Rating: 0 to 5 stars
© 2008 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
artsalamode.com
Information from this site may not be reproduced in print or online without specific permission from artsalamode.com
| TROPIC THUNDER Rated R for pervasive language including sexual references, violent content and drug material. Action/Comedy 107 minutes
3½ stars |
There are amusing bits, even a laugh or two, in Tropic Thunder. Just not enough, nor consistently, to qualify as a must-see comedy. Maybe broken up it could’ve been effective as an ongoing skit in SNL or Mad TV (or best at such, the late, classic SCTV). The talent, first rate, helps a lot. If only the material could have matched it.
Starting off with a fake movie ad and several film trailers (don’t miss these which present/help define the lead characters) we arrive upon the film location of a Vietnam War battle scene. The director, Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan), is a bumbler unable to control two of his stars, Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller, in one of his patented intense/half bright egotist roles), a fading action star, and Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey, Jr., with some good moments in an absurd part), a multi-Oscared Australian actor. Unable to prevent the two men from ruining a death scene (who gets to cry is the issue) results in no cameras rolling on a spectacular exploding effects take, a costly mistake that angers Les Grossman (Tom Cruise, hidden behind extra weight and profuse body hair), an immoral/profanity spewing/ultra rich/producer who demands Coogan regain control. The suggestion from John Tayback (Nick Nolte, effectively playing on his wild man image), the author of the book (the film’s title) recounting his unit’s war experience, is to set cameras high in the trees of the jungle itself and drop the five lead actors to perform, in actual time/place, the scenes of the movie thus achieving realistic drama. Coogan bites and with the assistance of his special effects expert, Cody (Danny McBride, as a dandy/over-dedicated professional) puts the plan in effect. Problem is, just after informing the actors, Coogan is blown to bits by an old French mine that, furthermore, alerts a nearby drug militia which accepts the actors at face value as US troops.
Tugg, with script and map (which he can’t read) in hand, is gung ho while Kirk is skeptical. One of the issues raised about the movie is Downey’s Kirk having undergone skin alteration to play a black man in the movie being shot. The implication is that it’s a professional challenge (different than his five other Oscar-winning characters) and also that he’s a method actor. The latter leads him to believe his speech and language is authentic which is challenged and insulted by Alpa Chino (pronounced, uh-huh, Al Pacino), a black actor who doesn’t buy anyhow/anyway Kirk’s transformation (and who can blame him). Also accompanying the men is Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black, over the top but it mostly works), a seriously addicted, low comedy actor and Kevin Sandusky (Jay Baruchel, good as straightman to the rest), the most level headed/intelligent of the bunch. There’s no way this motley, fake-armed fivesome should end up as anything but dead. But this is a satiric comedy, so not to worry.
Tugg is captured and discovered by the teenage leader of the drug band to be the star of Simple Jack, which was his break out attempt as an actor by portraying a mentally challenged farm boy. This is the second, larger issue that’s raised objections about this movie. Despite the overuse of the word retard (unfunny!), the focus is not on the disability, but in Kirk’s assessment that Tugg gave an unconvincing, misguided, and inaccurate portrayal of Jack. It’s not a disability matter but an acting critique. And it must be admitted that in terms of Tropic Thunder, the acting (including clever cameos, of note Matthew McConaughey), under Ben Stiller’s direction often attains a level of entertainment not always merited by the script (penned by Justin Theroux, Stiller, and Etan Cohen, based on a story by Stiller and Theroux). On the other hand there are nifty/sharp/wise/inside industry visuals/comments/asides/jokes that are well aimed and accurately landed (as well as some witty song usage). Catching these moments somewhat compensates for the long, laughless stretches predominating throughout most of the film. Though it looks great (John Toll, director of photography and production designer Jeff Man), the movie’s promise isn’t realized. There’s smiles, but the guffaws are few and far between.
Tropic Thunder – Despite hints, the reign of humor is scattered. Review by Charles Zio
| MIRRORS Rated R for strong violence, disturbing images, language and brief nudity. Horror/Thriller 110 minutes
3½ stars |
Anyone who has seen a horror film (casually or aficionado) will be familiar with the various genre conventions. Even so, if done well, one can still expect old-fashioned jolts and scares, in addition to those occasioned by the newfangled acceptance of a higher and more graphic level of violence (which elicits its reaction through revulsion as opposed to fright). Mirrors is an example of the later, a scary movie that delivers the goods. So what if you’ve witnessed just about all of it before? Given what it is, it’s better (but certainly not great) than expected.
Mirrors opens with the familiar – a soon-to-be-victim running in terror from who-knows-what supernatural force. Trapped finally in the employee locker room of a New York subway station, the cause of his terror is revealed immediately prior to his (very) bloody demise. Cut to our hero, Ben Carson (Kiefer Sutherland, excellent at conveying intensity and inner demons), a suspended detective (having accidentally shot a fellow police officer), trying to recover from his guilty conscience (with drugs rather than drink) in order to return to the force and regain his family. The latter consists of his wife Amy (Paula Patton, effectively empathetic and maternal), a woman divided between spousal love and protecting her family and his children, Daisy and Michael (respectively, Erica Gluck and Cameron Boyce, both fine as the threatened innocents).
Not allowed home, Ben is living with his kindly sister Angela (Amy Smart, sympathetic but bland). To earn some income, he takes a job as the night guard at the yet imposing Mayflower, formerly the epitome of upper class shopping until ravaged by an arsonist’s fire. Inside, the department store is a nightmare setting if ever there was one with far off vaulted ceilings, darkened corridors, broken furniture/counters, a flooded basement, and everywhere (seemingly imitating the fire’s victims) half burned/deformed posed/fallen mannequins. Most ominous, though, are the mirrors (especially the enormous ones covering entire wall surfaces and stretching off to unseen heights) that are spotlessly clean. When Ben inquires he is told his predecessor, the opening scene sacrificial lamb, was intent on keeping them spot free. Strange. But then Ben himself is soon enough caught up in unusual doings.
The script by Alexandre Aja and Gregory Levasseur (based on an Asian film) isn’t always clear, let alone logical, as it sets forth a series of escalating hints (what was located previously on the site of the Mayflower), threats (one’s image in a mirror means danger), races against time (to save lives), mystery (who is Essker is the big one), and violence (there is a second particularly brutal murder). Add in an explosive/shattering/foundation shaking climax and a twist at the end and who, genre-wise, could ask for anything more.
Meriting particular mention are the designs of Joseph Nemec III, especially the ruined interior of the Mayflower (truly a setting deserving sequels), the photography of Maxine Alexandre, and the editing by Baxter – each contributing to the look, feel, and effectiveness of the whole. And certainly a firm pat on the back to Alexandre Aja for his skillful and professional direction wherein he took the familiar horror elements and rendered them, for those so inclined, worthy of another look.
Mirrors – Worth a look if you enjoy the familiar done well. Review by Charles Zio
BARCELONA |
VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material involving sexuality and smoking. Comedy 101 minutes
3 stars |
We’ve been here with Woody Allen before; not Barcelona, but the relationship territory between men and women, and more prominently, their relationship with themselves. This is not really a story; it’s more a fable with unnecessary narration by Christopher Evan Welch. If anything works in the movie it's because Allen was smart enough to cast the actors he did.
Best friends, Cristina (Scarlett Johansson), and Vicky (Rebecca Hall), decide to spend July and August in Barcelona, Spain, where they stay with Judy (Patricia Clarkson) and Mark Nash (Kevin Dunn). The couple are good hosts and show the women around. Cristina, the restless one, is looking for something in the way of excitement, while Vicky, the stable one, is alternately amused and annoyed by her friend’s lack of direction.
At an art showing one night, Cristina spots a painter, Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem), and is immediately attracted to him. After some inane questions and conversation (that I don’t believe for a moment), they are off on a rickety small plane to his house so they can all bond. When Cristina becomes ill, Vicky and Juan Antonio have an adventure of their own. This dilemma for Vicky is the most interesting part of the film. So sure of herself and what she wants, she suddenly changes when she finds there’s another side to life, specifically passion, something Vicky has never felt or believed existed, so tightly has she kept herself in check.
When Cristina and Juan Antonio get together, Vicky leaves. His unstable ex-wife Maria Elena, (Penélope Cruz), who tried to kill him when they split up, is retrieved by Juan Antonio when she tries to kill herself. The three live together for a while. Vicky’s fiancé Doug (Chris Messina) decides he wants to marry Vicky in Spain (why?) and flies over adding another anxiety for her as she continues to question her once absolute choices.
