AND THE BUTTERFLY |
THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY Rated PG-13 for nudity, sexual content and some language. Biography/Drama 112 minutes 
4½ stars |
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is a devastatingly beautiful film: devastating because of the subject matter, beautiful because it is so fully realized. Based on the book of the same name by Jean-Dominique Bauby (Mathieu Amalric, in a heartbreaking performance), it details the ordeal of the Jean Do, as he’s called, who until age 42 when he suffered a major stroke, was leading a glamorous life as editor of Elle Magazine in France. The type of stroke is called “locked-in” because although the person’s mind functions normally, he/she cannot move or speak.
Writer Ron Harwood and director Julian Schnabel have done a magnificent job capturing the torture of a once vital, privileged man, reduced to total dependence. Fortunately, the dedicated medical professionals on whom he depends are not only caring and kind, but work with him to help find meaning in his limited existence. His left eye is the only part of his body that he can control so his speech and physical therapists help devise a plan for Jean Do to blink at letters that spell out words. It is this way that he writes the book that is his autobiography.
At first, Jean Do is consumed by self-pity, at the mercy of those around him to take care of every physical need. Understood is that this was a man who had many women in his life. There are even some humorous moments when he’s still attracted by the beauty of the women around him. The poignancy of his regrets is that he will never be able to make amends for the way he has treated some of those in his life. The exception is Papinou (Max von Sydow in a nuanced character role), his father, who is confined to his apartment for medical reasons and sadly unable to visit Jean Do. Especially difficult, though, are visits from friends, family, and his children. At first the humiliation is too much, but he eventually relents. He learns he has two things that keep his life meaningful: his memories and his imagination.
Of special note are the inspired cinematography by Janusz Kaminski and the original music by Paul Cantelon that so perfectly enhance the mood and thoughtfulness of the film.
Having read the book, I was unsure if a movie could ever capture the gift that Jean-Dominique Bauby was able to give his readers, but thanks to these filmmakers, through his misfortune we can experience, even under the worst circumstances, the limitlessness our minds have to offer. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THERE WILL BE BLOOD Rated R for some violence Drama 158 minutes
3½ stars |
There Will Be Blood is unrelentingly dark, brooding, and menacing. If you have the tolerance for that, you may be able to appreciate the excellent technical aspects of this film. It is visually stunning. But at over two and a half hours you may feel dragged down into the abyss that is Daniel Plainview’s self-made hell. Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance as Plainview is courageous because it’s written with so little nuance, and the character is so unredeemable that you are riveted and repulsed at the same time. He is one of the few actors who could actually come close pulling off the role.
Based on the book Oil! by Sinclair Lewis, the early days of making and breaking men of fortune is not an unfamiliar one. The opening sequence is promising. There is no dialogue for ten or so minutes. Plainview is alone, in shadow, deep in a pit digging. He has a fall that breaks his leg, yet so determined is he that he manages to get up and out of the pit, and then lies on the ground of an office collecting some money to prospect for oil.
Plainview’s greed, ambition, and vengeance only escalate from there. Certainly, he’s one of the most despicable characters in filmdom. The screenwriter/director Paul Thomas Anderson, and Daniel Day-Lewis make sure the audience doesn’t miss it. How can you? Although, what I wanted to know is what made him the devil? Later in the film there are some references to his family, and that he and his father didn’t get on well, but that could be said of many who don’t go on to be like Plainview. He tells a character in another scene that he has ambition that makes him want others to fail, and that he hates people. We don’t need to hear it since it’s so obvious. The only spark of humanity detectable is in his relationship to his son, and even here when an unfortunate accident causes the young H.W. Plainview (Dillon Freasier) to act out, he’s out of there faster than he can blink.
Finding oil is not for the delicate of body or soul as men die sudden, painful deaths to feed the greed of others. This isn’t lost on Eli Sunday (Paul Dano in an interesting performance), a self-anointed preacher Plainview meets early on; an opportunist who Plainview detests. Their battle for dominance lasts through to the end of the movie.
The look and mood of the film is sustained throughout thanks to impressive cinematography by Robert Elswit; production design by Jack Fisk; art direction by David Crank; set decoration by Jim Erickson and Amy Wells, and their crews. The original music by Jonny Greenwood scores the film well from the opening discordant music as we first meet Daniel Plainview, until his last horrific act.
There were and are men like Daniel Plainview, but did I learn anything, or more importantly, do I really want to spend that much time with him? Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THE GREAT DEBATERS PG-13 for depiction of strong thematic material including violence and disturbing images. Drama 123 minutes
4 stars |
I prefer a film that moves and inspires me, even if that movie stretches the details. Such is the case of The Great Debaters that tells about a proud and shameful episode in our past, (wisely using the words “based on a true story”). The film depicts the “truth” more than the actual facts in the screenplay by Robert Eisele (specifically that they didn't debate at Harvard but another college), yet a historically accurate, though hollow narrative is much more likely to be forgettable.
The story is about the underdog, though ultimately victorious, debate team of small Wiley College in Texas led by Melvin B. Tolson in the 1930’s. As played by Denzel Washington he is an enigmatic taskmaster who accepts no excuses for laziness or a sloppy performance. He tells his team what they are up against from the beginning from both him, and the odds. Mr. Washington is the director, too, so it’s even more impressive that he plays the character with consistency since there had to be many distractions. His direction is steady and solid, if not flashy, but it suits the subject matter. The terrible circumstances or violence, even a lynching, is effective, but not overdone. Something he also does very well is cast actors—not surprising since he is one himself. (That also may be why there are a few too many extreme close-ups.) He has drawn excellent performances across the board, although, casting Forest Whitaker is not much of a risk. He plays Dr. James Farmer, Sr., the president of the college. He is especially moving in a scene where he accidentally hits and kills a pig on a country road and must maintain his composure as some local rednecks abuse and taunt him.
A standout among many good performances is Denzel Whitaker (not related to either Denzel Washington or Forest Whitaker) as James Farmer, Jr., the youngest on the debate team. He not only resembles Mr. Whitaker, but he is excellent at conveying the precocious, impatient teenager who wants to please his father, yet resents him for having to carefully navigate the racism around them. He is also good at projecting lovesick teenage longing for one of his debate teammates, Samantha Booke, played in a classy manner by Jurnee Smolette. She is the most notable woman in the film and is a kind of “pre-feminist” who by virtue of her intelligence (OK, and her beauty, too) commands attention. Nate Parker gives Henry Lowe, as the too-smart-for-his-own-good brilliant student some shading. Henry, who is too easily drawn to the dark side when the going gets tough, is often in danger of imploding, and probably would have if not for Tolson and the debate team. An astute performance by Jermaine Williams as Hamilton Burgess rounds out the debaters.
The struggles that we witness: the racism of the local sheriff, townspeople, other teams; the tough, distracted though empathetic educators; their own insecurities and emotions, are not so original they haven’t been seen before on screen. But the honesty of the performances, the commitment to tell the story of those who went on to lead the way for others, had me rooting for them all the way. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET |
SWEENEY TODD: DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET Rated R for graphic bloody violence. Crime/Thriller/Musical 117 minutes
4 stars |
The word that best describes Sweeney Todd, his fellow characters, and the dark nature/texture of this movie is found in the subtitle – “Demon” in the sense of a person tormented by the passions of love (declared, denied, delusional, obsessive, short term) and the torments it causes, and actions it compels, within and among the various characters. The result is full-blown tragedy (at times edging into melodrama). And don’t be fooled, despite ghoulish makeup, flashing razor blades, and a number of throat cuttings (with attendant blood spurting) this isn’t a traditional horror film. “Sweeney Todd” is well done/somber/dramatic and will primarily be of interest to fans of classic/classy musical theater (though, as usual, not the equal of the stage version).
The background – Benjamin Barker is a good, young barber (described as “naïve”) with a baby daughter and a beautiful wife who is lusted after by a corrupt judge. To gain her, the barrister frames Barker, sentences him to life in prison (in Australia), rapes his wife (most depicably, publicly at a masked ball), and adopts the child. Fifteen years later, after escaping, Barker returns for revenge rechristened Sweeney Todd. The rest of the movie elaborates the process whereby Sweeney becomes a cold blooded killer in his mostly failed attempts at revenge on those who did him wrong while Mrs. Lovett uses the bodies he generates to become a success as a purveyor of superb meat pies (talk about a secret ingredient). There’s some surprises and rightful comeuppances at the end and the songs are integrated and fitting in their purpose and place and overall song pretty well.
Todd is played by Johnny Depp who is, of course, believable as the single-minded-out-for-vengeance-wronged-man and the deeper he sinks into obsession, the more convincing he becomes. Abetting him is Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonahm Carter) adding humor and heart and pining for Todd as mastermind of the meat pie operation. Depp and Bonaham Carter are well suited and the gradations and evolution of their relationship is a convincing duet. The outright villains are Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman, able in a role lacking dimension) and his henchman Beadle (Timothy Spall, excellent in his few scenes). Most sympathetic is Toby (Ed Sanders, appealing and warm) as a battered child trying to make his way through a life stacked against him. Mention only of Lucy (Laura Michelle Kelly, all right in her bit part) and Pirelli (Sacha Baron Cohen, adequately over the top) both of whom pass through the movie. Mostly unimpressive is Jayne Wisener as Johanna but it’s more the underwriting of her part. This is the case, too, with Anthony, her lover/rescurer, who befriended Todd on the ship back to London, but in addition the actor Jamie Campbell Bower, is miscast as he is difficult to accept as a hardy, seasoned sailor, especially in the era of this movie.
Having mentioned the script, it’s by John Logan based on the musical by Stephen Sondheim and Hugh Wheeler and mostly follows the earlier work. On the other hand, cuts/compressions/alterations had to be made since the original is a good three hours. Unfortunately, as mentioned, the Johanna/Anthony romance suffers, now seeming more plot device than integral subplot. This is also true in a few other instances. Still, it’s not an easy job Logan had. Same with the music with songs shortened or eliminated, a shame, but necessary.
Overall, director Tim Burton has crafted a capable/admirable/thoughtful interpretation of Sweeney Todd that is distinctly his own and yet captures the essence of the work itself. Of special note, by the way, is the work of director of photography Darisuz Wolski in conveying, in black and white, the dour, depressed, surroundings of lower class London. And yeah, the blood looks even redder for the lack of color. And yeah, there’s more of it than is probably necessary.
In sum, if you’re a Sondheim fan this movie won’t match the original (nor a complete cast album) but you’ll likely want to check it out. For non-fans, it’s doubtful this film will convert you.
Sweeney Todd – Some distance from perfect, but a cut above average. Review by Charles Zio
BOOK OF SECRETS |
NATIONAL TREASURE: BOOK OF SECRETS Rated PG for some violence and action. Action/Adventure 124 minutes
3½ stars |
This movie has about as much action as you can cram into two hours of filmmaking. What it doesn’t have is subtlety. That’s not its main purpose though, so if you liked the first National Treasure movie you’ll likely be drawn to this one. The opening takes us back to the night Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. In present day, it seems Ben Gates’ (Nicholas Cage) great-grandfather, Thomas Gates, is accused of aiding Booth in the conspiracy to kill the president by Mitch Wilkinson (Ed Harris), who says he has a missing page from Booth’s diary to prove it.
This, of course, doesn’t go down well with either Ben or his father Patrick Gates (Jon Voight) who must now save the family name and honor. Ben’s ex-wife, Abigail, gets drawn into the plan as does the genius second banana, Riley Poole (Justin Bartha). Next, Ben’s mom Emily Appleton (Helen Mirren) gets pulled in to decipher ancient languages on objects that will lead to the treasure, because that’s what Wilkinson is really after, that’s right, the National Treasure that the Gates family will lead him to and get for him.
The characters are incredibly smart, figuring out information in seconds, then rushing off to Paris, London, Washington, DC or wherever. They’re not only smart, but know how to be stunt drivers in the narrow streets of Europe without killing someone. Oh, and they’re slippery, too, getting away from the FBI lead by Sadusky (Harvey Keitel), and finding a way to beat those Secret Service oafs and talk to the President of the United States alone without too much fuss.
The problem is that despite all the running around, most of this seems routine. Okay, now it’s time to put this one in danger, now it’s the time to figure out where this clue is located. There’s action, but not much suspense. I never believed for one minute this would end badly; who would escape, who wouldn’t. Unfortunately, the same feeling of déjà vu goes for the acting. This is a talented cast not given much to work with here because of the focus on action. We’ve seen Ed Harris and Harvey Keitel play similar characters numerous times. Helen Mirren injects some energy, but with so much going on, her role is limited. Still, audiences don’t go to action/adventure movies because they miss Hamlet, but some tension would have definitely made it more interesting. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR Rated R for strong language nudity/sexual content and some drug use. Biography/Drama 97 minutes
4 stars |
Charlie Wilson (Tom Hanks hitting every note) is the unlikeliest of political heroes, and that’s what makes this movie funny, ironic, and sad. Based on the book of the same name by George Crile, we first see Charlie in 1979 as a little known congressman from East Texas who is an unapologetic womanizer, drinker, and social glad-hander. Yet, there is something about Charlie that shows he really does care about America and people in general. He stops his laid back session in a hot tub long enough to watch Dan Rather on the TV news in Afghanistan wondering what’s going on there. Meanwhile, back at the all (sexy) female office it bothers him enough to ask his congressional aide (sweetly and smartly played by Amy Adams) to get more information.
Egged on by socialite Joanne Herring (Julia Roberts as you’ve never seen her), the sixth richest woman in Texas, and outrageous CIA agent Gust Avrakotas (Phillip Seymour Hoffman in yet another excellent performance) Charlie becomes the unlikely champion of the Afghanistan people in a covert operation to help in their fight to get rid of the Soviets after the invasion of the impoverished country. The Soviets kill and maim indiscriminately and the scenes of Charlie visiting a refugee camp (taken there by the Pakistani dictator) moves him to action. What they need are weapons, and Charlie maneuvers, finagles, bobs and weaves to get them for the Mujahedin. There is a sense of exhilaration when they are used successfully for the first time, and the balance of war begins to tip in their favor.
The screenplay by Aaron Sorkin crackles with smart lines delivered ably by the actors. It’s good to have director Mike Nichols back; he’s a great match for this project. He shows his mastery by not subjecting the audience to more than we need to see; the length of the film is more than adequate at a little over 90 minutes. The look of the film is first-rate all the way, even down to those awful oversize 1980s eyeglasses.
The “behind the scenes in the corridors of power” is fascinating, too. Do we ever leave high school behind, or is life only a greater extension of the politics that go on there? Initially Charlie gets along by going along because he’s from a district of constituents that don’t have many demands, but when he calls in his chips, lo and behold, he gets the back-up he needs for more and more money. Charlie succeeds but, unfortunately, we know the future—the Taliban and our own involvement in Afghanistan. Yet we can feel “good” that one man, even if flawed and not a powerhouse politician, can actually make a difference. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| JUNO Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material, sexual content and language. Comedy/Drama 92 minutes
4½ stars |
Juno is whimsical, entertaining, and delightful despite revolving around a pregnant, sixteen-year-old girl (from a broken home and school outsider to boot). Juno’s quirky/engaging/smart/sassy while the characters around her are appealing (and not strictly one-dimensional). There’s smiles and pleasures to be had, definitely, but the attempt at more serious/dramatic turns, after a consistently light tone (signaled by and following the opening cartoonish credits) fail to register as strongly as they might’ve had there been, at least, a hint of their arising later in the film. Still, there is much to enjoy.
First and foremost is Ellen Page who imbues Juno with irresistible charm and wit as she gives a performance of unerring naturalness/conviction. Here’s a character it’s fun to spend time with, not least because of her surprising comments, or verbal reactions, to all those with whom she interacts. Of course, leading that group is her boyfriend Bleeker (Michael Cera, capturing a shy/sympathetic nerd) and their scenes believably present the confusions/misinterpretations/miscommunications of teens working their way to maturity. Standing behind Juno are her father Mac (J.K. Simmons, warmly patient and kind) whose love is clearly evident beneath his flipness and her stepmother, Bren (Allison Janney, winning whether being empathetic or tart-tongued) who support her decision to give up the child. The chosen parents are the economically upscale Vanessa Loring (Jennifer Garner, touchingly sympathetic) and her husband Mark (Jason Bateman, skillfully conveying the good and bad facets of his character). Also most worthy of mention is Juno’s best pal Leah (OliviaThirbly, ably conveying a true friend through thick and thin).
Now, what’s terrific is every character gets “their moment” (when the actor has a chance to personally shine and don’t underestimate it as more than one Oscar’s been won by such) and none feels artificial but fully realized. Then, too, each of the characters rise above cliché, has dimension, positive and negative aspects and, further, not all of these traits are explicit, some are implied or suggested or hinted at without hitting the viewer over the head. Examples? So many this review would be citing the entire movie. Okay, a few: Cera’s pain at Juno’s careless comments; Mac’s father/daughter talk in the kitchen; Janney’s argument with the ultrasound technician; Garner speaking to Juno’s belly to get the baby to kick; Bateman’s admission of immaturity; Paulie’s being there over and over (through teasing) for Juno. And, yes, the entire performance of Ellen Page.
Naturally, what contributes to the actors shining in their scenes are the words and story contained in a script that’s intelligent, clever, and challenging. A script, in other words, that respects the viewer (hooray). Therefore, kudos for the work of Diablo Cody.
I guess this is as good a place as any to briefly express two reservations. To begin, there’s a breeziness in most of the film that maybe, perhaps, is a bit too casual about Juno’s situation. She is, let’s face it, a pregnant teen. To a large extent it almost seems like no big deal. Second, and as a result of the preceding, when more serious drama enters near the end of the film it is diluted because it does not match the light-hearted tenor established earlier. Some emotion does come through and the heart gets a tug, but to a lesser extent than could have been the case if the issues raised had been given a bit more gravity then they were. Anyhow, these criticisms do not negate the accomplishments of Juno which is a movie that doesn’t have one squirming for its end (and there are plenty enough of them!).
Finally, but not lastly, to Jason Reitman. He’s done a fine, quality job assembling (nifty production design by Steve Saklad), blending, and orchestrating (the music, by the way, is dandy) the elements to produce a satisfying and pleasing movie. I’m sure I’m not the only one who will be looking forward with expectations to his next project since, for the most part, Juno has been winningly realized.
Juno – The most delightful, adorable, sixteen-year-old of the year. Review by Charles Zio
| ATONEMENT Rated R for disturbing war images, language and some sexuality. Drama/Romance 130 minutes
4½ stars |
Guilt, forgiveness, atonement. We’re often told in today’s psychological lingo that we must “forgive” in order to free ourselves and move on, but there are times when no amount of amends can make up for an injustice that destroys lives. Such is the case in Atonement when a girl in the upper class English countryside before World War II makes a choice that changes everything. This is one of those sweeping English epics adapted from the well known book by Ian McEwan. Although the film can’t possible include all the nuances the book has time to communicate, it does a good job of bringing the theme to life through believable characters. Much of the credit for that goes to the screenwriter Christopher Hampton, and director Joe Wright.
Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan in an affecting performance) a bright, 13 year old aspiring writer, lives a privileged life, but boredom and jealousy cause her imagination to work overtime. She keenly observes her lovely older sister Cecelia (Kiera Knightly, perfectly cast), and the groundskeeper, Robbie Turner (James McAvoy, terrific as both the ardent lover, and wrongly accused). Robbie is the son of the housekeeper who Cecelia’s father has taken a liking to and sends to college. Why is he still working there if he has a degree? The attraction between he and Cecelia is palpable and Briony doesn’t miss it.
Robbie makes a move one night and expresses his feelings in a note (the wrong one which was to be discarded) to Cecelia and asks Briony to deliver it. She reads it, then watches the two of them in the library and may or may not misinterpret what she sees. When a 15 year old cousin who is staying with them is attacked that night, Briony makes the life changing accusation and Robbie is hauled off to jail. This part of the film focuses on the characters, relationships, setup; it is beautifully photographed showing the lush country in contrast to the vapid, empty lives of the rich and powerful before the war.
Cecelia, believing Robbie is innocent, leaves home and becomes a nurse. Briony, trying in some way to compensate for the damage she’s done, attends nursing school in London when she gets old enough, not far from where Cecelia is working. Here she tends the war wounded, and witnesses all the horrible sights and sounds of mutilated and/or dying soldiers. Robbie, meantime, is given the choice to either fight in the war or stay in jail. He decides to become a soldier and goes to France. There is one last awkward meeting between he and Cecelia before he leaves. The dialogue in the scene is sparse, but McAvoy beautifully conveys the psychic wounds he has incurred since being imprisoned.
The film is non-linear and can be somewhat confusing, but always rights itself. The character of Briony is played, as mentioned, by Saoirse Ronan as a 13 year old, Romola Garai as an 18 year old nursing student, and Vanessa Redgrave as the older Briony, a writer. The continuity is excellent, although the youngest Briony is the most appealing, yet also the most damning. The film does lose some steam when the war is center stage. Even though the scenes at Dunkirk are visually stunning, it keeps the viewer from what he/she really wants to know. The cinematography by Seamus McGarvey is exquisite; the music by Dario Marianelli is noteworthy, if a bit loud and intrusive at times. Atonement is a superbly told sad, sad story of “what might have been.” Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THE KITERUNNER Rated PG-13 for strong thematic material including the rape of a child, violence and brief stong language. Drama 122 minutes
4 stars |
The Kite Runner, based on the best-selling novel of the same name by Khaled Hosseini, is one man’s story of childhood betrayal, and the long, torturous road to redemption. The film apparently follows the book closely, and those who are waiting to see what’s been done with it will probably not be disappointed. Even if you haven’t read the book though, this film stands on its own.
As a boy in Afghanistan, Amir (Zekeria Ebrahimi) lives a carefree life. He goes to school, writes stories, and has servants. His best friend Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmidzada) in fact, is the son in the servant’s family. Although the boys are in different social classes, they are very close. Hassan is especially good at kite flying, and on one particular day they win a kite flying contest together in their town. This is also the same day that Hassan is attacked and raped. Amir knows what’s happening, but in moment of cowardice and betrayal he doesn’t come to Hassan’s defense.
When the Russians invade Afghanistan, Amir and his father Baba (an excellent Hormayorin Ershadi) escape. His father is a diplomat and has the means, and the need, to get out of the country. They eventually settle in California. They do not live an extravagant existence and the ailing Baba wants his son to be a doctor, but Amir has been a storyteller since childhood, encouraged by Hassan. Amir finds love and a wife, who also encourages his writing. He learns that his former friend Hassan, and his wife, have been killed defending his old home, and his son was taken to an orphanage. The Taliban controls Afghanistan at this point.
In an effort to right the wrong he did to Hassan, Amir decides he must go save his son. What follows is Amir’s journey of escape from his former country, the Taliban, and the disloyalty that has haunted him. It’s difficult at times to watch the brutality and cruelty that innocent people have to live with; what has become “normal” for them. We root for Amir and the child, so cruelly abused, and there is a catharsis for Amir as the man he has become grows in courage and stature.
There is a controversy about the rape scene, which is handled very delicately in the film. It is central to the story and nothing is shown, but the young actors had to leave Afghanistan because it was too dangerous for them to stay. Whatever the truth about decisions made by the filmmakers, the actors’ parents, and the result of those decisions, the film remains a powerful story of love, rescue, and redemption. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| I AM LEGEND Rated PG-13 Action/Drama/Sci-Fi/Horror 101 minutes
4 stars |
Apocalyptic literature, film, and in pop culture are all the rage. (It seems we have a very dim view of our future, some say not lasting past 2012.) But the classic novel, I Am Legend was written in 1954 by Richard Matheson. Other versions have been previously produced with lesser results. This adapted screenplay by Mark Protosevich and Akiva Goldsman, though, brings new elements that update and strengthen the storyline.
Dr. Robert Neville (Will Smith in a good turn) is the last man left in New York City, and earth? His loneliness and desperation are relieved only somewhat by Sam, the dog who accompanies him everywhere, and his daily routine which he keeps to the minute so he can keep himself going. He works in his laboratory trying to find the cure for the virus that has killed everyone or turned those who survived into horrific flesh-eating vampires.
The special effects are very good most of the time. Times Square is a broken-down disaster area where weeds grow up through cracks in the pavement in the middle of the road. Cars, buses, police vehicles are parked where they were three years before. Wild herds of deer run through the streets and are killed by larger marauding animals like lions. He enters stores and takes DVDs to watch at his home. He even goes into empty apartments and looks around. It’s safe during the day as the vampire-like creatures can’t take any kind of light. At night he locks up his home like a fortress.
One day he gets trapped and he and Sam almost get taken by the vampires. This has dire consequences. Robert is so distraught he goes to the pier at night in a suicidal gesture to kill as many of the pack of semi-humans as possible. He’s saved by an unexpected source.
The film is truly gripping and suspenseful, and frightening. You can tell from the gasps and remarks from the audience. There are twists that keep it interesting and surprising. Although there are some amusing moments, make no mistake, this is a dark film. I Am Legend does not feel claustrophic at all. Will Smith is believeable as a man trapped alone in a menacing world. One assertion the film brings home is how much of a social creature man is, and how pointless existence seems without someone there to share it. Yet (without revealing the ending) it does suggest that even in our most desperate hours, man can find a way to save himself and survive. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| I'M NOT THERE Rated R for language, some sexualityand nudity. Biography/Drama/Music 135 minutes
2 stars |
If ever there was a movie made to order for a Cinema Studies course, I'm Not There is IT. It's easy to imagine those with such a mindset sitting through repeated viewings (in whatever venue/format) to glean every single scrap of meaning/nuance/symbol and theme/technique/editing, etc., to be eagerly incorporated amongst themselves into earnest, long-term discussions/debates/critical papers, stretching without end. And also, amp up the pleasure (and signficances) for the Dylan disciples.
