is going to be all right. This, along with most of the film, will be eye-rollingly nonsensical and irritating to some, but the film has a few key elements that manage to retain the viewer’s attention.

Chief among them are the performances of Highmore and Russell. Ever since 2004’s FINDING NEVERLAND, Highmore has proven to be today’s premier child actor. His wide blue eyes practically dare people not to care. And with all the eyes-to-the-skies looks of hope that he and the other characters give in nearly every scene, it’s difficult not to be affected. As for Russell, although she’s been in the public eye for nearly ten years, 2007 will be remembered as her breakout year. Along with her performance in WAITRESS, she is quickly proving to be a great dramatic actress. Her clear, open face gives her an instant likeability reminiscent of Audrey Hepburn. The film’s giant plot holes (there are many) don’t seem so obvious we see Russell’s heart breaking over his missing son.

As it is expected in a film so tightly driven by music, Mark Mancina’s score is a focus in most of the film. He acquits himself well, blending the sounds of everyday living cleverly into the score. The centerpiece of his writing is the focus of the film’s finale, and thanks to Mancina’s sweeping and inspirational music, becomes genuinely affecting. Yes, it may even produce tears.

The key to enjoying this film is to suspend your disbelief and completely abandon common sense. The film is designed as a fairy tale, and though the fantastical elements are extremely muted, it should be treated as such. Director Kirsten Sheridan fills the screen with pretty images that, though overwrought at times, serve to heighten the light nature of the story. AUGUST RUSH is not a life changing experience, but it’s a charming little diversion that once again proves how much power love and music can have.

***/****

The Mist

2007-11-25T13:26:00.000-08:00

THE MIST has been one of those Stephen King works that continually elude adaptations over the years. Well, it’s finally arrived in a theatre near you, courtesy of accomplished King adapter Frank Darabont (THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION and THE GREEN MILE). Since Darabont’s reputation with King’s work has been so praised, it’s only natural to assume that THE MIST is one of the better Stephen King films, right? Well, yes. But it’s still not a good movie. The clichés of the story are pulled off well, but when Darabont deviates from what King has created, most notably in the film’s finale, it becomes hokey, heavy-handed and nearly unbearable.

The plot is one that’s been told many times before. After a terrible storm, residents of a small Maine town descend upon the local supermarket to stock up on supplies. Little do they know that a dense and impenetrable mist is moving in on them. Before they know it, the store is surrounded by the mist and the people inside are all but stranded. Then the real trouble begins. A panicked man races into the store, screaming about something in the mist. A lowly bag boy (of course he’s the first victim) is pulled away by a creature with lots of tentacles. And as the survivors begin to realize exactly what surrounds them, the monsters inside the store begin to show their faces.

It’s all very typical horror movie conventions, especially the ones King has helped to create. There are echoes here of many of his other works, most notably STORM OF THE CENTURY. But for quite some time, the viewer goes along with it; it is a horror movie after all. These sorts of things are to be expected. But as the film goes on, these characters prescribe more and more to typical stupid people behavior that instantly spells doom. Instead of running away from the creatures, they stand and stare in terror for far too long. When a character makes a revelation that some creatures are attracted to light, what happens? A panicked person turns on all the lights. And let’s not forget the completely implausible explanations that do not mesh with the film at all. Yet when the film tries to depart from horror movie conventions, it takes an even worse turn. The film’s finale, drastically different from its source, is a risky undertaking. And one that proves completely pointless. Not only is it eye-rollingly, head-slappingly obvious, leaving the viewers thinking, “Well, it sucks to be you”, it is acted and designed in such an overtly melodramatic, heavy-handed way (with the most irritating use of movie music this year) that any latecomers will think the Sci-Fi channel has merged with the Lifetime network.

Darabont directs most of the movie with his typical sleek style, yet at times he feels the need to shake things up and bring the film into a 24-like setting. The graceful camera movements and slow changes of focus are shattered by quick zooms on characters and the occasional handheld shot. While the latter approach may have been effective if he wanted to create a documentary-like film, it really feels out of place when most of it is shot in typical Hollywood style. Not to mention that the rather spotty special effects (especially in the first attack) make the handheld shots seem even more off. He tries desperately to create a movie that’s above the typical horror on all levels, but he certainly isn’t being helped by much of the cast. While Marcia Gay Harden (as a half-crazed religious zealot) hams it up and makes a memorable villain, Thomas Jane (as the manly, heroic movie poster painter) falls short. Sure, he’s a strong figure and completely cut out for leading people, but when he is required to do dramatic scenes, he comes off as fake and unconvincing. He cannot hold a look of genuine despair for longer than five seconds, always cutting in with a blank look that strongly resembles boredom.

Darabont has taken what could have been an enjoyable, if predictable, horror movie and turned it into a beleagured, overlong and melodramatic trudge. Most of these faults lie with the new ending, which is much less effective and thought-provoking than the story’s original. While THE MIST is better than the lame efforts most of King’s work receives on screen, it is still far from a good movie. Sometimes we just want to be scared, you know? Just scared from what’s happening in a movie, not scared by how what’s happening in a movie relates to the real world. Many directors understand this, at the very least. Not Frank Darabont, it would seem.

*1/2/****

Margot at the Wedding

2007-11-23T15:09:00.000-08:00

There are a great many people who will look at the title MARGOT AT THE WEDDING and wonder if that’s a reference to French New Wave director Eric Rohmer. And the title is not the only reference. Writer/director Noah Baumbach’s newest film is tightly tied to the ideals of the French New Wave, from the look and feel of the film to the portrayal of its characters. This dedication to a more “realistic” sense of filmmaking is likely to turn off some while intrigue others. And while it may not be a complete success, MARGOT AT THE WEDDING has many things to admire.

Neurotic and destructive Margot (Nicole Kidman), a short story writer who draws heavily from real life, is about to end a years-long silence with her sister Pauline (Jennifer Jason Leigh) when she travels to her childhood home for a wedding. The sisters have an unconventional relationship to say the least. They joke one minute, shout at each other the next. And throughout this, several things become clear, the clearest being that Margot doesn’t like Pauline’s fiancé, an unemployed painter/musician (Jack Black). None of these people are particularly likable, and their neuroses and suspicions against each other keep building and building, inevitably leading to a complete breakdown.

There is one thing that’s sure about this film; the characters are not meant to be liked. Baumbach goes out of his way to make sure the audience detests nearly every character in the film. Margot is selfish and off-putting. The only way she can booster her own self-esteem is by knocking down others; she laughingly comments that her sister cannot make eye contact with others, that her son smells bad and is growing stupid, and in more than one case accuses a potential attacker of being retarded. Pauline and Malcolm (the fiancé) don’t fare much better either; each of them are severely complicated individuals whose flaws seem to inflate in Margot’s presence. They discuss nearly every topic with irritating nonchalance, freely admitting to their children that they’ve been abused by their parents or babysitters. Whenever one of these characters finally breaks down and reaches out for help, it is far from sympathetic. It is pathetic. Yet many will argue that this is undeniably “real”; these are how real people are, and this is how real people react. They argue, they are selfish and their revelations are often pitiful to watch. Oh, and every adult is a victim of child abuse. That’s real.

These difficult characters, however, have lead to some extraordinary performances, particularly from Kidman and Leigh. Baumbach has successfully tapped into Kidman’s natural frigidity, which so often hampers her other performances. Kidman herself is completely committed to the part; her Margot is tightly wound, always wavering between laughter and tears. Thanks to Kidman, Margot’s incessant putdowns come off a clear warning signs of a breakdown about to occur, not needless bickering. It’s one of the braver, subtler performances of her career, unfortunately likely to be ignored, as her more subtle work often is. Leigh is compelling as well; Pauline desperately seeks approval from Margot while carelessly rejected it, whatever small doses she gets. She is just as tightly wound as Margot, yet fully conscious of her and her sister’s faults and the effects it has on those around them. Leigh plays Pauline as the reluctant voice of reason, a feat that is subtle and astonishing in itself. Even Jack Black acquits himself nicely, managing to hone in the broadness for a different kind of comedy; one where we laugh at the characters, not with them.

There are a lot of problems within MARGOT AT THE WEDDING, and most of them are intentional. If the viewer is willing to accept that these people are fatally flawed and will never change, they will be the better for it. This is a film about people who are so set in their ways that they’re beyond saving in many ways. Whether this makes it real or not is up to the viewer. One has to wonder exactly how Baumbach intends this film to be taken. Like many works of the French New Wave, its effect will be different for everyone who views it. For some, it will be insightful and artistic. For others, a lot of intellectual mumbo-jumbo that doesn’t go anywhere.

***/****

Enchanted

2007-11-22T00:59:00.000-08:00

Taking a page from SHREK and alternately signaling its return to the days of classic Disney, ENCHANTED is a charming spoof of the fairy tale conventions we all know and an introduction to Disney’s newest beloved princess. Thanks to a pitch-perfect performance from Amy Adams, the film manages to make good on the old “fish out of water” ploy and remain fresh and exciting throughout.

Starting off in traditional cel animation (the studio’s first attempt since 2004), ENCHANTED starts off with the classic fairy tale romance between Giselle and Prince Edward, who meet and fall in love through the power of song. But wherever true love is found, evil cannot be far away. This arises in the form of Narissa, Edward’s stepmother who is afraid of letting her kingdom slip into another’s hands. She banishes Giselle to the place where happy endings never come true: modern day New York. The film switches into live action (and a wider format) and we again meet Giselle (Adams), lost and confused in the unfriendly real world. She is saved by Robert (Patrick Dempsey), a divorce lawyer with a rather downtrodden view on life. Their mismatched personalities spar at first, but soon Giselle teaches Robert and his young daughter about the joy of true love and all that stuff in the fairy tales.

The film is chock full of references to past Disney animated films. Giselle herself is an amalgam of Snow White, Belle and Ariel (if only because of Adam’s long red hair). The evil queen (hammily rendered in live action by Susan Sarandon) is a dead ringer for Snow White’s stepmother; she even dresses as a hag and offers poisoned apples. Some of the film’s charm lies in finding the visual cues to past films (such as Giselle reflected in bubbles a la CINDERELLA), but when the plot seems so focused on the throwbacks, especially SNOW WHITE, the whole thing becomes a bit tired and clichéd. The film’s finale, therefore, doesn’t come off as particularly exciting. We all know exactly how the story is going to end, even if there are a few 21st century twists along the way.

The real reason for the film’s success, and where most of its charm lies, is in Amy Adams’s live action performance. She is a Disney princess brought to life, and there’s nothing more to say about it. Skipping and singing through the early parts of the film, in a nearly unwieldy dress no less, she appears to have had every Disney cartoon implanted into her brain. Her sweetness and sadness are so animated and sympathetic, Giselle ranks up there with Belle, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty. This is a breakthrough performance for Adams, who will probably have to prepare herself for hordes of 10-year-old fans for the rest of her life.

Director Kevin Lima (of past Disney films TARZAN and 102 DALMATIANS) keeps things lively, always winking at the audience to keep things from getting too sappy. This is never more apparent then when Giselle bursts into song. She calls out for her animal friends to help clean the house, and rats, deformed pigeons, flies and cockroaches swarm the room. When she sings in Central Park, the act quickly turns into a full-blown musical number with everyone joining in. Except, of course for Robert, who watches confusedly, wondering aloud why everyone seems to know the song. The numbers, penned by Disney alums Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz are bouncy and bright, hearkening back to the glory days of the Disney animated musical.

The filmmakers and audience are so enamored with the comic possibilities invented that the sense of danger rarely pervades the scene. And indeed, the dramatic finale seems tacked onto the rest of the proceedings. But that does not deflate the sense of charm that viewers of all ages will be infected by. While not as clever a self-parody as other films, Adams’s inspired performance and light, breezy tone make ENCHANTED the perfect family film for the holidays. Even if the animation does not rank with Disney’s most artistic, the film is a fond look back to what came before and an optimistic look at what lies in store.

***/****

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium

2007-11-17T00:37:00.001-08:00

Well, it’s been predicted that consumers may not be spending as much this holiday season. Not if MR. MAGORIUM’S WONDER EMPORIUM has anything to do with it. One of the most noticeable things about the film is its sheer amount of product placement in the titular toy store. There’s everything from Curious George books to Duplo blocks to Lego logs and everything in between. Unfortunately, the fact that these images are so present and memorable after the film indicates there is not much else worth remembering about it. And it’s true; aside from an annoyingly catching title and a few recognizable items, MR. MAGORIUM’S WONDER EMPORIUM is a mess of wannabe originality that seems all too familiar.

The film centers on Molly Mahoney (Natalie Portman), a twentysomething would be composer/pianist who is the store manager of Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium, a magical toy store with a mind of its own. The patriarch and namesake of the shop, Mr. Magorium (Dustin Hoffman) is a 243-year-old wizardly sage of a man, delivering quirky bits of wisdom as often as he recommends toys to his customers, all of whom he seems to know. When he employs a straight-laced accountant (Jason Bateman), lovingly nicknamed “the mutant”, it becomes all to clear that Mr. Magorium is preparing the store for a big change. Whether or not the store will take it well is the question.

Everything in the film is meant to be cutsey, child-like and magical. Yet most of its quirks seem borrowed (in less than exciting ways) from other films. The store itself is nothing more than a family-friendly spin on the old haunted house, while the odd conventions in it are hardly noteworthy; there is a bottomless bag taken directly from MARY POPPINS. This is most evident, however, in Hoffman’s performance as the titular character. Mr. Magorium is probably what Hoffman would have done were he ever cast as Willy Wonka; basically, the same as Gene Wilder but with a lisp. He’s quirky with a capital “Q”. (He’s an avid shoe collector! He has a pet zebra! Look at those crazy eyebrows!) His unusual remarks are also of the clichéd, anything-can-happen-if-you-believe type. While it is nice to get affirming statements once in a while, one prefers a little variety.

The film has a nice look, even if there are flaws here and there. The store itself is wonderfully constructed, vibrantly bringing to life the sense of dizzying disorganization while retaining a classical style. The score, co-written by Alexandre Desplat and Aaron Zigman, is probably the most magical part of the entire thing, completely delightful in every way. Zach Helm, who makes his directorial debut here, has an intriguing visual sense, even if his inexperience is quite obvious at times. Moments that are potentially comedic fall flat because of odd pacing and framing. The film’s visual effects are also a problem; in a piece so full of them, it would have been wise to invest in a larger budget than those seen in made-for-TV movies.

Of course, the film is intended mainly for children, so my jaded and cynical view on life would be ill-suited to it, right? Not necessarily. The film’s insistence on trying to shape a dramatic relationship around Magorium and Mahoney is rather heavy-handed, albeit in an inspirational way. Still, the lack of action throughout much of the film will have youngsters squirming in their seats. Moments of pure excitement are few and far between and everything in between is barely involving for adults, let alone children.

MR. MAGORIUM’S WONDER EMPORIUM does occasionally leave a smile on the face, thanks mostly to the easygoing charm and natural grace of Portman, but as she’s trying to find herself, viewers of all ages will be trying to find their watches. A film like this, though hardly original, does not have to be doomed from the start if it is in capable hands. Unfortunately Helm is too inexperienced to breathe new life into tired ideas, and the film drags endlessly towards its finish. By the end, we are left in a state similar to the store itself late in the film: moody and displeased.