This group of conflicted people doesn’t exactly represent anything new. Juan Antonio and Maria Elena, are the clichéd artists who see and feel more in the world (even if they are either crazy or sex-obsessed) than the rest of us. Vicky is the tightly wound, smug girlfriend who decides early on what she needs to do to feel safe. Cristina is the adventurer who is satisfied for only a little while, and will probably keep bouncing around the rest of her life, or settle eventually. As she says several times, she doesn’t know what she wants; only what she doesn’t want.
The actors are attractive and interesting and work hard to bring meaning to their roles, and they are better than, but can’t always rise above the parts written for them. The look of the film is lush and charming, but doesn’t make up for the slight, shallow story. The idiosyncratic Allen dialogue sometimes overpowers the actors’ lines and you can almost hear him saying the words in that staccato delivery.
These characters are self-obsessed (like their creator famously is). As people who’ve never suffered any deprivation in their lives, they think their feelings are profound when they’re actually pretentious and narcissistic. They’d find out much more about life if they freely gave of themselves and thought about others less fortunate rather than wallowing in their own torturous musings. Though they are great to look at, these are not people I’d want to spend any time with, in Barcelona, or anywhere. Why does Woody Allen continue to mine this same territory? I guess he still hasn’t found the answers he wants, or likes. No wonder. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| AMERICAN TEEN PG-13 for some strong language, sexual material, some drinking and brief smoking, all involving teens. 100 minutes
4 stars |
This documentary reminds me how much I disliked high school. The film is quite realistic in showing how the big shots rule the school, and those who are different in any way pay a heavy price for trying to assert their individuality. Yet, even the popular kids have issues that stress them out. In short, it’s not much of a picnic for anyone, though far worse for those who don’t, or won’t, conform.
It’s senior year at a small Midwestern high school in Indiana. Writer/director Nanette Burstein and crew follow around several kids from different cliques. There is the popular girl, Megan Krizmanich, self-absorbed and prone to insensitivity and even cruelty; Hannah Bailey, the vulnerable, artistic girl with far out tastes; Colin Clemens, the star athlete, trying to please his father; Jake Tusing, the ultimate outsider, looking for love with no luck; Mitch Reinholt, the golden boy to whom all things come easily.
School starts hopefully for some, not so for others, but all face the same pressures: the first half of the year is very important because of college. The social caste system is actually very rigid and moving in or out of the groups is not easy. The most sympathetic teen is Hannah Bailey, the artist. She knows others don’t like her or think she’s weird, but bravely tries to go her own way. Quirky though she is Hannah is sweet and appealing. Through the course of the school year, she has little luck dating, and then Mitch Reinholt asks her out. They’re an odd couple, but Mitch bucks his friends and seems to genuinely like her, but in the end is cruel to her. Jake Tusing is probably the saddest case. His search for love borders on the extreme, with girls almost running the other way. Megan Krizmanich is pretty and comes from a well off family. She acts like a spoiled princess, dominating her friends, making decisions about who’s in or out.
Parents do have influence. This is most evident in Colin Clemens story. His father (an Elvis impersonator of all things), was a star athlete. He coaches Colin, and also tells him he has to get a scholarship because he can’t afford to pay for Colin’s college degree. This puts enormous pressure on Colin as he tries to get noticed by scouts by not sharing the basketball and then causes the team to lose some games by his behavior. His depression is palpable as he struggles to fend for himself in a competitive meat market.
Nanette Burstein has made an astute documentary that shows the joys, but mainly the anguish of those supposedly “carefree” teen years when kids find out that life isn’t all they thought it would be. There is an epilogue about what happens to each of the teens in the film after high school. It would be interesting to see where they are in ten, then twenty years. This revisiting of high school years lets those watching go back to their own days in school and reevaluate what is was like for them. Most will be grateful they never have to go back. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
THE CLONE WARS |
STAR WARS: THE CLONE WARS Rated PG for sci-fi action violence throughout, brief language and momentary smoking. Science Fiction/Fantasy/Animation 98 minutes
2 stars |
This animated version of The Clone Wars just doesn’t inspire much excitement as the live action movies did, long, long ago in a galaxy far away. This story takes place before the movies we’ve seen previously, so the audience already knows what happens to Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi. That doesn’t leave much suspense. Even adding an apprentice, Ahsoka Tano, so that Anakin can be a master to teach another, is nothing extraordinary.
The animation is interesting if stiff-looking. The battle scenes kill more beings than would be expected. The voice-overs are serviceable, including those by Samuel L. Jackson and Christopher Lee, but again, nothing special.
Jabba the Hutt’s young son is kidnapped and Anakin and Ahsoka rush off on an old bucket of a spaceship to rescue him. What no ones knows at the beginning is who is behind it, though it’s not hard to figure out. Count Dooku and Asajj Ventress are suitably villainous when the time comes. The twists and turns are mild. So why this animated version? Die hard fans can never seem to get enough, but at some point it has to stop, doesn’t it? Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| HENRY POOLE IS HERE Rated PG for thematic elements and some language. Comedy/Drama/Religion 101 minutes
2 stars |
If faith is the answer, what’s the question? Henry Poole is Here takes the audience on a journey that while sincere is rather heavy-handed when it comes to miraculous happenings. Henry (Luke Wilson) is a cranky, glum, slovenly guy who buys a house that he barely cares about, but that we find out later is in the neighborhood where he grew up, and that last place he remembers being happy. Flashbacks to Henry as a child (Noah Dahl), trying to escape his parents’ fighting, are some of the affecting scenes. But for now he wants to be left alone to drink Vodka and eat donuts.
His nosy neighbor, Esperanza (Adriana Barraza), tries to engage him but no such luck. She does notice, though, an image of what she thinks to be the face of Jesus Christ on the stucco on the side of his house. This agitates Henry as he quite simply wants to be left alone. Esperanza brings over not only her friends to see the face, but her priest Father Salazar (George Lopez), who wants to have a red substance that’s coming from the face tested to see what it is.
The pace of this movie is painfully slow, especially in the beginning. It takes too much time, and too many extreme close-ups of Luke Wilson to find out he’s dying and that’s why he’s such a depressed grouch. It only gets somewhat more interesting when the little girl next door, Millie (Morgan Lily), who doesn’t speak, seems to be the only one that Henry feels more sorry for than himself. Her mother Dawn (Radha Mitchell), happens to be beautiful and understanding, but Henry resists being with her because he doesn’t feel he has the right to involve her with a dying man.
Back to the wall. Miracles start occurring as people touch the face, and some physical problem of theirs is cured. People start lining up to touch the wall. Henry gets more and more angry. You may be able to figure out what happens from here.
The writer, Albert Torres, and director Mark Pellington obviously have a reverence for the subject matter. They don’t offer neat explanations, trying to show the power of prayer and belief resides in each individual. But still, it’s difficult to swallow. Also, too many extreme close-ups start to give a claustrophobic feel to the visuals and the movie itself. Luke Wilson is a credible and likeable actor; the rest of the cast does a good job as well, and while not everything has to be tied up neatly, the story leaves one feeling unconvinced. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| PINEAPPLE EXPRESS Rated R for pervasive language, drug use, sexual references and violence. Action/Adventure/Comedy 111 minutes
2½ stars |
Someone please advise the Judd Apatow & Company film train that it’s just about run out of fuel. Sticking to its familiar Boys To Men track, this stoner comedy is similar to its most recent predecessors – the originality, exuberance, and promise have dwindled to a few laughs. How’s the following for a plot?
Dale (Seth Rogen) is a mid-twenties/marijuana befuddled/process server with a high school senior girl friend. His suppler, Saul (James Franco), is eccentric (he watches old, short-run black television series) and continually stoned (he is ever lighting up) and is himself supplied by Red (Danny McBride), at best an ambivalent fellow (straight or gay, loyal or a betrayer, alive or dead), who in turn is supplied by Ted (Gary Cole) a childish, murdering drug king aided by his corrupt cop lover, Carol (Rosie Perez) all amidst a drug war with a generic Asian cartel.
The action encompassing this group is Dale’s witnessing of Ted shooting an assassin from the Asian drug group at which point he becomes the object of a manhunt. He’s quickly associated with Saul, by virtue of his discarded roach (for the brand name, see the film title) and the two men go on the run, first to the woods, then to Red, then to Dale’s girlfriend’s family, and eventually to a large wooden growing/storage center literally in the middle of nowhere. A large number of the actions and reactions of Dale and Saul occur under a drug -induced haze. But even the sober players are goofy and absurd (like one of the killers chasing the heroes down who is intent on dinner with his wife). And yes, there’s a car chase, an extended brawl (between Dale, Red, and Saul) and an even longer shoot out near the end. Capped, naturally, by lots of male bonding.