As for viewers with an interest in learning anything (or something more) about a seminal figure in our musical history - highly, highly doubtful.
To begin, everyone knows (don't they) Bob Dylan is enigmatic; a messy stew of contradictions. He alternates between representing himself as a prodigy/prophet and egotist/insecure/modest/ and troubled/everyman/genius and as being forced by media and fans to be some combination of the foregoing. Is he really misunderstood or merely speaking and behaving in a manner meant to convey such and, thereby, managing to preserve his privacy/inner being/self-identity? And what of the drugs, women, and incessant smoking? What of the booing (and betrayal perceived by some fans) when he went "electric"? What was the effect of his motorcycle accident? If there are any answers to the puzzle of Bob Dylan, they aren't clear and anyhow the viewer's likely lost, and devoid of interest, not far into the convolutions of the film.
Then again, how could it be otherwise? I'm Not There is the deeply felt and personal vision of director Todd Haynes who, in addition, coauthored the script with Oren Moverman (based, still further, on a story by Haynes himself). The viewer is told that Dylan is incredibly unique, in fact such a multiplicity of personalities, he must be portrayed by six different actors with separate names/histories/stories/relationships/time periods, not to mention variations in style. Haynes, abetted by the skillful photography of Edward Lachman, is precise and methodical in the compositions of each shot in the film, and it's for certain the Cinema Studies types will pour over every single one relentlessly for its obvious and hidden meaning. And mention is merited by two othes, Jay Rabinowitz, the editor, for doing his best to shuffle from one deck, as it were, to another, and production designer, Judy Becker, who ably captures a myriad of settings and backgrounds (again, all laden with consequence).
Skipping the jumble of character names (yet more fodder for the Studies folks), deserving of particluar mention is Cate Blanchett in a truly superb realization of Dylan, the man. The other five incarnations - Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Richard Gere, Ben Whishaw, Marcus Carl Franklin - acquit themselves well considering, given the nature of the film's setup, none is given enough screen time to fully register as much more than extended cameos.
Oh yeah, we hear some of Dylan's songs, and they confirm why he rightly had, and retains, a hold on us. Whether he was (or remains) an actual genius is a subjective call up to individual listeners and neither proved nor disproved by the movie. What's indisputable is his talent and his iconic status in the 60s. If you'd really like some insight into Mr. Zimmerman, definitely catch No Direction Home: Bob Dylan, Martin Scorsese's PBS documentary (an informative gem).
I'm Not There - Nope, it doesn't make the hit parade. Review by Charles Zio
| THE SAVAGES Rated R for some sexuality and language. Comedy/Drama 113 minutes
3 stars |
Despite its title, The Savages is a gently told tale of a situation many have or will, one day, confront - the dilemma of grown children faced with an elderly parent losing the ability (physical and/or mental) to live independently. It’s a familiar tale and while the father here was a source of more harm than good in the past, the vignettes comprising the film are telling/touching/true. For those willing to take a leisurely journey, there is reward in the end.
Wendy Savage (Laura Linney, superlative, no surprise) is a middle-aged, would-be playwright, living in New York City and attemping to pay the rent to her married landlord with whom she is having an affair. In short, she is restless, unhappy, in a rut. As is her brother Joe (Philip Seymour Hoffman, superb, again, no surprise), a drama professor based in Buffalo, working on a book about Brecht, who has just broken up with his Polish girlfriend. Into their personally depressed and stressed lives comes news their father Lenny (a terrible parent who gifted his children with psychic scars) currently residing in Sun City, Arizona, must find a new home due to increasing dementia. Luckily, Lenny is portrayed by Philip Bosco in a finely calibrated performance alternately eliciting from his offspring (and the viewer) sympathy or irritation. That he must go into a nursing facility is inevitable though Wendy responds with guilty emotionalism while Joe is coolly, if not coldly, pragmatic.
A cornerstone of films centered around a family is the ability to convince the viewer to accept as real a kinship which doesn’t, in fact, exist (yes, some families, like Fondas or Hustons, have played together). In the case of Linney and Hoffman, never for a minute do you doubt they’re sister and brother so comfortable/warm/supportive/familiar/teasing is every interaction between them. Whether verbally (both are quick witted) or with any sort of glance it’s evident these two share a history, thoughts and feelings. By contrast, there’s rarely a sense of connection between Wendy or Joe and Lenny, even when they go through the motions. For instance, Wendy will kiss her father, but it’s always on the forehead, never more affectionately the cheek. For his part, Lenny doesn’t care to have his children argue or squabble, though such a reaction might be likely in a stressful situation. A recognition of some sort of his failures at upbringing, with the normal parental dislike of one’s children fighting? At the least it hints at underlying dynamics.
And Tamara Jenkins, in her writer’s hat, has fashioned a knowing, sharply observed (and often funny) script. Wendy and Joe are articulate and intelligent and not the easiest people (ask their lovers). But, they aren’t explosive or vindictive, nor is their anger actually more than personal frustration. Realizations accumulate quietly and over time and while the resolutions are too pat (and a few stumbles/cliches in plot device) it’s refreshing, for a change, to observe two decent people moving in a self-fulfilling direction. With her director’s hat, Jenkins establishes a deliberate pace lending weight to each scene and this works for the first half of the film, after which a certain predictability sets in. Still, Jenkins, and her techs, offer a respectable and polished movie that will insult no one’s intelligence.
The Savages – Tame (though thoughtful) and tasty (if only half a meal). Review by Charles Zio
| ENCHANTED PG for some scary images and mild innuendo. Animation/Adventure/Comedy/ Family/Fantasy/Musical/Romance 107 minutes
4½ stars |
Enchanted is campy, corny, charming, and delightful. You have to hand it to Disney. The movie has just enough edginess mixed in with the fairy tale references to keep both kids and adults having fun. How do I know? I saw it with an audience. Both parents and children were laughing and enjoying themselves; when it was over there was applause. One 7 or 8 year old boy behind me said, “That was awesome!” You can’t pre-program that.
The film begins with credits and the first several minutes of the movie in typical Disney animation style. A pretty young woman, Giselle (Amy Adams), is waiting for her first “true love’s kiss.” While she waits in her cottage, her animal friends keep her company and help her clean the little home. One day Prince Edward (James Marsden) hears her sing and decides he is his love. They ride off to his kingdom to get married and meet his evil stepmother, Queen Narissa (Susan Sarandon), who wants to get rid of Giselle and secure her throne. So, she merely pushes Giselle down a long well.
Giselle, now a “real” person in her huge white wedding gown and big hair, comes up from under the street into, of all places, Times Square at night. This is where the movie really gets to be entertaining because the innocent, sweet Giselle has to deal with the reality of the Big Apple. Sure people look at her as though she’s odd, but that’s nothing new in New York where the tolerance is quite high for unusual sights and sounds.
As Giselle climbs up a building trying to get into an advertisement (that’s right) that looks like a castle, she is spotted by Morgan (Rachel Covey), who insists her father, Robert (Patrick Dempsey), a divorce lawyer, help Giselle before she falls and gets hurt. He does save her from a second story plunge and the story begins in earnest. Of course, she spends the night at their apartment having no where else to go. The next day she angers Robert when she makes a dress out of their curtains, and unknowingly threatens to destroy his relationship with his fiancée.
What’s fun for the audience are all the fairy tale references. Giselle has such concrete thinking, she is exactly like a child in the grown-up world. It isn’t difficult to buy into the silliness because at heart we’re all children and want happily ever after.
Amy Adams couldn’t be more perfect for the role. She has just the right mix of beauty, purity, and guilelessness; that’s not easy to pull off. Patrick Dempsey also does a wonderful job looking bewildered, annoyed, and charmed by Giselle, all at the same time. Rachel Covey is one of the more natural child actors out there this season. James Marsden is a hoot as the cartoonish Prince. Adding more silly humor is Timothy Spall as Nathaniel, agent of the evil queen. Speaking of which, and witch, Susan Sarandon chews up the scenery having a grand time playing the evil stepmother.
The film loses a bit of steam at the end when there is a chase involving a dragon that ends rather abruptly, but this Disney movie cleverly satirizes its own fairy tale tradition and doing so provides an enchanting romp for all. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
FOR OLD MEN |
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN Rated R for strong graphic violence and some language Crime/Drama/Thriller 122 minutes
5 stars
|
In No Country For Old Men the Coen Brothers, Joel and Ethan, deliver a movie of economic beauty. That is, the elements are presented simply, cleanly, and with a focus on essentials resulting in a film of more insight, impact, and power than the usual run. Even the acts of violence (of which there’s a goodly amount), are not exaggerated or prolonged or emphasized. They occur (as they must given the nature of the story), there is blood, and life moves on.
If anyone is aware there’s no respite from human evil (or is it “madness”) it's Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, following the family profession in Texas, who is embodied completely by Tommy Lee Jones (in gesture, demeanor, world weariness, wisdom, you name it, in a peak performance). Quickly pegged by Bell (who innately spots clues/evidence) as involved in some way with a botched drug deal is Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin, fully realizing every nuance), a schemer who, having happened on $2 million dollars, steals it in the over confident belief he’s tough enough (a Vietnam Vet, this being the 80s) and smart enough (well, resourceful at least) to outmaneuver the owners (never clearly identified, but not of prime importance). Proving Moss has made a huge miscalculation is Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem, gripping in his lack of humanity) a relentless, no-second-thoughts killer.
What a trio – law vs. lawless, ethics vs. amorality, courage vs. foolhardy, violence vs. restraint, truth vs. fabrication - and so on and on with enough mixing and matching of action/reaction/motive to keep one engrossed and involved.
Of note, and overarching the specifics, is the transformation of society. The once unsullied bounty of nature has been converted into illicit drugs, the sweeping majesty of the wide, open spaces despoiled by blood (not in a hunt for sustenance but out of greed), even man’s best friend has been perverted into a tool of enforcement/oppression. More ominous still, violent death has become unbounded occurring on country or suburban roads, city streets, in and around stores, motels/hotels, homes, in short everywhere, meaning there isn’t any escape, any safe haven. This ubiquity of violence is illustrated in the duel between the fleeing Moss and the pursuing Chigurh wherein the innocent are casually used and often laid waste without a second thought by either man (yeah, Chigurh’s the actual killing machine yet hasn’t Moss’ theft set off his rival's chain of executions). We may yearn for a protective border but it’s evident we remain vulnerable.
Sheriff Bell is particularly aware of the changing, increasingly irrational present and can even assign the pivot point to that moment when the word “sir” went out of use followed, as the years have gone by, with his hope of drifting into old age in the basically sane, ordered world of his grandfather and father. Or is Bell misremembering or misunderstanding the past/present/future? And/or don’t forget the movie’s title (it’s most fitting).
By the way, Joel and Ethan Coen, plus directing, are also credited with the fine script based on Cormac McCarthy’s book (and he’s no slouch) as well as the editing under their pseudonym Roderick Jaynes. Both the excellent photography by Roger Deakins and production design by Jess Gonchor are letter perfect in every respect. To be saluted, too, are all the actors, each so spot-on as to seem to have merely drifted inadvertently and accidentally onto the location.
No Country For Old Men is a triumph. Coen Brothers – Bravo! Review by Charles Zio
YOUTH |
YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH Rated R for some sexuality, nudity and a brief disturbing image. Drama/Romance 124 minutes
2 stars |
Claptrap. Now and hereafter this word will refer to a movie, like Youth Without Youth that’s pretentious/self-important/self-involved and avers lengthily/repeatedly/incomprehensibly how serious it is as it delivers a “lesson” and/or “message” (maybe more than one) deemed important by a filmmaker, often Writer/Director or even Producer/Director/Writer. The later is the case here in the person of Francis Ford Coppola and it’s doubtful most viewers will be pleased with his return (after a decade).
How to describe this muddle? It’s 1938 Romania and Dominic Matei (Tim Roth, in full awareness of his character but not sharing the knowledge with the audience) is an elderly man haunted by Laura, a long lost love of his youth, and his failure to complete his sole book (being a professor of linguists) on the first primitive origins of human language. Crossing a street (enroute to suicide) he is struck by lightning. What follows is open to interpretation. He’s dead. He’s reliving his past in a coma. He’s dreaming. He’s reborn. This last takes the lead with Dominic emerging from a head-to-foot bandage half his age (physically 35, with new teeth even). And there’s more. He now has an identical spiritual double (a colder, more pragmatic self) with whom he converses. Under the care of Professor Stanciulescu (Bruno Ganz, injecting much needed friendliness and warmth), Dominic recovers and is shielded from the increasingly powerful Nazis who want to kidnap him in the crazy belief that lightning strikes might be the avenue to superior beings. Escaping to Switzerland, Matei assumes an alias and develops magic abilities (he can absorb the entire contents of a book by holding a self-illuminating hand over it) and uncannily accurate prophetic ability (like atomic weapons and the very future of mankind). Plus, there’s an offer of assistance from an unidentified American operative (Matt Damon, visiting from another set or trading off for a few cases of Coppola’s wine?) and a close call from a Nazi in an alleyway.
But, the big narrative twist is the appearance of a younger, reincarnated Laura, now young and named Veronica (Alexendra Maria Lara, alternating subdued and overwrought) who apparently, it seems, is hit by lightning and surviving begins recalling a former life (further than the departed Laura) as Rupini in northern India. Of course, Dominic speaks her native language (in fact, every known and unknown language) and after they escape to a seaside villa, she continues to regress deeper and deeper into the past (often after he’s told her he loves her, romantic, huh). Then, just on the verge of the first, human tongue, Dominic stops the procedure because (the proof’s in the mirror), Veronica is aging via the procedure. And no, I haven’t given away the end of the movie for those who might have any curiosity left. Let’s just say, it’s more or less of the same.
As cited above, Coppola is the writer having adapted a work by Mircea Eliade, a Romanian religious historian. To say it’s chock-a-block with ideas and concepts and mysticism and philosophy and surrealism, not to mention a few odd camera angles (amid some nice photography), does not answer the how, the why, or the metaphorical appeal of Youth Without Youth for Francis Ford. Of course, he is a movie legend so his film is undeniably professional in its technical aspects. But the contents make for a very, very, very long two hours and four minutes.
Youth Without Youth – A movie mostly without entertainment value. Review by Charles Zio
THE DEWEY COX STORY |
WALK HARD: THE DEWEY COX STORY Rated R for sexual content, graphic nudity, drug use and language. Comedy/Satire 96 minutes
2½ stars |
This satirical “biography” is sometimes funny, often crude, and way too long even at 96 minutes. A take-off on the self-reverential biographies of music stars, the movie most notably skewers country singer Johnny Cash. Whether the mockery is open season or mean-spirited depends on your point of view.
The main reason to see this movie if you’re inclined toward enjoying satire is John C. Reilly. He plays the main character Dewey Cox as he rises from obscurity as a teenager, to the height of fame, then the big fall from grace, right to old age. The movie does have some laughs, but also some groans. The main problem is that once you get the premise, the jokes become more like skits strung together. It does take swipes at entertainers and the greedy or helpful behind the scenes people who either hurt or support the star by providing drugs/women, etc., to keep him/her happy. My personal favorite is when Dewey Cox is passing through the 60s and sings like Dylan (or as he says, “Does Dylan sing like me?). Then he goes to India to see the Maharishi and meets with the Beatles, cast hilariously, with Jack Black as Paul McCartney, Paul Rudd as John Lennon, Justin Long as George Harrison, and Jason Schwartzman as Ringo Starr.
John C. Reilly can actually sing, though, and it’s his talent that really makes this movie go as far as it does. Jenna Fischer is good as the June Carter Cash-like character, Darlene Madison. This film, however, is a miscalculation. If it wasn’t so close to the real stories satirizing talented people who had flaws and made mistakes, I might have found it more enjoyable. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| P.S. I LOVE YOU
Rated PG-13 for sexual references and brief nudity. Comedy/Drama/Romance 126 minutes
3 stars |
A little fantasy goes a long way in this movie. Don’t expect logic, because this is about feelings. On that score it tugs at the heartstrings because of lost love. Who hasn’t experienced that? Adapted from the novel by Cecelia Ahern, Frank LaGravenese and Steven Rogers do what they can to add cinematic interest and some humor to a basically slim story. But the film is manipulative, sometimes to the extreme. What it has going for it are some of the actors, especially Kathy Bates, who brings, as always and in particular, a believability factor.
Holly Kennedy (Hilary Swank, looser than I’ve ever seen her), is married to Gerry (Gerard Butler, presented here as a handsome, all-knowing overgrown leprechaun). They have a passionate relationship that endures their “meet cute” in Ireland. Gerry, though, dies of a brain tumor, leaving Holly devastated. What he has left her are ten letters meant to instruct her on how to get on with her life. Sections labeled “spring” “winter” and so on show her “growth” as she tries to move past the loss of the great love of her life.
She has some help in the way of family and friends. Kathy Bates plays mom, the pragmatic type who sees Gerry as a party boy whose basic premise of life is “don’t worry, be happy” because somehow he has the insight to know everything will work out in the end. Lisa Kudrow, who can still make the most of her lines, plays Denise Hennessey as a reincarnation of her character on Friends. Gina Gershon, her married friend Sharon McCarthy, is wasted here. But I will say, all three male leads are great to look at: Gerard Butler, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and Harry Connick, Jr.
This isn’t so much a romantic comedy as a wish for the perfect Irish fantasy man/husband. What’s missing in the movie is reality. So if you want a little romantic escape, PS I Love You is fine, just don’t expect common sense, logic, or any real pearls of wisdom. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THE MIST Rated R for violence, terror and gore, and language. Drama/Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller 127 minutes
3½ stars |
It’s scary enough, but there are a few holes in The Mist. And it’s too bad, too, because Frank Darabont who wrote the screenplay from Stephen King’s novel, is a good interpreter of his work. It starts out promisingly as an artist, David (Thomas Jane, mostly good in the lead) puts a few last touches on his painting. A wind whips up and a large tree comes crashing through the picture window destroying the painting. The day after the storm that caused the damage, he makes temporary peace with his testy neighbor, Brent Norman (Andre Braugher, playing an angry man well), and they go with David’s young son, Billy (Nathan Gamble) to the grocery store to get some supplies. Before they leave they see a mist settling over the water.
As they get to the store, they hear strange noises and before long, the Mist covers the parking lot. That’s when the terror sets in, a man, Dan Miller (Jeffrey DeMunn in a good character turn) runs into the store bloodied from something that attacked him he couldn’t see through the Mist. The realization hits them that they are only safe if they stay indoors.
Stephen King always provides social commentary with his stories. So here we have a variety of characters: the artist who keeps his head and is a leader, the store clerk who has common sense, the uneducated workmen who only believe what they can see, the pretty store clerk who is insecure but in love with a soldier she’s known since high school, the soldiers who know more than they’re saying, the crazy religious extremist who says she can tell what’s going to happen next. What we get is a microcosm in the store. Some people facing death are noble, others are cowards, some are followers, still others grab any power they can, some try to find solutions and others just give up. The acting is overdone at times, but Frances Sternhagen, William Sadler, Alexa Davalos, Laurie Holden, Toby Jones, and particularly Marcia Gay Harden give solid performances.
To give up the secrets of The Mist is tempting because it’s part of the problem, but let me just say some of the “things” that come out of the Mist are not the best CG I’ve ever seen. It took me out of the story, and that’s never a good thing for a movie. Some people were even laughing behind me. There is also a problem when the characters know there are menacing things that can kill them, and scene after scene they stand and stare rather than run. I can buy it once or twice that people are so afraid they become paralyzed, but not more than that. Also, there is a twist at the end that is rather abrupt, especially because the film itself is too long at just over two hours. The Mist isn’t bad, it’s a let down. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| BEOWULF Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence including disturbing images, some sexual material and nudity. Animation / Adventure / Drama / Fantasy 113 minutes
3½ stars |
Based on the ancient epic poem, Beowulf is the legend of a hero who kills the monster Grendle and becomes a king in Scandanavia. It will probably not make purists happy. But hey, this is the movies folks!
This is another stop motion animation project from Robert Zemeckis. It’s a kind of strange hybrid, something between animation and live action acting. The actors who voice the characters are rendered in animation and often “enhanced.” They can be made gorgeous or ugly. As you might or might not expect, the movement is less than natural. When it comes to non-humans, the action comes swift and furious.
The 3-D animation version of Beowulf is definitely the one worth seeing. If you can’t find a theatre that offers it, it takes away an important element from the visual experience. People and objects appear as if directly in front of you. Sometimes, objects like spears seem to be coming at your face. It definitely holds your attention.
As far as the story itself, there are liberties taken with the epic. Beowulf (voiced by Ray Winstone), a fierce and proud warrior not above stretching the truth, comes to rid the Danish of the hideous monster Grendle, who munches on King Hrothgar’s (voiced by Anthony Hopkins), subjects at will, especially when they’re singing and having too much fun. On his arrival he meets Hrothgar’s wife, the beautiful Wealthow (voiced by Robin Wright Penn), and the attraction is immediate and mutual.
Beowulf’s second in command, the loyal Wiglaf (voiced by Brendan Gleeson), helps him plan Grendle’s demise. If he does slay the monster, Hrothgar has promised him Wealhtow as his wife, on his death. Of course he kills Grendle, but then the story takes a sharp turn not in the original epic. Beowulf goes to kill Grendle’s vengeful mother, voiced by Angelina Jolie. The mother of all mother monsters, she changes form to appeal to the, ahem, more base instincts of Beowulf. They have made the stop motion animation of Ms. Jolie very sexy with no clothes except for gold dripping on her body covering the pertinent areas, and long braid whipping around like a tail. Isn’t it interesting that of all things they have invented, it’s the evil, sexy, seductive woman?
As time passes, Beowulf becomes ashamed of his actions and has to live with the consequences. Wealthow is his wife, but there is a great strain between them. But the older Beowulf does have an epic battle with a dragon to save his kingdom just as things are slowing down. Something to consider is that the movie is extremely violent, but maybe because it's animation, and an ancient story, the flmmakers feel free to go full out.
See this in 3-D if at all possible. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
OF CHOLERA |
LOVE IN THE TIME OF CHOLERA Rated R for sexual content/nudity and brief language. Drama/Romance 138 minutes
3 stars
|
This film is based on Gabriel Garcia Marquez’ beloved novel “El Amor En Los Tiempos Del Cólera” published in 1985. The title alone tells you it’s going to be a challenge. This is not a mere “romance novel.” This is a sweeping story with large themes about the meaning of love. The novel takes place roughly from 1880-1930ish.
A young telegraph operator in Cartagena, Columbia, Florentino Ariza (Javier Bardem), delivers a telegram one day and takes one look at the daughter of the house, Femina Daza (Giovanna Mezzagiorno) and immediately falls in love with her for life. Florentino is a dreamy, sensitive, illegitimate young man, who lives with his overprotective mother Tránsito (Fernanda Montenegro). Femina lives with her father Lorenzo Daza (John Leguizamo), a coarse man, who is determined that she will marry well.
Florentino and Femina correspond through romantic adolescent love letters until Lorenzo finds out and takes Femina to the mountains to get her away from Florentino. On her return many months later she rejects him, which sets up the rest of the story. As Florentino suffers with unrequited love, swearing his fidelity to her, Femina marries Dr. Juvenal Urbano (Benjamin Bratt), a kind, but decidedly less romantic man.
As Femina goes on to the privileged life of a doctor’s wife, Florentino suffers for love of her. One day, though, he’s introduced to sex in an odd encounter, and finds that this is the answer to dealing with the pain of losing Femina. Over the course of fifty years he has 600 plus affairs, which he diligently documents. We only get to see a few of them, with the tragic consequences of one.
Javier Bardem does his best to help us understand the odd Florentino, even giving him an unusual gait and stooped over walk as he gets older. It’s not clear why so many women find him irresistible, although he explains to one who asks it’s because he isn’t threatening to them (I’m guessing this means he doesn’t demand anything of them). Other notable performances: Benjamin Bratt as Dr. Urbano, Hector Elizondo as Florentino’s uncle, Don Leo. Giovanna Mezzagiorno, the Italian actress who plays Femina, has an ethereal beauty, and does an adequate job of being Florentino’s love object.
The screenwriter, Ronald Harwood, had an extremely difficult job trying to condense this novel and convert it to the screen while being true to the author’s intent and maintaining the complex themes. It’s impossible to know if his choices, emphasizing some things, minimizing others, or the director Mike Newell’s decisions, account for the lack of passion in so passionate a story. I didn’t find myself fully involved or liking either Florentino or Femina, (and didn’t understand the motivation of some of the secondary characters). Both Florentino and Femina are self-involved, and selfish. When there is finally an opportunity for them to have a chance at love, it seems anti-climatic. What have we learned from this film? Is love a disease, as the title may suggest? Are those obsessed with an unrequited love more fully alive than the rest of us? There is lots of sex and bare breasts, but the nobility of suffering for love seems lost. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| SOUTHLAND TALES Rated R for language, violence, sexual material and some drug content. Comedy/Drama/Sci-Fi 144 minutes
3 stars
|
Put together offbeat, kooky, underground, political (incorrect and on the left), apocalypse, and other random and assorted references (sly, subtle, and overdone) and you’ve got Southland Tales which, should you be willing to go with the flow (that is, not bothered by an overly complex and convoluted narrative), will offer some pleasures (chief among them a game cast). There’s no doubt writer/director Richard Kelly has ideas and darn if he doesn’t seem determined to include all of them resulting, given the nature of his film, in a patience-testing 144 minutes.