*/****

Beowulf

2007-11-13T20:28:00.001-08:00

Director Robert Zemeckis (of BACK TO THE FUTURE and FORREST GUMP) has always placed himself and his works as examples of cutting edge technology, making a self-proclaimed breakthrough in motion-capture animation in 2004’s THE POLAR EXPRESS, which was a decidedly mixed product. Well, Zemeckis has returned with a new and highly advanced style with BEOWULF, an adaptation of the ancient text that owes just as much to co-writers Roger Avary and Neil Gaiman as it does its source. Zemeckis and company do succeed on several levels; the animation is superior to previous outings, as is the fluidity in action and storytelling. Yet there are still key detractions in the animation that keep BEOWULF from being a completely satisfying experience.

Taking its episodic nature from the poem, BEOWULF traces the rise and fall of the great hero, breaking up into basically three segments. In the first, aged King Hrothgar (Anthony Hopkins) calls upon the titular hero (Ray Winstone) to vanquish his kingdom from a gruesome, violent demon Grendel (Crispin Glover). Yet once the monster is killed, Beowulf finds himself facing an even greater foe: Grendel’s mother (Angelina Jolie in a role decidedly different from its counterpart in the source). The third and final section of the film takes place years later, when Beowulf is forced to face the mistakes he made in his first two quests.

The first half of the film follows the poem fairly closely and the technology serves to accomplish what live-action films simply could not; a true adaptation of the English language’s densest works. Yet once Grendel’s mother enters the picture, it takes drastic turns. This will likely frustrate fans of the source, yet as this film is being marketed squarely at the young adult male set, its target market will forgive faithfulness in favor of animated Jolie’s naked body. And Jolie isn’t the only character showing some skin. The usually portly Winstone, transformed into a Conan the Barbarian-like muscleman (ah the wonders of animation), battles Grendel in the nude; Zemeckis utilizes several self-conscious objects (candles, arms and, most appropriately, swords) to keep the film from straying into R-rated territory. And if you’ve ever wanted to see Hopkins nearly lose all his clothes, this is your chance. The film pushes its PG-13 rating in almost every way, and the nudity is just part of it. Blood is spilled everywhere, arms and legs are pulled off and nearly every scene contains some sort of sexual innuendo.

Yet all the daring choices taken with the material do not make up for the faults in the film’s production. The techniques of the animation have certainly improved since THE POLAR EXPRESS; the amount of detail in the settings are particularly astounding. But the characters’ faces are largely immovable. There is still something about these figures, their lifeless eyes, unexpressive faces and too-fluid movements that stick out. In certain cases, they seem like no more than well-rendered video game characters. Zemeckis is also tempted one too many times to get gimmicky; he favors long “takes” moving from one place to another, trying to be as all-encompassing as possible. Sometimes the tactic works, such as when Grendel is introduced. But when nearly every shot is constructed that way, it gets noticeable and irritating.

BEOWULF is an interesting continuation of an interesting experiment, greater than its predecessor but hampered by its noticeable faults. It is at times thrilling and spellbinding, especially when viewed in 3-D, but that is only during the film’s action sequences. During the dramatic scenes, Zemeckis’s gimmicks become all the more apparent and bog the film down. The film is not for everyone, and will probably upset some fans of the source. But those that find the technique used will undoubtedly be intrigued by the film. Entertaining enough for what it is, BEOWULF is still not the technological breakthrough Zemeckis wished for, but it’s a step closer.

**1/2

No Country for Old Men

2007-11-10T11:23:00.000-08:00

After only hinting at their trademark darkness in the past few years, the Coen Brothers are back in full-force with NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, a brilliant tour-de-force of directing and acting. Adapted from the Cormac MCarthy novel, but still retaining all the stylistics and quirks of the directors, they have created perhaps their bleakest film yet; one that creates a thrilling balance between moments of shocking violence and unsettling silence. Featuring career-defining performances from Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin, the film is a must-see and nothing less than the best film of the year.

The main story follows Llewellyn Moss (Brolin), a hunter who stumbles upon a stash of drugs and millions of dollars following a deadly shoot-out in the middle of a Texas nowhere. He takes the money but leaves one of the victims alive, who eventually hires a ruthless killer, Anton Chigurh (Bardem) to retrieve the money. All the while, Moss knows he’s being hunted, sending his confused wife (Kelly Macdonald) to her mother’s while a verge-of-retirement sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Jones) tries to pick up the pieces of the crime and save Moss before it is too late. While Moss’s story drives the film, Chigurh and Bell’s stories are nearly as important, and the glimpses into their past are often more intriguing than Moss’s.

This is due mainly in part to the astounding performances, especially from Bardem and Jones. While Brolin puts forth his strongest work in his perhaps not-so-distinguished career, he cannot help but be outshined by the two men whose characters hold much of the intrigue and meaning of the piece. As Chigurh, Bardem is at once terrifying and hilarious. His mannerisms in his interactions with various local folk and his night-stalking of Moss do not change, but once he reveals his weapon (maybe the most chill-inducing prop ever) his dry comic timing becomes serious, silent and horrifying. He is more than just a driven killer; the lengths he drives himself to and the methods he uses to make himself invisible illustrate a deeper psychological purpose that is spoken of only a few times in the film. Jones is equally as impressive; he imbues his character with a weary, melancholy air that also proves hilarious and heart-wrenching. He delivers most of his lines with a dry bent that get most of the film’s laughs, yet when he muses about his own life, the film enters its most meaningful parts. It is from Bell that the title is driven, and it is from Bell it gets its meaning.

While the film is superbly constructed on all levels, the Coen Brothers made their masterpiece a center point of how effective editing and sound design can be. Aside from the suspenseful sequences with Chigurh, the film is a very muted affair; people never raise their voices when speaking to each other and nothing, not the rumbling of outside traffic, not even Carter Burwell’s score seems to intrude on it. This is what makes the suspense sequences all the more effective; no matter how much it may be hinted, the sudden bursts of noise (a lock popping out, a car exploding, etc.) always get a start from the viewer, eventually leading them into a state of tension that they cannot escape from. And when the noise begins, what follows it truly horrifying. Shockingly violent, but in a very real way, these sequences are perhaps the strongest the Coen Brothers have ever created. Of particular note is when Moss and Chigurh actually meet in a decadent Southern hotel. Their shoot-out leads into the street, and every second it goes on, the viewer becomes more and more affected.

The Coen Brothers still retain their sense of humor, contrasting the chilling violence with the studies of small-town American eccentrics they’re known for. Yet they have set out to accomplish something different with this film, and they succeed on all levels. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is a harrowing experience, leaving the viewer in a state of shock by its finish. It isn’t gratuitous at all; in fact the most intriguing parts of the film come from what we’re not shown. The film is an experience not to be missed. It is, without a doubt, a crowning achievement for the Coen Brothers.

****

American Gangster

2007-11-03T02:32:00.000-07:00

The success of THE DEPARTED last year likely signaled a resurgence in the popularity of crime thrillers, and its triumph at the Oscars seemed destined to make these films more important than ever. AMERICAN GANGSTER is one of these films; finally arriving on screens after years of developmental hell, it reunites director Ridley Scott with Russell Crowe and once again brings Denzel Washington to the wrong side of the law. With the film, Scott has successfully distanced himself from the critical and financial disappointments A GOOD YEAR and KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, though the film’s bloated excess and self-import hinder it and keep it from being all it could have been.

AMERICAN GANGSTER tells the true story (as it is noted in the opening credits) of Frank Lucas (Washington), the protégé of a New York criminal who rises to the top of the city’s illegal drug ring, defying all previously-existed expectations and becoming more powerful than the Italian mob families. Simultaneously told is the story of Riche Roberts (Crowe), the do-good cop who heads the branch placed in charge of big-time drug raids. These two intersecting stories paint a vivid picture, not only of life in New York City during the Vietnam War, but what exactly makes a decent man and what makes a criminal.

These more psychological studies are concentrated mostly on Lucas. He is, by all outward appearances, a decent man; he takes care of his family, has a loving wife and has worked his way to the top by himself. The only thing that’s keeping him from being a hero is the fact that he smuggles drugs for a living. It also helps that Lucas is played by Washington, one of Hollywood’s most likable stars. The film takes many moments to showcase Lucas’s alteration between family man and ruthless criminal, and Washington certainly delivers in these moments. It’s all a bit ho-hum (the shock of him as a villain seems to have worn off), but solid work nonetheless. Much more compelling, though sadly misused, is Crowe. Roberts is given basically nothing to do for the first half of the film, but Crowe remains a strong presence throughout. Not much time is taken to explore the darker side of his character; he has family problems, but they are dealt with so briefly that they barely register.

The film plods along for the first hour, offering nothing overtly compelling. The film is an entire build-up to the end; the last half-hour of the film is superbly constructed and ranks with the best crime thrillers, but the journey there seems unending and drags until it gradually picks up its feet. And aside from Crowe and Washington, a cast filled with recognizable faces is rarely given the opportunity to shine. An exception to this is Ruby Dee, outstanding and restrained in an unfortunately limited role as Washington’s mother. Most other characters are pushed aside in favor of studying Lucas and Roberts’ personalities and motivations. This sadly leads to prolonged scenes of the two sitting and talking to various partners, which does nothing to help the film’s sluggish pace early on.

As always, Scott constructs the entire piece with precision and mastery. In the action sequences, he seems to rise to another level; the film’s finale is stunningly tense, no matter how clear its outcome may be. Yet there are so few action sequences spread out in its 2.5-hour running time, and though Scott is able and adept at directing straight dramatic scenes, that certain flair he displays is sorely missed. Most of these problems are thanks to Steven Zaillian’s script, which is so serious and far-reaching in its scope that it cannot help but become bloated. A half hour could easily be excised from the film with no major damage.

AMERICAN GANGSTER poses itself to be the next great crime thriller, but by doing that, it believes in its own importance far too much and therefore falls short. There are many moments of greatness contained in it, but too much exposition must be waded through to get to them. Still, a memorable effort from Ridley Scott and compelling performances from Washington, Crowe and Ruby Dee make this film one of the year’s must-sees.

***

Dan in Real Life

2007-10-26T23:31:00.001-07:00

A comedic actor traveling into more dramatic territory is often a risky thing. For some, it turns out great (Tom Hanks in PHILADELPHIA, Jim Carrey in THE TRUMAN SHOW, etc.) but for others, it merely exposes their rather bland acting abilities (Will Ferrell in STRANGER THAN FICTION, Adam Sandler in SPANGLISH/REIGN OVER ME, etc.). Luckily for Steve Carrell, his latest foray into the world of dramedy, DAN IN REAL LIFE, is a complete triumph. The film itself is a bit of a mash-up; plot points and scenarios that are almost too-familiar strung together to make a by-the-books family comedy. Yet from the strength of Carrell’s performance, and the amiability of the whole cast, DAN IN REAL LIFE comes off better than it actually should.

Dan Burns (Carrell) is parental advice columnist whose writings seem to influence everyone’s life but his own. A widower with three daughters, Dan is a pitch-perfect example of a nervous father; forbidding his daughters from taking any chances (whether it be letting his oldest girl try driving or his middle daughter try dating) for fear of rather irrational dangers. He drags them along on a yearly family reunion, where they are bombarded by the enormous, nosy and cloying network of aunts and uncles, including Dianne Wiest and John Mahoney as the parents. On a routine book to the ol’ Book and Tackle Shop, Dan meets up with Marie (a radiant Juliette Binoche) a down-to-earth beauty. They instantly connect. Yet their relationship instantly becomes strained when Dan realizes that Marie is dating his brother Mitch (a surprisingly effective Dane Cook). As Dan’s feelings for Marie develop, his carefully planned way of life/parenting begins to crumble.

The plot is a bit ho-hum, and some of the comedic moments are far too familiar. Dan’s repeated run-ins with the same police officer fall flat, and the script subscribes to the belief that there’s nothing funnier than a middle-aged man trying to exercise or dance. Director and co-writer Peter Hedges (2003’s PIECES OF APRIL) constructs these scenes well, despite their clichéd nature. Laughter is obtained, yet it remains muted throughout. The film becomes stronger when it sets aside comic conventions and aims for honesty. These moments are incredibly effective and balance the tired shticks it wrings out to get laughs.

The main reason for the effectiveness of the dramatic scenes is the honest, likable cast that remains fully committed to the material. Carrell’s finest moments come from his subtler actions; many times, Dan seems so tightly wound that he’s an inch away from a complete breakdown. And while Dan is given the awkward romantic bent in many scenes, the more meaningful scenes become the film’s most affecting, heart wrenching moments. When Dan begins to express his true feelings through song (as one must do in a family dramedy) the self-consciousness and quietness Carrell brings to the scene lifts the entire sequence onto a level of unspeakable honesty. As Marie, Binoche contributes another compelling performance, excelling in both comedic and dramatic sequences. Binoche and Carrell certainly do make an unlikely pair, but by the film’s end, everyone in the audience will be convinced they were born for each other.

Without the film’s performances, DAN IN REAL LIFE would nowhere be the accomplishment it is. Yet Peter Hedges directs his leads to two of the best performances of the year, and the material is ably supported by the rest of the cast. The film is far from original, its borrowed conventions becoming painfully obvious at times. Despite this, it remains charming and carries its viewers through the entire experience. Not perfect by any means, but in a time where the market is saturated with Halloween horror movies and utterly serious awards contenders, it’s a welcome change to see a smaller film that speaks truthfully about the commitments of having a family while throwing some laughs in for good measure.

***1/2

30 Days of Night

2007-10-19T23:37:00.001-07:00

In its ever-present advertising over the past few weeks, 30 DAYS OF NIGHT promised a terrifying new vision of the vampire. But what detracts from the norm is not always new, nor is a vampire always terrifying. Both appear to be the case in this film, which does make an attempt to depart from films similar to it. Unfortunately, the most intriguing (perhaps terrifying) aspects of the story are left unexplored, leaving the audience with nothing but a few mildly effective jump scares sandwiched between long chunks of uninteresting character and plot development.

The action is set in the northernmost point of the United States: a small, isolated town in Alaska that is plunged into 30 days of night every year, due to the angle and rotation of the Earth. The last day of sunlight proves an unusual one for the town’s sheriff (Josh Hartnett); a pile of cell phones has been gathered and burned on the edge of town, a resident’s dogs have been ruthlessly slaughtered, and a mysterious and unsettling stranger (Ben Foster) appears in town, telling of a great evil that is to come. When the night finally falls on the town, the evil unleashes itself. A group of violent, unforgiving and gruesome vampires descend on the town, attacking anyone and everyone in sight. The town is slowly whittled down to a small group of survivors, including the sheriff’s estranged wife (Melissa George), who must fight to survive until the sun rises.

These vampires are indeed different from the usual breed; there are no flowing capes, no intense vampiric stares. These creatures are more animalistic predators than anything else. However, the film uses these animal-like behaviors as the main crutch of its suspense sequences, making nearly every potential scare a jump scare that is completely expected. Only in the typical and clichéd finale does the film try a different kind of suspense, but the viewer has long since lost interest. Instead, most of the action is devoted to the small group of survivors moving from hiding place to hiding place, asking “how can this happen?” and “why are they doing this?” while keeping each other from running away. Of course, this kind of talk is obligatory in a horror film, but there’s simply too much of it here.

There are a few strengths, however. The film is ably acted by its leads, with Hartnett, George and Danny Huston (unrecognizable as the head vampire) delivering solid performances with precious little to work with. However, Ben Foster as the comic relief (or so I assume, since his performance elicited so much laughter from the audience) gives the exact same performance he gave earlier this year in 3:10 TO YUMA. Pretty much the same accent as well, curiously enough. Director David Slade (2005’s HARD CANDY) imbues the film with a sophisticated visual style, much more defined than the average horror film. If only the film’s level of terror matched the director’s eye, we would have a film worthy of its story. As it is, the five minute sequences of quick cuts and gore aren’t nearly thrilling or shocking enough to balance out the ten minutes of banal exposition surrounding them. It takes an interesting premise and only begins to scratch the surface of its possibilities. Still, it’s October, so it will doubtless provide a momentary diversion for thrill seekers. And by the looks of it, that’s all the filmmakers were really aiming for.