That there is some humor in the foregoing cannot be denied. It’s just not much. Yes, Seth Rogen is adept at portraying the man who will not grow up, James Franco skillfully plays the dope head, Danny McBride can surprise with the ever shifting persona of Red, and Gary Cole and Rosie Perez nail their parts (as do the others in their bit parts). Trouble is the characters are so self –contained and self-involved the viewer is left aside and never fully suspends disbelief to become part of the scene. Such, of course, can be a real danger with comedy wherein what is hilarious to those sitting around writing the script (in this case Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, based on a story by Judd Apatow) does not necessarily translate beyond the moment, and place, of its composing. Like a man in his twenties with a high school girlfriend? Or selling drugs to kids? And let’s not forget those moments when what might have induced a smile is over extended and loses its impact altogether.
On the other hand, even if the humor holds up, the same pitfall (you-had-to-be-there) effect can befall the director as seems to have happened here to David Gordon Green. You seem to sense he and everyone else involved had a jolly good time, they broke each other up a lot, and there were funny outtakes galore. But increasingly Judd Apatow & Company’s movies seem to be evolving into home movies, private parties to which the viewer doesn’t feel invited. Maybe next time.
Pineapple Express – Not fast, not furious (as in lively), and scant fun. Review by Charles Zio
OF THE TRAVELING PANTS 2 |
THE SISTERHOOD OF THE TRAVELING PANTS 2 Rated PG-13 for mature material and sensuality. Adventure/Comedy/Drama 117 minutes
3½ stars |
The girls of the traveling pants are growing up. This follow-up to the first adaptation of Ann Brashares’ book series finds the girls in college now. They are older so their problems are more adult—like a pregnancy scare. The actresses are well-cast and work well together as an ensemble; each presenting a different type that a multitude of girls can relate to when watching the movie. Although, sometimes the story is a bit too simplistic.
Amber Tamblyn plays Tibby Tomko-Rollins, Alexis Bledel is Lena Kaligaris, America Ferrera is Carmen Lowell, and Blake Lively is Bridget Vreeland. They all do an excellent job, although Amber Tamblyn’s character is probably the most difficult to pull off. As they gather after the end of the school year, Carmen can’t wait until they are all together again. She’s feeling left out because her mother has remarried and is pregnant. Carmen misses the days when it was just her and mom. She makes no summer plans because she thinks the four best friends will be enjoying their time together, but then learns they’ve all already made plans out of town. Carmen is annoyed at her friends, and reluctantly decides to take up her friend from Yale’s offer to work backstage at a prestigious summer theatre. (You might be able to guess what happens there.)
Tibby works in a video store, Lena takes an art class, and Bridget goes to Turkey on an archeological dig. Each story is followed through in a well-crafted, interwoven pattern by director Sanaa Hamri. The most touching story is not about the men in their lives, although it is about finding love. Bridget is still heartbroken over her mother’s suicide, believing as many children of suicides do, that her mother left because she didn’t love Bridget. A wise teacher, Professor Nasrin Mehani (Shohreh Aghdashloo, nicely showing emotions) on her dig in Turkey advises her to not cut off the past, but embrace it. This gives Bridget the impetus to go to Alabama to see her grandmother, Greta (Blythe Danner, very effective) and find answers about her mother.
There are also lighthearted moments that provide humor; sweet ones that provide romance; sensual ones that provide sex, but in a loving context. Female audiences, who liked Pants 1, will enjoy this one as well. The photography is admirable, looking at the costumes is fun, and the rest of the technical aspects are handled well. And for those who are not familiar with the series, it is more touching than you might expect. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THE WACKNESS Rated R for pervasive drug use, language and some sexuality. Comedy/Drama 95 minutes
3 stars |
Teenage angst is created anew with each succeeding generation, and each one has its own particular trials and quirks. The Wackness is about Luke Shapiro (Josh Peck in an affecting, believable performance) in New York City in 1994 where being a lonely, depressed outcast has led him to an enterprising line of work. Luke is a drug dealer. He only sells marijuana, almost like he’s doing a public service rather than an illegal activity. He seems to care about his clients’ well-being, either because he has no one else in his life, or he's an okay guy.
It’s the summer after Luke’s high school graduation and his concerns are about his family, going away to college, and sleeping with girls. But hey, Luke has principles; he wants to at least not be repulsed by a girl he sleeps with. He forms a kind of a bond with his psychiatrist, Dr. Jeffrey Schaffer (Ben Kingsley), who trades him weed for therapy sessions. In this case, the doctor truly is crazier than his patient. He is even more desperately unhappy than Luke.
When Luke finds that his father, (David Wohl) has lost all the family money, much to his mother’s (Talia Balsam) anger, he tries to sell even more drugs. In the meantime, he is attracted to Dr. Shaffer’s step-daughter, which the doc doesn’t like. Stephanie (Olivia Thirlby, doing a nice job), was popular in high school and barely noticed Luke although they were in the same class. She is bored because most of her friends are away and doesn’t have much to do so she and Luke become friends. When she takes him to her summer house and teaches him about sex, he falls in love with her. Dr. Shaffer’s own unhappy marriage with Kristin (Famke Janssen, playing disaffected very well) becomes unraveled even further, which leaves him completely undone.
While the younger actors, Josh Peck and Olivia Thirlby specifically, do a credible job making their characters interesting and sympathetic, Ben Kingsley’s character is a total jerk; I don’t care if he is depressed. If someone suggested him as a psychiatrist, I’d run, not walk, the other way. And I could have lived without the visual of him and Mary-Kate Olsen, as a demented flower child called Union, getting it on in a phone booth.
Writer/director Jonathan Levine’s story about a sad sack teenager is not as original as it might seem at first glance, and is very close to being self-indulgent. Although there are some touching moments, and some pop culture references that kids can relate to, there are other films in this genre that provide more powerful and lasting memories of what it feels like to grow up in a crazy world. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
THE DRAGON EMPEROR |
THE MUMMY: TOMB OF THE DRAGON EMPEROR PG-13 for adventure action and violence. Action/Adventure/Sequel 112 minutes
3 stars |
A little cheesiness goes a long way, especially in movie sequels. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor has plenty to spare, yet it also has Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh, and some interesting CGI. Although this is the weakest of the Mummy movies, teen boys or anyone who likes spectacle without too much thought would seem to be the chosen audience. Director Rob Cohen is trying to give us an Indiana Jones type campy, over the top movie, but there are some problems.
The biggest mistake is in the casting. Maria Bello, who looks the part and tries hard, and normally a good actress, is not at her best here. She is an odd replacement choice, and she and Brendan Fraser seem awkward together. The worst choice, however, is Luke Ford as their son, Alex. In the last movie he was a little kid. Next thing we know he’s what, 25 or 26? He’s way too old to be their son. Did I mention he’s not much of an actor? Why the screenwriters chose to skip his adolescent years, which would seem full of opportunity, is a mystery, except to have him separated initially from his parents.
Rick and Evelyn O’Connell (Fraser and Bello) have settled into a rich but boring existence. When they get the chance to go Mummy hunting again, they take it. In Shanghai, they catch up with their son, Alex (Ford), who is supposed to be in college, but having their genes (ha), he finds the tomb of the Dragon Emperor. Thousands of years ago Emperor Han (Jet Li who elevates any movie he is in) wanted to rule China. His second in command, General Ming (Russell Wong, believable and handsome) finds a “witch” Zi Juan (Michelle Yeoh, who seems to have cornered the market on beautiful, dignified Asian women), who can help the Emperor with the total power he seeks. He tells Ming no one is to touch her, but to take her where she can find the “object” she needs to complete his dominance. In the course of their travels Ming and Zi Juan fall in love, and when the Emperor finds out, he kills Ming. Before he can do the same with Zi Juan, she curses him to an existence in suspension holding the reins of his horses.
That’s where Alex comes in, finds the tomb, not knowing what he is about to unleash. Rick and Evelyn get drawn in along with her brother, Jonathan Carnahan (John Hannah playing the same incompetent character, supposedly the comic relief) who now owns a nightclub in Shanghai.