The opening here is straightforward – a party of some sort in Abilene, Texas, is interrupted by a nuclear explosion in the distance. This is followed by a voice over (with quotes from Revelation) by Private Pilot Abilene (Justin Timberlake, effective in the various nuances of his character) that is way, way long and a tip off what follows will likely be too involved/twisty/tangled. But, in brief, the bombing was a terrorist attack leading to the reinstatement of the draft, World War III (Iraq, Iran, Syria, North Korea), and, for security purposes, government seizure of the internet (with attendant surveillance of the populace) along with other measures (like separating the individual states with border guards and restriction of movement). The foregoing, by the way, is not set in some distant future but next year (yes, 2008) with the presidential election in full swing (between Clinton and Elliot?) and implying Republicans are intent on insuring California (in play it’s stated) will be won by their candidate. Opposing the government (firmly in GOP hands according to a chart) are the neo-Marxists, a mixture of hippies-civil rights advocates-libertarians. Another bit of plotting involves a crazed scientist who, to alleviate the shortage of fuel (from the battered Middle East and shrinking alternative sources), has developed an endless source of power derived from the ocean (Fluid Karma it’s intriguingly called). And as if the foregoing wasn’t enough, toss in world domination, sexual liberation, time travel, kidnaps, murders, and double-crosses galore.
But, let’s give some space to the able cast (who it’s evident are having a lark). The central character is Boxer Santaros (played by Dwayne Johnson earning the right to move beyond use of his former wrestling moniker by convincingly conveying confusion/vulnerability/weakness despite his imposing physical presence) as an actor who has awakened with amnesia. He’s been rescued by Krysta Now (Sarah Michelle Gellar, a lovely amalgam of clever/naïve/sultry) a porn star (with a cable show of course) with whom he’s coauthored an end-of-the-world screenplay (in which he intends to star and that’s prophetic of what’s happening in the movie itself!) who has captured him on video for purposes of blackmail. As research for his movie role, Boxer goes patrolling with Roland Taverner, twin brother of Ronald (Seann William Scott, believably topnotch as both) whose actually an Iraq war vet suffering post traumatic syndrome from a friendly fire incident in Fullujah.
Okay, no more plot (!) - which you’ll find yourself repeating on more than one occasion. But, to drop just a few names (from among a uniformly terrific set of performances) - Mandy Moore, Curtis Armstrong, Nora Dunn, Christopher Lambert, John Larroquette, Bai Ling, Jon Lovitz, Cheri Oteri, Amy Poehler, Wallace Shawn, and Kevin Smith. Further nods to Steven Poster for his photographer, Sam Bauer for his editing, and Alexander Hammond for production design.
Richard Kelly’s misstep with Southland Tales is over-ambition, a lack of self-discipline, and being too clever by half. On the other hand, if you’re willing, the movie is interesting and involving. For awhile. Next time, and Kelly’s shown he’s got the talent, let’s hope it works all the way through. Review by Charles Zio
| BELLA Rated PG-13 for thematic elements and disturbing images. Drama 91 minutes
4 stars |
The buzz on Bella is good, and it turns out to be right. This small movie is well worth seeing. At a time when most big studio films are not getting to audiences emotionally, Bella does exactly that. A lean 91 minutes, the movie moves slowly and sometimes too deliberately, but the emotional pay off is there.
Jose (Eduardo Verástegui), a charismatic soccer player is on his way to an interview in his shiny, expensive car. Fast forward to Jose in beard and scraggly hair working as a chef in his brother Manny’s (Manny Perez) restaurant. What happened that he ended up there? Short/quick flashbacks are shown until we come to a full realization of Jose’s painful situation. Meantime, one of the waitresses in the restaurant, Nina (Tammy Blanchard) is late again for work. Manny, a real taskmaster, fires her. Jose goes after her and finds out she’s pregnant. Nina’s dilemma concerning the pregnancy is the heart of the movie. Over the course of a day, we come to know and care about both Nina and Jose, and the difficult choice Nina must make.
The screenplay by Alejandro Gomez Monteverde and Patrick Million, although sentimental at times, does not dissolve into schmaltz. Director Monteverde keeps the film uncluttered for the most part. The casting is well done. It doesn’t hurt that Eduardo Verástegui is handsome, and can act, but down playing the hunk factor makes him that much more attractive. Tammy Blanchard is believable as the sad, hard luck waitress with no where to go and no one to turn to. The rest of Jose’s warm family played by: Angélica Aragón as his mother, Jaime Tirelli as his father, and Ramon Rodriguez as yet another brother are likable and supportive of him, and one of the best looking families on screen this year.
The New York locations truthfully reflect the city’s various locales. The cinematography by Andrew Cadelago, and the editing by Joseph Gutowski and Fernando Villena are noteworthy.
It would be too bad if this film is politicized by either side of the abortion issue because it’s about so much more than just that. Both Jose and Nina have deep wounds, but Nina, as a young woman alone, has no resources and no one to help her. Unfortunately, too many women find themselves is just such a predicament. The movie gives no easy answers, and by doing so avoids a false ending---but bring tissues, because if you have any kind of heart, you'll need them. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| AUGUST RUSH Rated PG for some thematic elements, mild violence and language. Drama / Music 99 minutes (approx)
3 stars |
There is a shortage of realism in “August Rush.” Aside from some nicely photographed New York exteriors (John Mathieson, cinematographer), it’s primarily (if not almost entirely) a fairy tale. And sweet, almost achingly.
Evan Taylor (Freddie Highmore, with his natural appeal) is an orphan who hears music everywhere and believes it’ll be the medium through which he will find his long lost parents. Who are themselves – surprise – musicians. Father is Louis Connelly (Jonathan Rhys Meyers, suffering nobly) an Irish rock singer/songwriter guitarist. Mother is Lyla Novacek (Keri Russell, primarily insecure and/or sad) a concert cellist. One night, eleven years ago, beneath a full moon (what else?), they meet, barely speak, and immediately conceive Evan. To continue the plot clichés (or absurdities), Lyla is driven away (literally) from Louis by her own father and makes no attempt to find or contact her true love during the next nine months, as tortured Louis (with nothing left but a morning after picture) quits the band, goes to San Francisco, and eventually becomes a successful businessman. After a car accident (yeah, sure), Lyla delivers but her father states the baby has died while, in fact, he has forged his daughter’s name and surrendered the infant to state services.
But back to Evan. In the youth facility he is menaced (not to worry since none of the dangers he faces are remotely intimidating or convincing) and meets the sympathetic new caseworker, Richard Jeffries (Terrence Howard, as usual more than believable). Anyway, Evan just wanders off (so much for security at the facility) and arrives in New York where he is delighted and mesmerized by the music of the city (e.g., car noises, blowing plastic bags, roller skates, that he alone seems to appreciate). However, he soon becomes disorientated by the scale/impersonality of the metropolis and is rescued by a young street musician who (here we go) is akin to The Artful Dodger and brings him “home” to a large, abandoned theater (with NYC real estate prices?) under the domain of Fagin, oops, Wizard (Robin Williams, mugging under control and more than bearable).
Can’t get more unrealistic? Well, it turns out that Evan is a prodigy and can pick up any instrument and master it almost instantly (and why not given his parental genes and the wonder of their union). Wizard senses a gold mine and renames his charge August Rush which, frankly, is merely a device to keep the movie going by preventing Evan’s discovery after a police raid on Wizard’s hideout leading to Evan/August seeking refuge in a Harlem church, his picking up the piano (like a Mozart), followed by the reverend getting him into Julliard where he excels and quickly composes a concert chosen to be performed in Central Park (is this kid brilliant or what).
Let’s cut to the chase (because the improbabilities are endless). Lyla and Louis end up in New York and in Central Park for Evan’s concert. Music! Reunion of lovers! Reunion with son! A tear or two, maybe, if you’re very easily touched. The screenplay (such as it is) was penned by Nick Castle and James V. Hart. Kirsten Sheridan is the director and that one doesn’t completely gag on the high sugar level is a tiny victory. It would have been far better, and more palatable, if the film had gone all out and over-the-top in fairy tale mode saving it from feeling like a well-made Saturday night movie on a cable channel. Okay, I can’t resist, “August Rush” is a “November Bore." Review by Charles Zio
| THE GOLDEN COMPASS Rated PG-13 for sequences of fantasy violence. Action/Adventure/Fantasy/Drama 113 minutes
3 stars |
If you’ve read the book, you’ll find the movie familiar and easier to follow. If not, you’ll wish you had even, if only, to make sense of it all. In either case, there’s a big problem – The Golden Compass is a chilly, distancing, aloof tale. To such a degree, in fact, that during the climactic battle there’s less call for cheering than preparing to leave surmising (correctly) all that’s left are scraps of dialogue to acknowledge a sequel.
The Golden Compass is set in a parallel world (one of a myriad to ours) somewhat Victorian with its class distinctions – in dress/speech/attitude and differences in grandiose institutional buildings/lavish interiors with dark working class towns/blue collar professions – overlaid with what might be the imaginings of, say, an Edwardian science fiction writer – airborne boats, peddle bikes with gyroscopes, swift zeppelins. The most incredible facet of this society is the outward soul, a daemon, manifested as a thinking/feeling/speaking animal accompanying every human and functioning as confidante/advisor/physical extension. Other fantastical elements include witches, verbal/armored polar bears, and, obviously, the Golden Compass itself that speaks the “truth” to whomever can master how to ask it a question/read the answer.
And who should have this ability but the young, pre-teen heroine Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards, natural and believable), an orphaned niece of Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig, heroic and dashing) being raised and educated (with some difficulty) at his request at Jordan College (Oxford-like). She’s daring/fearless/resourceful and her best friend is Roger (Ben Walker, unaffectedly appealing) son of a Gyptian (sailor/trader). Onto the grounds comes Mrs. Coulter (Nicole Kidman, alternately seductive and cruel) who asks Lyra to travel north with her as an assistant. The Master of Jordan College (Jack Shepherd, suitably academic) cannot refuse but before her departure he gifts Lyra (warning her to keep it secret) with her uncle’s Golden Compass, the last one in existence and much sought after by the Magisterium.
And now, briefly, the religious controversy. Philip Pullman, author of the “His Dark Materials” trilogy (The Golden Compass being the first) is an atheist and whatever defense/justification/explanation/rationalization he, or anyone, offers it’s clear “The Church” is the villain, oppressive/ruthless and bent on maintaining/expanding its power/dominance/rule. On the other hand, despite denunciations by some, the movie is not explicit about “who” the Magisterium (yes, it has a Catholic connotation) actually might be. Still, the semi-ecclesiastical symbols/vestments/demeanor leave little doubt a religious organization of some sort is intended. Thus, as so often, judgment lies in the eye of the beholder. As for young viewers, let’s give them some credit for sophistication, like how many became wizards because of Harry Potter? And, if there be confusion/misunderstanding, well what a great opportunity for discussion/instruction. Thinking never hurts.
Okay, back to the chase, and a chase is on – for Lord Asriel looking for a doorway to another world from which “dust” (magical, universal element) has been seeping – to rescue Roger (other children) from a cruel, painful procedure of cutting away the daemon (which separation shortly results in death) – of Mrs. Coulter pursuing Lyra (to retrieve the compass) – of Iork Byrnison (voice of Ian McKellen, deep and magnificent) to redeem his name and throne of the armored bears – of Serafina Pekkala (Eva Green, a good witch if there ever was one) abetting an ancient prophecy of Lyra’s destiny – and so on among a good number of others. Meaning? There’s an awful lot going on and, in addition, it’s hurtling by such a pace one hardly has a chance to process it all and keep up. Unless you’ve read the book which will allow you to follow along. Otherwise, it’s relatively simple to loose touch with who/what/when/why/and how.
However, even if you’re up to speed, the movie is disappointing in respect of not engaging the viewer, not drawing one in, making one care. It isn’t too much information, too quick a pace, or a self-important tone of “This is a sweeping epic!” Chris Weitz, who adapted the script and directed, makes the mistake of taking the whole shebang too seriously and though the photography (Henry Braham), special effects (Michael Fink), and production design (Dennis Gassner) are impressive, some essentials are missing. Emotion. Feeling. Sympathy. Empathy. And if it ain’t up on the screen, neither is the viewer. And when that’s the case, who cares? And further, who then would want to see the sequel (should it happen)?
The Golden Compass – Even for fans, is a tarnished/missed opportunity. Review by Charles Zio
WONDER EMPORIUM |
MR. MAGORIUM'S WONDER EMPORIUM Rated G Comedy/Family/Fantasy 93 minutes
2 stars |
The title credits are interesting/clever/fun with a witty self-deprecation from the writer/director that reads “Supposedly a Film by Zach Helm.” Unfortunately, the movie that follows doesn’t match the opening promise.
Mr. Magorium (Dustin Hoffman, managing to wring a little emotion from a clichéd eccentric) is the 243-year-old proprietor (his age, one supposes, explaining his odd lisp) of a shop of wonders. Yeah, it’s like everything therein is magically alive. Present, too, and managing the shop, is Molly Mahoney (Natalie Portman, unconvincing) an insecure (and whiny) once promising concert pianist. Having deciding it’s time to move to the Big Toyland Above, Magorium hires an accountant to put matters in order. This fellow, Henry Weston (Jason Bateman, more talented than the part deserves) whom he christens “Mutant” (a moniker quickly annoying) is serious and humorless. To add a warm touch (supposedly) and a child to identify with, there’s the shy/friendless/many-hatted (his magical “thing”) Eric Applebaum (Zach Mills, not bad but standard issue child actor) who spends all his free time at the store and who also serves as narrator via SPAN (Story Presented As Novel, here with illustrated pages and chapter headings).
A summary of the plot – unnecessary as it’s easily predictable. Surprises? Two. And odd ones in a children’s film. First, Mr. Magorium speaks of King Lear’s death and Shakespeare. It’s doubtful most grade schoolers will understand, or appreciate, the reference, leaving one to surmise it’s been inserted/imposed for its appeal to adults although, by so doing, it instead takes them out of the movie to ponder the erudition (meanwhile the youngsters are growing restless).
Second, Eric’s mother encourages him to find a friend and he chooses Henry (despite a store full of kids) who he brings home and up to his room to show off his collection of hats. Mother arrives to find Henry, topped by a jester’s cap, and Eric with a kingly crown, engaged in a medieval improv. Sure, Henry’s broken through to his inner child and Eric’s found a pal, but it’s difficult in this day and age not to find the situation at the least distasteful (if not disturbing) for obvious reasons. Sincerely, this is an unacceptable example to be setting before young people. How did everyone miss this?
On the other hand, aside from these two instances, there’s nothing new or original to be seen (okay, one nod to the store getting depressed indicated by the walls losing color). The fact, sadly, is that writer/director Zach Helm’s kidding of himself in the title credits (cited above) of Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium proves to be not a jest, but the truth. Review by Charles Zio
| THIS CHRISTMAS Rated PG-13 for comic sexual content and some violence. Comedy/Drama 117 minutes
3 stars |
The matriarch, Ma’Dere (Loretta Devine), of a large family is thrilled they are all home for Christmas. That’s six kids, not to mention their friends and lovers, strong arm men, her housekeeper Rosie (Lupe Ontiveros) and her live-in boyfriend Joe (Delroy Lindo). Everybody’s got a story (except Rosie) and therein lies the problem; This Christmas tries to do too much, and that forces superficial, pat solutions to complex problems. It seems Ma’Dere has a dry cleaning business, but some of the kids want to sell it. Joe is steadfast in his love for Ma’Dere, but her oldest son Quentin (Idris Elba), a musician with a gambling problem doesn’t approve of Joe.
Did I mention that the father of this grown-up brood left them because he had a calling as a musician, so Ma’Dere doesn’t want any of her children involved with music for fear she’ll lose them, too? Naturally, the youngest Michael (Chris Brown) is a terrific singer. The oldest daughter Lisa (Regina King) is stuck in a loveless marriage to a jerk. The second oldest daughter Kelli (Sharon Leal) is a career woman who bends for no one. The youngest daughter Melanie (Lauren London) is a college student. Finally the middle son Claude (Columbus Short), an army soldier has a secret he’s trying to keep from all of them. I’m tired just thinking about it.
Although the storyline is all over the place, the acting is good across the board. Sometimes the stories slip into sentimentality, but the actors try hard to make it work. It’s a good-looking, talented cast. We end up knowing the least about Joe, which is too bad because Delroy Lindo always has a strong presence as he does here. It’s also difficult to believe that a business woman who has raised six children, essentially by herself, would not be able to figure out some of the goings on right under her nose. But how else to have all these subplots?
The production values are good, as is the photography and editing. If only the writer/director, Preston A. Whitmore II, could have harnessed the narrative, tightening it up so each story didn’t suffer an easy wrap up. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THE PERFECT HOLIDAY
Rated PG for brief language and some suggested humor. Family/Romance 96 minutes
2 stars |
This is a movie with a very unfortunate title since it is very, very far from perfect. I’m going to resist the urge to take jabs at it from that standpoint, but will say it is a messy mix of holiday clichés and silly set-ups. The writing, directing, and most of the acting don’t help. The worst offense is the use of Terrance Howard as some kind of Grinch to Queen Latifah’s holiday angel/narrator. I’m not sure how that happened, but it’s embarrassing.
A single mother, Nancy (Gabrielle Union) tries to get on with life and find love as her rapper ex-husband J-Jizzy (Charles Q. Murphy) gives her a hard time and lets down their three kids over and over. Through a lot of convoluted and contrived plot points, Nancy meets Benjamin (Morris Chestnut, who shows the only remotely half-way believable acting) and, of course, they are “perfect” for each other. What were they thinking? Review by Ann Marie Oliva
KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD |
BEFORE THE DEVIL KNOWS YOU'RE DEAD Rated R for a scene of strong graphic sexuality, nudity, violence, drug use and language. Crime/Drama/Thriller 117 minutes
4½ stars
|
The reason the Devil might miss the demise of members of the Hanson family is they’re already unhappy and corrupted – individually and with one another – surrounded by outsiders presently, or due to their help, similarly infected. Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead is a methodical examination of comeuppance just a tad slow, but, an intelligent and worthy study of the consequences of corruption (inner and outer).
In a nutshell, we are shown a robbery (of a mom-and-pop jewelry store in a suburban mall) gone wrong and then, through flashbacks the causes and culprits of the crime are exposed/expanded/explicated. Setting the deed in motion is eldest son Andy (Philip Seymour Hoffman, superb as ever), a living-beyond-his-means real estate accountant with a drug habit and a restless wife, Gina (Marisa Tomei, ably tough/vulnerable) who is having an affair with her brother-in-law Hank (Ethan Hawke, convincing as a jumpy/helpless/manchild), who is months behind in alimony and child support payments. On the other hand, the Hanson parents Nanette (Rosemary Harris, warm/competent) and Charles (Albert Finney, overplaying/with a garbled diction but mostly getting away with both) are the upscale owners of the jewelry store. Andy reasons that, given their having worked in the store, a non-family employee manning the counter, no guns, and theft insurance that everyone will come out ahead – his parents reimbursed for their losses and he and Hank with money enough to solve their respective problems.
Naturally, everything goes wrong. Hank, worried (correctly) about his competence, brings in a pistol packing petty criminal, Bobby (Brian F.O’Bryne, believably thuggish/skittish), but Nanette, unexpectedly on duty, proves to be no pushover and grabbing a hidden gun engages in a shoot out. And so the unraveling begins via flashbacks (three days, four days, day of the robbery, a week later, etc.) each offering further details and background, filling in more and more of the missing elements and insights into the characters and their motivations. Don’t look for heroes because no one here is without fault (even those appearing to be good and/or innocent – reflect later on what they say and do - while they’re not as soiled as some others, they’ve got an agenda, too).
Okay, time to acknowledge Sidney Lumet. He’s a proven provider of gritty, no-nonsense, morally questioning film fare and he fully realizes these elements in the script provided by Kelly Masterson. And when it comes to New York locations, well, who’s going to doubt Lumet has the golden touch physically (with fine assistance from cinematographer Ron Fortunato) and psychologically. Pats on the back also to editor Tom Swartwout and production designer Christopher Nowak.
Yes, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead could have used a bit of faster pacing (only a little, and just occasionally) to move things an iota more quickly to the string of dandy, final closing minutes. Still, kudos to Lumet for offering a movie during which viewers can, and are welcomed, to think. He even respects our intelligence by not tying up every single loose end (as opposed to those films that end, endlessly). Sidney, way to go! Review by Charles Zio
| LIONS FOR LAMBS Rated R for some war violence and language. Drama/War 88 minutes
2 stars
|
Even if you agree with the 2007 politics of Lions for Lambs, the static, preachy, self-important posturing is hard to take. Three parallel stories take place in turn. Tom Cruise (in a familiar type role for him) plays an arrogant, smarmy senator, Jasper Irving, trying to convince a reporter, Janine Roth (a surprisingly bland Meryl Streep), to write about a new “plan” to revive the sinking war. Then we have Professor Stephen Malley (a pedantic Robert Reford), trying to convince a student to “care” again. The only segment with any movement is about soldiers being briefed by Lt. Col Falco (in a good cameo by Peter Berg), then carrying out a dangerous mission into Afghanistan.
The Cruise-Streep segment has him playing the self-righteous politician who wants to blast his way out of the war because he’s tired of “being humiliated.” Sure we recognize this militant type who is safe and warm in Washington, DC while young men are dying so he and others can play at war games, moving soldiers around like chess pieces. All the questions and arguments we’ve been hearing over the past few years are filtered into the dialogue between the two. Is this manipulation appropriate for a film? I guess writer Matthew Michael Carnahan thinks so. But why not just watch the news because the movie is not presented in an entertaining way?
The Redford segment is even worse. He brings in a student, Todd Haynes (an adequate Andrew Garfield) and in a conversation full of clichés, gets in a mock argument about not losing his potential. Then he tells Todd about his two former students who are not from a privileged background like him, but love their country and to give back sign up for the war. These two students, Arian and Ernest, (well played by Derek Luke and Michael Pena) are the soldiers we see going on the dangerous mission.
On the way to the new outpost, Ernest gets hit by sniper fire and falls out of the back of the chopper. Arian, not wanting to leave Ernest by himself, jumps out after him onto a mountainous ledge. With both injured and the enemy approaching, can they be saved in time? This scenario provides the only tension in the movie, but feels false and contrived.
What’s unfortunate is the wasted talent. The writer, Carnahan, and the director, Redford, must have had some idea how this would appear on film? I would hate to think they didn’t care enough about the audience to change the script so it would be more film-worthy, because this is less of a drama and more like a propaganda film. In any case, whatever happened to show, don’t tell? Review by Ann Marie Oliva
A LOVE STORY |
WRISTCUTTERS: A LOVE STORY Rated R for language and disturbing content involving suicide. Comedy/Drama/Fantasy 88 minutes
3 stars
|
Zia, (Patrick Fugit with all of two expressions) gets off his bed and cleans up his room. He then proceeds to cut his wrists. When he wakes he’s in a strange purgatory afterlife with other people who have committed suicide. The place is dull, drab, dirty; without enjoyment or excitement. And they can’t smile. Everyone seems to accept this pretty matter-of-factly, asking each other how they “offed” themselves. They all bear the scars of whatever part of their body they injured. Zia works at a pizza joint and pines for his ex-girlfriend, Desiree (Leslie Bibb), who is presumably his reason for wanting to die. He becomes friends with a whole family of suicides, especially one of the sons, Eugene (a funny Shea Whigham).
Zia decides he must find Desiree after he hears from someone that she has committed suicide, too. So he talks Eugene into driving him---somewhere, to look for Desiree. At this point the film becomes a strange road trip. They pick up a beautiful, kleptomaniac hitchhiker, Mikal (Shannyn Sossaman) who constantly chews gum. The movie picks up energy whenever she’s on screen, which is a good thing. She tells Zia and Eugene that she is there by mistake. She wasn’t trying to kill herself, she accidentally overdosed on drugs. She says she has to get to the people in charge to convince them of the error. This provides some tension as Eugene is attracted to her, but she doesn’t seem interested in him or Zia.
There are all kinds of oddities. The car that Eugene drives doesn’t have headlights so they can only drive during the day. There’s also a black hole under the front passenger seat, where objects disappear never to be seen again. The countryside looks like a future nuclear catastrophe. Old torn up furniture and broken down cars lie on the side of the road. When they stop for gas they help themselves. No one is in stores, either, so they don’t pay for anything.
Of course, they meet some weird characters along the way. Finally, Eugene crashes the car so as not to hit a man lying in the road, Kneller (Tom Wait) who runs some kind of commune. Mikal tells him about her predicament and he says he’ll help her get to the powers that be. When they arrive, Zia finds Desiree and learns things are not exactly as he thought when he cut his wrists. The end leaves you to decide out what is real and what isn’t; what it all means.