*

Michael Clayton

2007-10-13T23:40:00.001-07:00

Acclaimed screenwriter Tony Gilroy (whose credits include the recent BOURNE films) makes his directorial debut with MICHAEL CLAYTON, a legal drama that recalls the feel of 1970s paranoid thrillers to craft its story of a lawyer with questionable morals thrust into the dangerous world of big business’s most secret dealings. With an admirable turn by George Clooney, supported with a solid script and uniformly excellent performances from the supporting cast, MICHAEL CLAYTON serves as a stylish and assured debut from one of Hollywood’s smartest voices.

Michael Clayton (a shagged-up Clooney) is known as a “fixer” at his law firm; he comes in quietly and solves problems as quickly as possible, regardless of the legality of his actions. Yet when one of his coworkers, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson), embroiled in a six year long lawsuit as a major corporation’s defender, strips down during an interrogation and runs through a parking lot, Michael realizes there may be more than the man’s own mental instability. Before he knows it, Michael finds himself acting against a dangerous and deadly cover-up lead by the company.

The plot seems unusual for a legal thriller, and the film certainly is. Instead of focusing on the cover-up, Gilroy is more concerned with the characters: the line Michael crosses between helping a friend and doing his job and the question of mental instability when Arthur’s mad ramblings begin to show merit. The actual legal battle between the corporation and the affected citizens is only briefly touched on. The rather narrow scope of the film gives it an isolated effect, a kind of “anywhere anytime” feel; it does not pin itself to one situation completely. This is where Gilroy plays into the paranoia aspect directly; the events of this film could happen to anyone in any situation.

Yet the script has a tendency to overemphasize several themes. Most lines that take longer than ten seconds to deliver are morphed into long speeches filled with quick-paced wordplay and lots and lots of underlying meaning. The character of Michael’s son seems there only to ramble on about a book that seems to connect to everyone else’s life in some way or another. And in an effort to inject some suspense and confusion in the viewer, the prologue takes place four days into the film’s plot. While it does successfully create a sense of disorientation (as in the best paranoia thrillers), the sequence becomes rather tedious and ineffective when the film returns to it.

But the film is bolstered by strong performances all around. As the titular character, Clooney strips himself of the easygoing charm so obviously detectable in most of his roles thus far. Here, he is driven and determined, relying on his tenacity and quick-thinking rather than his ability to win people over. Tilda Swinton is equally intriguing as the spokeswoman of the corporation, though she is sadly underused. The biggest impression, and the showiest performance, is given by Wilkinson, whose raving antics (“I am Sheba the god of death!”) have been a staple of the film’s promotion. For most of the film, interest is driven purely by Wilkinson, wondering if his nearly-incoherent ramblings mean anything. Though the film is anchored ably by Clooney’s solid work, one almost wishes Wilkinson were the focus.

Gilroy films in a very sparse, cold and sleek style. Each of the characters seem isolated, often the lone figures in long takes. The muted color scheme and dim lighting also heighten the subdued, quiet nature of the film. While nothing revolutionary, the film’s look serves its purpose and supports the script and the performances, which are the heart of the piece. Gilroy is still much more of a writer than a director, but that doesn’t keep MICHAEL CLAYTON from being one of the most intelligent, involving thrillers this year. It will not grip audiences with constant tension or half-hour long chase sequences; it prefers to get under your skin and unsettle you from there. And in the end, it is the latter that is much more effective.

***

Elizabeth: The Golden Age

2007-10-12T15:52:00.000-07:00

Elizabeth I’s recent wave of filmic popularity continues with director Shekhar Kapur’s ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE, his follow-up to the Oscar-nomined 1998 film ELIZABETH. He has assembled a mini-reunion of names and faces seen in the original film, including stars Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush and screenwriter Michael Hirst, among others. While the first film focused on the early years of Elizabeth’s reign, playing fast and free with facts and ultimately producing an engaging and passionate film, this sequel focuses on the Gloriana days during the middle of Elizabeth’s reign, a territory studied twice in the past two years (both for British television). As a result, not only does the action seem all-too familiar this time around, the film does not succeed in creating an overarching theme that forgives the dramatic license taken.

As the film opens, Spain is mounting an attack against the protestant queen, enlisting not only the help of a devoted Catholic sect in London, but of Mary, Queen of Scots herself (the film does end up portraying her in a rather villainous light). All the while, England’s stalwart queen (Blanchett) still finds herself dealing with courtiers and would-be husbands from across Europe. She is disinterested until her passions are roused by the adventurous Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen), who unfortunately also has eyes for Elizabeth’s favorite maid, Bess (Abbie Cornish). As pressure from Spain builds up and the queen’s opposition begins to show itself, Elizabeth must prove once again why God put her in her place.

As in ELIZABETH, the film rests entirely upon Blanchett’s shoulders. While she does have many strong moments throughout, she does not capture attention in the role as easily. She still remains a pillar of strength, her booming voice and cool complexion making her a natural born leader in every sense. Yet in the first half, the film seems to play almost as a comedy, and Blanchett reflects that. Instead of awe-inspiring tenacity, she imbues the character with a been-there, done-that sense of sarcasm reminiscent of Bette Davis in ALL ABOUT EVE. Once the action sets along its main course (the inevitable war with Spain), Blanchett strikes with all the bottled-in rage that the audience has been longing for. Her impassioned speeches, most notably to the Spanish ambassador and, later, to the English troops, are masterpieces of control and emotion. And as the film goes on, she begins to show signs of the panicked jealousy and fear that would mark Elizabeth’s later years, giving the fearless leader a more sympathetic slant sorely missed in the first half.

The film is sumptuously constructed, with every element seemingly one degree away from being over the top. That is, except the score, which is pervasive, loud and (at times) highly inappropriate. But the sheer epic scope as illustrated by the towering sets and intricate costumes make the film a visual feast. There are many beautiful images to behold, but even they veer dangerously toward the clichéd and over the top; a candle blowing out signifying defeat, a horse leaping over the side of a ship, etc. The script’s emphasis on wind is rather irritating as well. Not only does there seem to be a constant dramatic breeze blowing through drapes and curtains, but the characters make far too many references to the oncoming storm, the hurricane that is to come, the clouds that are gathering overhead, blah blah blah. The fact that there IS actually a storm when the English and Spanish collide makes these statements even more grating.

The film most errs in its depictions of the villains, which are so cartoonish and obvious that a two-year-old would be able to identify them. The Spanish are all of the moustache-twirling, darting eyes type, with Philip doing nothing more than delivering typically creepy sounding speeches of foreboding… well, creepiness. Even Samantha Morton’s minutes-long performance as Mary falls under into the clichéd villains club; the type that remains quietly evil and blindly aligned with their cause. It’s a wonder that the assassins in this film actually got so close to Elizabeth; they may as well be walking around with signs on their heads.

This film is a far cry from its predecessor, both in terms of storytelling and style. Where the first film was passionate and unexpected, this film plays it by the books, seeking out visual grandeur in place of meaningful scenes. Blanchett still gives it her all, and still remains impressive, but everything else seems half-baked, much like Elizabeth’s relationship with Raleigh. ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE is a sure sign that enough has been said about Elizabeth I in the world of film. It’s high time we moved on to the next fascinating monarch.

*1/2

Lust, Caution

2007-10-05T15:52:00.000-07:00

Ang Lee’s newest film, an erotically-charged espionage thriller with more than a few deliberate shades of Hitchcock is definitely not for the casual moviegoer. Not only will its occasionally meandering 2 ½-hour plus running time try the patience of the less easily engrossed, but the intensely graphic sex scenes (the film is rated NC-17, almost exclusively for that reason) will no doubt shock and offend many viewers. But to those that are swept away by the alluring visuals and suspenseful story, LUST, CAUTION will be a rich, wonderfully evocative experience.

The place is Japanese-occupied China in the midst of World War II. Wang Jiazhi (Wei Tang, making an impressive film debut) is a young college student who finds herself swept up in a resistance-centered drama troupe. When the leader of the troupe decides that merely staging theatrical protests is not enough, they turn to assassination. They disguise themselves in order to infiltrate the house of a political figure (Tony Leung) with known ties to the Japanese government. He begins to focus his attention on Wang, and the others soon realize the only way to get to him; he must be seduced.

But the plan, as always, is not simple; a fact represented well by the film’s length. The narrative stretches over several years, using the tried-and-true method of bookends to introduce the story. The problem, though, is that with the jumps back and forward in time, the chronological sequence of events becomes muddied for an extended period. And while the film is nail-bitingly suspenseful in parts, the effectiveness is subdued by the long stretches of straight dramatic scenes. The film does well with fleshing out its characters (as it should in a film this long), but it has too many near-climaxes for its own good; with each apparent finale dashed away, its energy sags just a bit. But this does not wither away the film too badly; by the film’s end, the engaged viewer is still completely engaged.

Yet the one aspect that will turn away the most viewers is the film’s graphic depictions of sex. Lee does not shy away from the act itself or the frightening, uncomfortable and disturbing emotions connected with it. The film’s thematic content is helped a great deal by the frankness of these scenes; a sequence where Wei and Leung’s bodies are literally meshed together visually illustrates the heroine’s mind far better than words ever could. This is one of the many Hitchcockian traits Lee uses to great effect; there is a distinct reliance on visuals over dialogue throughout, letting the actors’ eyes speak volumes more than their mouths.

As always with Lee’s films, the film is superbly constructed. All the technicals, from the lush production and costume design to the subdued cinematography brings wartime China vividly to life. Alexandre Desplat’s evocative score injects a sense of tragic romance in the film, shaping it into a thing of beauty reminiscent of VERTIGO. Lee gives great detail to the surrounding environment, making even the smallest of images, like lipstick on the edge of a cup, noticeable and meaningful.

LUST, CAUTION is not a film for someone who basically wants to stop thinking for two hours and watch a movie. Those who are up to the challenge will feel more than justly rewarded by what they see. It is a long, roller coaster-like journey, but a very effecting one. Those who watch it will understand that they’ve seen something very different; a film that takes severe risks and deftly pulls them off. Lee once again shows he is a modern master of the cinema, able to adapt to any genre and produce a work of art.

***

Across the Universe

2007-09-30T00:42:00.000-07:00

No doubt with becoming a mind to being this generation’s TOMMY or THE WALL, Julie Taymor’s Beatles extravaganza ACROSS THE UNIVERSE is probably one of the most unique films you’ll see all year. Unique in that it indeed hearkens back to the trippy musical fests of the late 60s and 70s, yet it somehow doesn’t prove to be a method for success. Despite all its visual pleasure (and it is there in spades), the film feels disjointed, a mash-up that attempts to cram in as many Beatles songs and references that they can while sacrificing a cohesive plot.

The bare-bones story follows Jude (Jim Sturgess), a lad from Liverpool making the leap across the pond. Once he does, he strikes up a friendship with a local frat boy and, subsequently, a romance with his younger sister Lucy (Evan Rachel Wood). The story is the basic boy-meets-girl line with a whole lot of historical subplots and archetypal supporting characters thrown in. Chief among them is the boy’s land lady, a Janis Joplin-esque rock star with an addiction to brooze (strangely enough); a Jimi Hendrix-esque guitar player brought to New York after the Detroit riots; a sexually confused cheerleader from Smalltown, USA. And let’s not forget the Vietnam War, which does more than loom in the background as the film progresses.

There are so many subplots and historical snapshots in the first hour of the film that it doesn’t seem to have a narrative whatsoever. Often times the film would come to a complete halt, all so the makers can find an excuse to stick in “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” or “Let it Be.” Some may see this as an attempt to give the film’s message (which is “all you need is love” of course) a wide-reaching angle, but as the film focuses more tightly in its second half, several earlier sequences seem like vignettes, and unnecessary ones at that. The only purpose several numbers serve in the beginning of the film is merely to be there; they do nothing to advance the story and nothing would be lost with their absence.

And, as is often the case with musicals, it tends to break up into sequences that either succeed or fall flat. Disappointingly, it isn’t until later in the film that its more straightforward numbers begin to have true meaning or effect. They’re all sung ably by the cast (no, they’re not the Beatles, but was anyone expecting them to be?), but there are several flaws in the performances. Nearly all the performers come off as likable, but not many manage to make lasting impressions beyond their singing abilities. As Jude, and therefore the eyes the viewer looks through, Sturgess is nothing more than a blander version of Ewan McGregor. Wood fits well into the wholesome, pretty-girl type, yet it isn’t until her beautifully rendered “Blackbird” late in the film that we sense any deep emotion.

It isn’t until midway through the film that the real fireworks begin and Taymor delivers on what she promises. Once the filmmakers finally decide to focus on Lucy and Jude rather than the characters around them, the film often becomes thrilling. “Because”, “Strawberry Fields” the few moments of Dana Fuch’s exhilarating rendition of “Helter Skelter” we’re given, and “Happiness is a Warm Gun” show Taymor at her most effectively visual; a kind of wonderfully bizarre showmanship that is impossible to resist. “Warm Gun” in particular contains the best sequences in the entire film. And “Something”, along with the before-mentioned “Blackbird”, injects the kind of feeling the film has been attempting for 90 minutes beforehand. Yet even in the banal, episodic numbers early in the film, Bruno Delbonnel’s enriched, bright and almost luxurious photography provide plenty of beautiful pictures to distract us from the meandering plot.

In the end, ACROSS THE UNIVERSE is neither a triumph nor a failure. A few months ago, the internet was buzzing with news of a rife between Taymor and producer Joe Roth; she wanted a 130-minute running time, he wanted a 100-minute. Well, it appears Taymor won, but some cuts definitely would have been justified. True, there would have been some classic songs sacrificed, but when they add nothing cohesively to the film, what good do they do? Still, an overlong, unfocused and disjointed beginning doesn’t keep ACROSS THE UNIVERSE from being any less of an experience. It’s still delightfully trippy in parts and occasionally heartfelt. Regardless of the end product, it’s unlike anything you’ll see all year.

**

Eastern Promises

2007-09-21T17:06:00.001-07:00

Working for the first time entirely outside of Canada, director David Cronenberg moves into new territory with the crime thriller EASTERN PROMISES, a harrowing and thrilling examination of culture and family values. Working from a tight and intricately plotted script from Steven Knight, Cronenberg reinvents himself as a cultured thriller auteur; simultaneously retaining the graphic violence he’s best known for while crafting a drama that rivals the best of Neil Jordan or Martin Scorsese.

The film focuses on Nikolai, the enigmatic almost ghost-like hitman working for the son of a prominent Russian mobster (Armin Mueller-Stahl) living in London. When English nurse Anna (Naomi Watts) uncovers a Russian-written diary from the purse of a pregnant Jane Doe case, she unknowingly delivers it to the very same Russian mobster to translate. It is soon discovered that the murdered girl was dangerous ties to the family, and the daughter she birthed is the key to unlocking everything. Nikolai is then charged with tailing Anna, developing his relationship with her as she is pulled deeper and deeper into trouble. As Nikolai becomes more important in the family, Anna’s life is endangers and the exact motives of Nikolai’s actions come into question.