As mentioned, along with the Asian actors, the CGI is the strongest part of the movie. The chase scene in the streets of Shanghai, the mountain scenes with the yeti, the risen “soldiers” of massive armies, and Jet Li’s many transformations will keep the audience’s attention if not total belief in the goings on, but then who goes to this kind of movie for reality, anyway? Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| SWING VOTE PG-13 for language. Comedy 100 minutes
2½ stars |
Like a politician who wants to please everyone, Swing Vote tries to have it all. It’s supposed to be a comedy, but has heavy doses of serious issues that are left unresolved. Kevin Costner plays Bud Johnson, an alcoholic redneck in New Mexico who works at a factory packing eggs into cartons. He’s lazy, unapologetically uneducated, and lets his young daughter Molly (Madeline Carroll, excellent throughout) be the parent. So of course he’s the perfect person to be responsible for casting the final vote to pick the President of the United States. Oh, the irony.
Molly is very bright and civic-minded. She registers Bud to vote, signing his name illegally. Then she expects him to show up at the polling station. When he passes out in a drunken stupor, she manages to get to the machine and almost votes except for a cord that gets pulled from the wall at an opportune time. Huh? Already straining credulity, the Republican president Andrew Boone (Kelsey Grammer doing a nice job), and Democratic challenger Donald Greenleaf show up to court Bud.
The strongest part of the movie is the most honest: where we see the candidates worrying about demographics, and their puppet masters willing to obtain victory at any cost. That’s when they start switching positions to please Bud who will cast the deciding vote. Neither man is presented as “bad” just tremendously ambitious as the most powerful position in the world is at stake. It’s only late in the movie that they seem to develop a conscience, and decide to hold to their original positions and be true to themselves. This makes it more palatable that Bud has to decide between two decent, though not necessarily noble men.
Where the movie strays the most is the parental storyline. Bud is not a parent to be admired. Hard working men and women from so-called “red” states could take offense at this characterization of a person who should have his daughter taken away. It helps that they have an affable Bud who is not a mean drunk. But he takes the whole movie to realize the import of his decision. Then there is a scene with Mare Winningham (always good, and too good here), as Molly’s disturbed mother, that is totally out of synch with a comedy in its pain and intensity.
The uneven pace and tone is covered by lots of cursing, a personal fault Bud tries to correct (and which often substitutes for real humor in movies), good acting by the cast, especially young Ms. Carroll, the patchy charm of Kevin Costner, and the nuggets of truth about our corrupt political system, but in the end it’s a let down. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
REVISITED |
BRIDESHEAD REVISITED PG-13 for some sexual content. Foreign Film – UK Drama 133 minutes
3½ stars |
Adapted from the epic novel by Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited may disappoint those who read and love the book, or the television mini-series. If you are flexible and willing to accept a loose adaptation, you may be satisfied with this version about the life of one man on the outside looking in on the British (Catholic) upper crust.
The story starts with Army Captain Charles Ryder (Matthew Goode, drawing empathy in his role) at a mansion called Brideshead used now as a military base, thinking about the years between World War I and II when he visited it with his friend Sebastian Flyte (Ben Whishaw, appropriately dissolute). They met at Oxford when Sebastian vomited in Charles’s window. To make up for his awful breech of manners, he sends Charles flowers and invites him to lunch. There Charles meets Sebastian’s friends including Anthony (Joseph Beattie), where he tells them all of his plans to be a painter. As they become closer friends, Sebastian, obviously homosexual, becomes more enamored of Charles. Although there are scenes of the two swimming naked and they share one chaste kiss, there is no evidence of an affair between the two men. Sebastian reluctantly invites Charles to Brideshead to meet his family, where the splendor of the estate takes the middle class young man’s breath away.
Charles is introduced to the controlling and dominating matriarch of Brideshead, Lady Marchmain (Emma Thompson, delivering another flawless performance although she’s too young for the part) who is obsessed with her children remaining true to their Catholic faith. He also meets Sebastian’s siblings, including Bridley (Ed Stoppard), Julia (Hayley Atwell), who is mysterious, and unobtainable, and their younger sister, Cordelia (Felicity Jones). Immediately taken with the beautiful Julia, Charles is then invited to stay for the summer. The three go to Venice to visit with Lord Marchmain (Michael Gambon in another good performance) separated from Lady Marchmain, and his mistress, Cara (Greta Scacchi). Along the way, Charles is warned by several characters not too lead Sebastian on, but he’s somewhat naïve, and infatuated with Julia and doesn’t want to cut ties with the family. Sebastian sees Charles and Julia kissing in Venice, which leads to an estrangement between the two. Julia is forced by Lady Marchmain to become engaged to Rex (Jonathon Cake), a rich but ambitious American and Charles is forced to leave Brideshead.
The years begin to take their toll, the carefree times are gone, and the characters grow up and older. Sebastian is living in Morocco, an alcoholic who is ill and barely surviving. Charles becomes a painter of some reputation and meets Julia again. The saga continues. One of the major storylines in the book is about the Catholicism of the Flytes. Charles is a self-proclaimed atheist and never understands the hold the religion has over the family, which leads to further estrangement.
It’s difficult, even in over two hours to include the sweep of the novel with all its subplots, but the movie does a pretty good job of creating the sense of glory days gone by for these characters. The cinematography, set design, and costumes are well-done. It seems an odd time to release this kind of film, but if you like to look at times gone by, and British masterpiece theatre-type work, this is for you. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| BRICK LANE PG-13 for some sexuality and brief strong language. Drama/Adaptation 101 minutes
4 stars |
This is a lovely, heartfelt film about the meaning of “home.” The screenplay is adapted by Abi Morgan and Laura Jones from the popular book by Monica Ali about a Bangladeshi woman named Nazneen (Tannishtha Chatterjee in an earnest performance) who tries to cope with her constricted life in London on Brick Lane, known for its immigrant communities. Nazneen mourns for the idyllic life she had as a child spent playing with her sister. Only gradually do we learn it wasn’t as perfect as it seemed. As with most nostalgia, Nazneen tends to remember the good and chooses not to dwell on the bad.
At seventeen Nazneen comes to London because of an arranged marriage, leaving her sister, and everything she knows behind. Her husband, Chanu Ahmed (Satish Kaushik, doing a fine job), is considerably older, and her life is more about duty than pleasure. She has two daughters, but the older, teenager Shahana (Naeema Begum, very good), is rebellious and has taken on the attitudes of her adopted country which causes difficulties with her traditional father. Nazneen goes about her daily life without much conflict, or joy either. The incident that changes everything is when her husband leaves his job because he feels unappreciated. Instantly, the family is threatened with instability. Nazneen finds a way to earn money sewing. She meets Karim (Christopher Simpson, charismatic) who takes her the sewing work and picks it up. Young and handsome, she finds herself attracted to Karim and, in her early thirties, is in the first flush of love.
Nazneen has been living for the days she receives letters from her sister, who has had a rough, if exciting life back home. But when Karim comes into her life, she now has something exciting to live for that makes her happy for the first time since she left home. The relationship with her husband has been one of obedience, but for the first time she feels appreciated as a woman. The movie is subtle; with the actors’ expressions telling more than words can about their emotions. For the most part tensions build slowly, but inevitably, as the culture clash is unavoidable. When 9/11 adds even more unrest to the immigrants’ situation as Muslims are now the target of suspicion, militancy begins to build among the residents of Brick Lane.
Although visually striking, the pace of the movie works against it. A book can afford to slow down and go into detail; a film doesn’t have that luxury. Yet, once Karim comes into the picture, it does move faster. The growth of Nazneen is handled delicately, but realistically by director Sarah Gavron, who shows a woman blossoming and calling on an inner strength she had all along, but didn’t realize. Nazneen is also pragmatic, though, as she comes out of her “dreamlike” state, assesses her priorities and puts her family’s survival first. Brick Lane is a film to see. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| STEP BROTHERS R for crude and sexual content, and pervasive language. Comedy 95 minutes
3½ stars |
Watching Step Brothers one wonders just how long the Judd Apatow inspired formula film will hold on. The answer will eventually be supplied by the teenage males who are the market, and of course the subject, of the films themselves. Sure, there’s some laughs and the acting is often better than the material, but the signs indicate that diminishing returns are increasingly making an appearance.
The titled step brothers become family after the marriage of Robert Dohack (Richard Jenkins, convincingly running the gamut from relaxed to crazed irateness) and Nancy Huff (Mary Steenburgen, ever delightful, here a sexy wife and overly caring mother). The instantly smitten couple have in common problem adult sons, 39 and 40, who still live at home, are consistently jobless, and with a maturity level around 12.
The continued good fortune in casting extends to the actors who embody, to the nth degree, the step brothers. Namely, Will Ferrell (more often than not appealing no matter how absurd his character and/or situation) as Nancy’s son Brennan and John C. Reilly (a fine actor who deserves greater acknowledgement of his wide range) as Robert’s son Dale. The two men are not happy at their new family arrangement and react with subtle and overt acts of hostility and sabotage (especially Dale’s humorous, obscenity laced rants and songs) that establish that neither has set so much as a toe in the land of adulthood (listen to their silly, and funny, childish insults).