The pace is, excuse the pun, deathly slow. Because they can’t smile, there is not much facial expressiveness by the actors. The dialogue is delivered in pretty flat tones, too. The photography has a strange cast, but it’s part of the whole strange look of purgatory. If this is what happens when you try to off yourself---count me out. Maybe that’s the whole point? Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| FRED CLAUS Rated PG for mild language and some rude humor. Comedy/Family/Fantasy 116 minutes
2½ stars
|
This is a family comedy so allowances can be made. The allowances here, though, are stretched to the breaking point. They have to do with the logic of the story. We have Fred Claus (Vince Vaughn) as the older brother of the saintly Nick Claus (Paul Giamatti), AKA, Santa Claus. Fred is jealous of his sibling, pure and simple, and most kids and adults can relate to that, except it’s their mother (Kathy Bates) who is really the problem. She fawns over Nick from the moment of his birth. I suppose it would be tempting if your son is Santa Claus, but it’s so extreme here, and only for the seeming purpose of giving Fred a reason to run away from home.
Fred lives in a Chicago and is a repo man living a less than stellar lifestyle. His girlfriend Wanda (Rachel Weisz) is a parking meter attendant, but he has trouble committing to her. His only friend seems to be a young boy named Slam (Bobb’e J. Thompson), a bright but out of control kid, who comes in through his window to give him a hard time.
When Fred needs money he turns to the tender-hearted Santa who says he’ll give him the money if Fred will come home and work for the Christmas season. An elf, Willie (John Michael Higgins), becomes his guide, roommate and friend. Needless to say, Fred creates chaos wherever he goes in Santaland, constantly giving Santa’s wife, Annette (Miranda Richardson) fits. He still resents his brother and parents, so he spends much of his time being the anti-Santa. The “fun” really gets going when the evil Clyde (Kevin Spacey), some kind of efficiency expert comes to monitor Santa and hopes to put him out of business and shut down Christmas forever.
This film is a touch better (but only a touch) than so many of the holiday movies that try to remake the Santa myth. The sets, costumes, special effects are good, sometimes in a creep way such as making John Michael Higgins, a regular size man look like an elf. The acting is generally good, too. Vince Vaughn is beginning to repeat himself, but fits the character of Fred. Paul Giamatti is not someone I would have picked as a Santa, but his sincerity works for him here. I’m a bit mystified that two British actors, Miranda Richardson, and Rachel Weisz are in this movie, but they certainly add class, as does Kathy Bates even in her thankless role. Ludacris does an entertaining turn as the toy factory DJ. The one I don’t get is Kevin Spacey who looks like he’s phoning in his villain. It’s Lex Luther does the North Pole. There’s very little that’s unique or interesting about his performance.
There is one amusing scene that adults in the audience will have fun with when Fred goes to a self-help group. There are also more than enough corny, tender, heart-warming scenes for the kids. As long as you don’t set your expectations too high, you may be willing to follow the movie to its sentimental conclusion. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
A LOVE STORY |
WRISTCUTTERS: A LOVE STORY Rated R for language and disturbing content involving suicide. Comedy/Drama/Fantasy 88 minutes
3 stars
|
Zia, (Patrick Fugit with all of two expressions) gets off his bed and cleans up his room. He then proceeds to cut his wrists. When he wakes he’s in a strange purgatory afterlife with other people who have committed suicide. The place is dull, drab, dirty; without enjoyment or excitement. And they can’t smile. Everyone seems to accept this pretty matter-of-factly, asking each other how they “offed” themselves. They all bear the scars of whatever part of their body they injured. Zia works at a pizza joint and pines for his ex-girlfriend, Desiree (Leslie Bibb), who is presumably his reason for wanting to die. He becomes friends with a whole family of suicides, especially one of the sons, Eugene (a funny Shea Whigham).
Zia decides he must find Desiree after he hears from someone that she has committed suicide, too. So he talks Eugene into driving him---somewhere, to look for Desiree. At this point the film becomes a strange road trip. They pick up a beautiful, kleptomaniac hitchhiker, Mikal (Shannyn Sossaman) who constantly chews gum. The movie picks up energy whenever she’s on screen, which is a good thing. She tells Zia and Eugene that she is there by mistake. She wasn’t trying to kill herself, she accidentally overdosed on drugs. She says she has to get to the people in charge to convince them of the error. This provides some tension as Eugene is attracted to her, but she doesn’t seem interested in him or Zia.
There are all kinds of oddities. The car that Eugene drives doesn’t have headlights so they can only drive during the day. There’s also a black hole under the front passenger seat, where objects disappear never to be seen again. The countryside looks like a future nuclear catastrophe. Old torn up furniture and broken down cars lie on the side of the road. When they stop for gas they help themselves. No one is in stores, either, so they don’t pay for anything.
Of course, they meet some weird characters along the way. Finally, Eugene crashes the car so as not to hit a man lying in the road, Kneller (Tom Wait) who runs some kind of commune. Mikal tells him about her predicament and he says he’ll help her get to the powers that be. When they arrive, Zia finds Desiree and learns things are not exactly as he thought when he cut his wrists. The end leaves you to decide out what is real and what isn’t; what it all means.
The pace is, excuse the pun, deathly slow. Because they can’t smile, there is not much facial expressiveness by the actors. The dialogue is delivered in pretty flat tones, too. The photography has a strange cast, but it’s part of the whole strange look of purgatory. If this is what happens when you try to off yourself---count me out. Maybe that’s the whole point? Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| AMERICAN GANGSTER Rated R for violence, pervasive drug content and language, nudity and sexuality. Crime/Drama 157 minutes
4 stars
|
Based on a true story of the Harlem gangster, Frank Lucas, the film abounds with ironies. Lucas, from North Carolina, a victim of racism in the South, goes to the land of opportunity and becomes second in command to Ellsworth “Bumpy” Johnson in late 1960s Harlem. Bumpy teaches Frank how to be a criminal with—--principals? When Bumpy dies, Frank decides he’s going to take over and be top dog.
There are numerous scenes of Frank, played as a psychopath with almost regal dignity by Denzel Washington, showing that he was a success because he was smart, disciplined, and a ruthless killer. He devises a clever plan to buy heroin directly from Southeast Asia and cut out the middle man after learning from his cousin that many GIs in Vietnam have become hooked on the drug. He has it sent to New York, paying off the military. Frank cuts the heroin less, and charges less for his “Blue Magic” packets than the guineas (Italians) who then have to play ball with him. Frank brings his five brothers up from North Carolina and they become the “Country Boys” who he can trust to run his efficient operation. (Of course, one of the consequences of stronger heroin on the street is that many street addicts die of overdoses.)
There are numerous scenes of Frank showing both sides of his character. He shoots a man in the head in the middle of the day on a Harlem street, yet he conducts himself as though a gentleman whenever possible, even going to a Mohammed Ali fight in a fur coat and hat given to him by his Puerto Rican wife, Eva (Lymari Nadel). These contradictions become obvious and repetitive; the film is too long at over two and a half hours.
Richie Roberts, played pitch perfect, accent and all, by Russell Crowe, is the cop so honest he is an outsider among other cops. Although his personal life is a mess, he is absolutely squeaky clean when it comes to his profession. No one wants to work with him, and this says a lot about the New York police department at that time (many of those working in the narcotics division are eventually arrested). So he gets assigned the task of finding out who’s running the drug trade.
Another character who should be mentioned here is Detective Trupo, a dirty cop, played with sadistic enthusiasm by Josh Brolin. He is so menacing, he eclipses Lucas in amorality at times. The large supporting cast does a good job with Chiwetel Ejiofor, Ruby Dee, and Carla Gugino among the standouts.
A confluence of events eventually brings Frank and Richie together and these scenes show a real chemistry between the characters (and actors), even as they are on opposite sides of the law.
The production values are excellent as expected, and the authenticity of 1970s New York that’s created adds to the overall vitality of the film. Director Ridley Scott’s choices are mainly good ones, although understanding the callousness that is personified so effortlessly by Frank Lucas remains, for the most part, elusive. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| BEE MOVIE Rated PG for thematic material involving crimes against humanity. Animation/Comedy/Family 90 minutes
3½ stars |
Maybe because it’s been in the works for years, underwent many drafts (two hundred Jerry Seinfeld said, if he was serious), as well as tinkerings with the final script that a sense of spontaneity/silliness/impulsive high spirits has been lost in Bee Movie. It is smart and clever and pleasant, but too methodical and thought-out to be a rollicking good time.
The movie’s bee world has been carefully conceptualized to match our expectation of industriousness and regimentation with each member of the hive, after a very brief education, willingly choosing a monotonous job they’ll pursue with nonstop diligence (no days off) until their demise. Not a worker’s paradise. On the other hand, we’re told it’s a system that’s functioned successfully for 27 million years (though The Queen, center of the hive is here unseen, unheard, and given no significance). Even so, Barry B. Benson (voiced by Seinfeld) is restless and discontent and manages to escape to the great outdoors (forget as a drone his function is to impregnate The Queen and/or die trying). After an encounter with a tennis ball, and rainfall through which bees can’t fly, Barry finds himself in the apartment of an animal-loving florist named Vanessa (Renee Zellweger, an understanding/supportive sweetie) and her hostile boyfriend Ken (Patrick Warburton, an effectively cartoonish villain). Vanessa rescues him from death by sneaker and Barry, despite the prohibition on bees speaking to humans, thanks her and they develop a friendship (well, a crush on his part) to the disapproval of his best friend Adam (Matthew Broderick, giving a nice turn alternating between servile and tough).
Just as you’re wondering where the heck the movie is headed (not to bee/human romance you fear), Barry discovers honey for sale at the store. Indignant, he tracks the product to farms harvesting bees trapped in wooden crates. What to do? What else? Sue. Called as witnesses are Sting (humorously mocking his nickname offensive to the bees) and Ray Liotta in a dandy self send-up. (Let’s mention, also, Larry King, niftily kidding himself and show and Chris Rock, funny in a scene or two as Mooseblood, a mosquito.)
Cutting to the chase, Barry eventually wins the case, stops the human’s bee harvesting, and repossesses all the existing honey. The result is the bees stop their ceaseless working, and without the bees there’s no pollination, and with no pollination food production plummets, etc. Needless to say, Barry regrets his actions (realizing it’s a green world after all) and with derring-do he leads the bees to the rescue, the flowers bloom, and all’s right with the world.
To its credit, Bee Movie maintains its internal logic and everything fits. Unfortunately, you can sense the thoroughness, how carefully the script (by Seinfeld, Spike Feresten, Barry Marder and Andy Robin) has been constructed leaving the viewer without a feeling of having stumbled onto a story happening as it’s being watched. In short, it’s too calculated and comes across as a bright and brainy stand-up routine. It couldn’t be otherwise, with Seinfeld’s distinctive intonations it’s hard not to picture him delivering his lines on stage. And speaking of lines, Bee Movie is more verbal than visual (technical aspects are fine). There’s wit, satire, intelligence, and yes, clichés and references galore to the “bee” world. Leaves you wondering (and missing) what might have been lost in the early years/drafts. A thought for next time - sometimes, flying by the seat of one’s pants, is not a bad idea. Review by Charles Zio
| MARTIAN CHILD Rated PG for thematic elements and mild language Comedy/Drama 108 minutes
2½ stars |
A lonely, widowed science fiction writer, David (John Cusack invested/believable) wants to adopt a child. He is drawn to an emotionally disturbed six year old, Dennis (Bobby Coleman) who thinks he’s from Mars. Although those around him don’t think it’s a particularly good idea, David is determined. It seems he was an outcast as a child and feels he can understand Dennis’ problems because as a writer, his imagination is what got him through the tough times.
His sister Liz, played with authentic concern by his real life sister Joan Cusack, and his friend Harlee, played by Amanda Peet, are close by for support and advice, but David basically goes it alone. Of course, the road to parenthood is never smooth, especially with all the baggage being carted around here.
John Cusack and Bobby Coleman seem to have a good rapport, but the elements don’t add up to a very enlightening story. We do come to know their characters through their fears and secrets. It’s understandable that David might fear growing older and not having a family. (His late wife was adopted, and they talked about adopting a child.) But why did he choose to take on such a troubled child when he had never been a parent before?
The cast is good, with the banter between the Cusacks fun to watch. Amanda Peet is always appealing. Bobby Coleman shows promise. It has some moving and sentimental moments, but overall not affecting as it might have been. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| DARFUR NOW Rated PG for thematic material involving crimes against humanity. Documentary 99 minutes
3½ stars |
The horrific genocide in Darfur in the Sudan, and the aftermath of those events, which may have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, inspires international outrage and the need to help the victims. Writer/director Ted Braun follows six individuals who decide they will make a difference: Don Cheadle, the actor; Hejewa Adam, a Darfurian woman survivor who joins rebel forces after her child is killed; Pablo Recalde, a United Nations humanitarian; Ahmed Mohammed Abakar, a community leader in a West Darfur refugee camp; Luis Moreno-Ocampo, a prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague; and Adam Sterling, a UCLA graduate in Los Angeles.
These six very different people show that there are those who do care and are willing to become active in championing the cause. The film is sad, heartfelt and earnest. Although, I found cutting between six stories to be distracting at times. When the people of Darfur speak for themselves, the documentary is the most powerful. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
THE REAL GIRL |
LARS AND THE REAL GIRL Rated PG-13 for some sex-related content Comedy/Drama 106 minutes
4 stars |
Lars And The Real Girl is a modern fable, so if you take it too literally you’re likely to be disappointed. What’s interesting here is the way the screenwriter Nancy Oliver and director Craig Gillespie weave the real and the reel together to create an imaginative and original story.
Lars Lindstrom (Ryan Gosling terrific and totally committed to the role) is a depressed guy living a Spartan life in a snow-filled icy environment. (In literature, snow symbolizes frozen life, and that’s exactly how to describe the way Lars is living.) He’s in an apartment in the garage of a house he owns with his brother Gus (Paul Schneider, likewise excellent), with his pregnant wife Karin (Emily Mortimer also excellent), in the main house. When Emily looks out her window she can see Lars sitting on the edge of his bed—-staring at nothing. She tries to engage him by inviting him to eat with them, but she finally has to physically tackle him in the driveway to get him to agree.
Yet, Lars is functional. He goes to work everyday. His cubicle mate, Kurt (Maxwell McCabe-Lokos in a funny/just right performance) is surfing internet porn sites one day and shows Lars one where anatomically correct “girls” can be ordered. When a new employee, Margo (Kelly Garner sweet/affecting) is attracted to Lars his anxiety gets too much for him and he avoids her whenever he can.
Lars shows up one day at the house to tell Gus and Karin that he has a new female friend and is going to bring her over in her wheelchair. They are elated until he shows up with Bianca, a life-size version one of the “girls” from the porn site. Lars talks to and treats Bianca as though she’s real; his mood brightens instantly as he gets to act out having a girlfriend. This alarms Gus and Karin so they take him and Bianca to see the town doctor Dagmar (Patricia Clarkson spot on in yet another terrific performance), also a psychologist we’re told. Her advice? They should treat Bianca the way Lars does--as though she’s real. Everyone in town goes along with the charade (despite some snickering and initial resistance by a few) and this gives us some of the most amusing moments of the film, as folks talk to and physically take care of Bianca, as she is absorbed into the community. (If you find this fantastic, well, it is, but this is what storytellers, and through them, actors do all the time. Would you find films believable, or interesting experiences say Star Wars, A Beautiful Mind, or even The Godfather if the actors were not fully invested in their characters?)
Dagmar tells Lars that Bianca needs “treatments” every week and so begins her sessions with Lars where the cause of his retreat from life becomes understandable, and makes sense in terms of his delusion that Bianca is real. Lars’ mother died when he was born, and he was raised by his deeply depressed father. Gus, older and desperate to get away, leaves Lars alone with their father, who rarely touched him. Karin's pregancy may spark all of this. You don’t have to be a psychiatrist to guess what this kind of depravation and abandonment can do to a child. So while this is a comedy, at heart it’s also a very sad, touching, poignant story of one man’s mental dysfunction.
Of course, in the real world not everyone can come back from such a fixed, bizarre delusion, and it would certainly be incredible to find people and a town like this one. The use of “real” in the title, then, is ironic. What’s the moral of this modern fable? Maybe, that it is possible that love and caring can help heal devastating wounds? Stranger things have happened. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
LIMITED |
THE DARJEELING LIMITED Rated R for language Comedy/Drama/Adventure 91 minutes
3½ stars |
There’s quirky, and then there’s very quirky. The Darjeeling Limited is in the latter category. This is not to say quirky is bad; on the contrary it’s usually appealing, but there is a line that when crossed, leaves the audience with, “What was that all about?” Although, one of the major strengths is the look (visuals) of the film. It gives the sense of the crowded cities and towns of India, yet vast space of open landscape.
The narrative does have an understandable story. Three very different brothers: Francis, Peter, and Jack (Owen Wilson, Adrian Brody, and Jason Schwartzman) take a “spiritual” journey by train across India. The train is the rather bizarre-looking Darjeeling Limited. The brothers, who haven’t seen each other in a year, get along, well, like brothers. There are all kinds of family intrigues such as, “Don’t tell Francis/Peter/Jack this or that.” Then the information is relayed to the excluded brother fairly soon. This is funny because we recognize sibling dysfunction as the brothers struggle to be the alpha male, taking each other’s pain pills, chastising one another, generally making silly, non-sensical decisions.
Their father has died, and their mother has become a nun somewhere in the outlands of India. These facts are referred to several times and it's obvious this is one eccentric family. What kind of family were they in the first place? At some point they get kicked off the train for a number of misdeeds, including bringing a poisonous snake aboard. Then the movie takes a left turn as they come on three boys drowning. Without a moment’s hesitation, they jump in the water. The events that immediately follow are thoughtful and sad. They then make a decision to find good old Mom (Angelica Huston, who has already stood them up) in her sanctuary.
Owen Wilson is watchable/amusing as the older, controlling brother, Francis, playing the entire movie with his head wrapped in bandages. He has told them he had an accident, which may or may not be entirely accurate. Adrian Brody plays the middle brother Peter with a nervous energy, and Jason Schwartzman, as Jack, is a good fit as a writer who says his work is fiction when they all know better.
A short shown before the film called Hotel Chevalier with Natalie Portman and Jason Schwartzman gives insight into Jack's character, and hopefully will be seen on all screens. Yet, there are esoteric details. Bill Murray has a cameo as a businessman who misses the Darjeeling Limited. The brothers have strange luggage with initials that they insist on carting everywhere. There are feathers to be buried. In flashback, they try to retrieve their father’s car and nearly miss his funeral. It’s never made clear why the brothers became estranged and what the relationship was between their parents. Not everything has to be known or explained to find a movie provocative, still, a few more hints from writer/director Wes Anderson about the significance of some of these things would have helped. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| DAN IN REAL LIFE Rated PG-13 for some innuendo Comedy/Drama/Romance 99 minutes
3 stars |
Dan in Real Life is the name of a newspaper advice column written by Dan Burns (Steve Carell). It seems that Dan is fine at knowing what’s good for other people, but not for himself. (Sound familiar?) He’s a lonely widower with three daughters, two of them teenagers, one rebellious, with the youngest being the sweet one.
When Dan and his daughters take a trip to Rhode Island for a vacation with extended family, the “fun” begins. Dan meets a woman in a book store and there is an immediate connection, only to find out that she is his brother Mitch’s (Dane Cook) new girlfriend Marie (Juliette Binoche).
The next few days Dan and Marie are conflicted and guilty about their attraction. Dan doesn’t hide his feelings well, and the family, including his parents, Nana and Poppy Burns (Dianne Wiest and John Mahoney), assorted brothers, sisters, in-laws, nieces, and nephews wonder what’s up with him. He makes a fool of himself over Marie (painfully, several times) and they finally end up--going bowling?
This film has an odd tension. The tone is inconsistent. If they were going for poignancy, it misses most of the time. Peter Hedges, the director, was also a co-writer, so he obviously knew what he wanted here, but while the film is PG, and has a few amusing moments, much of it falls flat, which is too bad.
Steve Carell, appealing though he may be, doesn’t make Dan compelling. He seems more like a depressed whiner who doesn’t try to understand his daughters, Jane, Cara and Lilly. They are well-played by young actresses Alison Pill, Brittany Robertson, and Marlene Lawston. (Ms. Robertson has the funniest line in the movie.) I don’t buy for a minute Dianne Wiest and John Mahoney as a couple. Wiest is fine as the matriarch, but Mahoney is so low key he makes little impression. Juliet Binoche is an odd choice, although she is charming. Dane Cook as Dan’s brother is not especially interesting. Emily Blunt shows up in the small part of Ruthie Draper, a family friend who they say terrible things about until they see she’s turned into a beauty. When she’s onscreen the energy picks up but her involvement and her storyline go nowhere.
Dan in Real Life is disappointing. The elements were there to make this a better film but the chemistry doesn’t work. Like many good ideas it took a wrong turn; the comedy, romance, and family dynamics fade quickly to the lesser level of lackluster and tedious. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| GONE BABY GONE Rated R for violence, drug content and pervasive language. Crime/Drama/Thriller 114 minutes
4½ stars |
Gone Baby Gone is first rate throughout and would’ve been a gem if it had avoided becoming a WINE (Will It Never End) movie. Even so, it’s gripping/troubling/thoughtful and, yeah, Ben Affleck has done himself proud.
Amanda McCready, a pretty, four-year-old, has disappeared in South Boston (established deftly as rundown, multi-racial, working class) and the neighborhood is abuzz with police, media, and spectators. Private detective Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck, letter perfect in accent/gesture/ attitude) and his live-in girlfriend, Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monahan, coolly self-possessed and intuitive) are hired by Bea (Amy Madigan, sterling as a woman schooled by sorrow) and Lionel McCready (Titus Welliver, believably a regular, blue collar guy) to find their niece, the daughter of Lionel’s sister Helene (Amy Ryan, magnetic as a low life, low level, irresponsible druggie). Despite Angie’s hesitancy, Patrick takes the case in the belief that, having grown up in the area, he can connect and ascertain information the police cannot, which is what he asserts to Jack Doyle (Morgan Freeman, mostly effective in a bit part).
In turn, Doyle turns Patrick and Angie over to officers Remy Bressant (Ed Harris, effortlessly, and deservedly, scene stealing) and Devin (Michael Kenneth Williams, effective as the good cop) who are working on the case. Patrick , with Angie in tow, proves he has connections (and can be as tough as necessary) and Remy and Devin supply police intercession and muscle as need be. But, child abduction is only the tip of an iceberg of lies, greed, double cross, lust, etc. The twists and turns, while surprising, lead to a succession of endings, any one (or two) of which would have been sufficient. Still, the interesting (and to a certain extent redeeming) factor, presented amid the multiple finales, is the age-old choices of right and wrong. What of taking the wrong action for the right reason? The reverse? What of guilt? Self-interest? Such choices face the characters and, given the pacing, the viewer also gets the chance to consider the move they’d make under the circumstances. And, as in life, the answers are not clean, clear, and simple.
The script of “Gone Baby Gone,” based on the book by Dennis Lehane, as penned by Ben Affleck and Aaron Stockard is skillful and intelligent in elaborating what is a mystery both in the traditional sense and in terms of unraveling matters of human nature. John Toll’s photography and Sharon Seymour’s production design capture every nuance of the South Boston setting and action. The acting, as mentioned above, is spot on by all led in particular by Casey Affleck (if this is an example of the benefits of nepotism, let’s have more), Ed Harris, and Amy Ryan.
And let’s hear it for Ben Affleck. Forget, the missteps (and the easy laughs). The recent Hollywoodland proved he could act, Gone Baby Gone establishes he can direct, and this movie and Good Will Hunting are proof of his ability to write. That’s a triple threat. Keep going, Ben! Review by Charles Zio
| 30 DAYS OF NIGHT Rated R for strong horrror volence and language. Horror/Thriller 113 minutes
2½ stars |
It’s inevitable, when a movie has a title like 30 Days of Night and is less than successful, the review will end with a more or less clever comment referring to the time element. Just to be contrary, right up front, with no flippancy, let it be stated this movie mostly doesn’t work.
The setting and setup are perfect horror-wise – an isolated town (Barrow) in Alaska, a month of uninterrupted night, and a gang of vampires. It’s such a dandy premise that, at first, you’re willing to ignore the plot holes, such as the pile of incinerated cell phones (nobody in town noticed any go missing?). Even with voice of doom spoutings from newly arrested Stranger (Ben Foster, believably creepy/annoying), advance man for the undead (though why exactly they need him is never answered), good sheriff Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett, ever the non-flamboyant, all-American boy) doesn’t suspect the worst busy as he is patrolling and brooding over his estranged wife Stella (Melissa George, brave, tough, and yeah, loving), who missed the last flight out. Meanwhile, at the power plant, the engineer (and viewers) meet the vampires.
What a bunch! Led by Marlow (Danny Huston, relishing every moment of malice), these vampires (male and female) aren’t elegant (instead filthy and disheveled), or weary from their condition (they revel in torture, spinning and slashing their victims), or burdened by their fate (they screech in animal pleasure when anticipating a kill). There is no appeal. These creatures of the night are cruel/heartless/mindless in their pursuit of the living and their rows of crowded, spiked teeth often hidden by blood covering their lips and chins reinforce these beings as the epitome of malevolence - unreasoning, unredeemable, superhumanly evil. Needless to say, the town folk don’t stand much of a chance. It’s a murderous rampage and the overhead shots of the slaughter are effective in conveying the hopelessness of the situation. Except, a few do manage to hide out and the bulk of the movie involves this small band’s efforts to allude, fight off, and survive till the sun rises again. Unfortunately, the escapes become increasingly incredible to the point the suspense is undercut and the viewer becomes less and less involved, ultimately being left with only a vague curiosity as to the conclusion (which is meant to be moving, that it isn’t indicates the movie misses by a mile).