As the ruthless assassin, Viggo Mortensen gives a heavily-layered, selflessly brave and completely mesmerizing performance. Never before has Mortensen been so compelling, vanishing into the thickly-accented front of a human monster. His unexpressive face constantly keeps the viewer guessing until his sudden and terrifying outbursts of violence show how much he is capable of. It is these sequences of violence in particular that are most noteworthy; one such scene features full-frontal nudity so risky and daring that very few other actors working today would even attempt it. Yet Mortensen is entirely assured, refusing to let those around him (and those watching the film) to see a moment of weakness or doubt. Watts and Mueller-Stahl give solid performances as well, with Mueller-Stahl especially making an impression as the aged head of the family, switching from tender and caring to cold and menacing in mere moments. The only weak link in the cast is Vincent Cassel as Mueller-Stahl’s rebellious and outlandish son, giving another ranting and raving performance to add to his resume of international creeps. But apart from Cassel, the acting is handled subtly and masterfully on all accounts.

While this certainly isn’t the Cronenberg of SCANNERS or VIDEODROME, there is no doubt that this is a Cronenberg picture. It’s possibly one of the most violent films of the year, its scenes of excessiveness made even more effective by the discomfort it invokes in the viewer. The scenes of graphic acts (and there are plenty) aren’t meant to please, in the way a horror film might. They’re meant to disturb, and they accomplish the job almost too well. The script is nearly too tightly plotted, moving from one point to the next without much time for development. This becomes criminally obvious towards the end of the film, which is too vague for its own good. The build-up to the finale is excellent, yet when it arrives the viewer is asked to assume too much, and the lasting impact falters.

Still, EASTERN PROMISES is one of the best films of the year, carefully crafted and memorable, thanks in no small part to Mortensen’s performance. While the film’s violent content and frank nudity may be a turn-off to some viewers, it should not stop the willing from experiencing the many moment of brilliance the film offers. This is new territory for Cronenberg, yet if he decides to make a habit of it, we may be all the better for it.

***1/2

The Brave One

2007-09-14T18:06:00.001-07:00

Despite the dedication of its star, Jodie Foster, THE BRAVE ONE is an unfortunate mix of messages: a morality tale and revenge thriller at once. While these two genres are undoubtedly similar, the script never quite decides which side of the argument it takes. As a result, the film is a dark, muddied and muddled affair, momentarily appeasing those seeking for thrills and disappointing those expecting a valid point to be made.

Radio commentator Erica Bain is about to get married to her boyfriend, and the couple couldn’t be happier. That is not an understatement: it appears that the sun goes out of its way to shine on these two. A level of happiness that high in the movies only means one thing: death and destruction. After being severely beaten and watching her fiancee’s murder in a shadowy tunnel, Erica finds it difficult to return to the normal world. The one way she finds to cope with her anxiety is to buy a gun illegally off the streets. Initially to be used for protection, Erica’s life takes a dramatic twist after accidentally being involved in a drug store shooting. After, she begins on her own quest of vigilante justice, despite a soft-spoken and supportive policeman (Terrence Howard) on both her tracks: her daytime life as Erica and her nightlife as a new, frightening creature.

Director Neil Jordan (of THE CRYING GAME and INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE) visually brings Erica’s paranoid, unraveling life into dizzying effect; the camera often sways from side to side, plainly illustrating Erica’s anxiety and her growing disgust with herself. And, as always, Foster’s performance as woman-on-the-verge is compelling and instantly sympathetic. To see her diminutive figure and wide blue eyes shaking with fear whenever she fires doesn’t exactly illicit whoops and cheers from the audience. Never is this combination more apparent than in the chilling drug store sequence, when Erica fires her first shot.

Yet despite the high style of the film and Foster’s compelling performance, it is crippled by a lack of initiative on the part of the script. During the more dramatic scenes, Erica’s self-disgust and the sometimes preachy dialogue delivered by Terrence Howard condemn vigilante justice as the wrong solution. Yet when Erica brandishes her weapon, the film is all for vigilante justice. It doesn’t care whether it’s right or wrong, it cares about giving Foster good punch lines before she shoots someone in the face. Alternately condemning vigilantism while praising its ability to make a good revenge thriller, the script pauses after each action sequence as if to say, “Now that was fun. But what’s wrong about this situation?” When the film wraps up in its clichéd and nonsensical manner, it not only betrays the message it was apparently striving for, it renders several aspects of the plot irrelevant.

In the end, the message of the film is more conflicted than the callers on Erica’s radio show. It works decently enough as a typical revenge thriller, but its motives become completely unclear when it tries to kick a message in. Erica is disgusted with what she’s becoming, but the audience cannot agree with her there. Whenever a shady character even glances at her, the audience is practically begging for her to take them down to Chinatown. As a thriller, it does provide some great moments. Yet it strives to be something more, and that is where it fails completely. With a film like this, the main character can either be a misguided and conflicted individual, or they can be a comic book superhero. Unfortunately, the film finally opts for the latter.

*

3:10 to Yuma

2007-09-02T21:33:00.000-07:00

Nearly every “long-forgotten” genre has experienced a rebirth since the turn of the century. The American cinema is currently in the midst of no less than three major genre revivals: the fantasy film, the movie musical and the gross-out horror pic. The one genre that has decidedly not been met with success in the past seven years is the American western. Director James Mangold tries his hand at reinventing the western for the new millennium with his remake of 3:10 TO YUMA, originally a 1957 film starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin. While the film imbues the western with a new-age editing and cinematography, it still falls prey to clichés that can be told from miles away. Despite a few noteworthy performances, the film ends up being something all too familiar.

Russell Crowe stars as Ben Wade, notorious gunman of the west. Once he is captured, with the assistance of a down-on-his-luck rancher (Christian Bale), a small envoy of men is assigned to deliver him to the 3:10 to Yuma Prison train. But things aren’t as easy as all that. Not only do they have to contend with Wade’s murderous band following them (led by Ben Foster, who’s about as threatening as a member of NSYNC), but they must face hidden dangers and, of course, Wade’s superior intellect. The rancher has more at stake as well; the reward money he will collect will save his drought-ridden land from repossession by the bank. And on top of all that, he’s a father. And since he’s a farmer, his oldest son is naturally rebellious and troublesome.

All of this plotting should sound a bit familiar, and indeed it is. The script is ridden with action/western movie clichés, so obvious that any number of plot twists can be determined a mile ahead of time. The other men assigned to Wade’s escort (which include an aged, seen-it-all bounty hunter, an opportunistic railway businessman and an wide-eyed innocent doctor) are all so predictable, two-dimensional and downright irritating that their fates can be foretold at first glance. The only characters that have any real dimension are those that are memorable, thanks mostly in part to the actors giving the performances. Bale does solid if unexciting work, switching mostly between brooding stares, shooting and occasionally giving impassioned speeches about how hard life is. Peter Fonda gives a memorable performance as the wise-cracking bounty hunter, though his rhetoric and sense of superiority is outdone by Crowe, who is completely mesmerizing. His character is far more refined than any other, and Crowe knows it. His character’s cleverness, staying one step ahead in the game while maintaining a sense of detachment is rendered perfectly. Crowe’s performance is easily the standout aspect of the film.

The action sequences are filmed disappointingly, without much inventiveness or spark. It sticks to the modern assumption that all action scenes must be edited quickly, filled with close-shot handheld frames that shake so much it’s nearly impossible to make anything out. Only in the finale does the director display a sense of real tension, creating a rousing and exciting piece, even though the outcome is all too obvious. When a film is supposed to reinvent a genre (as this one was supposedly designed to do) it only becomes memorable if clichés are taken, twisted and run away with. Here, the tried-and-true format is followed to a T. It’s enjoyable, but hardly anything worth writing home about.

While entertaining, 3:10 TO YUMA doesn’t offer any explosive moments that signal a return of the American western. It remains so faithful to the old-style conventions that it neglects adding a few of its own, throwing in a few explosions to try and update the genre. It features generally solid work from most involved, though Crowe is the only real standout. In years to come, if the western does truly make a return, it will likely be thanks to a more ambitious film. As it is, 3:10 TO YUMA is a loud throwback and nothing more.

**

Branagh's Shakespeare Films

2007-08-24T21:44:00.001-07:00

With the long-delayed DVD release of Branagh’s 1996 film of HAMLET and the premiere of AS YOU LIKE IT on HBO upon us, I decided to take a look back at the Shakespearean films of today’s Laurence Olivier. Following each of his five Shakespeare films in order brought forth some interesting connections; the star-studded casting (that had a wide variety of end results), the extended takes and the desire to make Shakespeare accessible to anyone and everyone.

Branagh first exploded onto the cinematic scene with 1989’s HENRY V. He had the largest of shoes to fill: the only other film version of HENRY V was the directorial debut of none other than Laurence Olivier in 1944. Yet this film is a tour de force, a tremendous accomplishment for the young Branagh and company, many of which will be seen in his following films. He mixes the beauty of the language with the violence and grittiness reminiscent of other historical epics of the time. Most impressive is the astounding Battle of Agincourt and the scenes that immediately follow, proving to all Shakespeare haters how exciting he can really be. The sequence of collecting the dead, one long tracking shot set to Patrick Doyle’s glorious music, is jaw-dropping spine-tingling brilliance. With HENRY V, Branagh made his biggest breakthrough, paying tribute to those who came before him while reigniting Shakespeare on film for a whole new generation.

He followed his triumphant debut with MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING in 1993, the first notable screen adaptation of one of Shakespeare’s most popular comedies. This film is easily his most enjoyable; light, breezy and featuring stunning photography depicting the Italian countryside. However, the first of Branagh’s brushes with odd stunt-casting sticks out like a sore thumb: Keanu Reeves is typically terrible as the villainous Don John. Branagh filled this film with a few other unlikely faces, including Denzel Washington and Michael Keaton, but Reeves’s flat characterization and apparent lack of interest stop the film dead whenever he appears. The rest of the cast fares well, with Emma Thompson giving one of her greatest performances. Her chemistry with Branagh is undeniable and their comedic skills have never been sharper.

Branagh’s most ambitious project was clearly 1996’s HAMLET, the first (and only) unedited adaptation of the play. Clocking in at four hours and two minutes, the film is certainly epic, yet every minute is well spent. Never has Branagh’s desire to make Shakespeare more accessible been more apparent; the film is filled with sudden flashes of violence and sex, breaking the silence of the film at a moment’s notice. As the titular character, Branagh plays him to the hilt; no longer is Hamlet quiet and brooding, but loud, angry and inches away from a breakdown. At times he teeters dangerously toward overacting, and his screaming monologues may turn off some, he remains effective in the role. He surrounds himself with the finest actors around; Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie and Kate Winslet all give stunning performances, giving solid reason why the play should go unedited. Again, there are the curious cameos, Jack Lemmon and Robin Williams are the most out of place, and if you blink in the wrong spot you’ll miss Judi Dench, but the likes of Billy Crystal and Charlton Heston are surprisingly effective. The film has an epic scope not seen since. Viewing the mirrored halls of Elsinore or the snow-covered hills of Denmark are reason alone to see this stunning film.

From 2000, LOVE’S LABOUR’S LOST is nothing more than a pleasant misfire. Taking one of Shakespeare’s lesser known plays, Branagh tries to mold it into a musical comedy, inserting classic songs from the 30s and 40s, performed with varying levels of success by the cast. Again Branagh misfires when it comes to stunt casting: the presence of Alicia Silverstone is off-putting and, while certainly beautiful enough for her character, she doesn’t quite seem to understand what she’s saying. The film would be ably forgettable if it were not for Natasha McElhone, whose unusual beauty and intelligence make her a dynamically strong love interest for Branagh, who is a few years too old to be best buds with the likes of Matthew Lillard.

Finally, Branagh returned to the world of Shakespeare this year with AS YOU LIKE IT, a pleasant but rather by-the-numbers adaptation. Transposing the setting to imperial Japan, the look of the film is gorgeous (from the thick forest of Arden to the delicate, intricate kimonos worn by the cast), but offers little in terms of plot. For the first time, Branagh is nowhere to be seen, but the cast performs the material well. Alfred Molina is the stand out as Touchstone, reveling in his role of the fool. Romola Garai and Bryce Dallas Howard are both radiant and likable as Celia and Rosalind, with Garai in particular shining during the film’s lighter moments. Only Kevin Kline seems out of place, curiously enough. Though the nature of Jacques would seem to call for it, Kline seems uninterested and offers nothing new. While it does not reach the heights of his first three adaptations, AS YOU LIKE IT still proves that Branagh is the master when it comes to Shakespeare.

HENRY V: ****
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING: ***1/2
HAMLET: ****
LOVE’S LABOUR’S LOST: **
AS YOU LIKE IT: ***

Superbad

2007-08-21T00:17:00.000-07:00

SUPERBAD hits you like a blast from the past. Not just in a nostalgic sense (for those of us no longer in high school) but for anyone who lived through the seventies. The creators of KNOCKED UP may have just given up the ultimate horny teen comedy, one that will assuredly bewilder and offend straight-minded types and have people under 30 rolling in the aisles everywhere. It’s a bawdy romp that holds nothing back, hitting you with underage drinking from all sides (those misfits!), endless illustrations a certain bodily organ, and reckless behavior from all involved. It is a perfect picture of irresponsibility, and it couldn’t be funnier.

Best friends Evan and Seth (likely named for the film’s writers, Evan Goldberg and co-star Seth Rogen) have only a few weeks left before high school graduation, and therefore are running out of time to snatch a summer girlfriend and have a special, alcohol-influenced late night encounter. Their opportunity arises when they are invited to a typical high school party (you know, just a few people, it’ll be fun…) and their geeky third wheel Fogel scores a fake I.D. with the already-renowned moniker “McLovin”. Charged with supplying the booze for the party, the rest of the film follows their misadventures in their quest to buy and deliver the alcohol. This includes storming a party with a sexual predator, several brawls and a few meetings with a pair of bored, yearning-for-the-past policemen, played with comic gusto by Bill Hader and Rogen.

Jonah Hill and Michael Cera play the sex-starved teenagers, both in a role that seems tailor made for them. Hill is a loud, volatile character, unafraid to ridicule his shape for the sake of comedy. Cera, as on TV’s “Arrested Development”, is the instantly likable dork; the kind you can’t help but root for. These are kids who liken their sexual life to Orson Welles’s film career; they’re not your typical teenage misfits. In his film debut, Christopher Mintz-Plasse (as Fogel/McLovin) leaves viewers in an uproar from the first moment he arrives. From his sweaty panic attacks to his painfully awkward attempts at anything “hip”, he remains the epitome of the nerd.

Though the film is set in the present, its style clearly reaches back to the best and solid-colored of the 1970s. Every building looks as if it hasn’t been touched for 25 years, the soundtrack is a nostalgic mix, and the three main characters’ costumes are straight from Good Will. The film is awash with the kind of youthful exuberance that only high schoolers know; the sexually explicit comments made with no regard over who hears and the feeling that a sense of freedom ends, not begins, with graduation. While there is a fleeting moment of deeper thought when Seth and Evan appear to explore their relationship a bit more, it is all turned into comedy when the morning hangovers come around. In their search for sex and, just maybe, something a little more long-lasting, we are content to sit back and watch them work their way out of seemingly inescapable fates.

The film is crude and crass, and never makes any lies about it. If one is ready to accept that (and there will be those that won’t), SUPERBAD will be the funniest movie to come along in quite a while. Producer Judd Apatow has scored another home run that will become an instant classic to his target group; basically anyone who enjoys a good sex comedy. Even those a little hesitant to the genre will be won over by the film’s relentless pace and complete lack of restraint. The jokes come fast, getting dirtier each and every time. While some will shake their heads in disgust, there are those who will realize it for what it is and just let in happen. And in the process, they’ll laugh their heads off.