A change comes with the visit of Brennan’s younger, conceited brother Derek (Adam Scott, nicely conveying a dislikable bad guy). After a bout of taunting, Dale punches Derek thereby incurring the amorous devotion of his frustrated wife Alice (Kathyrn Hahn, dandy as a newly freed from primness, sensuous stalker). Having shared a mutual enemy, Brennan and Dale discover they share adolescent hobbies and enthusiasms and finally bond.
Now, if this happened to be a sitcom, we’d be at the end of an amusing premier episode. That it’s not such an animal is evidenced by the profanity (overwhelmingly for humor not shock value) and a graphic defiling of a drum set (and not with the male genitalia you might guess). But this is a movie and the script by Will Ferrell and Adam McKay based on a story by both men and Reilly has to come up with some complications. These involve, among others, Robert forcing the two sons to get jobs (joint job interviews!), forming an entertainment company (a feeble, imitation, updated Duran Duran), forestalling a house sale, and destruction of property. There’s more, too, and though most involve well delivered bits, the sequence of events come across as mostly time fillers. And maybe, just maybe, this boys-into-men genre has lost its novelty and the viewer now wants, and deserves, more depth and insight into character while, of course, not losing the outrageous/rebellious viewpoint.
Still, director Adam McKay (also cited above as a co-author) keeps the story moving along while avoiding the dread fault of the too-long-take (a mood killer if there ever was one). Considering the close participation of the principals (McKay, Ferrell, Reilly) the ability to keep the touch light, the tone good-natured, and the entertainment value consistent is to be complemented (too much unfettered involvement by producers/directors/writers/actors often results in a work most highly appreciated by the very creators themselves). Overall, the travails of the step brothers are easy to swallow even if the meal isn’t totally satisfying.
Step Brothers – Another dysfunctional family, pleasantly comic with, here and there, laugh out loud moments. Review by Charles Zio
I WANT TO BELIEVE |
THE X-FILES: I WANT TO BELIEVE PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace. Action/Adventure/Crime/Sequel 142 minutes
2½ stars |
I’m not sure of the impetus behind making a movie based on the well-known television series, The X-Files, but I’m sure there are die hard fans who could tell me, and are glad there is one. The problem is the movie should not just be good, but very, very good, and unfortunately, it doesn’t measure up to that level of competency.
We have the same main characters, Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson). Their relationship is complicated and the driving force behind the action. (The audience for the show, it seems, have invested these characters with a great deal of their time and attention.) The other main subject in the film is unexplained phenomena that can’t be measured by any actual scale or real device.
The story begins when an FBI agent goes missing. There are some chilling scenes that show a woman being assaulted by two men at her home. This woman is the agent, and the FBI desperately wants to rescue one of their own. That desperation leads the head investigator, Dakota Whitney (Amanda Peet, a usually reliable actor, but rather flat here) to approach Scully, a doctor/surgeon at a Catholic hospital. They want her to contact Mulder, who has since left the FBI, and want to pick his brain. He is bitter, and is reluctant to get involved, yet does, or there would be no movie. It seems a priest, Father Joseph Crissman (Billy Connolly) is having “visions” which he can’t explain that take him (and FBI searchers) to buried human body parts. Whitney believes Mulder can work with the priest to find out if he’s the real deal or a fake so they don’t waste any more time in finding their agent.
Gillian Anderson is the more interesting of the two actors and her character of Dr. Dana Scully is a provocative one. David Duchovny’s Mulder has a self-righteousness that can be irritating. The conflicts between Scully and Mulder seem too manufactured at times since these two clearly deserve each other.
The setting, snow everywhere, with it’s barren, frozen landscapes add to the eerie nature of the story. Yet, the story itself is simplistic, and is less about the paranormal, then some pretty freaky, crazy people. Because of a subplot about Scully’s attempt to save a very ill child, where she does battle over his care with one priest at the hospital, while Mulder tries to work with the other priest, Father Crissman, the religious subtext provides most of the extra-dimension factor. But it’s not enough to make the story anything extraordinary. Again, I’m back to same thing. Why is it necessary to have a movie of this television show? Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THE DARK KNIGHT PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and some menace. Action/Adventure/Crime/Sequel 142 minutes
4 stars |
Gotham has never been so dark. Dark may be an understatement. Add grim, bleak, violent, brooding, and gloomy. The trend to give even comic book characters depth and complexity is a good one, but this movie is unrelenting. Yet, screenwriter Jonathan Nolan does have a coherent story line, plot, and reason for every character’s behavior, no matter how quirky it may be. His brother, director Christopher Nolan does a masterful job of putting it all together with the help of an excellent cast, and good technical crew.
Batman (an excellent Christian Bale who is pitch perfect when it comes to this character) does what he can to stop crime, but he and Lt. James Gordon (an equally excellent Gary Oldman) are not prepared for the psychotic, twisted smarts of the Joker (Heath Ledger, who gives a layered performance as a sadistic criminal at his gory best, and provokes sadness at the loss of such talent), who fascinates, and dominates the movie. They hope that with the help of the new district attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart, also very good), they will be able to contain the Joker and all the various criminal elements that he has taken on loosely as “partners.” Harvey is also Bruce Wayne’s romantic rival for the love of Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, taking over the role and doing a believable job). Michael Caine returning as Alfred, and Morgan Freeman running Bruce Wayne Enterprises are both effective in their roles, too.
What the police and Batman don’t count on is the genius of the Joker, who is always several jumps ahead of them. They pay a heavy price as more and more people die because of their miscalculations. Human nature is barely redeemed, and at times so many people are corrupt it hardly seems worth the trouble of saving the rest of them. There is only one sequence where the “everyday” people make choices that surprise even the Joker and lets us know that the people of Gotham do deserve the sacrifices made on their behalf.
The technical aspects of the film couldn’t be better (although sometimes those circular 360 degree tracking shots can make you dizzy). Special appreciation to Wally Pfister (director of photography), Nathan Crowley for production design, Simon Lamont and group for art direction, Peter Lando for set decoration. Lee Smith’s editing is a bit jumpy and a bit too fast so that it’s difficult to follow at times, but keeps the continuity. Also, the expertise of the special and visual effects crews.
At almost two and a half hours, the movie is too long, though it keeps your attention. The violence is at times gratuitous, especially with a PG-13 rating. A villian unexpectedly dies while the other lives, or maybe that's a plot twist? It’s the least cartoon-like, the most video game-like dark hero so far; it’s not your father’s Batman. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| MAMMA MIA! PG-13 for some sex related comments. Comedy/Musical/Romance 108 minutes
4 stars |
What is the appeal of Mamma Mia!? If you’ve seen the stage play it won’t be a mystery. The so-called “jukebox musical” where a story is built around already published music, in this case the pop songs of the Swedish group sensation known as ABBA, has been a hit around the world since it was first produced in London. The music is exuberant, energetic, fun, touching; it connects to something very elemental in the human soul that can’t be readily explained. Among the familiar songs are the title “Mamma Mia,” “Dancing Queen,” “Waterloo,” “Take a Chance on Me,” and “The Winner Takes It All.” No, it’s not Shakespeare, or opera, and it’s not meant to be.
The story is that of a single mother, Donna Sheridan (the always interesting and entertaining Meryl Streep) who lives on a Greek Island where she owns a crumbling resort. She has a daughter, Sophie (Amanda Seyfried, lovely and talented enough to hold her own with all the stars in the cast), who is about to get married. The problem is that Sophie doesn’t know who her father is, but yearns to. She finds her mother’s diary from 21 years ago when her mother had relationships with three men, any of whom could be her father. Sophie thinks she will know her father immediately when she sees him, and so invites all three men to her wedding. This, of course, leads to all kinds of misunderstandings, complications, revelations of long-buried secrets, and intense emotions.
In the meantime, Donna’s friends from the days of her rebellious youth, who formed the singing trio, Donna and the Dynamos, join her to help celebrate at the wedding. They are the “lone wolf” and free spirit Rosie (Julie Walters, so much fun to watch), and the thrice married Tanya (Christine Baranski, playing a variation of a character she does often, but so well). When Donna discovers the three old boyfriends are at her inn, she has a meltdown. The true love of her life is Sam (Pierce Brosnan, very appealing here). Who knew he and Ms. Streep would have such a good rapport? The other men are the banker Harry (Colin Firth, always excellent), and Bill (Stellan Skarsgard, adding his own twist on the character).