The director of 30 Days of Night is David Slade who adapted Steve Niles and Ben Templesmith’s graphic novel and give him credit for recognizing the potential. It’s in the director’s chair, however, where he went astray. Not in his choice of actors or tech crew, but in the plot which, given it’s weaknesses/holes/cliches, might have been helped by quicker pacing. Too bad there isn’t much of a market for shorts. Cut down, this could have been a stunner. Review by Charles Zio
| LUST, CAUTION NC-17 for some explicit sexuality. Drama/Thriller/War 158 minutes
4 stars |
Director Ang Lee has done a masterful job with Lust, Caution. Adapted from Eileen Chang’s story by James Schamus, this erotic thriller keeps you on edge throughout. That’s not easy to do since the movie is 2 hours 38 minutes long. It is 1942. The war is creating chaos in China as Japan has occupied Shanghai. A sophisticated young woman, Mrs. Mak walks into a coffee shop, and makes a call. Flashback four years earlier.
Mrs. Mak is actually the young, innocent, impressionable Wang Jiazhi (an excellent/touching Wei Tang) who is a freshman at the university in Hong Kong. Her father has fled to England and left her behind, although he says he will send for her. She’s talked into joining the drama club at school. On stage, Wang experiences the freedom to express her deepest self through acting. She’s a hit. The students, led by the handsome Kuang Yu Min (a well cast Lee-Hom Wang), have set up the club for political reasons, and further want to expose traitors who collaborate with the Japanese. They draw Wang into a plan to set her up as a Mrs. Mak. As the wealthy married woman, she will entice an official into their clutches so they can assassinate him. That person is the imposing, mysterious Mr. Yee (Tony Leung in a powerful performance). This is part of the reason for the length of the film because although the shy Wang is good in her role as Mrs. Mak, they are not able to get the very careful Mr. Yee into their apartment. Instead, another traitor discovers them and a horrific incident causes Wang to flee.
Three years later, some of her former acting group discovers her again in Shanghai where she lives an impoverished, depressing life with her aunt. Her father has remarried and has no money to send for her. When Kuang asks her again to join the resistance, she agrees to another espionage attempt as Mrs. Mak to get to Mr. Yee into an affair so he’s vulnerable. The rest of the film focuses on the relationship that develops between them over a year’s time, and the implications of their affair.
The lust part of the title is obvious. Wang has little experience with men so her acting has to carry her. She endures a humiliating “deflowering.” She also has known little love or caring. The spark between she and Kuang, which may be the very reason she joined the drama club, never comes to fruition. He maintains a distance and her meetings with him and a higher-up to strategize is strictly business despite what the charade does to Wang’s soul. The caution part is notable.
Mr. Yee, who at first has contempt for her, comes to be, through the bedroom, the only person who gives her any type “affection.” The sex scenes are explicit. The constant fear of two people caught up in a war, where death is ever present, gives the sex a desperate, go-for-it-all, live-in-the-moment reality. Ang Lee crafts a strong story, and terrific film of these characters whose actions become understandable and real. The subtitles are not distracting because the actors are able to convey both subtle and big emotions on their faces, and through movement. The betrayals, angst, neediness, ironies, and ugliness of war come through loud and clear. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
IN THE FIRE |
THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE Rated R for drug content and language. Drama 119 minutes
4 stars |
Grief is a tough subject, but this film handles it in an empathetic, yet realistic way. When Steven Burke (David Duchony), the perfect husband and father is killed, his wife Audrey, (Halle Berry) is in shock. What she does is invite his best friend, Jerry Sunborne, (Benicio Del Toro) to live with her and her children, nine year old Harper, (Alexis Llewellyn) and six year old Dory, (Micah Berry). This is more complicated than it sounds because the best friend, Jerry, a former lawyer, is now a heroin addict.
It’s never explained why Audrey invites Jerry. She tells him at the funeral that she’s hated him for years. We see her earlier arguing with Steven when he insists on seeing Jerry on his birthday. It may be her way of staying close to Stephen. She never understood Steven’s loyalty to this man. If she has his friend nearby, he’s closer? She doesn’t seem to know herself why she asked him. This is one of the interesting elements about the film. Human behavior is shown, not always explained, and it includes cruelty as well. Audrey is angry--angry that her perfect upper middle class life has been pulled out from under her. Somehow, she blames Jerry. Several times she lashes out at him, and at one decisive point she tells him he should have died, not Steven.
For his part, Jerry accepts this treatment as an addict so down on himself, that he’s picking cigarette butts off the ground. Jerry tries to please Audrey and is grateful for any kindness. He tries Narcotics Anonymous, he bonds with the kids, but it’s Audrey that he looks to with great need.
Danish director Susanne Bier does an excellent job with Allen Loeb’s screenplay, and with the actors. Audrey is short-tempered after Steven’s death, and not particularly likeable as she takes out her fury and grief on this junkie teetering so close to the edge. That she redeems Audrey says much about her skill as an actor. Benicio Del Toro is top notch. What’s so interesting about his performance is that he looks like hell through most of the movie such is his commitment to authenticity. It does happen. Decent people do become street addicts. There are no easy answers given as to why he can’t break the hold.
A number of films have come out recently with children in them. It seems filmmakers think the kids have to be bratty in order to be “real.” As a result, they’re not very engaging. But the two child actors here are extremely natural. Alexis Llewellyn as the older sister gives a touching performance. Micah Berry as the younger brother is sweet without being cloying.
Reactions to grief are not easily explainable, yet the emotions displayed here are torturous and genuine. This film gives us some sensitive observations about those reactions, and of hope that life can go on after a devastating loss. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
COMMANDMENTS |
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS Rated PG for some mild peril Animation 88 minutes
2 stars |
The familiar story of The Ten Commandments puts this animated version at a disadvantage because there is nothing new, original or outstanding about it. One could even argue the animation does a disservice to it because it's not especially vivid. The story itself follows what most of us know or have seen already about Moses. Only minor details may have changed.
There are a few interesting visuals, for instance, in one scene Moses is talking and some birds are flying behind him in the distance. They also have some marks on the characters' skin like a "real" person would have. The characters are easily distinguishable. But then, the feet are way too large, the movement of the characters' very slow, and some odd-looking extra teeth are visible when the characters speak. They all seem to have frosted hair. When the Red Sea parts, it's rather humdrum. There is better animation in some video games.
The voiceovers don't help. Christian Slater seems miscast as Moses. Alfred Molina as Ramses, Ben Kingsley as the narrator, and Elliot Gould as God, are adequate, but don't bring anything special. All the elements are rather low key, or worse, off key.
It's not clear why the producers felt it necessary to develop and release this as a full-length film. Maybe this movie is better suited for young children, although the length may be a problem for them. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| RENDITION Rated R for torture/violence and language. Drama/Thriller 120 minutes
3 stars |
Egyptian born chemical engineer Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally), married to an American, Isabella (Reese Witherspoon), disappears from a flight from Africa to Washington D.C. where he lives an apparently idyllic life with the pregnant Isabella and their young son. This act sets in motion a thriller with disturbing consequences.
When Anwar doesn’t arrive home at the airport, the very pregnant Isabella (to put an exclamation on it) finds an ex-college boyfriend Alan Smith (Peter Saarsgard) who works for a Senator Hawkins (Alan Arkin) to help her find out what happened. Washington politics being what they are, this angers/annoys everyone including the powerful Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep), when Isabella won’t take no for an answer and go away quietly.
These scenes are interspersed with scenes from Anwar’s detention and subsequent torture, and this is where the real suspense lies. An American CIA agent, Douglas Freeman (Jake Gyllenhaal) has been put in charge of the operation to get information from Anwar. He’s an analyst, but the death of his colleague (from an explosion) while they are waiting in traffic in a car, leaves him to deal with local law enforcement officials who have very cruel and crude methods to get suspects to talk. There is a very affecting storyline here about the official’s, Abasi Fawal (Yigal Naor), daughter Fatima Fawal (Zineb Oukach), who unknowingly becomes involved with a young terrorist, Khalid El-Emin (Mao Khouas). This Romeo and Juliet story brings about some wrenching twists and turns. Further complexity is added as the film goes back and forward in time. This is not revealed until towards the end of the film, when we begin to see how the stories fit together. This is not particularly helpful as it seems purposely confusing. Better pay attention.
The overseas storyline is extremely well done, so much so, that the American scenes, though they may cause outrage over ignored rights, do not elicit the same level of sympathy and sadness. It’s clear that living with terrorism day after day takes a tremendous toll. Even good men and women begin to make drastic decisions when they think it will save lives.
The acting echoes this. Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin, Peter Saarsgard, Reese Witherspoon, and company all do a credible job in their parts. The foreign actors, speaking other languages, though, draw more understanding with their dramatic portrayals. This is helped along by director Gavin Hood. He doesn’t rush the emotion, and sometimes the narrative goes too s-l-o-w-l-y as the young lovers stare meaningfully out the window or whatever. The film as a whole could use some cutting. The torture, for instance, escalates in cruelty. We don’t need to see all of it because we understand exactly what’s happening to this man.
Is Anwar innocent? Gyllenhaal’s character certainly thinks so, but the film gives us just enough to be suspicious that there’s more there to uncover. If we’re hesitant about interrogations it can cause lives to be lost, if too quick to condemn, we become worse ourselves for accusing and abusing innocent citizens of the world. In either case, this complex film shows us that there are no winners in a paranoid, hateful, and distrustful world. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| MICHAEL CLAYTON Rated R for language including some sexual dialogue. Drama/Thriller 119 minutes
4 stars |
George Clooney is Michael Clayton is George Clooney is Michael Clooney is... well, you get the idea. The film is appropriately named as it’s a character study of a man running on empty – an empty soul, that is. He is a “fixer” or more accurately a “janitor” as he calls himself, a lawyer working for a high-powered law firm with wealthy clients. When trouble rears its ugly, inconvenient head, Michael Clayton shows up to clean up the mess. Why does he do it if it deadens him so much? Among other things, he has a loser brother, a divorce, a gambling habit. Clooney is believable as a man who tried to shoot the moon, and lost.
That’s not to say there are not other good performances, especially that of Tim Wilkinson as Arthur Edens. Wilkinson so immerses himself in the role, that empathy comes easily. He is a partner at the same firm as Michael Clayton, who has a meltdown when he stops taking his medication for bipolar disorder. Aside from the realistic portrayal of mental illness, it shows how it can co-exist with a still vital, though troubled mind. Arthur is convinced a case about environmental poisoning that he has been working on for eight years has the law firm on the wrong side of the lawsuit.
Now Arthur is the inconvenience because he is going against what is in the greater good of the corporation, whether morally right or wrong. Enter Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton in a idiosyncratic/chilling performance) who is an even bigger fixer than Michael Clayton. When Arthur fails in his attempt to stop the corporation, Michael has an attack of conscience, but is it too late to redeem himself? The uber boss, well played by Sidney Pollack, is not convinced, or doesn’t want to know the truth, only that the desired result has been achieved.
This is another film written/directed by, in this case Tony Gilroy. The man knows how to tell a story. After writing numerous screenplays, this is the first he has directed. It’s an auspicious debut, because even though the story itself is not overly complex, he uses the medium to advance the story in unexpected ways. At first it may seem slow and confusing, but the nonlinear storyline and reverses work well. The look of the film, music, and the suspense sequences are well done.
The relationship between Michael and his son, however, is not believable. (When will films cast people supposedly related to each other, who at least bear some small resemblance?) It seems added in to put more pressure on Michael so that everything begins to pile on at once, leaving him fewer and fewer options. What is a man to do when he’s sold out multiple times, yet knows the right course of action will ruin him? The dilemma is not far-fetched in our times; George Clooney brings that man to life with the right balance of imperfection and conscience. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
THE GOLDEN AGE |
ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE Content Advisory for Parents Drama 114 minutes
3½ stars |
Hundreds of years later, one expects the personages/period/place/and events of British history to be depicted meticulously, especially since movies and television (plus theater) have previously had so much practice in presenting it to us. If you have a ceaseless appetite for this sort of thing, you’ll likely be pleased by Elizabeth: The Golden Age. For others, though decidedly familiar, at least it moves along.
Cate Blanchett is back (in this sequel) as Elizabeth I and reliably excellent in portraying a clever, strong, imperious monarch wise in all matters save those of the heart, even when a suitable object appears. That would be the disheveled bad boy explorer/pirate Walter Raleigh, heartily portrayed by Clive Owen (thoroughly and skillfully enjoying himself) who appears the only man capable of matching, or taming, the Virgin Queen. But Elizabeth, having dabbled for decades (she’s over fifty at this point) seems unable/incapable of more than teasing, yearning, or a chaste kiss. Her only romantic fulfillment is vicariously through her favorite, young, pretty lady-in-waiting Bess (Abbie Cornish, warm, smart, and strong) who succumbs to Raleigh (don’t worry, they’ll be forgiven).
In the meantime, plots are afoot, primarily due to religion. Elizabeth is Protestant (thanks to her dad, Henry VIII) while both King Phillip II of Spain (Jordi Molla, believably a man possessed and increasingly obsessed) and Mary, Queen of Scots (Samantha Morton, abounding in self righteous presence) are Catholic. As Phillip builds a navy fleet, Mary plots the overthrow of her cousin in London. Giving advice/counsel to Elizabeth, and as crafty and unscrupulous as his enemies, is Francis Walsingham (Geoffrey Rush, convincing in every way) who reveals Mary’s betrayal and argues for her beheading. Elizabeth reluctantly agrees and as she stomps about the castle in guilt and anguish, Mary goes saint-like to her death.
And now, Phillip has his pretext for war. And here comes, yes indeed, the Spanish Armada. The situation looks bad. But, full of courage and taking heart from some mumbo jumbo from an astrologer, Elizabeth steps into some armor, dons flowing red tresses (it’s been established she’s a wig wearer), mounts a white steed, and rallies the troops (woefully small in number) with a speech (the usual, though not memorable). Out on the water, Raleigh assisting Francis Drake and with a huge assist from the weather defeat the Armada and Phillip’s scheme. What’s left? Glory and empire for England (with all the good and bad to be entailed). What about the Virgin Queen? Heard of the “Elizabethan Age”? To have an “age” named in you honor is a pretty good feather in the cap for any monarch, isn’t it?
Speaking of which, there are feathers in the Queen’s aforementioned wigs and lavish gowns and manly getups galore. For those interested in the historical equivalent of the Red Carpet credit goes to Jenny Shircore and Alexandra Byrne, respectively. The photography, by Remi Adefarasin is replete with stirring upward shots or stunning downward panoramas of the enormity of castle pillars and walls emphasizing the grandeur of the players and too, their vulnerability and limits within the sweep of history. But then, every detail is absolutely right, and director Shekhar Kapur (in this sequel to his earlier Elizabeth) has wielded a steady and certain hand. Even when predictable or portentous or overly dramatic (which happens now and then), there’s enough restraint to make it bearable.
Look, in terms of quality, the cliché that “once is enough” doesn’t hold. But, there is a limit. And for now, and for a while, please – Hold The Liz! Review by Charles Zio
| WHY DID I GET MARRIED? Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material, sexual references and language. Comedy/Drama 113 minutes
3 stars |
Take four couples, put them in an isolated vacation cabin in Colorado for a week’s retreat, add two single people, stir gently, then shake vigorously, and you have Tyler Perry’s Why Did I Get Married? Mr. Perry adapted the screenplay from his own stage play (so this is another "written/directed by"), smartly showing that all married couples have secrets or unspoken pain they keep from each other. At times the movie moves right along, at other times it’s broad and overdone. That’s the basic problem. Good foundation; questionable execution.
The acting is uneven as well. The most affecting performance is by Jill Scott, as Sheila, the “big” woman. It’s easy to identify with her constant humiliation about her size at the hands of her cruel, obnoxious husband, Mike (Richard T. Jones), although all the other beautiful, slender women are supportive. When she cries, her tears are real. Her character’s denial, though, is beyond belief. On the other end we have the hard-drinking Angela (Tasha Smith in a lively performance), who constantly puts down her husband, Marcus (well played by Michael Jai White), a former football player who now works in her hair salon. She provides some of the comic-relief/funny dialogue, yet much of it is because of her drinking, but this serious subject is not really addressed until the end, and even then given only a cursory nod played for laughs.
Patricia (Janet Jackson) and Gavin (Malik Yoba) play another troubled couple. He is an architect. She is a psychologist who brings the group together every year, and has written a book about their group experiences. Patricia and Gavin lost a child, and this stands between them like a cement wall. The two actors have a good rapport, and Mr. Yoba is a good choice as a distressed husband who doesn’t know how to connect with his wife. Ms. Jackson, though, has some tough moments in that she seems stiff and uncomfortable at times, but her commitment to the role is obvious. Tyler Perry himself plays Terry, a pediatrician, who wants more children but his wife Diane (Sharon Leal) just made partner in her law firm and can’t stop running around enough to pay attention to their marriage. The single people thrown into the mix are Denise Boutte as Trina, the “other woman,” and Lamman Rucker as Troy, the understanding sheriff.
There is a very good scene where the ten of them are having dinner and verbal barbs start flying until some painful secrets are revealed; some out of spite, some out of retaliation. This is where Mr. Perry’s experience as a playwright comes through. Other times, broad characterizations, acceptable on stage, hurt the film. Still, it’s heartening to see African-Americans playing more variety of roles on screen, even if at times some of the middle class characters fall into stereotypes, too. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| WE OWN THE NIGHT Rated R for strong violence, drug material, language, some sexual content and brief nudity. Crime/Drama 117 minutes
3 stars |
We Own The Night is the catch phrase/battle cry on the patch of an NYPD unit in 1988 that is trying to take down the brutal Russian Mob that is infusing the boroughs with drugs, specifically cocaine. Writer/director James Gray knows New York. He knows the look of the streets, the accents; the way cops behave and relate to each other. He also knows how to pick actors.
Joaquin Phoenix, as Bobby Green, has another intense, edgy role down pat. When his character is anxious, it’s palpable; when he’s angry, it’s real. Another good performance is given by Mark Wahlberg, as Joseph Grusinsky, who has come such a long way in his acting abilities. Here he’s the “good” cop brother to Joaquin’s “bad” nightclub-managing brother. His understated performance is impressive. It may be the influence of the master of under the top, Robert Duval, as the brothers’ father, Burt Grusinsky. Duval looks a bit too old, and not nearly as sturdy as he once was, but still gives a credible performance. Eva Mendez does a good job as Bobby Green’s beautiful and sexy Puerto Rican girlfriend, Amada Juarez. There are also many supporting actors who bring much to the authenticity of the surroundings.
The problem here is that the story seems recycled—every part of it has been seen or done before. I’m a fan of Little Odessa which Gray wrote/directed in 1995. It was a starkly original and truly frightening portrait of one of the most dysfunctional families on film. Gray seems to be attracted/enthralled by crime and family together in a tragic mix.
Bobby loves the night life. He’s living high with his girlfriend managing a large, swinging club, but he knows, of course, none of this is on the up-and-up. He dabbles in drugs and sets up scores for his boss. His involvement with one especially sinister, ruthless Russian mobster, Vadim Nezhinski, (Alex Veadov) forces Bobby to take a stand. The early scenes with Vadim give Phoenix something to play off of, and when he goes to see a “factory” where they cut and package cocaine, it’s the most interesting in the film. If only all of them were that interesting.
Loyalty to his brother and father draw Bobby back, finally, into the center of the bloody finale. As mentioned, some of the scenes are authentic-looking enough, but the movie is so uneven the actors can only do so much to wring emotion from the script. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| INTO THE WILD Rated R for language and some nudity. Adventure/Biography 140 minutes
2½ stars |
It’s the last 20-30 minutes of Into The Wild that draws one into the story. What then of the preceding two hours, or so? For some, the time devoted to establishing/elaborating on character, motivation, and larger themes will have been well spent. For others (I’m with them), more was not better, merely repetitious/annoying/patience-testing.
Emile Hirsch (in a performance completely natural and of total physical commitment) plays Christopher McCandless, a recent Emory College graduate who sets out in a search of personal fulfillment through nature. McCandless is angry at his parents (successful/dysfunctional) and society (materialistic/false) and with books in knapsack (Thoreau, Jack London, Tolstoy), commences on the familiar mythic American journey west to his personal paradise, better known as Alaska. Using the alias Alexander Supertramp (?), and determined not to be found, he travels first by his car (abandonded), then by thumb. Though a cheerful/upbeat/selfsufficient loner, his scenic motoring brings him in contact with a number of unusual, offbeat souls whom he emotionally/psychologically touches or who touch him (or both), such as Wayne Westerberg (Vince Vaughn, good naturedly appealing as usual), who supplies work and income, helpful as McCandless had earlier burned what money he had (that’s the kind of guy he is). Of more than passing import are Rainey (Brian Dierker, a non actor but fine in his role) and Jan (Catherine Keener, touching and believable) as a hippie couple who offer food/kindness/caring. In fact, after parting from them, Alexander encounters them again at the Slabs, a gathering spot of eccentrics in California.
And it is here, amid the freewheeling, that the movie moves past clichés, trite statements, and simplistic spirituality to fully engage the viewer in Alexander’s hard won (to put it mildly) attainment of wisdom (at least as he defined it). Though the movie continues its previously introduced nonlinear hopping about in time and incident (along with voiceovers, lines from letters, and diary entries), the loose ends are more quickly being gathered and fitted into a progression logically leading to the inevitable conclusion given the hero’s beliefs and determination. Is Alexander in his inoffensive way too smug, too self-assured? Does he consider his belief system superior, even if his demeanor is low keyed and inoffensive? Even Ron Franz (Hal Holbrook in a moving and perfectly modulated portrayal) can’t sway McCandless from his chosen path. Instead of everyone seeming to ask about his family (Marcia Gay Harden and William Hurt, in fine cameos), why didn’t anyone tell him to get over himself? Grow up? Think about someone beside himself? Maybe, and especially, to not travel alone and/take steps to be better prepared (by at least advising somebody, perhaps even some authority figures) of plans and location? This is not meant as callousness, but rather regret at the needless loss of a genuinely valuable and promising young man. Then again, this is a true story (based on Jon Krakauer’s book) and all reaction is informed and after the fact.
Once again we have a W&D movie. That is, a film “Written and Directed” by a single individual. In this instance, it’s Sean Penn (also said to have shot some of the film in addition to the majestic vistas of photographer Eric Gautier). The danger in these cases is the individual taking on the dual role will lack sufficient objective distance and fall in love beyond justification or utility with their personal vision. It’s truly a loss when the person is talented (as Penn most obviously is) and the resulting movie is less than it could have been (the viewer exits thinking “if only ______”). One more thing, the music by Eddie Vedder is a plus.
In conclusion, on every level, Into The Wild illustrates the validity of those words of regret - “what might have been”. Review by Charles Zio
OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD |
THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD Rated R for some strong violence and brief sexual references. Biography/Crime/Drama 160 minutes
3 stars |
The title is clear enough. Unfortunately, the film itself gets lost in all sorts of earnestness – historical, moral, manhood, western myth, you name it - on top of which its cloaked in mystery. A saving grace is that this is a movie of NOTE (Nice On The Eyes). On the other hand, it asks the dread question WINE? That is, Will It Never End? In this case, yeah, about five times.
Jesse James is portrayed by Brad Pitt who could be considered, minus the criminal attributes, a comparably romantic hero of our time (Jesse had nickel paper backs devoted to him while Pitt has endless cover stories). Brad is a much better actor than he’s given credit for and proves the case here by giving a fine performance that could have reached even higher if the script had allowed the viewer inside the character instead of leaving us to puzzle over hints/suggestions/inferences/silences behind which Jesse is cloaked. The same, of course, can be said for Casey Affleck as Robert Ford. He also shines in his role but the nature and motivation of Ford remains to be guessed at. As Jesse asks, “I don’t know if you want to be like me, or be me?” A bit of guess work and interpretation is welcome (it’s what we have to do with those we meet in life, after all) but too great an accumulation of meaningful stares and pauses calls attention to itself and becomes pretentious. But then “serious” is definitely an aim in the movie from title cards with dates and a scholarly voice over relating historical facts, background, portents, and insights. There is action, but the incidents are few and far between so that time in the movie goes by slowly (s-l-o-w-l-y) which has to cause restlessness as the outcome if given, Ford’s betrayal and Jesse’s death. And, as mentioned above, the film ends over and over. “Jesse James” runs 160 minutes (over two hours!) and I’m guessing that at 90 it might have become a classic.
Lest I forget, the acting, besides the two excellent leads (and all those worthies in bit parts), additionally includes topnotch acting by Paul Schneider (Dick Liddil), Jeremy Renner (Wood Hite), and Sam Rockwell (Charley Ford).
What does work demonstrably in this movie is the cinematography of Roger Deakins. The shots of nature are stunning - sweeping vistas of skies, endless acres of grass and countryside, snow covered landscapes, and of course, lone figures in the distance. A train robbery amidst fog and smoke introduces a recurring motif of pictorially stunning black and white compositions. Yup, there’s definitely a great deal to look at and appreciate. Visually, this is one of the most beautiful Westerns ever.