***

The Invasion

2007-08-17T02:03:00.001-07:00

Every twenty years or so, we are given a new film version of the sci-fi classic “The Body Snatchers” by Jack Finney. Each incarnation of the story speaks directly to the time it was produced; in this post-9/11 era, a revisiting of the material would prove appropriately apt. Yet instead of a smart and thought-provoking sci-fi thriller, we have been given a jumbled mess made of swallow observations of today’s America. Any potentially noteworthy aspects of the film (and there are many) are destroyed by poor writing and risk-free producing by those only in it for the money.

The basic premise is the same; a lone hero, here a therapist, (as portrayed by Nicole Kidman) receives an odd complaint from an acquaintance, one of her patients (Veronica Cartwright, an alumnus of the 1978 Philip Kaufman remake): her husband is not her husband. At first, the heroine writes it off as the ramblings of an insecure person, but more and more people begin displaying the same symptoms; emotionless detachment, sudden bursts of violence and a tendency to stare unsettlingly at people. It is not long before the acquaintance’s proclamations are proved right: an alien life form is taking over the bodies of humans, changing them during REM sleep. All of this is taken directly from previous versions of the film, but several turns are made; aside from the main character being female, a son now enters the picture. And this son is not just any ordinary child; he holds the key to the secret behind the invasion. Is it just me, or is “the key” something we all lose when we hit 18? Children only seem to have “the key” nowadays.

There are several points of interest that keep the film from sliding into complete banality, or a mere clone of other new age paranoia thrillers. For one, the accomplished cast gives the material their all. Kidman is quite effective in the lead, her portrayal becoming more intriguing as she begins the hunt for her son. The direction of German-born Oliver Hirschbiegel is stark and alienating; the perfect look for the type of paranoid thriller the film wants to be. At several points in the film, he creates small montages of jump cuts, moving forward and back in time that heighten tension and purposely create confusion, adding some life into what otherwise would be completely predictable. This technique is most effective in a thrilling sequence set in a dank, dirty subway station. As Kidman struggles to get away from the infected, the image jumps forward in time, giving brief glimpses of the aftermath before it happens. It is a daring move, one that pushes the film to an experimental level not typically seen in summer Hollywood fare.

Unfortunately, producer Joel Silver apparently noticed and seems determined to stop it. The finale, your typical explosion-filled, quick-cutted and loud car chase sequence, seems to belong to another movie entirely; it may as well be, since the scenes were obviously directed by another (the Wachowski brothers). It is this, coupled with the swallow writing that prove the film’s downfall. The script subscribes to nearly every cliché set forth by THE RING, THE GRUDGE, and other recent thriller hits. Distressed woman in the lead? Check. Creepy yet lovable child who becomes the point of interest? Check. Topical subjects just to show how important this film is? Check. It’s all there. And what’s worse, the film’s final message is about as subtle as the aforementioned car crash; from the constant barrage of news footage covered shuttle explosions and Middle East conflicts to blatant suspicions that pharmaceutical companies may be doing more damage than good (gasp!) and that the government may be lying to us (double gasp!), the script practically brands itself with IMPORTANT in every scene. It gets so bad as to become laughable in certain cases; for example, the infected pass on the “virus” by vomiting into drinks and serving them to the unbeknownst. It’s like flu mania, as if the entire country was populated by five-year olds who think cooties are worse than germs.

The end result is simply disappointing. With a source that appears always ripe for reinvention, a talented cast and highly acclaimed director, THE INVASION should be much better than it is. The film’s descent into standard Hollywood thriller moviemaking is one of the main faults; one wonders if the film would have been better off untouched. Hey, look at the Bourne franchise; there are people willing to use their brains while they’re at the movies. Yet the swallow and painfully obvious script is a major fault as well; in an effort to connect to today’s world, the film becomes preachy when it should be alienating and terrifying. By the film’s end, when everything has been wrapped up all neat and tidy, the viewer is left unsatisfied. The only moments of genuine suspense belong all to Hirschbiegel; if anything, this film will be remembered as the severely flawed yet intriguing debut of this fascinating filmmaker.

*1/2

Rescue Dawn

2007-08-15T14:58:00.000-07:00

I recently saw Werner Herzog’s newest film, RESCUE DAWN, in the unlikeliest of places: my local multiplex. While the theatre in question has been known to show some indie flair (usually around awards time), I never would have expected to see the newest film from the director of AGUIRRE, THE WRATH OF GOD stuck in between showings of BRATZ and DADDY DAY CAMP. I went in wondering how commercial the film must be to be getting this type of exposure during the summer; whether or not Herzog had produced a mainstream film or not. The good news is RESCUE DAWN is still entirely a Herzog picture. While more accessible than some of his other works, the film grapples with the power of nature over man, and the ferocity of the human spirit when it is determined to survive.

The film tells the true story of Deiter Dengler (Christian Bale), a German-born US pilot whose plane is shot down during a top-secret bombing in Laos during the mid sixties. After surviving the crash, Dengler is captured by Laotian soldiers and brought to a small camp in the middle of the jungle, where he meets other men captured, some of whom have been there for years. Through forced charm and sheer determination, Dengler recruits them all to plan an escape mission. Yet once the mission succeeds, he realizes that his prison was not kept within the gated confines of the camp; his prison is the endless jungle around him.

At the center of it all is Christian Bale’s mesmerizing, repeatedly astounding performance. In a role that seems tailor made for his matinee idol-type looks and deeply focused intensity, Bale commits himself completely. As the film goes on and Dengler’s strength and sanity are pushed to the brink, Bale visually decays before our eyes. From the frankly-shot torture sequences early in the film to the horrors of the jungle Bale faces on his own; his performance is a tour-de-force of a sustained human breakdown. By the film’s end, he has been stretched thin, stripped of all excess and he becomes a prime example of human survival at its fiercest. As his prison mate and fellow escapee, Steve Zahn is a revelation as well. His wild, ragged hair and wide, frightened eyes make him a man haunted. As his spirit begins to break, he becomes almost unrecognizable as the broken man clutching at Bale’s side, holding on to life. The only weak link in the cast is Jeremy Davies, who plays a slightly spacier version of his character in SOLARIS. The viewer grows tired of him even quicker than the characters do.

Despite the apparent commercial value of the film, it is still a Herzog picture. He balances his role as narrative filmmaker and documentary filmmaker, inserting several sequences of newsreel to great effect, especially in the opening scenes. Through the entire film, even the crash sequence, he never caves in to a traditional Hollywood style of filming. Whereas a studio film would stick in dramatic music and explosions, the actual crash is filmed naturally, followed immediately by a dead silence. When Dengler is thrust into the jungle, the film’s soundtrack becomes the sound of bugs jumping through the grass. There is no dialogue for long periods of time, with the characters moving silently through the ever-thickening and suffocating leaves and branches. The film becomes vibrantly alive as Dengler finds himself in the jungle. No extra ingredients are necessary; the mere image of these two men struggling against the terrifying power of nature drives the point home. Herzog unfortunately gives into Hollywood sentimentalism for the film’s finale, cheating the viewer out of what could have been a truly transcendental experience.

Still, RESCUE DAWN is a unique and special film, featuring two of the best performances this year. It’s unlikely I’ll ever find a Werner Herzog movie playing at a Regal Entertainment Group theatre, so I hope the people who wandered in expecting a typical blockbuster story of survival were surprised and affected. Herzog has once again shown us what a man will do when thrown into pure nature. He has crafted a film that, with a great deal of help from Bale, pushes us to the breaking point, hoping for salvation with every glimpse of the open sky.

***1/2

Stardust

2007-08-12T14:32:00.001-07:00

The 1980s were a great film for lovers of fantasy films. Today, films like THE PRINCESS BRIDE, THE NEVERENDING STORY, LEGEND and the Jim Henson films stand up as classics in many people’s eyes. These people are the target audience for the Neil Gaiman adaptation STARDUST, a throwback to the golden age of fantasy films from the story and characters, right down to the unbearably cheesy rock song during the end credits (courtesy of Take That.) While injected with some creative visuals and off-kilter storytelling, thanks to Gaiman’s source novel, the entire film is so reminiscent of others that it has a “been there, done that” feel. It’s enjoyable, but every plot twist can be telegraphed from a mile away, and there’s never any real doubt about what will happen.

Young Tristran (Charlie Cox) is a charmingly befuddled man who finds himself hopelessly in love with his village’s beauty, Victoria (Sienna Miller). Unfortunately, the vain and shallow girl only has eyes for Humphrey, one of the foppiest fops you’ll ever see. After spotting a falling star, Tristran declares he will prove his love for Victoria by fetching the star and bringing it to her. Much to his surprise, when he meets the star, he finds not a smoldering rock but an ethereal (and grumpy) woman calling herself Yvaine (Claire Danes). But before he is able to whisk the star away, the plot thickens. A centuries-old trio of witches (led by Michelle Pfeiffer) seek to cut out the star’s heart to restore their youth and beauty. And after the death of the king, a determined prince (Mark Strong) sets off to take the star’s ruby necklace to prove his right to the throne. And as if this weren’t enough, there is also time to squeeze in subplots featuring captured princesses, missing mothers and pirates (played disturbing by Robert de Niro, continuing on his recent rampage of, “Hey, I’m Robert de Niro! Isn’t that funny?”)

The film is almost entirely story, with recognizable faces stuck into the smallest of parts. It’s a pity, as the likes of Rupert Everett, Peter O’Toole and Ricky Gervais are limited to a handful of scenes or less. Each gives their miniscule part a biting sense of humor, making the viewer wish their time wasn’t so constrained. As the film’s hero, Cox aims directly for the passively innocent, “who, me?” type of unlikely hero, and largely succeeds; instead of heroically jumping onto a moving carriage, he crashes into the side and falls to the ground. Yet his boyish nature and charming smile keep his fish-out-of-water act from becoming tiring. While he makes quite an impression, it is Michelle Pfeiffer who walks away with the movie. Relishing her role as the aged witch, she plays the entire range of fairy tale female villains; she moves from the sexy seductress to the ragged hag in mere moments. It is often said that the villain is the most interesting character in a fairy tale, and Pfeiffer fully realizes it and plays it for all it’s worth.

Yet the film cannot shake the feeling of being something familiar. It’s a clear throwback to the films of the 80s, and though it offers moments of twisted humor, it follows the standard book of plot devices directly. The film’s narration (voiced by Ian McKellen) makes this even more obvious; there is no need for it in the first place, and its presence only serves as a reminder that the film is really just like any other. The design of the film is adequately sumptuous, especially the camerawork; director Matthew Vaughn lets the camera travel from place to place, often picking up details from a bird’s eye view and focusing on them. The CGI work is a bit spotty, but the filmmakers were wise enough not to make their limited resources painfully obvious.

While it is an enjoyable ride and a fond trip to memories past, STARDUST offers nothing revolutionary or new. Throwbacks are nice, but when it makes no attempt to alter or improve the original template, it becomes a tribute and nothing more. Is it more successful in its goals than other throwbacks? Sure, but it still is unlikely to achieve the shelf life of the films it inspired. Still, the craft of Neil Gaiman shows through, and for two hours, we are entertained.

**

Becoming Jane

2007-08-10T23:38:00.001-07:00

In the past two years, Jane Austen’s everlasting popularity seems to have reached astronomical heights. Spurred by 2005’s surprise hit adaptation of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, Austen seems to be everywhere. Her books remain very popular and a slew of Austen and Austen-related adaptations are being thrown at us left and right. In addition to the already-existing BRIDGET JONES novels and films, the film version of THE JANE AUSTEN BOOK CLUB is about to hit theatres, and the complete Jane Austen collection is about to air on PBS’s Masterpiece Theatre. This brings us to BECOMING JANE, the supposedly true story that explains Austen’s beginnings and her sources for inspiration. It may hold the record for shortest time span between a film and its remake; it is nothing more than a bleak following of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE’S pattern, with none of the thematic or visual joy that made its chief influence such a delight.

Jane Austen (Anne Hathaway) is a would-be writer with little experience of the world. She longs for greatness, though she is stuck in her small country home with her loving family, giving her only a small margin for opportunity. From the city comes the strapping and daring Tom Lefroy (James McAvoy), a man whose free spirit, worldly-wise attitude and (obviously) charming good looks, Jane is finally able to find inspiration, with a bit of forbidden love thrown into the mix as well. With class pressures pushing down on them from all angles, most notably Jane’s parents and suitor, Jane and Tom begin to realize that they may not get the carefree romance they dream of. And from this comes the main point of the film; to truly capture the spirit of love, you must have both loved and lost.

The film takes several liberties with Austen’s life to make it more romantic and shallowly relatable to “Pride and Prejudice.” While the work itself is definitely autobiographical to a point, BECOMING JANE makes it seem like Austen wrote the novel almost verbatim to her own life, changing the names of the characters and places to protect the family and so forth. The film’s look is highly reminiscent of the 2005 PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, from the grubby surroundings right down to the cast; young starlet (who both owe their fame to Disney) as the headstrong female, well-known character actress as the fidgety mother, highly respected screen legend as the stuffy definition of the upper classes and the American masquerading as the detached yet lovable British father. The film takes what was likely a minor footnote in Austen’s life and embellishes it to the breaking point. While it does provide a little insight into Austen herself, the forced connections between the film and “Pride and Prejudice” are innumerable, and one wishes the writers could have thought of something a bit more subtle.

As Austen, Hathaway acquits herself quite nicely, though her charm and natural talent for breezy comedy and lighthearted wit (so evident in many of Austen’s heroines) is sadly underused. Instead, Austen is a solemn, grim character whose happiness is only fleeting; the heavy handed nature of the film and its direction limit moments of comedy to a few sequences early on. The only saving grace of the film in its second half is Hathaway’s amiable chemistry with McAvoy. This chemistry is none more apparent during a drawn-out ballroom sequence, where the sudden reveal of McAvoy saves the scene from becoming yawn-inducingly dreary. It’s a rare moment of brilliance in a film that otherwise packs few surprises.

If the filmmakers were so ready to take such liberties with Austen’s life, it would have been far better to treat her life as if it were one of her novels; where an unshakable sense of hope and joy pervades throughout even the most serious of times. Instead, we are given a trifle that attempts to cash in on Austenmania while becoming tiresomely serious to establish itself as “different.” A worthy effort from Hathaway and the rest of the cast cannot save the mistakes made in other departments. Those looking for insight into the life of one of the English language’s greatest writers will be extremely disappointed when they find nothing more than a mirthless rehash of her works.

*1/2

The Bourne Ultimatum

2007-08-04T21:08:00.001-07:00

It’s been five years since the start of the BOURNE series, and all questions are about to be answered. THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM pushes the limits of the action film; it is a thrilling crescendo of a film, jumping out of the gate at its start and building to an exciting, completely satisfying climax. Not only does it improve on the layout of the previous film, it manages to close the entire story without feeling too forced or contrived.

Picking up immediately where 2004’s THE BOURNE SUPREMACY left off, this film follows amnesiac assassin Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) on his violent quest to discover his past and the top-secret government program he was part of. His journey eventually brings him “back home”; the crowded streets of New York City. Waiting for him there is a select branch of the CIA, led by an emotionally dead all-business agent (David Strathairn) and a familiar face, Pamela Landy (Joan Allen). As he uncovers more about his past, he finds allies in the unlikeliest of places, all helping to propel the film to its final minutes of revelation: the complete uncovering of Jason Bourne’s past.