The same creative team that created Mamma Mia!, producer Judy Craymer, director Phyllida Lloyd and writer Catherine Johnson do a credible job of translating the work from stage to screen. It’s not perfect, and there are awkward moments when the songs are a bit over the top, or could be sung better, or it’s a stretch to make the goings on fit with the songs. But that’s the challenge of a jukebox musical. Since Mamma Mia! set off the craze, it’s actually better than would be expected. The setting is lovely, the photography well done, the movie is well cast, and has the right amount of touching moments (especially that mothers and daughters will relate to). Most of all, Mamma Mia! is filled with genuine fun, and is joyous. The audience had a great time. How many movies can say that? Review by Ann Marie Oliva
OF HUANG SHI |
THE CHILDREN OF HUANG SHI Rated R for some disturbing and violent content. Drama/War 114 minutes
3½ stars |
The Children of Huang Shi is a very moving, heartfelt story of one man’s attempt and success, at great personal cost, of saving a group of orphaned children during war. The movie, “inspired by true events” is the story of a British journalist named George Hogg (Irish actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers who shows range and intensity in the role) who found himself in China during the Japanese occupation in 1937. At first, he’s seen as a typical journalist, obsessed with getting the news story, but when he sees suffering close up it begins to change his perceptions of himself, and what he needs to do with his life.
George almost gets killed after seeing a friend die, but is saved by Chen Hansheng (a masterful Yun-Fat Chow) leader of the Chinese rebel group, and is advised to go to deeper into the country for safety. When he arrives at the orphanage, he realizes how bad the situation is as the children have no adult with them except a cook who has no control and is more of a grandmotherly figure to them. George’s first instinct is to get away from the orphanage as soon as he can, but he’s challenged by a tough Australian woman named Lee Pearson (Radha Mitchell at turns harsh and tender) to stay and help the boys. She periodically brings food and medicine and is the closest thing they have to a nurse.
As George makes the fateful decision to stay, at least for a while, he begins to care for the children more deeply. He even has affection for the older, more deeply disturbed boys who witnessed the horrible sights of war. George finds he has to make deals with, then becomes friends with Madame Wang (lovely, regal Michelle Yeoh) who sees his essential goodness and helps him out more than he knows. As Lee returns more often she finds George changed and committed to helping the children survive. A romance develops.
Survival for the children means having to take sixty orphans and traveling on a journey of almost a thousand miles across the treacherous snow-bound Liu Pan Shan mountains, with few provisions and little help, to the Mongolian desert. Along the way, people think George has lost it, but despite tragic losses he is determined to get the children to safety.
The commitment of the filmmakers to the essence of George Hogg’s story is admirable given the harsh conditions of filming. The photography is spectacular. The actors are excellent across the board. One problem is with the pacing, which seems to lose steam towards the end, and because of it, takes away some of the power of the story. It is also heavy-handed in some scenes. But one man’s story of growth, courage, and moral conscious makes this is a film worth seeing. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
SEE YOUR FATHER? |
WHEN DID YOU LAST SEE YOUR FATHER Rated PG-13 for sexual content, thematic material and brief strong language. Biography/Drama 92 minutes
4½ stars |
Despite a title that sounds like either a comic setup or a punch line, When Did You Last See Your Father? is an adult, intelligent, sensitive portrait of a strained father-son relationship. And, by the way, the question posed will resonate and be answered movingly in the film. The summer season would seem an odd choice for a work obviously directed toward adults. Then again, a fine movie is always welcome whenever.
Blake Morrison (Coliin Firth, skillfully conveying resentment and affection) has come home to his father's deathbed meaning to resolve their ever troubled relationship, but the older man, Arthur (Jim Broadbent, superb throughout), is too ill and slipping away too quickly. Blake is forced, on his own, to look back and sort out the past. Arthur wasn't a terrible parent, just thoughtless. He did not hesitate to intrude himself on Blake (the poor kid couldn't even read a book in peace), insulting him, dragging him into social settings for which he was unprepared, embarrassing him at every opportunity, and insisting he accompany him on excursions he strongly wished to avoid. In short, Arthur wouldn't take no for an answer. To cap off matters, Arthur was gregarious (hail fellow well-met to men) and outgoing (charming to women) leaving Blake with no allies and frustrated that he seemed the only one who could see through his father's huffing and puffing. More maddening still was Blake's conviction his father was cheating on his mother, Kim (Juliet Stevenson, beautifully embodying anger,acceptance, frustration, and devotion), and she was allowing him to do so. If there was a ray of light, it was the boy's brief affair with the maid (his first lover) with his father cast as the "sex police" trying to catch him or, at least, forestall consumation.
As Blake reflects on the past, and Arthur slips increasingly out of mental reach, it's evident that reconcilation will not be possible. How will Blake address the unhappiness and dissatisfaction he harbors? The strain on his own marriage is evident with his wife Kathy (Gina McKee, a strong presence in her few scenes) and that we don't see him with his own children may imply he is going in the opposite direction of his father and be absent, even when present. But as in his youth, Blake's anger remains his alone for no one else sees or remembers the situation as he did. The viewer, needless to say, understands what the boy wanted all along was affection, approval, validation. The same things, in fact, that the grown man still craves and awaits from his father. And he will have them. Not as he preferred. But in the form of a memory in a powerful, truly moving moment of emotional revelation. The effect is that much greater because, up till this point, the events have been understated, presented calmly and matter-of-factly. Chances are excellent that the tears will not be limited to the screen. There's a little bit of summing up (lesson learned) at the end (tied in with the title), but in such an honest film this is a very minor blip (and not at all annoying).
Who to thank for this fine picture? Start with the excellent script by David Nicholls, based on Blake Morrison's novel, wherein the flow of events never feels forced and the build of feelings is quietly effective. The photography by Howard Atherton is clear-eyed and subtle as it easily drifts from present to past and back again all of which is reinforced by Trevor Waite's able editing and Alice Normington's believable production design. Finally, high praise is due director Anand Tucker for his highly professional marshalling of his tech crew and for eliciting great performances from every actor involved, with a particular nod of the head to Colin Firth and Jim Broadbent. Tucker never loses sight of the humanity of his characters nor does he attempt to insert false drama out of synch with the story. Though it's a familiar one, when it's handled with sensitivity and thoughfulness, like Tucker does here, the result will inevitably be a worthwhile movie experience.
When Did You Last See Your Father? - No question, this is a sincere and heartfelt film not to miss. Review by Charles Zio
AND WORK OF DR. HUNTER S. THOMPSON |
GONZO: THE LIFE AND WORK OF DR. HUNTER S. THOMPSON Rated R for drug and sexual content, language and some nudity. Documentary/Biography 118 minutes
3½ stars |
Why are we fascinated by self-destructive, self-absorbed, drug addicted people who are determined to live large, no matter what the cost to anybody else? In this case the subject of Alex Gibney’s documentary/biography is Hunter S. Thompson, the creator of “gonzo” journalism. This type of new journalism allowed for the journalist to become part of the story he was reporting; it was perfect for Thompson, a man game for just about anything.
Thompson was born in Louisville, Kentucky, and his early years already showed signs of trouble. His father died when he was a young teen. He transferred to a school for wealthy boys, and then got caught at a robbery. His rich friends got out of jail, while he missed graduation. He wanted to be a writer in the tradition of F. Scott Fitzgerald so he copied The Great Gatsby on a typewriter so he could learn his style. That tells you something about his commitment to writing.
Thompson, who marries a woman named Sandy, Sondi Wright in the film, starts to get journalism assignments to earn money to support his family which now includes a son, Juan. Bringing a fresh approach to reporting, he scores when asked to write a book about the Hell’s Angels. Thompson “embeds” himself, riding and living with them. It’s not a pretty picture and he ultimately gets badly beaten when they are displeased by the book, but the book scores, and Thompson finds himself famous. This is the beginning of his undoing as he can no longer be the observer, but is now watched by everyone who seem to expect over-the-top, outrageous behavior. His coverage of politics, especially the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago; writings about Nixon, Muskie, Humphrey, and McGovern, as well as his book Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, set him up as a cultural icon, an image from which he can’t escape.
The film is narrated by Johnny Depp, who reads some of Thompson’s writing throughout. There are also interviews and comments by well known people like Jann Werner, editor of Rolling Stone who gave him many of his more famous assignments, Jimmy Carter, Pat Buchanan, George McGovern, Jimmy Buffet, his ex-wife and present wife, his son, friends, and Gary Hart, who is perhaps more honest than most when saying Thompson was naïve and set himself up to be disappointed by politicians he supported because he expected too much, then was let down.