Andrew Dominik is the writer and director and, as often happens, he’s too in love with his own script and his vision of its execution thereby tending to forget the audience is coming first and foremost to be entertained (dramatically or humorously or any variation in between). It’s a shame because Dominik does establish a tone/look/feel of a time past and yet, issue-wise, still relevant and familiar and worthy of consideration and thought. We’ll just have to wait for Jesse’s next visit and, no doubt, in one form or another, he’ll ride again. Review by Charles Zio
BOOK CLUB |
THE JANE AUSTEN BOOK CLUB Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material content, brief strong language and somd drug use. Drama/Romance 106 minutes
3½ stars |
Yes, The Jane Austen Book Club is a “chick flick.” That means it has no mindless violence, adolescent bathroom humor, stupid and inane dialogue, or women with breast implants running around half-naked. That’s not to say this is a perfect film, but it certainly has other things to offer other than the above list.
The premise is that a group of six people, five women and one man, start a book club but they read and discuss only the novels of Jane Austen. Based on a best selling novel of the same name, the situations in Austen’s novels reflect the lives of those in the book club. Okay, it seems a little too precious at times, and it’s difficult to distill the individual situations and heartache into less than two hours of understandable angst. But surprise, it works; mainly because the directing and ensemble acting are very well done. Also, the point is that good old Jane, like any very good writer, knew quite a bit about people. Though never married herself, she was an astute observer of the human condition. Not so much time has passed in the scheme of eternity that we are so much different, temperamentally, than we were in Austen’s time.
The characters are not ultra sophisticated snobs or superheroes, but everyday folks with everyday hurts, fears, and tears, just trying to figure out life. Jocelyn (played convincingly by Maria Bello) is a dog breeder who’s never been married and claims she’s never been in love. Her best friend Sylvia (an affecting Amy Brenneman) has been married over twenty years to Daniel (Jimmy Smits in a shaded performance) who first dated Jocelyn. Her daughter Allegra (an engaging Maggie Grace), a young, thrill-seeking lesbian joins. Then there is Bernadette (Kathy Baker in a likable, charming performance), the oldest of the ladies who has been married multiple times; the life-affirming, free-spirit of the group. Grigg (an appealing Hugh Dancy), is the only man included who Jocelyn meets and invites to the group, ostensibly to fix up with one of the other members. The luminous Emily Blunt, is terrific as the ethereal Prudie, trying so desperately to run from the circumstances of her unhappy childhood and the irresponsible, hippie mother (Lynn Redgrave in an expertly done cameo) who gave her sensitive child so little of what she needed. She teaches high school French and is drawn to one of her flirtatious students Trey (a nice turn by Kevin Zegers) feeling that her husband Dean (well played by Marc Blucas) is an insensitive clod.
All of these stories play out; some in ways you’d expect, others, maybe not, but the relationships between the women is a strong element. Women will probably intuitively understand because they need good friends who support and help sustain them in the worst of times, and celebrate with them in the best of times. But it may end up being a bit “touchy-feely” for some. Things also happen a bit too conveniently. The interesting part is that this is not a “let’s trash men” movie. Everyone in the book club, and associated with it, has flaws, and because they come to feel empathy, find understanding and compassion for each other. I think this is the kind of film that will grow in standing as more people discover the quiet “sense and sensibility” of reading books whose authors, like Jane Austen, give us insight into the human condition. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
THE DARK IS RISING |
THE SEEKER: THE DARK IS RISING Rated PG for fantasy action and some scary images. Action/Adventure/Drama/Fantasy 94 minutes
3 stars |
This is a lush looking fantasy action/drama about a boy, Will Stanton (Alexander Ludwig) who on turning fourteen, becomes the last in a line of “Seekers.” He is the only one left to protect the world from The Dark forces that want to destroy it and take all the light. The film, based on the novel by Susan Cooper is certainly full of metaphors. Will is the seventh son of a seventh son. Okay. Aside from that clarification and some hereditary issues, it’s never really explained why he’s so special. In fact, he keeps protesting that he isn’t. Smart boy.
Will’s American family is in England because his father got a teaching job at a university. The household is full of teenagers and the lone sister who idolizes Will. He is typical in fighting with his brothers, questioning his father’s judgment, and not quite getting what his role in the world will turn out to be. No need to worry as the “old ones” will guide him. Ian McShane plays Merriman Lyon (get it?) who is the leader of the group who will help Will to fight the dark forces led by the Rider, Christopher Eccleston. These two men, and Francis Conroy, who plays Miss Greythorne, another of the old ones, are the most skilled and interesting actors in the film.
There are magical signs and symbols, but it’s difficult to put it all together in a coherent manner. What do they mean? Why does The Dark have so much power? What happened to the other Seekers? None of this is explained; rules or laws come out of left field to impose further problems for Will to solve. He even goes back in time to collect the signs. Why are they there and not in the present?
It is surely organized and understandable in the book, but I have the same problem I did with the film Stardust this summer. There is no order or reason to the events that occur. It’s fine to simply say it’s “magic,” and then we’re supposed to take it on faith that is the way it is. But that doesn’t help the audience, especially when there is nothing outstanding or original about the film.
It comes back to the same thing that is problematic for many screenplays; story, story, story. If the audience can’t follow it, or worse, believe it, if it doesn’t resonate for the audience, or touch any chords, then it seems more an exercise in special effects and production design. Maybe children will be more accepting of the gaps. That may be enough; though I think the filmmakers were aiming higher. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
HEARTBREAK KID |
THE HEARTBREAK KID Rated R for strong sexual content, crude humor and language. Comedy/Drama/Romance 115 minutes
2 stars |
The Farrelly Brothers are not known for their subtlety, and that reputation will continue to grow with this remake. Whether you find the film more crude than funny depends on your sensibilities. The original movie about a guy who doesn’t marry for the best of reasons, only to fall in love with someone else on his honeymoon, has been modernized. Eddie Cantrow (Ben Stiller playing a very familiar character) is forty years old and has never been married. He’s getting all kinds of flack from his father (real life father Jerry Stiller, with dyed red hair no less), and his married friend Mac (Rob Corddry), proving that misery loves company.
Eddie owns a sports store in San Francisco (changed from the New York locale). He meets his future wife, Lila (beautiful but annoying Malin Ackerman) when he tries to stop a thief who steals her purse. Things progress quickly from that point as Eddie decides to take the plunge only weeks after meeting her. This strains reality a bit. It seems naïve and stupid that someone who waits that long to get married wouldn’t at least google his future life partner. He pays for that lack of attention. On the way to their Mexican honeymoon, all her irritating habits begin to drive him crazy. Me too.
He meets Miranda, (well played by Michelle Monaghan) the woman of his dreams, when Lila gets a bad case of sunburn. He likes her Southern charm and friendly family. He forgets to tell her the little detail that he is, in fact, married. Of course, complications ensue.
Something About Mary was more endearing, funny, and not as graphic. It seems the Farrelly Brothers are trying to top themselves in the “crude & outrageous” department. They accomplish that, but in doing so lose the balance that made their work interesting and unique, without containing the “yuk” factor. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THE KINGDOM Rated R for intense sequences of graphic brutal violence, and for language. 110 minutes
4 stars |
The Kingdom is impressive. It is well written by Matthew Michael Carnahan, well directed by Peter Berg, and well acted by the principals, and the ensemble cast. The film starts with about a five minute history of the US involvement in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia. This is helpful for putting the story in context, and a reminder that sometimes we have indeed been the “ugly Americans.” Does this justify hate and murder? No, but both sides contribute to death and destruction.
The Kingdom refers to Saudi Arabia where Americans have established an idyllic outpost. There is a friendly softball game going on with women and children looking on and hot dogs on the grill. But soon there is mayhem and chaos as they are attacked by men in Saudi soldiers’ uniforms who shoot any American of any age from their SUV. Later, as an FBI agent views the carnage holding a child’s baseball cap, a huge explosion goes off, killing him and hundreds of others.
Through a series of events, the dead FBI agent’s team headed by Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx in a strong/authoritative performance), and three of his elite team make it over to Saudi Arabia against the wishes of derisive government types who don’t seem to give a flip about anything but their own power base. On the team with Fleury is Grant Sykes (Chris Cooper, authentic in any role he takes), a bomb expert, Janet Mayes (Jennifer Garner, able to hold her own here with the guys), a forensic expert, and Adam Leavitt (Jason Bateman, again playing a quirky, less than macho smart Alec).
They are tightly controlled at first by Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (an actor able to convincingly convey the conflicting loyalties in the soldier’s life) who is responsible for their safety. His second in command, Sergeant Haytham (Ali Suliman also bringing a human touch to a stereotypic role) is assigned to them as well. Because of the FBI team’s expertise, and their willingness to teach the Saudis what they know, a bond forms (a bit too easily one might say given they only have five days to find the murderers), and together they hunt down the killers.
The film is fast-paced with few lapses, yet we get enough of a short-hand character sketch of each significant person. The special effects are stunning because even though you’ve seen this before, it’s believable; none of it seems gratuitous. The cinematography is first rate, although there is that shaky camera thing that seems to be in fashion that goes on a bit too long in the beginning. You soon forget this as the action keeps you engaged throughout. What could have been a complicated, messy narrative is coherent and ultimately moving because the human story eclipses whatever “side” you happen to be on, and does it with the right amount of compassion for all. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| ACROSS THE UNIVERSE Rated PG-13 for some drug content, nudity, sexuality, violence, and language. Drama/Musical/Romance 131 minutes
2 stars |
Beatles songs were mostly upbeat, humorous, sometimes sad/lonely, and of course, romantic. A good fit, that is, for a simple love story with a little bit of social conscience. But surrounding, and overtaking, the boy-meets-girl tale with political messages is an exercise in forced reverse relevance. It’s a safe bet Across The Universe will clearly divide viewers into those charmed by its good looks/sounds and creative experimentation and those finding it primarily unoriginal and pretentious. I’m with the latter.
The opening is promising with a young man on a beach lyrically asking (“Girl”), “Is there anybody going to listen to my story all about the girl who came to stay?” Well, sure, and we’re quickly introduced to the standard pairing of working class (in this case a British dockworker) and upper echelon (a high school golden girl). Our fellow is (yup) Jude and rendered by Jim Sturgess (earnest and laid back) while the girl is named Lucy (what else) and portrayed by Evan Rachel Wood (sincere and emotional). How to get them together? Jude jumps ship to find his long lost father who is currently a janitor at Princeton (nothing much is made of the potentialities here) where he crosses paths and becomes pals with Max (Joe Anderson, lively and interesting), a college party boy and Lucy’s brother and, through an invitation to Thanksgiving dinner, the two future lovers meet. But not yet, as Lucy has a boyfriend who has enlisted to fight in Vietnam.
And here we start a highlights of the 1960’s reel – Vietnam War, peace movement, protests, Detroit riots, the assassination of Martin Luther King. Didn’t the play/movie Hair do a lot of this already, and better? Then there’s the freewheeling East Village scene – singer Sadie (Dana Fuchs), a convincing almost Janis Joplin (minus the self-destructiveness), guitarist Jo-Jo (Martin Luther McCoy), a tame sort-of Jimmy Hendrix, along with Jude (turns out he’s an artist), and hangers-on like Prudence (T.V. Carpio), a one-note cipher (her “thing” being lesbianism). Sound familiar? Traces of Rent maybe? Amid let’s not forget the cameos, such as Bono as a Timothy Leary drug guru clone, Eddie Izzard as ringmaster Mr. Kite (although what this has to do with anything is a question), Selma Hayek (in multiples of herself no less), and if I’m not mistaken, a weathered Joe Cocker.
Now, about the songs. They are presented either literally with the musical cues so obvious as to be almost laughable and choreography predictable enough to seem clichéd or in a self-conscious attempt to be clever with masks/puppets/psychedelic colors/graphics in an attempt to be different and ingenious. As a result, the viewer’s reaction alternates between beenthere- seen-that and what-the-heck-is-the-point?
Julie Taymor is a smart, talented, experimental artist but in this movie the script (by Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, based on a story by them and Taymor) isn’t strong enough to withstand the imposition of music with a different sensibility. Credit is due for the attempt, the actors fine singing (despite having to convey one dimensional characters), cinematography by Bruno Delbonnel, editing by Francoise Bonot, and production design by Mark Freidberg. The single undeniable highlight is the few minutes of Max’s induction experience to the tune of “I Want You”. Still, that is way, way too little reward in a movie running over two hours. Maybe, you’ll like Across The Universe. I’m just in dread of someone in a room with The Stones discography. Review by Charles Zio
| THE GAME PLAN Rated PG for some mild thematic elements. Comedy/Family/Sport 112 minutes
3½ stars |
How much can you say about a movie that you’ve seen, in one form or another, numerous times? Don’t think so? It’s a Disney movie and if any production company knows from formula, it’s none other than the Mouse People.
Start with the selfish success – in this version it’s Joe Kingman, a lifelong football star with a lavish apartment filled to the brim with his trophies that he shares with Spike, his bulldog. Only thing missing is winning the Championship. (The words “Super Bowl” are never mentioned. Guess not even Disney can trump the NFL.) Still, amid the wealth, the women, the fame, who has Joe really got but his dog? Wait, the doorbell rings. He thinks it’s a babe and it is – his previously unknown daughter, Peyton. Oh, dilemma! Oh, clash of egos! Oh, search for love! Etc., etc.
The saving feature here is the casting, and by that I mean first and foremost Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. It’s difficult to dislike this guy exactly because he seems to be a regular Joe (can’t believe it’s accidental it’s his character’s name) who anyone would feel comfortable having a beer with, watching a game with, sitting in a crowded fast food joint and have a burger with. So, you root for him even amid the lame quirks he’s given, like being a neatnik or a food fanatic. Nicely abetting Johnson is Madison Pettis as Peyton. She is a natural – cute but her slightly spaced teeth spare her the look of an unbelievably perfect child. You also don’t see her acting, delivering her lines, she seems to be living the movie as it happens. Nice job. As is that by Roselyn Sanchez, as Peyton’s ballet teacher. Beneath the elegant, sexy exterior she is affectionate, caring, as tough as Joe, and his future (come on, it’s a Disney movie). And Joe’s teammates and buddies, played by Morris Chestnut, Hayes MacArthur, Brian J. White, and Jamal Duff, are a major plus.
Peyton is, naturally, no push over. In fact, she’s pretty feisty and shows no fear of her father’s ego (unlimited), status (he’s “the man” in Boston), or size (“The Rock” is just short of literal). They clash, as they must, with her pursuit of ballet and his of football and the reliable standby of the wise child educating the adult who is in actuality the child. This occurs by virtue of much mirth as Peyton upends Joe’s life and lifestyle. The movie is humorous, here and there funny, and ever heartwarming.
The Game Plan screenplay by Nicole Millard and Kathryn Price is sufficiently kind and warm so that one willingly overlooks the occasional gaps in plot and logic. Andy Fickman, the director displays a confident and wise touch in keeping what could have been a trite story moving smoothly while, at the same time, and commendably, not allowing the sentiment to overwhelm. No, the movie doesn’t break new ground, but for what it is, and as with The Rock, it’s a winner. Review by Charles Zio
| EASTERN PROMISES Rated R for strong brutal and bloody violence, some graphic sexuality, language and nudity. Drama/Mystery/Thriller 100 minutes
4½ stars |
The Russian underworld in the West is not familiar to most of us and part of the effectiveness of Eastern Promises is its refusal to act as a textbook even to the extent of not offering subtitles for stretches of dialogue. The result is to force a focus on interpreting and comprehending the body language, intonation, and signposts of another culture. It’s an unknown world, but, all the more fascinating for that very fact.
At the start, a violent murder takes place (be aware death and mayhem are graphically presented) and a pregnant girl dies giving birth (her voice over runs throughout, though not irritatingly). These two strands will play out alternately and intersectingly by virtue of a first rate cast. Viggo Mortensen (the star, and “a star” in every sense) portays Nikolai, a cold, supremely cool, enigmatic would-be member of the Russian mob who functions as driver and sidekick to Kirill (Vincent Cassel, not missing a beat) the unworthy/blustering/heavy drinking son of Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl, a thorough pro) the cold-blooded/merciless/unflappable local leader of the Vory v Zakone (Russian mafia). The non-mob members are played by Naomi Watts (sympathetic and vulnerable) as Anna, the daughter of a Russian father and British mother (the convincing Sinead Cusack), a midwife determined to save the dead girl’s baby from being lost in the welfare system. Brandishing the girl’s diary and ignoring her Russian uncle’s warnings (a dandy, growling Jerzy Skolimowski) she doggedly pursues the truth.
Aside from untranslated Russian conversations, there’s much to behold that is mysterious. For instance, the tattoos, one or two of which are explained. Most aren’t. But here’s another – a plain cross means “I am a thief.” One more - Nikolai has a large, detailed crucifix in the middle of his chest which signifies – bondage, subordination and slavery, and symbolizes the highest rank as “Thief-in-law" or head of a Russian mob family.
Rest assured, despite the mysteries of language and sign the story is engrossing and one willingly and eagerly follows along, trying to puzzle out who is doing what to whom and why (truth and betrayal, of course, are endemic to gangs of every stripe). And let me mention since I guess it is unavoidable, that Nikolai does do battle, sans towel, in a steam room with two murderous thugs in a brutal/riveting/brawl-to-the-death, though how he doesn’t guess it’s coming is not clear. Anyway, isn’t a highly skilled and choreographed fight sequence enough as it is?
David Cronenberg’s directorial hand is steady and assured throughout and he amply realizes the masterful script by Steve Knight with the assistance of cinematographer Peter Suschitzky, editing by Ronald Sanders, and production design by Carol Spier. Cronenberg has given us a winner from start to finish. Much praise to him. And, if you’re willing to go with the flow, Eastern Promises delivers great enjoyment for the viewer. Review by Charles Zio
OF ELAH |
IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH Rated R for violent and disturbing content, language an some sexuality/nudity. Drama/Mystery/Thriller 121 minutes
4 stars |
The title of this movie refers to the story of David and Goliath as told by the Tommy Lee Jones character in terms of a battle between a “monster” and a “boy.” Are there parallels, and if so what, with present day Iraq? Do returning soldiers carry over, and act in response to, their war experiences? The answer to the first question is open to debate and interpretation. The reply to the second, however, within the confines of a murder mystery (familiar though well done), can only be affirmative.
Tommy Lee Jones is cast as Hank Deerfield, a retired military policeman, and while other actors (granted very few) may match him none exceeds his mastery in conveying via controlled expression and demeanor a sense of hard earned experience/attendant world weariness/and an ability to handle any situation that confronts him. After a call informs Deerfield his returned son, Mike (Jonathan Tucker, sympathetically tough but naïve) has gone AWOL, he drives to the army base and begins to investigate (expedited by his former military status and know-how) even pilfering a damaged cell phone that a hired tech expert slowly recovers and delivers. The images are broken/hazy/out of context. Seeking help, Deerfield approaches local police in the person of Emily Sanders (Charlize Theron, believably tough yet sensitive) who claims a lack of jurisdiction (it being a military matter). Of course, Sanders has her own problems – the disdain of fellow detectives viewing her position as having been earned courtesy of the captain’s favors as well as being a single mother to her son. But then a body is discovered (brutalized and mutilated) and identified as Mike. After giving her a lesson in procedure and deduction, Sanders and Deerfield team up to find the killer and/or accomplices.
The remainder of the movie is a standard, familiar exercise in the genre (hunches/lucky breaks/detail work/false leads/dead ends/cover-ups/ spoken truth, etc.). In an excellent cast, a special nod to Susan Sarandon (who, even in a small part, as expected, shines) as Joan Deerfield, Jason Patric (a good actor deserving a lot more work) as Lieutenant Kirklander, the military’s point man, and, a salute to Mike’s buddies (and suspects) Mehcad Brooks as Specialist Ennis Long, Victor Wolf as Private Robert Ortiez, Jake McLaughlin (himself an Iraq vet) as Specialist Gordon Bonner, and Wes Chatham (a Gulf War navy vet) as Corporal Steve Penning.
Paul Haggis has delivered a model script of the genre (based on a story by Mark Boal and himself) based on true events. His direction is topnotch, engrossing, and rings true. The cinematographer Roger Deakins, the editor Jo Francis, and the production designer Laurence Bennett all acquit themselves admirably.
To be sure, In The Valley Of Elah is unsettling. Even after the crime is solved one isn’t left satisfied or at ease. There’s a feeling of tragedy – at the changes wrought on the young sent to war, of what inevitably occurs on the battle fields, of the lasting scars. We do discover the who, what, where, when, and how of this particular case. What’s missing, though, however one chooses to answer it, is the why. Review by Charles Zio
OF THE MOON |
IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON Rated PG for mild language, brief violent images, and incidental smoking. Documentary 100 minutes
5 stars |
This film documents the history and great legacy of the Apollo space program of the late 1960s and early 1970s. While we were a country divided over the Vietnam War, radical social change, including the women’s movement and civil rights, the NASA engineers and astronauts were devising a course to put a man on the moon.
Given an edict from President John F. Kennedy in the early 60’s about reaching the moon before the end of the decade, these pioneers never looked back. Even after Kennedy was assassinated, the program went forward.
With wit, modesty, and candor, the former astronauts tell their stories as they remember them. And although the history is well-documented, there’s nothing like their first-hand accounts of some of the events before and after the first landing on the moon.
Especially touching are the accounts of Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, two of the three Apollo 11 team who made the first successful flight. Neal Armstrong isn’t a participant (one concludes by his own choice) but he is a strong presence as he was the first man to walk on the moon and forever holds that special place of honor. Buzz Aldrin was the second. Mike Collins had to stay aboard to fly the spacecraft, but holds no rancor. Also interviewed were: Alan Bean, Eugene Cernan, Jim Lovell, Edgar D. Mitchell, Harrison Schmitt, Dave Scott, and John Young.
The images are breathtakingly beautiful, both of the moon and the earth. The title of the film comes from the first flight. The light has been so bright as they travel from earth, but goes dark because they are in the shadow of the moon, almost there, and they know then that they are close to accomplishing their mission. It’s so moving that even though you know what’s coming, when Armstrong takes that first step you feel your heart racing. So much time and sacrifice have been made for that one triumphant moment.
We owe these courageous men a debt. They never wavered in their belief that we could reach the moon, and they were willing to die for it. Some did. They looked past the politics and petty concerns as though they were wearing blinders. It’s sad that the space program hasn’t continued in as bold a course since then. This feels like a mistake. The earth is described many ways by the astronauts, but one was perhaps a warning: he said he thought it looked very fragile. Some of the men said how they developed a renewed reverence for the earth, life, and a new spirituality. And we should be very grateful to them. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| 3:10 TO YUMA Rated R for violence and some language. Western/Drama 117 minutes
4 stars |
The original movie, 3:10 to Yuma, was made in 1957 from a story by Elmore Leonard with a screenplay by Halstead Welles. Mr. Welles is credited along with Michael Brandt, a younger writer, this time around. Although remakes have not had a sterling track record, this story, while not perfect, holds up well after fifty years, given the parameters of the western. They have their own conventions, and it’s difficult to bring something really startling and new to the genre. 1992’s Unforgiven is cited as the last great western made. Fifteen years is a long time, so for those who miss westerns, this film will be welcomed.
Dan Evans (Christian Bale) and his family are trying to make a go of it with the small, dry ranch they call home. Dan has lost the affection of his wife, and respect of his older son William (Logan Lerman), who at fourteen is sick of the boring, miserable existence they eek out. Water makes the difference between success and failure in the West, and those in power want to take Dan’s land for access to water and have the railroad come through. This is a bit of irony as later on Dan makes the decision (for money) to join the escort of killer Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to the train in Yuma that will supposedly take him to prison and the hangman’s noose.
Like the vast majority of westerns, this is a guy story; essentially a buddy movie about male bonding between a killer and a decent man who can kill, but wants to live peacefully. It’s used often in modern times as the thin line between cop and criminal, and there but for the grace of a good childhood, or heart, goes the hero. A grudging regard develops between Ben and Dan, especially after Ben learns that Dan is brave and incorruptible. Dealing as he does with killers and criminals, this appeals to something in Ben’s twisted code of principles.
The father/son theme is strong too, as Dan takes the chance of being killed to prove to his son he’s not the coward William accuses him of being several times. In fact, Dan fought in the Civil War, was a marksman, and lost a foot (though not as we might imagine). But all these elements play into his trying to gain back his self-respect, hold onto something worthwhile he has built and pass on a legacy to his family.
Women, a barmaid, and Dan’s wife Alice (Gretchen Mol looking extremely cool and put together in the dusty, parched climate with only a hair or two out of place) are incidental to the narrative except to show Ben’s appeal to women, and give Dan more motivation to succeed.
The acting by the leads is excellent. Russell Crowe plays the psychopath Ben Wade with steely arrogance and idiosyncratic leanings when a spark (just a spark) of decency may strike his fancy. The character has a loyal band of outlaws because he can back up his bravado with action. He’s an efficient killing machine who has no conscience, avoiding inconvenient feelings of remorse. Christian Bale is impressive in a challenging role. He plays a decent man who just wants to live a simple, honest life. Yet Bale doesn’t make him a saint. There’s an edginess to Dan. Crowe and Bale work well together and enhance each other’s performances.
Other notable acting: Peter Fonda almost unrecognizable as a grizzled Pinkerton; Ben Foster as Charlie Prince, Ben’s second in command and psychopath-in-waiting; Alan Tudyk as Doc Potter, so hilarious in Death at a Funeral showing versatility here as a veterinary doctor treating gunshot wounds and worse; Logan Lerman as Dan’s son William, so believable in his youthful distain of his parent, then devastated when he finds he has misjudged him.