The film ties in well to the two previous films, cleverly using clips to emphasize certain moments. Yet, as in most film sequels, it does fall prey to the “sudden revelation not even mentioned in earlier films” plot twist; here, it concerns Bourne’s relationship with Julia Stiles’s wide-eyed and innocent CIA computer gal. It is an area of small annoyance, as any connection between them seems created specifically for this film and this film alone. The film also uses the stereotypical crippling flashback ploy; when visually reminded of something, Bourne experiences violent flashbacks. You know, the kind that render him physically helpless and are always filmed in a jumpy slow motion. You’ve seen them tons of times before, trust me. There’s also the fact that Bourne should have been killed at least ten times during the film; he gets pummeled to the ground and crashes cars left and right, yet always seems to walk away with a few minor cuts and a slight limp that disappears after a few moments.

But it’s no use nitpicking these flaws too much; the film moves at too fast a pace for the viewer to find real fault with them. Returning director Paul Greengrass is a master of the action thriller; he constantly uses the handheld camera in action sequences, yet pulls them off where most others cannot. He films in a surveillance video-type style, the image starting at a wide shot before finding its point of focus and zooming in. He is equally adept at sound as well; a particularly notable chase/fist fight sequence set in Tangiers is a masterpiece of violence and silence. These elements combined make for some of the most breathlessly thrilling, shockingly realistic fight sequences ever put to film. Damon is at the top of his game as well, showing a deep characterization behind his composed façade. His sunken in eyes, the desperation that is glimpsed for only a few moments make Jason Bourne a compellingly stoic-faced hero, all thanks to Damon. Strathairn makes a good impression as well; a phone conversation between him and Damon (which is highly reminiscent of one of SUPREMACY’s most effective moments) is successful due to the fury he shows through his restraint.

Each film in the BOURNE series has developed as the character discovers more of himself. This finale pulls out all the stops, moving in a violent crescendo as Bourne reaches his point of realization. It is a journey well worth taking, no matter how familiar the viewer is with the other films. When the film finally ends with a brilliant visual cue that brings the series into full circle, the viewer is completely satisfied. The film delivers all it promises; loads of action, plenty of story and all questions answered. It couldn’t be any better than it is. A fitting farewell (perhaps?) to one of the more memorable characters in recent years.

***

Thoughts on Bergman

2007-08-02T11:23:00.000-07:00

It’s always been a source of shame for me when I admit how many Ingmar Bergman films I’ve seen thus far. For a cinephile such as I and an undeniably influential and powerful filmmaker such as Bergman, there is little reason why I should have only seen 9 of his films. Imagine my surprise, then, when in my first college film class, my TA asked my class who their favorite directors were, and I was the only person to mention a non-American filmmaker (save for a few mentions of Hitchcock here and there.) More over, I was one of the very few people to mention a director who had made films before the 1970s. Hitchcock and Francis Ford Coppola were mentions otherwise, but the majority of my class (filled with self-professed lovers of the cinema and would-be filmmakers) believed that the most notable film auteurs were Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez and (gulp) Kevin Smith. Now I’m not here to debate the work of these three men; I just wanted to state my worried vision of the future where the next 30 years will be filled with young directors trying to emulate that kind of cinema. (As a side note, I listed Hitchcock, old school Woody Allen and Ingmar Bergman as my favorites.)

So, after hearing of Bergman’s death earlier this week, I began thinking about the films I’ve seen, and a little bit of those I haven’t seen yet. Each time I see a new Bergman, it’s been a new experience. Each of his films have a different taste to them, separate yet totally connected. His work travels from the light and whimsical nature of SMILES OF A SUMMER NIGHT to the starkness of THE SEVENTH SEAL. From the disjointedness and abstractness of PERSONA to the warmth of THE MAGIC FLUTE. Yet through all his works, the images he paints are undeniably beautiful. With the help of Sven Nykvist, the sumptuous photography of films like THE VIRGIN SPRING and CRIES AND WHISPERS, with its mind-boggling red/white/black palate insures that his films will not be forgotten long after first viewing.

Bergman’s body of work is such that any number of his films could be considered his finest achievement: THE SEVENTH SEAL, PERSONA, CRIES AND WHISPERS, and some of his films I have regrettably yet to see: SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE and WILD STRAWBERRIES, among others. Yet to me, his finest achievement will always be FANNY AND ALEXANDER. Despite its being Bergman’s most commercial feature, the wonder and magic that is imbued in every astonishingly-rendered frame is something to behold. I was lucky enough to see the uncut television version first, all in one sitting (with the occasional pause for bathroom breaks). It was during this five-hour stretch that I realized I had missed out on what would surely be one of my greatest theatergoing experiences: seeing a Bergman film on the big screen. His last US theatrically-released film SARABAND had never come to my area. But I found solace in that his body of work was easily obtainable, and I could enjoy his films as many times as I wanted.

But now that he’s gone, his work is put in a bit of a perspective. His films often focused on death, yet that did not make them depressing affairs. They did not make light of the subject, either. Yet through it all, through the grimness that is tied to human mortality, Bergman managed to find light. Each of his films is an experience, and a different one for whoever watches them. He will be sorely missed, but we must take comfort in knowing that his work WILL live on and be discovered by generations beyond our own. For even though most filmmakers-to-be will declare THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy and 300 as the greatest films ever made, there will be a select few that will travel further into the world of cinema. And when they do, Ingmar Bergman will be at the top of the list.

Sunshine

2007-07-31T15:52:00.001-07:00

British director Danny Boyle (of TRAINSPOTTING and 28 DAYS LATER, among others) apparently wants to become the master of all genres. He stretches into the sci-fi territory with SUNSHINE, an on-the-surface brother to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and other intellectual science fiction films. Yet in an effort to appeal to as many sci-fi fans as possible, plot twists taken in the last half of the film propel it to a whole different, disappointing level. When all is said and done, it goes from a thought-provoking metaphorical study piece to a mash-up of a monster movie and Agatha Christie in Space.

As the first line in the film tells us, our sun is dying. After a failed attempt to reignite the sun using nuclear energy seven years ago, a small group of people have set forth in the ominously-named Icarus II to try again. Contact between Earth and Icarus II’s predecessor was lost once the ship entered the “dead zone,” and the mission was considered lost. Yet when the crew of Icarus II detects a distress signal coming from the lost ship, they must decide whether to continue on as planned or attempt to rendezvous with the vessel. To say anymore would require revealing key plot twists, which occur often and in rapid succession.

The film starts off fascinatingly; Boyle’s touch for visuals has never been more apparent than it is here. Each frame gleams with a polished coldness, only enhanced by the blinding rays of the sun that peek around every corner. The alienation on board the ship all feels familiar; the crew are nameless faces that, though ably played by its cast, could easily have been recruited from other films. There’s even an unemotional computer that they hold conversations with. But while the film is not novel in that respect, its impact is not lessened. Several compelling arguments are made about faith, humanity and the limits of survival. Even as the film nears it close, it manages to retain some of these themes.

The major downfall of the film is its second half, when it enters the same horror-movie aspect that played so well in Boyle’s earlier film 28 DAYS LATER. The characters are killed off one by one, and it is soon discovered that there is… GASP! An unknown person on board. While the suspense sequences that follow this are filmed with gusto, and are indeed frightening, it is a marked difference from the quiet meditation of the first part of the film. It’s as if Boyle and writer Alex Garland knew a great deal of sci-fi fans were going to be put off by the lack of action, and were attempting to make the film as marketable as possible. While this is bound to please some, it turns the film into an unfortunately shallow mash-up of two conflicting sci-fi subgenres: the intellectual and the thriller.

While the two parts of the film work fine on their own, they are both negatively affected when put together. The film is saved from being a failure, though, thanks to Boyle’s inventiveness; no matter what happens, the viewer is glued to the screen, wondering what they will see next. On a purely visual level, the film is hard to beat. If only the script had decided which kind of film it wanted to be, a new sci-fi classic could have been born.

**

The Simpsons Movie

2007-07-27T00:47:00.001-07:00

It’s the event 18 years in the making. For lifelong fans of “The Simpsons” on TV, this could very well be the event of the year. Yet the negative word that has haunted the film from day one is the noticeable decline in quality over the past few years. Would the team be able to fight this and successfully expand the show into 90 minutes of pure Simpsons magic, or would it merely be a longer retread of recent episodes? The answer lies somewhere in between; while it by no means reaches the comedic heights of the series’ early years, THE SIMPSONS MOVIE is an enjoyable, laugh-filled film that passes by in no time and leaves the viewer satisfied.

The film’s plot (which has been kept mostly top secret), unsurprisingly has Homer bringing Springfield to the brink of destruction, inevitably reaching a state where only America’s favorite family can save it. There are side plots for each family member, including Homer and Marge’s ever romantic/always turbulent marriage, a new love for Lisa and Bart’s yearning for an honorable father figure. The main plot, which involves a national emergency isn’t even established until well into the film, as it should be; the film is more concerned with the humorous antics of the family than anything else. In focusing on the family, many Simpsons fans are likely to be disappointed; while the filmmakers have stuck as many supporting characters in the film as they possibly could, most of them are limited to one joke and not much more. Don’t expect a wide array of new characters either; aside from a government official (voiced by Albert Brooks), “President Schwarzenegger” and a cameo from a Hollywood A-lister, nearly every face is familiar.

But the big relief is that there are many genuinely hilarious moments in the film. The film format and PG-13 rating have allowed for many “shock” laughs, the most effective of which is used quite early in the film. It’s a joke that’s bound to upset the parents; for a brief moment, we are reminded of the edgier days when the Simpsons team was called on for public apologies. But the formula of joke after joke begins to falter; the film begins to drag near its middle, the gags become repetitive and more typical of recent episodes. When the jokes fail (more often than not, they are the jokes used in the many previews; by now, they’ve lost their humor), the film seems to die a bit. While the pace picks up as the film reaches its finale, it never quite recreates the edgy joy the writers clearly felt when they weren’t restrained to a plot. The film also attempts a number of large action sequences, poking fun at the summer blockbuster while trying to gain some excitement in its own right. These become a mixed blessing; the expanded, almost epic scope is neat for a while, but the film only comes alive when it returns to the suburban-level comedy it knows best.

What is quite surprising about this film is the level of honesty and seriousness it portrays. Unlike other comedies of its type, “The Simpsons” has always seemed earnest, especially when it concerns Homer and Marge. But here they break new ground; a videotaped monologue by Marge halfway through the film may be the most dramatic thing they’ve ever attempted, and it pays off. In those few moments, THE SIMPSONS MOVIE becomes truly dramatic, almost heartbreaking. It was a risky move to implement such a dramatic element in such a film, yet it is a complete triumph.

The film never reaches the heights of the series as a whole; there are no instantly classic lines, and the filmmakers struggle to create a thoroughly involving 90-minute film, but it is far from a disaster. Actually, the greatest achievement here may be the further characterization of the dynamic Simpson family themselves. Moments of brilliance early in the film show why the Simpsons have lasted all these years, and the rest of the film is solid enough to make THE SIMPSONS MOVIE a successful TV-to-film transfer.

***

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

2007-07-12T01:19:00.000-07:00

By the time most franchises have reached their fifth installment, it has either undergone a drastic reinterpretation or has become so tired and repetitive that it’s hardly worth a look. What a joy, then, to see that the HARRY POTTER franchise is still going strong, with its newest actually improving upon its immediate predecessor. Also, unlike the first two films, it manages to create a nice balance between the need to be an adaptation of the much-beloved book but also work on an entirely cinematic level for the uninitiated. This balance strips the tale down to its barest bones, which works both for and against the film in the end.

Since the evil Lord Voldemort’s return in the previous film, all of the wizarding world has been held in suspense. A strong sense of paranoia haunts the governmental Ministry of Magic, casting doubt on fearless hero Harry Potter and his previous experiences. This doubt about his proclamation of Voldemort’s return follows him all the way back to Hogwarts, where he finds himself isolated from most of the students. All the while, hormones are still raging as Harry tentatively steps forward with his relationship with Cho Chang (a constantly charming Katie Leung, their chemistry strong enough to produce one of the more memorable screen kisses in recent years). And in the background, evil and deception lurks in the typical parade of British Acting All-Stars, featuring the franchise debuts of Imelda Staunton as one of the most despicable, evil characters created for a family film and Helena Bonham Carter, reveling in off-kilter delight in her brief role as a Death Eater.

As is the main problem with all the HARRY POTTER films, the key to its success lies in the adaptation of the lengthy novels. At 138 minutes, this is the shortest film yet and the story is cut down as much as it can be. As a result, many of the supporting characters are pushed aside. Veterans like Maggie Smith, Emma Thompson, Robbie Coltrane, Brendan Gleeson and David Thewlis are relegated to just a few minutes of screen time, popping in here and there to say a line or two. Several subplots are largely ignored, also leaving intriguing new characters (mainly Natalia Tena as Tonks) regrettably underused. In an attempt to speed things along, many important plot points are left to be explained through dialogue, not only jumbling the plot and potentially confusing the viewer but skipping the opportunity to delve even more into the Potter universe. The purpose of the “Order” in the main title is only explained in one line, and the actual group is only seen together once or twice.

The major breakthrough in the film is the performances of those who get enough time to warrant attention. It’s been said in many places that the three main stars (Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint) have improved their skills with each passing film, and this is certainly no exception. Radcliffe is a revelation; leaps and bounds ahead of his admirable work in the past two films, he imbues his performance here with an aggressive frustration that is attention-grabbing, sympathetic and always genuine. Finally the film becomes entirely his and he holds focus like never before. Watson and Grint, while given less to do, are still solid and serve as a reminder of the more carefree days of the past. The three together have an undeniable chemistry that invites the viewer in. Evanna Lynch gives a memorable debut performance as the dazed Luna Lovegood, alternating perfectly between comic relief and genuine sadness. Staunton and Bonham Carter both give delightfully evil, freewheeling performances, with Staunton in particular crafting the careful portrayal every Harry Potter sadist dreamed Dolores Umbridge would be. Returning cast members Alan Rickman, Gary Oldman and Michael Gambon continue their solid characterizations, with Rickman in particular adding a new dynamic to his previously cold character that stretches beyond merely what he says.

British director David Yates makes his big-budget debut here and couldn’t be in finer shape. Not only does he guide the cast to series-best performances, but many of the technical aspects are simply superb, from Stuart Craig’s intricate production design to Slawomir Idziak’s simply stunning photography; a palette of nightmarish grays, blues and greens that help make this film far darker than any others before it. The film is almost too dark for its own good; the level of seriousness is almost relentless, with only a few moments taken off to inject some comedy into the mix.

While not as distinguished as HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN, this film is a worthy continuation of the franchise. It improves on several problems in the previous film and shows an irresistibly intriguing development in design and performance. Though the film is bleak and dark, and it rushes through the plot a bit too quickly, Yates has only served to drive up anticipation for the next installment. Once again, HARRY POTTER proves that it is one of the few modern franchises that deserves every single penny it earns.

***

Hairspray

2007-07-09T19:52:00.001-07:00

Obviously a big-budget, flashy musical remake of a John Waters film is never going to be as subversive or as comically edgy as its predecessors, but one of the good things about HAIRSPRAY is that it never intends to be. It fully embraces the cheesy, over-the-top aspect of a movie musical from frame one, a trait that most other current films of its type try to avoid. In a welcome change from the summer drudgery of explosions and CGI, this film is a pure feel-good crowd pleaser where excitement and energy rise above all.