What makes Thompson’s story provocative, and a cut above the usual where-he-went-wrong tale is that Thompson was talented. With that talent, he created a new style of journalism, and became a player, a man very much of his time (the 1960s-70s). As he got older and his intense, drug and alcohol fueled, chaotic life was no longer as unique as it had been, he decided to kill himself.
The film doesn’t dwell on his decline, and actually is quite non-judgmental about Thompson in general. Obviously, his friends and family really cared about him, and he had many good points (we’re told there were two sides: the angry, fearful Hunter and the nice guy who loved his family/grandson). Although he liked to give the impression that he gave the finger to the world, he actually cared a great deal, maybe too much, about what people thought of him. In the end, depression over losing his “edge” may have been too much. What future generations make of Hunter S. Thompson and his legacy will be interesting. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
THE GOLDEN ARMY |
HELLBOY 2: THE GOLDEN ARMY PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and some language. Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi/Sequel 110 minutes
2½ stars |
Writer/director Guillermo del Toro takes the Hellboy comic book character created by Mike Mignola and gives the audience a sequel of stunning visuals, but the story is not as strong as one would hope. In fact, the story seems to be an excuse for all the special effects. That is Mr. del Toro’s strong suit after all, and comic book fans will probably think it’s great. The problem is that throwing as much as possible at the audience isn’t always the answer.
The story concerns other-worldly beings that at first wage war on humans then make a truce with them after creating a “golden army” that can destroy mankind. The son of the King, who made the truce, Prince Nuada (Luke Goss, who makes an energetic adversary), unhappy with the way humans are taking care of the planet (in only a cursory nod as to why he comes back to take over), decides he will activate the army and kill all the people on earth. His twin sister, Princess Nuada (Anna Walton, always interesting to watch), sides with her father and tires to stop him with the help of Hellboy and company.
Ron Perlman plays the red Hellboy with good-natured ease, and the occasional touching moment. He’s gruff, but surprisingly sentimental even though he has a tin ear sometimes. This is especially true when it comes to his wife, Liz Sherman (Selma Blair, looking tense most of the time), who can set herself on fire when need be. Then there’s alien Abe Sapien (Doug Jones in an elaborate costume) who seems to be the physical opposite of Hellboy. Where Hellboy is big and awkward, Abe is slender with fluid movements. Dr. Johann Kraus (credited to several actors including John Alexander and James Dodd), wears a diving suit with some kind of swirling, cloudy life force that he lets escape at necessary moments.
When Prince Nuada shows up at an art auction with little “tooth fairies” it isn’t pretty, but the action is fast and furious. It seems the little beings are able to eat people alive. Then they leave “deposits” all over the floor. From there, the chase is on to put together pieces of a crown to activate the Golden Army. There is, of course, a final showdown to stop the Prince, but it has surprisingly little tension, or causes much emotion in the viewer. There’s no doubt what will happen, the only question is how. The dialogue can be fun, but is often not as witty or original as the filmmakers thinks it is. If you have affection for the character from the first movie, and like the visuals you will be satisfied, but if you want a more complete package, there have already been better films this summer. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
CENTER OF THE EARTH |
JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH PG for intense adventure action and some scary moments. Action/Adventure/Drama 92 minutes
3 stars |
Where's the adventure? Where's the excitement? Not on the screen with Journey to the Center of the Earth. At least there wasn't any in the non-3-D theater where I caught it and, I suspect, there wouldn't be much more even were the technology available because the problems run deeper than an image jumping out from the screen.
Here's the plot - Trevor Anderson is a geologist, unsuccessful college professor (his voice echoes in a nearly empty lecture hall), and about-to-forefit-his-laboratories-researcher who lost his brother, whose studies he shared, years ago while the older sibling expounded and explored for a portal to the center of the Earth. We, the viewers, know from the opening of the film that the hero brother chose to jump into a chasm of molten lava rather than be devoured by a dinosaur (as who wouldn't). Clues to the location of the entry to the Earth's center adorn, surprise, the pages of the title book by Jules Verne, which edition has been found in a carton given to Trevor from his sister-in-law who, at the same time, has dropped off his seldom-seen and supposedly cooly sarcastic pre-teen nephew Sean. Virtually at once they're off to Iceland (why not) where the skeptical daughter of another believer leads the guys up a mountain. Lightning strikes (yes, it does) and the trio find themselves trapped in a cave. Having just discovered a section with diamond studded walls, the floor gives way and it's an express drop to the Earth's core.
Down below, are luminous blue birds, carnivorous plants, magentized rocks, a big ocean, small fish with fantasticly large teeth, and the necessity of creating a geyser to shoot up and back to the surface. If any of this sounds exciting, rest assured, it's not. Even the addition of sentimental moments and romance are of no help since they are, respectively, heavy-handed and unconvincing. Two saving but very minor graces - the film only runs about an hour and a half and the end credits, with animation, reference the film itself (e.g., having floating rocks drifting about). And lest it be forgotten, the special effects though polished somehow seemed old-fashioned familiar.
What happened to this movie? The acting is split between Brendan Fraser (Trevor Anderson) who has proved his action credentials (The Mummy) who tries to invest his character with some depth and personality, love interest Anita Briem (Hannah Asgeirsson) who is chilly even after she thaws, and in between Josh Hutcherson (Sean Anderson) who is not believable as a smart aleck but acceptable when smart/brave. Then there is the script by Michael Weiss, Jennifer Flackett, and Mark Levin which is cliched and unimaginative besides which the device of referencing and incorporating Verne's novel is too cutesy to be swallowed. Visually, there's nothing that hasn't been seen before (and often better). All of which leads up to director Eric Brevig who fails to supply the wit, cleverness, and steady (at times breakneck) pacing an action adventure film requires as well as eliciting involving performances from the actors (except, as noted, from Fraser who does better than he is given). There won't and shouldn't be a sequel. Too bad.
Journey To The Center Of The Earth - Never takes off. Walk on by. Review by Charles Zio
| MEET DAVE PG for bawdy and suggestive humor, action and some language. Comedy/Sci-fi/Fantasy 90 minutes
3 stars |
Meet Dave isn’t original, and has almost every alien comedy cliché you can think of, but then it’s not nearly as bad as the Norbit movies either. If you’ve got kids on a rainy weekend and want a place to go, you might consider it. Why? Kids like alien stories. Sometimes Eddie Murphy, as Dave, is genuinely funny; sometimes his mugging is not so funny. At least the message is hopeful---aliens come to New York City (another cliché) and guess what—they decide NOT to destroy the city and all its inhabitants?
It seems the “person” of Dave Ming-Chang is actually a robot/space ship filled with tiny aliens who need to put some kind of sphere in the ocean and drain all our saltwater so their planet can survive. Dave has to interact with earthlings so he can get back the small sphere which had crashed on earth into a boy’s bedroom by accident. That boy, Josh (Austyn Myers, with great dimples and not overly precious) is a small fifth grader who is “different” and picked on by the bullies in his class. His mother, Gina Morrison (Elizabeth Banks, playing it straight up), is over-protective since losing her husband, a war hero, four years ago. She and Dave form a kind of friendship after she hits him with her car. Dave then needs major repairs by the little folks inside. Of course, this is very convenient since her son is the one Dave is looking for so he can get back the sphere, but it seems that a bully in Josh’s class has taken it away. Got it?
Anyway, the space ship is full of these little people who serve Dave/the Captain as his crew. His Number 3 is the Cultural Officer (Gabrielle Union, pretty and sweet) who has a hankering for the obtuse Captain, and gets jealous when she thinks he likes Gina as more than a friend. Number 2 in command (Ed Helms), starts losing his grip when the aliens really begin to get into American pop culture. The references to the Bee Gees, A Chorus Line, and It’s A Beautiful Life, cause a few chuckles for the adults. Scott Caan plays Dooley, a cop who believes in the possibility of life besides our own on earth. Others looking like they’re having a good time: Kevin Hart, Pat Kilbane, and Judah Friedlander. The movie won’t tax or challenge you, and there are those unfortunate bathroom jokes, but you might actually have some fun. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| HANCOCK Rated PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and language. Action/Adventure/Comedy/Sci-Fi 92 minutes
2½ stars |
Trying to change superhero mythology is tricky. Even having an actor like Will Smith, who has a huge reservoir of good will with the audience, doesn’t guarantee a movie will work if there is a fundamental flaw. The flaw here is the story. Yes, it’s interesting to give the plot some twists, and the writers, Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan do try, yet it’s difficult to empathize with Hancock.