The cinematography shows off some of the breathtaking landscape and does a good job with the action shots. Although, the violence is overdone at times and feels gratuitous. The movie might have a more psychological take than some think necessary for a western since so much has already been realized in the genre, but it’s not unusual when you have a writer the caliber of Elmore Leonard. Writers discover and uncover the layers of their characters to understand their true nature, so it’s unfortunate that an incident at the end of the film doesn’t ring true. Yet, the story and movie have merit and show that a western made with care can be still be viable as serious entertainment. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| FEAST OF LOVE Rated R for strong sexual content nudity and language. Drama/Romance 102 minutes
3 stars |
Love and loss. Happiness and sorrow. Heaven and hell. Feast of Love deals with two sides of an emotion that we all experience as either the meaning we are alive, or torment when it doesn’t work out; usually we’ve known both at one time or another. Adapted from Charles Baxter's complex novel, it only partially succeeds in drawing us into the multiple story lines of characters that intersect and converge by the end.
Harry Stevenson, (Morgan Freeman, dignified and affecting as usual) is a college professor in Portland, Oregon (changed from Michigan in the novel) suffering because of the death of his only son. He narrates small parts of the film with his usual authority, but it’s not overdone. Harry has taken a leave of absence from his job because he feels he has nothing to share with his students, and no joy. Yet, he’s such a commanding figure that people are always asking for his advice. He hesitates. Since he couldn’t help his son, he doesn’t know how he can help anyone else. His wife, Esther (a luminous Jane Alexander) tries to help, but suffers herself. These two actors have a good rapport and the expression of their loss is quite believable and sad, especially because, as a parent, there is guilt involved. What could they have done differently? What didn’t they see?
Those questions overlap and apply to the other love stories, all of which have elements of agony and ecstasy. Greg Kinnear plays Bradley Thomas, a true fool for love, as a kind of 40 year old trying-to-please puppy who desperately wants love in his life. The problem is that Bradley loves the idea of love, but his lack of attention to the actual person leaves him vulnerable. Kinnear pulls off this performance, but the charactrer is not very compelling. Selma Blair does a good turn as his first wife which makes Radha Mitchell’s Diana, his second wife, seem all the more cold and unappealing. Her involvement with David Watson (Billy Burke giving a controlled performance) is another factor in the mess. Another story revolves around the young lovers, Chloe and Oscar (a wonderful Alexa Davalos, and suitably intense Toby Hemingway), who cling to each other with child-like abandon, (there seems an unnecessary amount of nudity in the film that might be distracting to some).
It would be difficult under any circumstances for a film to capture all the nuances of a novel, particularly one with this many characters and complications built into the structure. The director, Robert Benton, strives to give the film weight, almost too much so. Yes, be alive, be open, be alert—see what is right in front of you. Still, love has its dark side and there is no accounting for how that will manifest itself. Taking a chance to be happy is all we can really do. Feast of Love is more an exercise in repetition, with twists and turns, than enlightenment. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| OUT OF THE BLUE Foreign Film - New Zealand Parental Advisory Drama 100 minutes
4 stars |
We’ve all heard it on the news, a neighbor or co-worker, recognized as a bit odd, suddenly unhinges and goes on a killing spree. It’s regrettable, though sadly not surprising, in our urban/suburban/exurban world. But there’s no escape even amid the lovely, peaceful countryside of New Zealand as the highly effective docudrama Out of the Blue shows.
Matthew Sunderland plays David Gray, whose dwelling, ramshackle and cluttered, sits amid the natural splendor of New Zealand’s mountains and shore (the photography by Greig Fraser is jaw-droppingly beautiful) in the peaceful, sleepy township of Aramoana. Despite the setting, Gray is a man on the verge, a loner increasingly losing touch with reality believing himself beset/besieged by the police, banks, school children, even dogs. At first, we sympathize with this man who, as the saying goes, is all but crying out for help. But that changes on November 13, 1990 when Gray begins a killing spree commencing with the gunning down of his former friend (he helped build his house), Gary Holden (Simon Ferry, warm and winning), with whom he has had a silly, running feud, followed by shooting Gary’s daughter and that of his newly-named finance, after which he sets their home on fire. And now we have hell on earth as Gray, his rage unleashed, randomly shoots anyone within range (elderly and more children included), and the red flames starkly contrast with the surrounding beauty, especially as the evening sets.
The police, alerted, come on the scene. Of course, none of them are trained for what they encounter - carnage or dealing with an out-of-control gunman – as illustrated by Nick Harvey (Karl Urban, believable as a decent, brave man) who, to his grief, freezes when called on to do his duty. The terror of the trapped residents, hunkered down in their homes behind lock doors awaiting the all clear is shown most effectively in the plight of Helen Dickson (Lois Lawn, appealingly feisty and understandably fearful) as Gray stands outside her window and she tries to keep her son’s dog, Patch, from giving them away. Eventually, the police track and capture Gray (writhing in cuffs like the animal he has become).
Okay, let me say it. Can we cease with the overly used and by now trite “stare-in-the-mirror” shot? You know, where a character stands gazing deeply into a mirror, bathroom or otherwise, with recognition, or humor, or surprise, or acceptance, or determination, or whatever the heck it is. But if it must be then, at least, can it be kept short?
The power of Out of the Blue lies in its presentation of the events minus interpretation. We’re given the facts, plain and unembroidered, and the stark reality is chilling precisely because it’s not just a massacre of 13 people that occurred in a semi-rural area half way around the world. We recognize it could be anywhere, anytime. It’s a horrific possibility. Robert Sarkies, as director, and writer with Graeme Tetley, has done a masterful job of giving us a film that achieves its effect with suspense rather than geysers of blood. Death is frightening here for being immediately final, or if forestalled, for lingering painfully. What you’re left with is the fervent hope never to find yourself in the equivalent of a November 13, 1990 in Aramoana. Review by Charles Zio
| THE HUNTING PARTY Rated R for strong language and some violent content. Action/Drama/Adventure/Thriller 96 minutes
3 stars |
An initial message on screen in The Hunting Party informs that “only the ridiculous parts of this story are true.” Based on an Esquire article, the failure to prosecute war crimes after the Balkan war is attributed to political conspiracy and an analogy to a current situation is disturbingly, if in a flip manner, stated at the end. While the movie is generally enjoyable, a large gap presents a distraction too large to ignore.
At the start, Terrence Howard (ever true to the character he plays) supplies a voice over introducing Richard Gere (skillfully blending charm and stubbornness) as the ace of war journalists and himself as his dedicated cameraman. They’re an unbeatable pair until Gere loses his composure (voicing outrage and profanity) in response to an on-air interview by a plastic, studio-based anchorman (James Brolin, effectively pompous in a cameo) after a battle in Bosnia. Gere is fired, drifts into obscurity, and eventually disappears from view. Howard, however, is elevated to a cushy and lucrative assignment at headquarters and five years later joins the anchorman on a location assignment in Sarajevo. Tagging along is Jessie Eisenberg (believably unworldly and sincere), the son of a station VP (a graduate of Harvard he repeatedly reminds) intent on proving himself. Lo and behold, who turns up but a grizzled Gere claiming he knows the location of The Fox (Ljubomir Kerekes, smugly detestable), the still free Serb leader and butcher of untold Muslims. Gere is intent on getting an interview and Howard is persuaded (by his former partner’s comments on his cushy life and his own nostalgia for his formerly exciting/meaningful work) to sign on and, in an act of generosity, allows Eisenberg to come along. Interestingly, but not logically, for the rest of the movie Howard never again alludes to or carries a camera, his stock in trade. Huh?
At any rate, the trio sets off. Meetings with U.N. members tag them as being incompetent/having their hands tied/or involved with various intrigues. There’s undoubtedly some truth to this portrayal, and the other conspiracy theories set forth, but the extent/depth of the facts remain for history to determine. No matter as our heroes (at times maintaining the fiction assumed by some they’re CIA) easily enough (though threatened) find The Fox and face death for their troubles. Of course, once Gere and his accomplices are on their way to the mountains in his old yellow car (its purchase a mystery being he’s broke and continually prevailing upon Howard for funds) he admits that his actual intention is to eliminate The Fox rather than interview him (for a reason which also explicates his earlier shout out to the anchorman).
Needless to say, the good guys are rescued in the nick of time and resolve (after figuring that something very rotten has allowed The Fox to remain uncaptured) they themselves will see justice done. And here there is a gap, a huge one, in that, despite an explanation in the script, there’s a leap ahead over the particulars of how Gere and company manage to trap The Fox (and then see he will get the punishment he deserves). Hold it! The movie’s been progressing at a steady pace and then, suddenly, the action shoots into the future and the viewer can’t help but be caught up and taken out of the story’s progression with, unfortunately, not enough time to get back. The saving grace, though not sufficiently redemptive, is the explications of the “ridiculous parts” of this truth-founded tale.
As for Richard Shepard, most of his adapted script might be familiar but it’s clear and efficient and its one drawback (and one impossible to overcome) is the aforementioned leap in action near the end. On the other hand, as director, he does a professional, smooth job and elicits fine performances from all his actors and his list of tech people. Oddly, when many movies run longer than necessary, here’s one suffering for shorting the story. The Hunting Party isn’t bad, it just isn’tcomplete. Review by Charles Zio
| THE LAST WINTER Not Rated/Parental Advisory Horror/Thriller 101 minutes
3 stars |
Subtlety is a difficult quality to achieve in a horror movie, though when achieved the viewer will be treated to a chair-squirming experience both in the theater and afterward in memory. Unfortunately, The Last Winter (despite some pluses) is an example of a film so subtle the menace never manages to escalate upward to suspense.
Opening with a promotional video, we’re informed that a vote in Congress will now permit drilling to proceed in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with specific sites determined by North Industries, the selected oil drilling corporation, and environmental advocates. Working from a base camp of stark housing (claustrophobic) in a landscape of snow and ice (endless vistas of white), is a disparate group. Ed Pollack (Ron Perlman, believable if clichéd villain) is the organization man dedicated to the company’s mission despite any evidence to the contrary. Backing him up is Abby Sellers (Connie Britton, ambitiously convincing) who uses her sultry wiles for personal and business purposes. Formerly Pollack’s paramour, she is now in bed with James Hoffman (James Le Gros, mellow and appealing) as the lead environmentalist. His associate, Elliot Taylor (a suitably feisty Jamie Harrold) is more determined and keenly skeptical. The camp team consists of Motor (Kevin Corrigan, always true to his character) as the mechanic (a vital personage given the number of devices on hand), Dawn Russell (Joanne Shenandoah, with a nice touch of worldly wisdom) as the native cook, and Lee Means (Pato Hoffmann, conveying a sense of seeing the unseen) who position is ambiguous at best. Finally there is Maxell McKinder (Zach Gilford, effectively conveying a lost soul) who is the first to physically succumb to the strange doings.
And what are those doings? Strange cloud formations, eerie sounds, barely glimpsed ghostly figures, machinery malfunctioning or shutting off and, most ominously, the weather – so unseasonably warm it is raining in February – leading to the permafrost melting and releasing, well, who knows what? It’s definitely enough to have a physical effect (Maxwell walks, so his walkie-talkie indicates, 300 miles!) or Elliot’s recurring nosebleeds. Then there’s the psychological manifestations such as Maxwell’s talking off into an arctic night bare naked, of Motor working his hands bloody on motorized equipment for no apparent reason, and various hallucinations. It’s hinted nature is rebelling and avenging itself against the greed and despoiling of the world by humankind. But, it’s left to the viewer to sort out what is or isn’t true, a puzzle presented in such a slowly paced/overly reticent/unemphatic manner that the viewer has lost interest long before the easily guessable ending finally arrives (yes, sure, the title is a giveaway, too).
Larry Fessenden, director/editor/co-writer, with Robert Leaver, bit actor/co-producer, tried something a bit different with the old standard end-of-the-world scenario, with nature’s revenge expanded beyond the usual crazed, ravenous animal life. On the other hand, Fessenden displays a sure touch, creativity, and wisdom in his tech choices, especially G. Magni Agustsson whose photography is aces both visually and expressively and, again, in his selection of actors. There’s always next time. Review by Charles Zio
| THE BRAVE ONE Rated R for strong violence language and some sexuality. Crime/Drama/Thriller 119 minutes
3½ stars |
The Brave One aspires to be more than just another vigilante movie. It doesn’t succeed in that ambition but it’s a pretty good effort nonetheless.
Jodie Foster (giving a sterling, totally believable performance) plays Erica Bain who voices a New York radio program called “Street Walk” (ironic in that she’ll become, so to speak, hooked on murder). One night as she and her finance David (Naveen Andrews, fine in a cameo) are walking their dog in Central Park they are assaulted by a gang and administered a brutal beating from which only Erica recovers. But she is different, a stranger to her old self, she says, who now recognizes her fear and, in response, buys a gun (illegally) for confidence and protection. This weapon is shortly put to use in a deli when the cashier’s crazed husband enters and shoots his wife. As he starts to take money out of the register, Erica’s cell phone rings and, alerted to her presence, the crazed man stalks her. She, however, gets the better of him (he’s shot dead) and quickly departs after taking the tape from the video security system (she’s smart). Sometime later, after doing some taping, which she uses as background ambience on her program, she is riding the subway when two thugs menacingly confront her (they are dispatched). Erica is at first horrified by her actions but grows increasingly at ease with them.
(As an aside, let me add the view of New York is askew. Erica sarcastically refers to the city as “safe” and the image is presented of lurking criminals. Such is no doubt necessary for plot points and devices and, obviously, it’s true one must be wary, like walking in Central Park after dark or riding in any subway car late at night but the middle one with the conductor. On the other hand, such a view of New York as a hotbed of peril is decades old and the city has since become, in fact and statistically, the safest large city in the country. Yes, there’re risky areas but this is the case most anywhere. Altering the reality of a location takes both natives and those familiar with it out of the picture, and one of the things a film shouldn’t do is distract an audience. You want them following the story.)
As it happens, there is a police detective with whom Erica becomes close, Sean Mercer (Terrence Howard, convincingly a policeman with depth) who, though not immediately onto her, eventually gets wise, especially when a long time suspect he’s been pursuing is conveniently murdered. Welcome humor is supplied by Mercer’s assistant, Detective Vitale (Nicky Katt, ably nailing the hardboiled cynic). Will justice prevail in the end?
Well, that depends on your view of justice. The bad guys, to a man, are down right loathsome/completely contemptible/without any merit so that if the viewer isn’t actually gratified by their demise he/she, at most, feels indifferent. This is the problem with the script by Roderick and Bruce A. Taylor and Cynthia Mort – it sanctions and justifies the taking of the law into a citizen’s hands. And though they try to embroider it with poetic references (e.g., Emily Dickinson, “I could not stop for death”!), Erica’s self-realizations and anguish, the bottom line remains the manipulation of the audience into tacit accomplices. In other words, that justice applies to everyone, except the vigilante who now is meting it out. Which is not to say it isn’t a tricky issue with many angles and arguments. Trouble is while pictures like The Brave One may voice a few contrary opinions, maybe even offer some platitudes, the majority of evidence presented is to the contrary. But then, the guilty in a vigilante movie are very clearly, directly, and undeniably guilty.
Oh heck, no one’s going to go to The Brave One so that he/she can come out for a moral debate on the issues of justice, crime and punishment, and the death penalty. That subject matter is probably best addressed in a documentary. At any rate, director Neil Jordan has done an excellent job with the materials at hand (along with the work of the tech staff). He’s lucky to have Howard, who proves yet again his ability, on board. And, Foster, well, she gives a master class in acting. If only the movie had matched them! Reivew by Charles Zio
| GOOD LUCK CHUCK Rated R for sequences of strong sexual content including crude dialogue, nudity, language and some drug use. Comedy/Romance 96 minutes
1 star |
I agree with the title. Good luck with this one! When the jokes sink immediately or eventually to the lowest common denominator, crude/silly/dopey/adolescent/tasteless, any good will built up in the opening sequence gets lost.
Dane Cook (Chuck) is good looking. We can't help but notice as women keep ripping his clothes off his body. He can act, too, as he proved in Mr. Brooks, but as for his being adept at comedy--in film, I'm not convinced by this movie. He plays a dentist (right) who thinks he has a spell placed on him by a Goth girl he wouldn't kiss at a party when he was ten. An urban myth develops around him: when he has sex with a woman, the next man she meets is the love of her life, leaving him out in the cold. He meets Jessica Alba (Cam), who is a penguin freak with a freaky brother. She doesn't want anything from him, so of course, she is the love of his life. Ms. Alba is pretty, and maybe it's the roles she's offered, or the ones she chooses, but "sweet" is not enough character development, even in this movie. Hopefully some seasoning will get her on a level with the more accomplished female actors of her generation (very hopefully). But who are we kidding, what does acting have to do with it?
It's almost painful watching Cook, and Dan Fogler (best friend Stu), trying to make the obnoxious dialogue work. The hoards of sexy women in the film only want to have sex with Chuck to get a husband; Alba's role first shows her as an insecure/dizzy/accident waiting-to-happen, then changes to inflexible and rigid as Cook's Chuck starts acting bizarre.
It needs to be said. This film is an insult to women. Even amidst the beautiful women, gorgeous sets, expert cinematography, it has a smutty feel. You can't just chalk it up to being a comedy, and women "not getting it." If the standards are that low, look into adult entertainment. Not being funny is not this movie's worst sin, but comes a close second. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| MR. WOODCOCK Rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content, thematic material, language and mild drug references. Comedy Approximately 93 minutes
2 stars |
How can a movie with two Academy Award winners go so wrong? Start with the story and the characters.
The successful young author of a self-help book, John Farley (Seann William Scott), on “Letting Go” comes back to his hometown where he will be presented with an local award only to find his mother Beverly (Susan Sarandon) dating the sadistic gym teacher, Mr. Woodcock (Billy Bob Thornton), who humiliated him as a student. Farley forgets about the book, reverts to middle school antics to get the teacher out of his mother’s life, and generally acts stupid losing almost all his battles with the mean-spirited gym teacher jerk.
Susan Sarandon underplays the mom and anchors the film; it’s a good thing because the two men are neither sympathetic nor funny. It’s frustrating to note small details that probably would not have made a difference, but watching it made me wonder why no one was paying attention? For example, the child actor playing Scott as a student in no way resembles him, even having different eye color.
Sure, there is a point that is trying to be made by the end of the movie, but by that time, who cares? The look of the film and the production values are fine, so why didn’t someone pay more attention to the story? The film is one big cliché; the words “cringe-inducing” come to mind. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
TO EAT CHEESE WITH |
I WANT SOMEONE TO EAT CHEESE WITH Not Rated/Parental Advisory Comedy/Romance 80 minutes
4 stars |
I Want Someone to Eat cheese With is a member of that special club of small, personal, low budget movies to which the word “gem” can rightly be attached as both a description (in that it achieved it’s creative ends) and as a reward (for the pleasure it brings the viewer). Independent films (the good old fashioned kind) are most susceptible to subjective reaction. So what? Who says we all have to agree? Besides, if one of these movies hits a viewer just right, the delight will be savored then and afterward. From such reactions and judgments are arguments and film lists eternally made.
I Want Someone to Eat Cheese With is the brainchild of Jeff Garlin, writer and director, who plays James Aaron, a middle-aged, overweight man still living at home with his mother (Mina Kolb, cheerfully warm/caring/slightly dotty) while continuing to pursue (twenty years) a career as an actor in Chicago. As it is, things are not going well for James who is fired by his agent, thrown out of two jobs, and even shut out of an audition for a remake of “Marty” (a classic that he correctly declares “perfect”) even though he would be ideal in the part. A clip from the absurd remake and a redeeming stage version at the end both pay off richly. Nor is James lucky in love as a brief fling with Beth (Sarah Silverman, appealing dangerous/crazy) sadly proves. Offering support (truly) and advice (not very useful) is best friend Luca (David Pasquesi, almost hijacking the movie with every other sentence). And then there’s Stella Lewis (Bonnie Hunt, winningly off-beat) a teacher with a taste for jazz and a yen for the weight-challenged (oh heck, as the movie itself has it, she’s a “chubby chaser”).
Frankly, it’s a cameo-fringed world that Aaron lives in. To cite a few of the welcome appearances (and rest assured that even those not name deliver on screen!) are Amy Sedaris as a tic-inclined kooky school guidance counselor, Gina Gershon very briefly but pointedly in the Marty remake, Wallace Langham as the epitome of a pretentious/self involved actor friend, Joey Slotnick funny as an example of the sacrifices struggling actors must make (think dress up and free samples), and Richard Kind as a two-bit, basically heartless agent.
But back to Jeff Garlin. Complements on his excellent choice of craftsman – Peter Biagi, director of photography; Steven Rasch, editor; Margaret M. Miles, production designer; Rob Kaolson, music. And now, and not least, here’s to Garlin himself for his character presence, someone you root for all the way. What’s most ingratiating is his refusal to surrender in defeat or self-pity. He takes what life sends his way and fights it, or accepts it, or best of all, learns from it. Between the easy and funny banter and asides is an unconventional story of triumph. This is how an average everyday guy, dedicated to his dreams navigates the negatives. At the end you’re as convinced as James that he can, and will, make his life at least better. It’s always gratifying to reach the credits of a movie with a smile. I Want Someone To Eat Cheese With did that for me. Reivew by Charles Zio
| HALLOWEEN Rated R for strong brutal and bloody violence and terror throughout, sexual content, graphic nudity and language. Horror 109 minutes
2 stars |
“No” – but probably better would be – “NO” – or best of all is “NO!”
The very elements that make a movie a classic (of some sort) are precisely those it’s impossible to duplicate because never again will it be possible to bring together everyone and everything in exactly the same and correct configuration. This being the case, why not leave the original alone since it can’t be matched? Better to try a lesser known, or less well regarded, picture that won’t fail in comparison with a previous successful one. And yet, filmmakers still attempt classic remakes and, almost always it seems, suffer defeat. Why can’t they, as the old saying goes, “leave well enough alone”?
The latest example is the remake of Halloween by Rob Zombie. Was this necessary? I refer you to my answer in the first line above. In place of the unrelenting suspense in which John Carpenter suffused his 1978 original, Zombie gives us gruesome violence wherein no one dies quickly or without much blood-letting. The trade off is tension and menace for body count (the former plays with your imagination, the later rapidly becomes an unstimulating game of can-you-top-this as there’s only so many areas of the body in which to plunge a knife). The innovation (?) here, presumably to explain Michael Myers psychotic behavior, is a way-too-long presentation of his highly dysfunctional (understatement) home life (pole dancing mother, slutty sister, disabled/detestable stepfather) as well as school bullies. He snaps, he kills, he’s committed, he doesn’t get well, fifteen years pass, he escapes, and kills a bunch more.
Rob Zombie has talent as do all those involved with this movie, but there’s no rhyme or reason to explain, or justify, this project’s expenditure of time/talent/money. In short, stick with ’78! Review by Charles Zio
THE CHAMP |
RESURRECTING THE CHAMP Rated PG-13 for some violence and brief language. Drama/Sports 111 minutes
4 stars |
Fathers and sons. It appears they can communicate about one thing safely—-sports. There’s an illusion that life’s important discussions can be filtered through the victories and defeats of athletes and teams. Pride, masculinity, victory are the spoils of a winner at the pinnacle of a sports career. Who can’t identify with that? But that’s only for the chosen few. More often, there’s disappointment, even devastation.
Based on an article published in Los Angeles by J.R. Moehringer about the boxer “Battling” Bob Satterfield, this film will resonate for many, including men at a loss in understanding their absent fathers. Something similar is touched on in Field of Dreams, for instance, where the dead father (momentarily revived) and son play catch, which the son had declined to do before. This film offers no such fairy tale solution for a wound that can’t be healed, and that makes it more substantial and convincing.
Erik (Josh Hartnett giving a strong performance) is a so-so young sports reporter with a Los Angeles newspaper. What he lacks in insight and emotion he makes up for in volume, but he’s put on notice by his editor, Metz (Alan Alda, excellent in a supporting role), that he needs to pick up his game.
Erik happens on some kids beating a homeless man, who he helps, and through a series of events learns that Champ (Samuel L. Jackson, consistently outstanding, as he is here) is the believed dead boxer, Battling Bob Satterfield, who missed the chance to be number one in the world in the 1950s. Erik, who knows this may be his last shot at not just keeping his job, but moving up, talks Champ into telling him his story, which he publishes to great acclaim.
If that was the whole account it would be like many sports films we’ve seen before, but there is a twist about the published article. Aside from the father/son motif that is repeated throughout the film, thereby bonding these men together, there is an important subplot about journalistic ethics. At a time when newspapers are losing readers to the internet, it highlights the point that “right and wrong” is not about expediency, but an end in itself, and necessary if readers are to trust what they read. Erik painfully learns what it is to be a father, an honest writer, and a man.
There are some flaws. Kathryn Morris, as Erik’s estranged wife, Joyce, plays essentially the same character she does on television’s Cold Case Files. It’s disappointing. One hoped for a more illuminating portrayal of Erik’s true better half. Also, she and Hartnett seem to be in a contest for the messiest looking hair. It's distracting. One of them looking shaggy would have been enough. The family scenes are the least interesting and most contrived, and the film can slip into schmaltz at times.
The story is more complex than you would normally encounter in a sports drama, yet clear and coherent. What we recognize is that important people come into our lives. Some will stay, others will leave us. Faced with imperfections in ourselves and them, we accept that not everyone is meant to be a part of us forever, and the best we can offer each other is understanding and grace. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THE NANNY DIARIES Rated PG-13 for language. Comedy/Drama 106 minutes
3 stars |
Not everything works in this movie, but the performances of Laura Linney and Scarlett Johansson save it from being only the superficial gloss that reflects off the super-rich on Park Avenue. It’s easy to see where the film is trying to go, but the audience already knows...money can’t buy what is most important in life.