Tracy Turnblad (newcomer Nikki Blonsky) is a short, overweight Baltimore girl who has a problem with “hair height” and dreams of becoming famous. Despite protestations from her protective, house-locked mother Edna (John Travolta), she auditions to be a dancer on “The Corny Collins Show”, a riff on American Bandstand, and quickly becomes Baltimore’s newest sensation. All this, coupled with a crush on the local high school dreamboat (Zac Efron) and her strive for complete societal integration makes Tracy a hero for all times and ages, proving that you don’t have to be skinny and blonde to be all you can be, despite the opposition of the local television station manager (Michelle Pfeiffer, in her first film in five years) and her equally blonde, equally villainous daughter Amber (Brittany Snow). Yes, the film is uplifting in the “beauty is found within” vein, but that is part of the film’s charm.

HAIRSPRAY boasts an impressive ensemble cast, including a sampling of today’s biggest stars, both aged and young; Christopher Walken, James Marsden, Amanda Bynes, Queen Latifah and Allison Janney are featured in supporting roles, while cameos from original stars Ricki Lake, Jerry Stiller and director John Waters are sprinkled through the film. Everyone in the cast gives able performances; even Travolta who, in drag and a fat suit, seems at first off-putting, beginning a one-joke “hey I’m a man in a dress!” performance, quickly grows into his own as Edna does, becoming the most crowd-pleasing character by the film’s end. It’s a pleasure to see a former GREASE-r returning to what made him famous, but Travolta proves surprisingly agile in the comedy department, especially during his song and dance numbers. Pfeiffer gives an appropriately vampy villainous performance, reveling in the same carefree, fun comedic style as Travolta. Walken is simply Walken, doing his usually amusing weird-guy shtick in an enjoyable manner. Janney also provides the laughs as the ultra-conservative emblem of a 50s mother, becoming instantly memorable in just a few short scenes. Queen Latifah shows glimpses of a depth she never has before, especially as she organizes and participates in a march against segregation.

The real enjoyment here, however, and the truly great performances are given by the younger members of the cast. Every single teenager in the film, from the leads to the chorus boy in the back of the room are injected with an unshakable, undeniable energy that reaches through the screen and captivates the viewer. This rings true especially for the film’s two major finds: newcomers Nikki Blonsky and Elijah Kelly. Both of them have that instant star quality, a charisma and charm that make them instantly likable. Kelly displays simply astounding singing and dancing skills, while Blonsky easily carries the entire film of her shoulders, becoming the heart and soul of the movie with one hip thrust.

Director/choreographer Adam Shankman, whose previous credits include duds like CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN 2, THE PACIFIER and BRINGING DOWN THE HOUSE has made a huge leap forward in his skills. Every one of the musical numbers are spectacularly shot and edited, keeping the pace moving and providing endless opportunity for humorous surprises. Shankman has a clear talent for musicals and the work done here is much more admirable than recent films of the genre. The sparkling production values make it clear; this film is cheesy and proud of it.

HAIRSPRAY has nothing much to offer besides two hours of entertainment and escapism, but it offers it in spades. It is a pure joy to watch from beginning to end and a welcome change of pace from the big-budget action film that surround its release. Yes, it’s a musical and yes, it’s over-the-top, but the audience is sold on that point from the first moment Tracy opens her mouth and the audience cannot help but be sucked in.

***

Transformers

2007-07-04T23:27:00.001-07:00

Riding on the biggest ad campaign of the year to avoid another Island-sized disaster for Michael Bay (what, you thought the MTV Movie Award for “Best Summer Movie You Haven’t Seen Yet” was an actual award that a film actually won?), TRANSFORMERS provides quite a bit of food for thought: can a toy franchise be translated into a successful film? The true answer is yet to be determined, as TRANSFORMERS is too bogged down in all the typical Michael Bay action clichés to be much of anything else.

The slim story is another variation on the alien invasion/end of the world plot. This time, the fate of mankind rests between two warring sides of alien robots, the Autobots (led by the iconic Optimus Prime) and the Decepticons. The two sides were expelled from their wasteland of a planet and followed the mysterious Allspark to Earth, an object that holds the key in mankind’s potential destruction. The Decepticons use their disguises and human images to track down the Allspark while the Autobots struggle to stop them and protect the human race. And, yes, there are humans too; an average-Joe high schooler (Shia LaBeouf) discovers that his rusty car is in fact one of the Autobots, propelling him into the center of the robot battle.

All this plot should be just an excuse to get to big action scenes, but the overlong film unnecessarily attempts to develop itself for the first hour or so. At 144 minutes, this is no walk in the park, and the film could easily be trimmed at least a half hour. The first hour of the film basically serves as set-up, introducing and cultivating characters who aren’t that interesting in the first place. A few brief sequences in the Middle East provide some excitement during this time, but the film’s momentum sputters out when it turns its focus to LaBeouf’s character and the apple of his eye, a laughably stereotypical not-just-a-pretty-face supermodel/high schooler (an attractive but ultimately banal Megan Fox).

Much has been made about LaBeouf’s quick rise to stardom, and he is indeed a likeably unorthodox action hero and has grown a great deal from his awkward, usually unfunny sidekick turns in I, ROBOT and CONSTANTINE. His natural charisma and relatability are strong enough to rise above the material he’s given. The other performers don’t make nearly as much of an impression, giving the requisite action movie movements and nothing more: staring at things in awe, screaming in panic, running away and giving the occasional wisecrack. Only Julie White (in a small role as LaBoeuf’s mother) manages to imbue her scenes with genuine comedy, while John Turturro and Jon Voight come very close to embarrassing themselves.

The robots are serviceable, rendered with some very impressive CGI work. Where they fall flat is the obvious, awkward dialogue they are given. Yes, it’s nice to see that the robots have good working relationships and can joke around with each other, but the audience really wants to see them in action; something that is more or less denied until the final part of the film. Yet even when the film finally gets into the nonstop action it promises, it is stuck in one final battle sequence, which itself runs overlong and begins to tire.

Director Michael Bay seems unable to shake the clichés that harm his films so much; the bloated and overblown action isn’t enough, but he follows the recent pattern of shooting action scenes in tight, handheld shots, making it exceedingly difficult to grasp what exactly is going on. His characters have an annoying habit of always seeming to be covered in a glaze of sweat (no matter the situation), and by the time two characters stare lovingly at each other across a pile of debris, their hands reaching towards in each other in a slow-motion shot, you come to realize that he’s hit every cliché in the book at least three times. This wouldn’t be such a problem if the film didn’t feel so needlessly long.

Since it is the summer, some of these decisions should be forgivable. But the film takes far too long to really get going, never fully recovering and beginning to tire before its conclusion. The filmmakers clearly thought their subject more important than it actually is. TRANSFORMERS could have been a thoroughly enjoyable, exciting summer film, but Bay’s insistence on overblown and bloated films nearly makes it a chore to get through. The audience must wait 90 minutes for prolonged excitement it promises, and that’s really all the film has to offer.

*1/2

Ratatouille

2007-07-02T22:43:00.001-07:00

After the disappointing and lumber some CARS, Pixar returns to its usual level of brilliance with Brad Bird’s RATATOUILLE. Bird does the improbable; takes a film about the least-cuddly of rodents, makes them adorable and puts them into the world of fine cooking, a place where children are usually not to be found. It is Pixar’s least accessible film thus far, yet there are still plenty of laughs to be had for people of all ages.

The film follows the adventures of Remy (voiced by Patton Oswaldt), the most lovable French rat you’ll ever find, and his quest to find decent food. After inadvertently destroying his family’s hideout, he finds himself separated from them and wandering the streets of Paris. He happens upon Gusteau’s Restaurant, once the greatest restaurant in all of Paris, where he meets a clumsy garbage boy named Linguini (Lou Romano). After they connect and find a puppet/puppeteer relationship between them, both begin to benefit.

As can be judged by the story’s outline, this is definitely the most low-key Pixar film yet. It is a rather laid-back affair, and even when the characters are placed in peril, the situations are never exceedingly grim. The story’s two villains, a dwarfish chef (Ian Holm) that embodies nearly every French stereotype out there and a gothic food critic (Peter O’Toole, firmly in the Christopher Lee school of line delivery) modeled after Nosferatu are rarely intimidating, but the film is more concerned with its main characters than anything else. The story between these characters remains light and breezy, with plenty of humor found in them and among the wonderfully shady members of the Gusteau’s kitchen staff, including a man who has served time for any number of reasons.

The design of the film is sumptuous, and this is easily the most visually inventive Pixar film yet. The camera is set on Remy’s level, gliding effortlessly through cracks in the wall, under tables and underwater, not to mention through Linguini’s hat. Every frame is beautifully composed, vividly illustrating a timeless Paris and giving astonishing detail to the various dishes served up. The attention to detail here alone shows the filmmaker’s quality, something sorely lacking in most animated films nowadays.

While slighter and much less accessible than previous offerings, RATATOUILLE is still a completely enjoyable ride and a step above other recent films of the same genre. Pixar once again proves it is the leading force in American animation; the film is much more refined and nuanced with dynamic characters and filled with more genuine humor than what passes for family films nowadays. Director Brad Bird takes a tricky subject for a children’s film and trusts his audiences will pick up on it. This rather risky project is a complete success. RATATOUILLE is great fun, a carefree time at the movies for people of all ages.

***1/2

Live Free or Die Hard

2007-06-27T01:46:00.001-07:00

John McClane is back after a twelve-year absence with LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, an adrenaline-pumped series of action sequences that offer up familiar ground while managing to completely entertain and satisfy. Yet while the film is thrilling at parts, it attempts to develop the paper-thin plot fail and throw the film into the depths of pure stupidity.

America is once again on the brink of destruction, and it’s up to John McClane (Bruce Willis) to save the day. This time, a band of vaguely-intimidating computer geeks have gained control of everything in the country (and I mean everything) and are systematically shutting down the systems. McClane is called in to retrieve a well-known hacker (Justin Long), but soon finds himself in another duel with an evil genius who soon sets his sights on McClane’s teenaged daughter.

That’s about as much plot as there is, as it only exists in the first place to create action sequences. The film tries to develop the plot here and there, but it is then that the holes and stupidity of the film become clear. The film’s villain (played by Timothy Olyphant) is a typical monster of the monotone/sneering/never-blinking type, forgoing any sense of real intimidation in favor of having nameless thugs do all the actual work. Aside from threatening phone calls and an occasional slap here and there, Olyphant ultimately does nothing. And where there is a weak villain, there is an even weaker story. Most of the supporting characters range from roll-your-eyes-stupid to hit-your-forehead-stupid, from the envoys of constantly inept security guards to the henchman that follow the “if I can’t see them, they must be dead” policy. Long’s character suffers here as well; his attempts at being the comic relief fail throughout most of the film, save for a humorous bit involving the hijacking of a car. The rest of the time, he runs and ducks, his “save me!” routine quickly tiring.

Yet LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD delivers in the two key elements of any Die Hard film: Bruce Willis’s performance and the action. Willis is clearly having the time of his life, pulling off the dizzying stunts with gusto and an excited smile throughout. When the script tries to develop McClane’s character and explain his actions, it falls into deep clichés; but luckily, the filmmakers know not to focus on it. What the audiences wants is the explosions, and they certainly deliver. Each successive sequence grows in grandeur and spectacle, occasionally demanding an extremely high level of disbelief on the part of the viewer, but the film is too entertaining to write off.

The series has a new director in Len Wiseman (of the UNDERWORLD films), who keeps the tradition of solid action films going while adding nothing new. He has the distracting habit of filming too much in a tight handheld shot, often making it difficult to determine what is actually happening. Yet this became less frequent as the film went on, only heightening the enjoyment factor of the film.

LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD offers nothing revolutionary, neither to the action genre or the series. It’s simply what people have come to expect from a Die Hard film, softened a bit to let in the PG-13 masses. Several characters in the film refer to McClane as out of touch in the technology-infested America of today. Yet as Willis demonstrates, as long as evil geniuses are out there, John McClane can and will save the day in time to utter his signature phrase, “Yippee ki yay motherf(CENSORED).”

**

La Vie en Rose

2007-06-15T23:16:00.000-07:00

Some performances are so instantly memorable, so transformative and awe-inspiring that they simply leave the viewer speechless. Such is the case with Marion Cotillard’s extraordinary performance as Edith Piaf in LA VIE EN ROSE. She completely transcends everything else, giving a flawless portrayal in an otherwise incredibly flawed film. Whenever one of director Olivier Dahan’s creative decisions goes awry (and there are many) Cotillard comes in with extreme finesse and confidence, saving the whole film from disaster with a single pained stare or clever nod of the head.

The film spans nearly all of Piaf’s extraordinary life, starting from her days as a child being raised by prostitutes and moving to her death in 1963. The film is chock full of information, throwing a new twist in her life every few minutes. As a result, even though the film is 140 minutes, sometimes we are only given a glimpse into her life, rather than completely understanding it. (It is also a tragedy that her astounding contributions during the occupation in WWII were completely omitted.) But the sense of pain and loss that haunted her life and make her singing unforgettable are more than amply illustrated; in the sequences chronicling her later years, our hearts break for every pained step she takes.

The film is undermined by Dahan’s insistence on staying safely outside the norm. He employs a dizzying sense of chronology, flashing back and forth between time periods with no rhyme or reason. At times, only Piaf’s style of dress and look indicate where in her life the action is set. He also employs several highly theatrical techniques that add a level of higher realism to the piece; a scene where fire embers give voice as an angel, a sequence of Piaf wandering around her home in devastation, only to walk through a door and onto a stage and a curious montage of Piaf’s childhood blindness set to one of her cheeriest songs are only a few examples. Piaf’s first public performance at a music hall is told only through images, a risky feat that only is successful due to Cotillard’s unshakable presence. All these attempts are artistic with a capital “A”; they become distracting and turn the film itself into quite a mess. None of the other characters are given much of an opportunity to make an impression, most of them becoming a sea of faces under varying amounts of age make-up.

But still, Cotillard is the glue that holds the mess together. Her performance is a truly astounding experience. Even the random time-jumps serve their purpose here; the juxtaposition between the broken, dying Piaf, hunched over and wrinkled, and the young, energetic girl with an eager smile and springing step demonstrate her complete immersion in the role and the remarkable transformation she goes through in the film. She is completely unrecognizable as the singer, a small and diminutive presence throughout. She is completely committed in every frame, becoming a powerful force that the viewer cannot help but attach to.

Much is said about imitation whenever a new biopic is released, but Cotillard’s performance here is far more refined, far more transformative and committed than any of the performances given by her contemporaries. She has delivered the performance of a lifetime. I do not want to be the person who cries, “this woman deserves an OSCAR!!”, but if Cotillard is not remembered come awards time, the Academy should hang their heads in shame. Marion Cotillard has given us something spectacular; she has risen above the weaknesses of a mediocre film and will be remembered for years to come. The film itself is far from perfect, but the strength of her portrayal alone serves as a perfect tribute to a woman who poured out her pain and suffering whenever she performed. Thanks to Cotillard, we know understand how much pain there was.

***

Ocean's Thirteen

2007-06-08T14:12:00.001-07:00

George Clooney and company are back and in the place they belong: the casinos of Las Vegas. After a disappointing and vapid Euro trip in OCEAN’S TWELVE, director Steven Soderbergh has wisely returned to the formula that made the original film so successful. The result is an entertaining film that makes apologies for its predecessor, while never reaching the heights of cleverness and pure enjoyment of the first film.

This time around, the motive is revenge. After ruthless casino owner Willy Bank (Al Pacino) betrays the lovably sarcastic Reuben (Elliot Gould), sending him into a near-death stupor, Danny Ocean (Clooney) and his camaraderie of thieves decide to get back at him in the best way they know how: an epic heist at his newest casino, the Bank. To tell any more would likely uncover one of the film’s many surprises, which is to be expected in an OCEAN’S film. The plot is tighter and slimmed down than the other two installments; this time around, the external emotional problems of the characters are largely ignored, aside from a few mentions here and there. Previous stars Julia Roberts and Catherine Zeta-Jones are nowhere to be seen. This works both for and against the film; it is stripped of the excess and inside jokes that made the second film so tiring, yet the audience is prevented from seeing the charismatic characters working on multiple levels.

It is even more of a shame because the one minor subplot that does introduce romantic tension is one of the high points in the film. This is due mostly to the presence of Ellen Barkin, playing Al Pacino’s seemingly all-business-no-pleasure assistant. Her dynamic and energetic performance as “the woman” in the film gives an adrenaline shot, particularly in her scenes with Matt Damon and his fake nose (suspiciously called “the Brody.”) However, her time to shine is all too brief, relegated to just a few scenes.

Yet the sense of fun from the first film has returned, and it makes up for many of the missing elements. Once again the audiences are in on the joke, which was the biggest problem with the second film. The film suffers from a slow first act, with things plodding along until the heist is actually set in motion. But the joy is there in seeing the characters back to plotting a seemingly impossible heist and dealing with the curveballs thrown at them. The actual heist isn't as clever as the first film, yet the filmmakers seem to realize that, which contributes even more to the film's laid-back nature. As always, Soderbergh imbues the film with a visual spark that hearkens back to the sixties while remaining cutting-edge and modern (the CGI-altered Las Vegas strip is particularly impressive).

While the film could never have topped the first installment, it apologizes for the grave mistakes made in the second film. What at first seemed a vanity project for a bunch of men in denial is now a decent enough summer escape. Clooney, Pitt, Damon, etc. are still joking around and having fun, but this time we’re having fun with them. We are welcomed back into Ocean's gang to ride along.

**1/2

Paris, je t'aime

2007-06-02T19:16:00.001-07:00

This film is indeed a step away from the norm; a series of 18 short films dedicated to the City of Lights. Since the stories have little to no connection between them, I felt it best to take a look at them separately before looking at the film as a whole.

MONTMARTRE (Bruno Podalydes) – The film starts out on a decidedly sour note, when the segment dedicated to the land of AMELIE and Baz Luhrmann’s MOULIN ROUGE should be anything but. A drab and lifeless introduction, Podalydes brings nothing particularly memorable to his segment; merely a crabby man and a woman who tends to faint. Quite unfortunate that the film begins with one of the weakest segments.

*1/2

QUAIS DE SIENE (Gurinder Chada) – Chada’s segment, briefly studying race relations in Paris, keeps the film at a monotonous, waiting-for-something-to-happen pace. This segment fares better, however, based off the likeability and chemistry between its two young stars, Leila Bekhti and Cyril Descours. The little bits of philosophy and commentary thrown in the segment feel worn and tired as well.

**1/2

LE MARAIS (Gus Van Sant) – This segment feels more like a failed improv exercise than anything else. The majority of the piece is a one-man monologue delivered by Gaspard Ulliel, who despite his dynamic screen presence cannot manage to make his speech remotely involving. In the end, his lines feel like failed conversation starters with his acting partner tied together by a loose introduction.

**

TUILERIES (The Coen Brothers) – This is where the film finally breaks out of the monotonous and delivers something truly memorable. The Coen brothers, along with Steve Buscemi, give the film one of its very few laugh-out-loud segments about a dazed American tourist waiting for a subway train. The subtle Coen Brothers touches are all there (the dark humor, the visual motifs, etc.) and the heightened sense of reality in the golden subway station is a welcome change of pace from the first parts.

***

LION DE 16E (Walter Salles and Daniela Thomas) – The shortest film in the collection is also one of the most memorable, thanks almost exclusively to the performance of Catalina Sandino Moreno. A brief portrait of a single working mother, Moreno manages to convey a world of emotions through singing a song for children only twice.

***

PORTE DE CHOISY (Christopher Doyle) – Doyle’s contribution is a frenzied, confusing mess. Nearly all sense of coherence is lost in the loud and bombastic repetition of images. While they are dynamic images that play off of a sense of celebrity, the segment ultimately feels too glossy, shallow and empty.

*1/2

BASTILLE (Isabelle Coixet) – Coixet’s film is a bittersweet picture of dying love. What seems to be one man’s departure from his wife and everything he knows turns into a touching and sentimental examination of what love means when stripped bare of everything else. Sergio Castellitto and Miranda Richardson both give silent, affecting performances that make the segment ring true.

***

PLACE DES VICTOIRES (Nobuhiro Suwa) – A showcase for Juliette Binoche, never in finer form. As a mother grieving her young son’s recent death, Binoche manages to craft a portrayal in mere minutes that is comparable to her finest performances elsewhere. While vaguely similar to her work in the Three Colors trilogy, Binoche is still completely heartbreaking and gives the most memorable performance of the entire film.

***1/2

TOUR EIFFEL (Sylvain Chomet) – Following the heaviest film is the lightest and most whimsical. Some will see the story of a modern day mime as forced and tiring, while others will be charmed by it. Regardless, this segment is likely to be one of the most memorable, due to its noticeable heightened realistic state. It is designed in a way that none of the other segments are; it is the only segment that places itself firmly in a world other than our own.

***

PARC MONCEAU (Alfonso Cuaron) – Another brief oddity in the film. Cuaron creates a one-shot conversation between an elderly man (Nick Nolte) and his daughter (Ludivine Sagnier) with an unexpected pay-off at the end. A bit sweet and a bit sentimental, but nothing beyond that.

**1/2

QUARTIER DES ENFANTS ROUGES (Olivier Assayas) – Maggie Gyllenhaal as an actress on location in Paris. Another ultimately unmemorable addition to the film, as Gyllenhaal’s hints at a romance leave the viewer unsatisfied.

**

PLACES DES FETES (Oliver Schmitz) – Perhaps the most emotionally devastating of the segments, aside from Suwa’s contribution. The section is successful mainly because of the committed performances from Aissa Maiga and Seydou Boro, the former in particular. Their strength lifts the segment from a slightly unsettling trifle to an effecting and genuinely tragic piece of unfulfilled love.

***1/2

PIGALLE (Richard LaGravenese) – A sweet and quirky romance with Bob Hoskins and Fanny Ardant. The script throws several twists at the viewer which never really resonates, but the actors shine in their roles and give the segment its charm.

***

QUARTIER DE LA MADELEINE (Vincenzo Natali) – Probably the most recognizable of all the films, as it studies Paris’s apparent problem with vampires. Heavily gothic to an almost annoying level, the film maintains a sense of dark comedy that keeps it from becoming a complete failure. Completely removed from reality, like Chomet’s film, but this segment has nothing below its glossy cover.

**1/2

PERE-LACHAISE (Wes Craven) – An unusual effort, given the director. Another offering that is merely sweet, with Emily Mortimer as its saving grace. A bit of a disappointment, as one would expect something more noticeable from a director like Craven.

**1/2

FAUBOURG SAINT-DENIS (Tom Tykwer) – Tykwer’s film, as can be expected, is the fastest-paced of all the films, managing to include all his trademark visual cues and sound styles. An offbeat romance between Natalie Portman and Melchior Beslon, the segment ultimately arises as one of the film’s strongest.

***1/2

QUARTIER LATIN (Gerard Depardieu and Frederic Auburtin) – Witty dialogue and sharp performances by Gena Rowlands and Ben Gazzara make this piece, which could have easily fallen into the monotony of the weaker segments. One of the most resonant of the segments, especially the ones where marriage is concerned.

***

14E ARRONDISEMENT (Alexander Payne) – Payne’s tribute ends the film on an incredibly high note, delivering both the funniest and most touching segments. On the same playing level as Payne’s ABOUT SCHMIDT, yet he accomplishes a varying degree of emotions in such a short time. The film owes it all to Margo Martindale, who is hilarious, heartbreaking and uplifting all at once.

***1/2

In the end, PARIS, JE T’AIME is an experience more than worth having. Even the weakest segments have something of interest to offer, and never run too long to become unbearable. The segments manage to contain a steady pace and tone through them (with a few exceptions), which makes the film even more of a must see. The film never outstays its welcome, and the repeated moments of brilliance resonate with the viewer long after the film is over.

Average: 2.75
Final Grade: ***

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

2007-05-26T12:10:00.001-07:00

At a sprawling 168 minutes, it seemed that PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD’S END would suffer the same fate as the previous film; bloated with excess, too many storylines to keep track of and a dreary sense of heavy drama that would make one long for the spirited comedy of the first film. But luckily, the filmmakers subconsciously corrected most of the mistakes of the second film and have produced a completely enjoyable and worthy conclusion to the series thus far.

This film sees all the supporting characters from the first two films (including Keira Knightley, Orlando Bloom and Geoffrey Rush, among others) traveling into the purgatory-like abyss that is Davy Jones’s Locker to rescue Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp, once again in tip-top shape). Though that only proves to be the starting point of the film, as it seeks to wrap up storylines involving Will Turner’s father, the invasion of the East India Trading Company, the issue of Davy Jones’s heart and the romance between Elizabeth and various other characters, including introductions to a new fleet of pirates (led by Chow Yun-Fat) and the idea of the sea goddess Calypso, who plays a vital part in this film.

With all these subplots, it seems nearly impossible that the film would successfully balance itself. And it does have difficulties at times; the film can be a jumbled, confusing mess for those not paying close enough attention, and at certain times, some characters are completely ignored in favor of producing memorable (if continually improbable) action sequences. In the final battle, one major character completely disappears from the film when he should be holding just as important a place as the others. Though they have wisely cut down the plodding drama scenes in favor of more comedy and thrills, they are still present, occasionally making the film the equivalent of a sugar high; rising excitement to a sudden drop.

But throughout all this, the film maintains the fun and adventurous spirit that was sorely lacking from the previous installment. Even if the viewer has no idea what is happening, they are content just to watch the spectacle. And what a spectacle it is; the action sequences grow with grandeur every passing time, leading to a giant maelstrom finale that is mesmerizing. The heavy drama that plagued the first film, most notably the long, dull extended sequences with Will and his father, have been trimmed in order to focus on more interesting characters. This not only cuts down on the bland Bloom’s screen time, but gives an opportunity for the more dynamic performers to show their stuff. Knightley, Bill Nighy (as Davy Jones), Naomie Harris and Geoffrey Rush all give their roles everything they’ve got, making it a joy whenever they are seen onscreen. And again, Depp is masterful. His introduction is a fantasy of truly Depp-ian proportions; an art-house-European-film-inspired nightmare that is wickedly weird and delightful in the most macabre of senses. Whenever the film is devoid of these characters, it tends to sink back into the doldrums of the second film. But luckily, Jerry Bruckheimer and company wisely realized where their strongest assets were and focused on them as much as they could.

The film is definitely a long haul, but one that is completely worth it. It manages to wrap up all the storylines from the previous two films in the most satisfactory way possible, managing to keep a door open for a potential sequel. And since this is likely to be the biggest movie of the summer (since it is definitely the most worthy three-quel of all the May three-quels), expect to see Captain Jack return in a few years. And while thoughts of the third film were mixed following the release of DEAD MAN’S CHEST, this exciting and enjoyable ride shows that the filmmakers still have it in them to deliver a crowd-pleasing blockbuster that is a cut above the rest.

***

Black Book

2007-05-21T21:15:00.000-07:00

In his first film in six years (and his first Dutch film in 23), director Paul Verhoeven has crafted a surprising and disturbing portrait of war-era Holland in BLACK BOOK. A World War II drama may not seem like the kind of film the director of BASIC INSTINCT and STARSHIP TROOPERS would be suited for, but Verhoeven’s trademark sense of heightened drama and vivid imagery find a suitable home in the film, even if it is a bit jarring at first.

The film tells the story of Rachel Stein (Carice van Houten), a young Jewish woman who has successfully evaded capture by hiding with various allies. When her hiding place is destroyed in a freak accident, she is forced to flee to Belgium with the help of the family lawyer. She is even reunited with her family in the process. But her escape vessel is caught by a German gunboat, and she barely survives the massacre that follows. Now alone, she joins the Dutch resistance movement, transforming herself into the idealized image of the Aryan race in order to infiltrate the Nazi system.

This leads her into the arms of Nazi officer Ludwig Muntze (Sebastian Koch), whom she must seduce in an attempt to free jailed resistance fighters. The film gets more complicated from this point, throwing several twists at the viewer; some of which are expected, others which are infuriating and horrifying in manner. Muntze is far from the typical personification of a Nazi officer; it is his characterization that is most likely the most complex aspect of the film, accomplishing the improbable: creating a sympathetic member of the Nazi party.

This character alone demonstrates that the characters cannot be easily determined as ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ There is the usual representation of the Nazi as pure evil (played here by Waldemar Kobus), but the members of the resistance are far from saintly freedom fighters. As the film goes on, the characters’ true motives are revealed, and nearly all previous perceptions of them are challenged.

This is especially true of Rachel (alias Ellis), mostly due to van Houten’s brave and mesmerizing performance. As she begins to develop feelings for Muntze, a man who has ordered the deaths of hundreds, her own motives become questionable, and the levels of sacrifice she is willing to accept are unsettling. But sympathy for her never disappears and van Houten imbues herself with a deeply layered sense of self-disgust, alternately accepting her feelings and bemoaning them, agonizing over whether she went too far. And as the world of the film moves into the post-war era, her sheer determination to survive elevates her portrayal into a truly mesmerizing performance.

Verhoeven mixes his usual trademark style with a sense of melodrama that hearkens back to film noirs of the 1940s, most notable through its bombastic musical score. The film is explicit, with several graphic depictions of sex (and since the film is directed by Verhoeven, lots of nudity) and episodes of extreme, almost cartoonish violence. It’s quite a different method for a WWII drama, melding techniques and values from yesteryear and today.

It also raises an issue that is undeniably unsettling and controversial: the humanization of certain Nazi characters. In some cases, Ellis’s enemies prove to be more trustworthy and honorable than those she has aligned herself with. While the romantic relationship between Ellis and Muntz is vague and forced, it raises many intriguing questions. And once the war is over, a shocking portrayal of the survivors of both sides begins. Those who were the victims become as vile and cruel as the people who oppressed them. Verhoeven shines an unforgiving light on those who feel revenge is the only solution; those who are so obsessed with vindication that they unknowingly stoop to their enemies’ level.

The film ends on an ambiguous note, indicating that wars never end, they are just put on hold. BLACK BOOK is a difficult film to watch; it presents several ideas and images that deviate from the perceived norm. But nonetheless, Verhoeven has crafted a thrilling and compelling portrait of people whose pain and suffering do not end because a war does.

***1/2

Welcome!

2007-05-21T21:13:00.000-07:00

This is the first post of many, I hope. This is NEWMAN'S OWN MOVIE CORNER (all my respects to Paul Newman and his fine brand of sauces, cookies, etc.) I will be using this blog to, not surprisingly, review films and further my skill as a critic. Yes, that's right, I hope to become a film critic and earn my living off ridiculing other people's work. But I will only ridicule work if it deserves it; I am open to all kinds of film and do not hold a grudge against anything or anyone. Well, that's not entirely true, but we'll just gloss over that.

I really have no idea how often I'll update this... it really depends on how often I see films I think are worth reviewing and how often I actually sit myself down to write. I already have a review ready for posting, which I will do shortly, but after that, it's anybody's guess.

So, welcome to my blog. Enjoy reading what I have and PLEASE give comments or suggestions on how I can improve. I'm in this for the learning experience. I also accept compliments, in case anyone is wondering. I really enjoy them, as a matter of fact.

And with that... I'll see you at the movies! *Cheesy play-out*