In fact, the moneyed class is so completely obnoxious here that even the thought of being a nanny for “nice” rich people makes you want to run the other way. (The money is a trap for the nouveau riche especially. If you’re born that wealthy you come with a pedigree that entitles you to care less what others think, as long as you don’t crave fame.) If you have observed these specimens in the wild (which is the implication here) you know that instead of freedom, these folks have to follow very rigid “rules” to stay in favor. How exhausting.
Annie Braddock (Scarlett Johansson doing her best to be genuine) has just graduated from college and is feeling pressure from her mother, Judy (well played by Donna Murphy), a nurse, to get a job in the business world so Annie won’t have to struggle as she did. You can’t miss the nurse as symbol of all that we admire in our culture (and the opposite of the mothers who need nannies)—-selfless/steady/dedicated/life-affirming. Annie doesn’t know what to do, so when she falls into the nanny offer (in a silly scene) she takes the job to put off facing the real world. There is a thin romance with a young rich guy, Harvard Hottie, from the building (Chris Evans good-looking, making the best of a slim part).
The under-rated Laura Linny as Mrs. X is such a good actor that you hate her and feel sorry for her at the same time. Only the best can accomplish that feat. She looks lovely but the character is totally selfish and self-absorbed. Trying to save a dying marriage to Mr. X (an unconvincing Paul Giamatti), she plans and over plans her life to make sure everything is just so.
Although the movie makes cogent points about wealth, it’s too calculating and heavy-handed. Yes, the rich are often lavish with themselves, but nickel and dime those who work for them; yes, they care too much about appearances, insisting their children have to get into the right schools, even as five year olds; yes, many of these unions are loveless with the men having the power so therefore bedding whomever they please (even the nanny if she were accommodating), and yes, the worst part is that the children emerge from this lifestyle as damaged human beings. But really, can all of them be like that?
The production values are good, of course, and the look of the film and New York is fun. The more fanciful aspects like the red Mary Poppins umbrella, though, and voiceover in the museum don’t add much.
To make this movie more than a string of clichés, it needs to say something new and inventive in a storyline that holds interest, rather than depending so heavily on its two lead actors. Otherwise, you might want to save your hard earned money and just quote Dorothy Parker who said, “If you want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people he gave it to.” Review by Ann Marie Oliva
AT A FUNERAL |
DEATH AT A FUNERAL Rated R for language and drug content. Foreign Film: Germany/UK/USA Comedy/Drama 90 minutes
3 stars |
The first scene of the film sets the tone as the pallbearers somberly bring in a casket and open it for the grieving family member. The son, Daniel (Matthew MacFadyen), looks at the body then tells them it’s not his father. One exclaims, _____! And they’re out of there to exchange bodies. (This is England so this expletive is a bit of an understatement.)
Apparently, they are having the funeral service in the deceased’s home, and it’s a good thing because this presents many opportunities for all that madcap running around the Brits love. Daniel and his wife Jane (Keeley Hawes) have been living with his father and mother, Sandra (Jane Asher), but Jane desperately wants them to get out on their own. It’s no wonder because Sandra treats Jane like an annoying gnat. Daniel’s famous novelist brother, Robert (Rupert Graves) is coming to the funeral from New York, and one of the running gags is that Daniel is giving the eulogy, not the writer Robert. Of course, Daniel is writing a novel and must constantly be compared unfavorably to his brother, while staying home and looking after mom and dad like the dutiful son.
This is only the beginning of the amusement as various family members and their emotional baggage start arriving at the house for the service. The novelist Robert is a bit of cad saying he can’t afford to pay for half the funeral even though he has a penthouse in New York, then chasing after a pretty young thing. A cousin, Troy (Kris Marshall), his sister Martha (Daisy Donovan), and her boyfriend, Simon (Alan Tudyk), show up with the usually reliable boyfriend mistakenly given a hallucinogen instead of valium. Simon was nervous because he wanted to impress Martha’s stern father, Victor (Peter Egan). There’s grumpy old Uncle Alfie (Peter Vaughn), two bumbling family helpers, Howard and Justin (Andy Nyman and Ewen Bremner) and then an unknown guest, Peter (Peter Dinklage), who turns out to have a shocking secret the sons must protect.
There are some very funny moments in the film. Alan Tudyk shines as the spaced out boyfriend. His physical comedy bits are hilarious. Daisy Donovan is also good as his girlfriend. In fact, the whole cast is commendable, but the storyline seems too familiar and predictable. Some of the scenes are more like television comedy skits. The humor can be crude. Whether you think the laughs sprinkled throughout sustain the whole film depends on how forgiving you are of black comedy that tends to go gray. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THE LIST Rated PG for thematic elements including some peril and brief incidence of smoking. Content Advisory for Parents Independent Film Spiritual Thriller/Christian Movie 105 minutes
3½ stars |
The List, adapted from the novel by Robert Whitlow, about a young southern lawyer faced with unfathomable truths and the loss of his soul, takes place mostly in Charlotte, North Carolina and Charleston, South Carolina. That is a good thing since Mr. Whitlow was a lawyer before becoming a novelist, lives in Charlotte, and the action takes place in those two locales. Another good thing is that the story is well-constructed and suspenseful.
Renny Jacobsen (Chuck Carrington) toils away as a junior member of a Charlotte law firm. When he gets the news of his father’s sudden death, he is angry that a man with 22 million dollars leaves his only son nothing but membership in “The List.” But he soon learns that during the Civil War ten Southerners, fearing their riches would be looted, pooled their money, and dispersed it to banks outside the US. That original stake is now worth multi-millions.
Renny’s invitation to a dinner meeting in Charleston with other members of The List is complicated when he meets Jo Johnston (Hilarie Burton) who has also just lost her father and has been invited to the same meeting. The attraction between the two is low key, but genuine. Jo, mistakenly thought to be “Joe” by the group, is then cut from The List because membership is only passed from father to son. She handles this information rather well, but then she is a Christian nursing student who knows little about her father and his life in the first place. When Renny asks that she be given her share of the money before she leaves, it is dismissed, and this is the first indication that someone has a very tight grip on The List.
That person is Desmond Larochette (Malcolm McDowell) who apparently controls everything and everyone concerning The List. He even offers to be a surrogate father to Renny. But an unexplained death in the group leaves Renny with no choice but to start facing the menacing nature of The List. Renny’s conscience, and his need to know about the family history leads him to some pretty startling conclusions. Mystical elements woven throughout the movie add to the suspense.
The film is well cast and the director, Gary Wheeler, has been able to draw good performances from the actors. Malcolm McDowell is terrific as always, making the more malevolent aspects of his character believable without being over the top. Chuck Carrington looks like the quintessential young ambitious attorney, but allows empathy for a son feeling scorned by his father. Hilarie Burton, is pretty and sweet without seeming cloying. Will Patton, Mary Beth Peil, Tim Ware, Elizabeth Omilami, Aferno Omilami, and the indomitable Pat Hingle are also notable. (Charlotte’s own well-known actor Bonnie Johnson plays Renny’s secretary.)
The cinematography by Tom Priestly, Jr. is a plus. Although there are many tight shots, presumably because a tight budget forces close quarters indoors, the city shots, and outdoor landscape shots that frame the beauty of the Carolinas countryside, open up the film.
On the positive side, although it is a Christian movie, The List avoids being preachy. An imperfect protagonist like Renny, who is not overtly religious, though fundamentally decent, allows for character growth. Still, greed and power are intoxicating motives, and in order to extricate himself from depravity, he must find his faith again. For those looking for a family film there is no violence, nudity, or profanity.
A few things are problematic. As layered as the male characters are in the story, the women are, across the board, a bit too saintly. Women, too, have temptations and choices that test their beliefs. Also, the film ends rather abruptly. Not everything needs to be explained or tied up neatly, but Renny’s rejection of them when he faces down the group seems a bit anti-climactic. What happens next?
It’s a sad truth that sometimes those who purport to be the most decent and holy are the least Christian in their treatment of others. Good and evil will continue to fight a constant battle for one’s soul. As Renny learns, goodness and strength of character lies, not in praying for help only in desperate times, but in living your faith everyday. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| STARDUST Rated PG for some fantasy violence and risqué humor. Adventure/Fantasy/Drama 128 minutes
3½ stars |
Stardust is often described as an “adult” fairy tale because it has some darker moments. It has been adapted for the screen from a book of the same name by Neil Gaiman. While this is always tricky because a film can not possibly incorporate all the storylines and nuances available to readers of a book, this film mostly succeeds in its translation. It follows the mythic/fairy tale structure of the hero on a journey. That hero is Tristan Thorn (well played by a likeable Charlie Cox) a young, gangly, naïve hero who has fallen totally in love with the local self-centered beauty Victoria (a well-cast Sienna Miller). One night when they see a star falling over the horizon Tristan impulsively proclaims he will bring it back to her in a week’s time to prove his love.
What Tristan doesn’t know is that long ago his father made his way from their tiny Victorian village of Wall, charging through a guarded opening in the wall into “Faerie”, a magical place where humans can mix with non-humans. He meets a beautiful slave named Una (the lovely Kate Magowan), who is shackled to a witch’s wagon, and nine months later---Tristan arrives in a gift basket to his father in Wall. What Tristan also doesn’t know is that Una is a princess with brothers who want to be King of a land called Stormhold.
It gets more complicated as different characters are after the fallen star, who is actually a girl named Yvaine (a luminous Claire Danes). A witch queen, Lamia (Michele Pheiffer playing evil/ugly with relish) is after the fallen star’s heart so she and her two witch sisters can live forever as young beauties. Then there are the Princes of Stormhold (most of whom are dead, having killed each other off, but providing comic relief as they enter scenes as ghosts in black and white) acting as a Greek chorus, who want to get their hands on Yvaine’s necklace. The most significant of these is the youngest (and alive), the ruthless Septimus, played by Mark Strong who is terrific (and reminds one of a young Basil Rathbone in the classic 1938 movie, The Adventures of Robin Hood).
The special effects are excellent, the cinematography, the costumes, makeup, and the production values are all good. The floating pirate ship, helmed by Robert DeNiro, (in a very unique role for him), the old inns, towns, transformation of people into animals, the unicorn, harnessed lightning, all add to the fantastical atmosphere. The humorous, wry dialogue keeps a light-hearted touch to the script most of the time, and you will recognize familiar fairy tale elements woven into the narrative.
But while the story is interesting and well-structured, it’s also not very compelling. What is missing is what The Princess Bride does so well---it provides suspense and anticipation. There is never a doubt here that young lovers will unite, evil will be punished, the good will survive, the hero will fulfill his destiny. Maybe an extra sprinkling of stardust would have helped. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| ROCKET SCIENCE Rated R for some sexual content, and language. Comedy/Drama 98 minutes
3½ stars |
What I like best about Rocket Science, despite a few holes in logic, is that the teenage angst feels authentic. The circumstances that surround our suffering, stuttering, insecure and at times, patently miserable teenager, Hal Hefner (played with depth/heart/sincerity by Reece Thompson) are by turns, sad, preposterous, poignant, and outright funny.
Saddled with a weird, kleptomaniac older brother, Earl (Vincent Piazza with good comic instincts), he can’t count on much support from his parents. They separate early in the film and the mother, Juliet (Lisabeth Bartlett sufficiently conveying a desperate quality to be lusted after/admired), essentially ignores her sons. The father, Doyle (Dennis O’Hare, very good as a befuddled middle-age man wondering how he got to this point in his life), has conversations with his son, but can’t offer much in terms of life’s big questions.
Hal, isolated because of his speech problem, is asked by the school barracuda and award-winning debater, Ginny Ryerson (an excellent Anna Kendrick) to be on the debating team. On the face of it, it’s ludicrous, but Hal, as teenage boys will, is immediately entranced with the pretty, bossy Ginny and will do anything to please her. It seems she and Ben Wekselbaum (a watchable and convincing Nicholas D’Agosto), a legend in debating, came away with the second place trophy last year and Ginny, planning ahead, won’t have that happen again. Ben froze as he was “spreading,” speaking extremely fast to get in all his debating points, then drops out of debating and school. This is one of the biggest cracks in logic. It’s never explained why Ben, so admired and close to victory, drops out of school to work in a dry cleaner, except that it is convenient later on in the story.
As this is going on, Hal’s mother takes up with a neighbor who is a small claims judge, Judge Pete (Steve Park in an amusingly manic, funny turn). He and his son Heston, (Aaron Yoo, likable/a calm counter-balance to Reece), becomes Hal’s friend by default. Another friend, Josh, (in yet another good ensemble comic turn by Lewis Garrles) lives across the street from Ginny, and Hal goes there often trying obsessively to keep tabs on her, especially after she proves brutally ruthless.
The chaotic family situation, depression alternating with elation and back again, new feelings of lust/love, inability to read people’s motives, mystification that it is so difficult to grow-up in a crazy world where no one really understands his/her feelings or that of others, is wonderfully played out through Hal’s great blunders and small victories. Writer/director Jeffrey Blitz tells an honest, if not strictly truthful tale, of what it’s like for a teenager to come to the astonishing realization that no one has all “the answers,” and is not likely to, even as a grown-up; make that, especially as a grown-up. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| CLOSING ESCROW Rated PG-13 for thematic elements, language, crude humor and incidental smoking. Mockumentary/Comedy 93 minutes
4 stars |
It’s a shame the timing is off because “Closing Escrow” is downright fun. In a format developed notably by Christopher Guest, this mockumentary (that is, mock-documentary) focuses on three real estate agents and their respective clients. To put it mildly, what a group.
The house hunting couples are a varied lot. Tom Ernst (Andrew Friedman, a sensitive go-along to get-along guy) is married to Dawn (Patty Wortham, fiercely aggressive behind a sweet demeanor). They need a larger place to accommodate possessions currently in a storage facility (especially their two chihuahuas!). The second couple are Bobby White (Cedric Yarbrough, a good-hearted former high school nerd) and his wife Tamika (April Barnett, elegant/firm/no-nonsense), both successful black lawyers looking for a loft. The final couple are Allen Lawton (Rob Brownstein, envious and petty) and Mary (Colleen Crabtree, happily domestic) in search of a home closer to Allen’s job downtown (one hour trips).
The agent enlisted for Tom and Dawn is the unconventional Richard Billoti (Ryan Smith, believably crazed) with an unfinished office in a former military testing site who extracts a promise that his clients will not question his tactics (a red flag). Bobby and Tamika, on the other hand, have the bad luck to connect with Hillary Macella (Wendi McLendon-Covey, ably landing every nasty asides), a full-fledged, under-her-breath racist. Lastly, working to help his neighbors Allen and Mary is Peter Jacobson (Bruce Thomas, his expert smoothness hiding insincerity) owner of a large company.
Fortunately, these agents and their clients are, in various ways for various reasons, wonderfully ill-matched and therein lies the humor. Examples, Billoti assaulting houses to lower the asking price; Allen relentlessly changing his home requirements; Hillary on a rant describing the man who mugged her. Particularly impressive is that much of the dialogue is improvised and to achieve success in that area requires skilled and highly professional actors, and every one of the principals here are indeed up to the task. Eventually, you guessed, the three couples come together at 3575 Willow Crest Avenue and all want the house. No spoiler as to who wins out, but there is a final twist.
There are two men richly deserving of mention pertaining to this movie. Namely, Armen Kaprelian and Kent Llewellyn who functioned as directors, writers, and editors, and along with Scott Billups’ photography and the other production personnel, have created a thoughtful, insightful, and enjoyable movie. Guys, as far as “Closing Escrow” is concerned, I’m sold. Review by Charles Zio
TAKES THE STAIRS |
HANNAH TAKES THE STAIRS Not Rated Independent Film - USA Drama 83 minutes
3½ stars |
Artistic movements are fleeting. By the time most reach critical mass (a sufficient number of practitioners to claim membership and/or rouse outside interest) they have already mutated, moved on, or disappeared. Which brings us to “mumblecore.” The most recent entry in the D.I.Y. (Do It Yourself) spotlight has its own particulars (low budget, improvisational, mostly white characters, etc.), but truly it’s basically early, pre-discovery independent film. Which is plenty interesting and good enough if you’re willing to go with the flow. In the meantime, and ever thus, the talented founders and members of a movement (a bunch of them involved in this very movie) inevitably follow success with a trek to the mainstream. So, ironically, even as “mumblecore” garners attention, it fades away as a new wave. Hannah Takes the Stairs is a nice memento.
First off, the movie has one of the shortest/simplest/inexpensive credit sequences, a tip off as to what will follow in terms of locations (few), camera work (occasionally unsteady), production values (minimal), and plot (uncomplicated). Hannah (Greta Gerwig, consistently appealing) describes herself as chronically dissatisfied, and she is, though exactly why is never addressed. But then, as she has Isaac Newton say (in the play she’s writing featuring him and, yes, Immanuel Kant): “You see consequences. It’s impossible to see intentions.” Smart as she, and everyone else, seem to be, reaction rather than reflection is the strong suit among them. Starting with Hannah’s boyfriend, Mike (Mark Duplass, convincingly clueless), who has quit his job because he’s decided he’d be happier drifting than working. For her part, she is not pleased. After dumping him (in an ice cube laden scene, cold!), she picks up with the apparent second in charge at the company (suggested as some sort of video/television/creative/production entity) where she works (not clear doing what, yet seemingly valued).
Paul (Andrew Bujalski, kindly but distracted) is the opposite of Mike, a workaholic, and Hannah is eventually, if not quickly, unhappy again. Was she on the rebound? Her boss easily available and eager? She's not willing to try to save the relationship? Doesn’t matter. Hannah has now turned to Paul’s art partner, Matt (Kent Osborne, kind and grounded) who just might be the match she’s looking for. At least that’s the trumpet-playing hope at the end. “Hannah Takes the Stairs” (as in Retreat/Avoidance/Escape) is a quiet, little film. Despite the emotional pushes and pulls, voices aren’t raised, furniture (what there is) broken, or tantrums thrown. Led by Hannah, these people are content to express their feelings without plumbing the depths for causes or solutions. Soul searching is for another day.
And who is the maestro of this ensemble? Joe Swanberg by name, who is director, writer (with Ms. Gerwig and Mr. Osborne, and one surmises the rest of the able cast via improv), director of photography, and finally editor. Fine job, sir! Looking forward to your following-up, and fulfilling your promise with another window into the world of twenty-somethings. Review by Charles Zio
| SUPERBAD Rated R for pervasive crude and sexual content, strong language, drinking, some drug use and a fantasy/comic violent image - all involving teens. Comedy 114 minutes
3 stars |
Given their steady appearance, one must assume the vast majority of high school guys (and gals) were not cool and the audience appeal of such films as Superbad lies in their presentation of the eventual triumph of the ordinary/regular/nerdy-to-some-degree main characters. Such a victory may happen only in these movies, but what's wrong with a little delayed, if unrealistic, satisfaction?
The plot is familiar. It's senior year and two best friends are close to graduation and miles from their goal of losing their virginity. Seth (Jonah Hill, thoroughly capturing the boy who thinks himself an all around expert) is the verbose schemer whose drive and determination have yet to show results which he blames, primarily, on his best friend. That would be Evan (Michael Cera, convincingly caring and awkward), endearingly decent and thoughtfully and, therefore, usually caught between opposing forces, and his own feelings. The third wheel is Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse, believably careening between determination, fear, and self-delusion) who somehow manages to land on his feet (in one way or another) and will, of course, get the furtherst in becoming a "man."
During the course of a long day, Seth snags an invite to a party at the home of his dream girl, Jules (Emma Stone, refreshingly conveying the popular girl who sees beyond the surrounding childishness). Going along will be Evan to meet up with Becca (Martha MacIsaac, attractive at all times, sober or inebriated). Problem is, Seth has committed to bringing the liquor. A solution arrives in the fake ID that Fogell has purchased which claims his home is Hawaii, age as 25, and his moniker "McLovin" (no first name!). The purchase is about to be completed when the liquor store is robbed and a pair of cops arrive. Officers Michaels (Seth Rogen, appealing as the go-along, good-natured rookie) and Slater (Bill Hader, first rate as the somewhat dim, sensitive pro). These policemen, to say the least, are unconventional and take McLovin (Fogell) on a wild ride (beer drinking, shooting, police calls, etc.). At the same time Seth and Evan have found their way to an adult party way out of their league where Seth (intent on taking some liquor so they can go to Jules party) antagonizes the violent host by dancing with his girlfriend while Evan is trapped into singing for a room full of coke snorters.
Eventually, the two friends escape the party, have a serious, buddy splitting argument, and run into the police and Fogell. The three boys escape to the party (as they implausibly must) where Seth is, for once, Mr. Popularity but messes up his chance with Jules; Evan and Becca, though both drunk and in early throws of intimacy, fail to consummate; and Fogell engineers Nicola (Aviva, truly the beauty to his geek) into bed. And then, since coincidence is integral to this movie, Officers Michaels and Slater arrive. Turns out they're not quite the dim bulbs they seem and they give Fogell the credibility to be a ladies man. Meanwhile, Seth saves Evan (in an unconscious stupor) by carrying him away from Jules' house. In the end, the boy's friendship is restored (via drunken declaration) and Jules and Becca become available for romance (or more).
Superbad is directed by Greg Motola and he moves things along smoothly enough. The script is the handiwork of Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg who supply humourous dialogue that is episode embarrassing and/or character enhancing. It's said, too, the men are childhood friends. Is the fact they've given their first names to the two main characters a hint of autobiography? Or is there any significance that the policemen and the two friends are at least physically (one stocky, one tall and thin) similar? Then again, one of the producers is Judd Apatow and certainly the overall tone of the film is his. That is, good guys striving to do what's right, either on-goingly or ultimately, rather than what's macho. And even if the hero is callow at first, by the conclusion he has learned to heed his better nature.
The point is, if you like the formula, it's there in Superbad (as in The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up) in characters funny and winning (and well acted), laughs in many of the words and actions, and --always--nice guys who finish first. Review by Charles Zio
| THE INVASION Rated R for language. Action/Drama/Horror/ 93 minutes
2 stars |
Here we go, another failed remake (sequel, variation, expansion, updating, reconceptualization, or whatever you want to call it). The 1956 original Invasion of the Body Snatchers is already a classic and the 1978 version was respectable. If only those involved in this project had slept on it (yeah, the reference to the pod transformation process is cringe-inducing, but then so is this movie), the idea could have been, rightly and happily rejected.
Nicole Kidman gives a dull/distracted/humorless performance as Carole Bennell, a D.C. shrink. Even when she’s supposed to be “human” (joking, sassy, desperate, shouting, violent) it’s not believable, a major flaw in a movie where emotion is the key element separating the persons from the pods. More “lively” are Carol’s son Oliver (Jackson Bond, winning and with a bankable smile), her doctor beau Ben Driscoll (Daniel Craig, better than the clichéd and underwritten role deserves) who she is holding at arm’s length (Carol seems affection-challenged), and Dr. Stephen Galeano (Jeffrey Wright, also delivering more than his anemic part calls for) as the lab wiz who will analyze/antidote/and rescue. On the opposite side are the transformed epitomized by Carol’s husband Tucker Kaufman (Jeremy Northam, smoothly/convincingly menacing) all of whom are unflappably calm and relentlessly determined.
Okay, so there’s this NASA shuttle that comes crashing to earth scattering remnants from Texas to D.C. Quite a large are, but you assume, as it’s not explained, the organisms have gotten aboard and sabotaged the landing. One of their first recruits is Tucker who happens to be a big wig Federal health official and is thus well placed to coordinate the spread of the organisms through forced inoculation of the population (under the ruse of combating a new strain of flu). Though spreadable via infected patches of transparent skin, the main transmission device is –how clever – spurts of vomit (one can’t help wondering if the film isn’t unconsciously critiquing itself). What to do as the world is being rapidly taken over? Paging Dr. Galeano who supplies explanations (animated diagrams show up periodically, too), but who’s listening when the morphing of slime covered bodies is sufficient to get the message across – these things are really bad! What to do? How to save the world? Easy. Find an antidote.
And who, despite the dastardly efforts of Tucker to convert him, is immune? None other than innocent Oliver (for some mumbo jumbo reason having to do with an earlier illness). Fighting not only the aliens, but all logic, Carol manages to find her son, escape with him, and bumbles into a ransacked drug store where the following occurs. Carol fills a hypodermic needle that she puts in her pocket and instructs Oliver to plunge in her heart if she falls asleep because, previously, her former husband vomited on her (!). However, despite swallowing a fistful of drugs to stay alert, they collectively fail and she nods off. Oliver awakens, finds her, and remembers her instructions. Now, this is not Travolta and Thurman in “Pulp Fiction.” Would some sweet little kid, no matter how necessary, be able to shove a needle into his mother’s chest without a second of hesitation? Come on.
One more point, a troubling one. The original “invasion” reflected the fear and paranoia occasioned by the “re scare” of the 50s and the assumption was The Invasion would reflect the current wariness and alarm as to the possibility of willing, blindly obedient terrorists among us. Instead, early in the film it’s stated humans are pretty crummy/selfish/war-like and various pod people claim they offer peace and harmony supported, as the infection spreads, by background television reports of solutions to world hot spots, including a withdrawal from Iraq. Huh? If the implication is humankind is intractably doomed by its individualistic nature to strife, count me out, from a philosophy, and this movie, without hope. Review by Charles Zio