Mr. Smith plays Hancock, a gloomy, bad-tempered superhero if there ever was one. He woke up in a hospital with amnesia and his super powers intact, but can’t remember who he is. This apparently makes him so grumpy that kids call him names he can’t abide. As he reluctantly goes about saving people, he also causes millions in property damage. This is how he meets Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman doing a good job with what he’s given). Ray is stuck on railroad tracks and Hancock saves his life. He’s a down and out PR man who decides all Hancock needs is some love and understanding for the public to grow to like him. So he tries to be a combination of image consultant/anger management teacher. Ray’s wife, Mary (Charlize Theron, excellent throughout, even given some terrible lines) doesn’t want Hancock in their lives, with good reason. The only one who seems to connect with Hancock is Ray’s young son, Aaron (Jae Head doing a nice job).
There are contradictions and plot holes about how Hancock came into being “the only one of my kind,” but it’s never really answered. There doesn’t have to be an explanation of every last detail, but to create a mythology there needs to be some coherent story line, even if it’s fantastic. It can be a fine line between telling too much, and not enough. Here it’s the latter, so that by the time the final big showdown occurs, there’s no great sorrow for this lonely being, whoever or whatever he is. The director, Peter Berg, is responsible for the overall tone of the movie, which is inconsistent, and disappointing.
The technical aspects of the movie are serviceable, though not exceptional, and the acting is good, but there’s not one really horrendous villain to focus on. Although Hancock can be counted on to make money from Will Smith fans alone, it doesn’t go down as easily as his other big movies where his personality is allowed to shine through. The audience I saw this with had few good laughs aside from kids cursing, or that weren’t forced. Hancock is different alright, it’s not much fun. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
AN AMERICAN GIRL |
KIT KITTREDGE: AN AMERICAN GIRL Rated G Family/Adaptation/Comedy/Drama 101 minutes
3 stars |
This is a family-friendly, earnest, well-intentioned movie that becomes inconsistent and a bit too sticky sweet over the course of the film, but girls will probably appreciate it as it has a young, spunky heroine. Kit Kittredge (Abigail Breslin doing a super job as always) is the ten year old who wants to be a reporter. It seems all spunky girls wanted to be reporters in those days as it provided a way to a more exciting lifestyle. It’s the early 1930s and the Depression is hitting everyone hard. Kit’s father, Jack (the reliable Chris O’Donnell moving effortlessly into youngish father roles) has an auto dealership, while Mom (Julia Ormond doing a fine job) manages the home.
Unfortunately, more and more people become affected by the economic downturns, with many losing their houses to foreclosure. Eventually the Kittredges are touched, too, when Jack loses his job, which forces him to leave home to find work in Chicago, and Mom has to take in borders just to survive.
The borders are an odd group. There’s a mother & son who’ve been abandoned by the husband and father, the fussy Mrs. Howard and sensitive Stirling (Glenne Headly giving a layered performance; Zach Mills fitting in well with the females). Miss Dooley (Jane Krakowski), is a man-hungry dance instructor; Miss Bond (Joan Cusack, playing very broad) is a rather awkward traveling librarian with poor driving skills; Jefferson Berk (Stanley Tucci, exacting) as a magician who keeps them amused. Also dropping in is Ruthie Smithens (Madison Davenport, doing well as the loyal friend), the banker’s daughter. And two “hobos” whom Mom treats kindly and allows to work for food, Will Shepherd (Max Theriot, bringing some nuance to the role), and Countee (Willow Smith, cute and engaging). There is a subplot about the hobos, one about the newspaper where Kit is trying to sell her articles to the editor Mr. Gibson (Wallace Shawn, under control here) with the help of her older brother’s friend Billy (Douglas Nyback, a good fit for the part). Then there is a subplot about a series of robberies which turns the movie into a Nancy Drew-like mystery.
The look of the film is not especially realistic, (the hobos are too clean), but the costumes are not overdone either. The tone is increasingly uneven as the movie meanders, but still, it will probably be enjoyable for families looking for live action G-Rated fare. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| WALL-E Rated G Animation 97 minutes
5 stars |
WALL-E, no matter how you say it (in the movie it is uttered with nothing less than appealing cuteness) is a charmer from start to finish. There's messages (about love, man's stewardship of earth, and the future), but the messages are cleverly packaged and easily swallowed (but no less important for being so). Yeah, the kids will love the robots and their antics (and will likely, incidentally, pick up some worthwhile cautions), and adults will be equally delighted. Unless the viewer is cyncial beyond belief, or a teenage boy too would-be macho to give it a break, the movie will leave you with a smile.
WALL-E (an acronym for Waste Allocation Load Lifter-Earth Class) is the last functioning waste gathering and compressing robot on Earth. He is, in fact, an intelligent compacter and his task is enormous. Earth, seven hundred years hence, has been abandoned by humankind after they've ravaged it and rendered it uninhabitable. What they have left behind are piles, everywhere and in heaps, of abandonded goods thanks to corporations as epitomized by Buy And Large which seems to have consolidated all businesses into one world-wide, all encompassing business entity. And, it is B N L that, long ago, lead humans to a paradise off-planet. Cleaning up the Earth was left to WALL-E and his fellow robots. Now, he is alone, his only company a lone cockroach. (Point of fact, these creatures pre-date humankind and, it has been predicted, will outlast us, though in much greater numbers than the movie indicates. And, too, the real thing is far less savory than its movie version. Talk about good PR.) What's appealing about WALL-E are the seemingly human traits he possesses (and why not, he was, after all, created by humans). He is curious (about the nature and use of the waste he gathers), is domestic (he has a residence in some sort of metal loading vehicle), is an inveterate collector (of odds and ends he has neatly and logically indexed on revolving shelves), is self-preserving (he has amassed a supply of spare parts from his broken breathern), and is overwhelmingly sensitive (caring and parental to his roach companion), and longing for love. The latter emotion he has learned second hand from a tape and soundtrack of the film Hello Dolly. What better illustration of the castoff society left behind as well as the innocence and naivete of WALL-E who uses one of its sacharine scenes as his template of romance. You got to feel for this robot.
And you do and root for him when, out of the sky, comes a potential companion robot named Eve (another acronym but more pointedly the name of the first "female" of our species). WALL-E woos and wins her affection but when he shows her a small plant he has found amid the refuse, she takes it in (literally) and closes up (having achieved her directive). When she is retrieved, WALL-E tags along not being willing to give up his newfound love. Eve's destination is a huge spaceship wherein dwell the descendants of humankind (having evolved into ultimate, helpless consumers) overseen by legions of pampering and controllling robots.
The stage is set. WALL-E strives to save Eve. She is torn betwen her embedded instructions and her feelings for him. Various robots rebel. Others faithfully follow instructions. The humans start to break loose. The ending is happy, but see the climax and the aftemath for yourself. The wit, cleverness, and intelligence are best experienced first hand.
Kudos to Andrew Stanton for direction that is equally mindful of the smarts and sympathies of the audience. Also for his script, along with Jim Reardon, for being timely on the issues while avoiding heavy handness. Production-wise, this is Pixar and so, technically, it is superior in every way (the opening shots of a smoggy, desolated, waste strewn Earth are striking and the human spaceship are a nonstop visual treat) - camera by Jeremy Lasky, lighting by Danielle Feinberge, editing by Stephen Schaffer, production design by Ralph Eggleston. How good is the movie? Heck, even the end credits are worth a look.
WALL-E - Love that Bot. A winner all the way. Review by Charles Zio
| WANTED Rated R for strong bloody violence throughout, pervasive language and some sexuality. Action /Adventure/Drama 108 minutes
4 stars |
Since the success of 300, graphic novels seem to be quickly filling a niche. Not having to send draft after draft of an original screenplay to the studio suits for approval is, apparently, a very good thing for Hollywood. The stories are fully formed and illustrated so there’s no missing the point, and it speeds up the process of getting a movie to the screen. Wanted is one of those dark, violent graphic novels with characters who are intriguing but have little redeeming social value except to have the audience identify and safely live through them. Russian/Kazakh director Timur Bekmambetov has created a stylish, though relentlessly bloody movie.
Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy, very good here) is a cube-dweller, as in he’s an accountant in a loser job whose female boss emasculates him at every turn. His girlfriend has sex with his so-called best friend without consequence. In short, his life sucks. One day as he’s picking up his tranquilizers at a drug store, Fox (a provocative Angelina Jolie), saves him from a killer, followed by an impressive car chase where she escapes with Wesley and almost scares him to death. He’s told he’s the son of an assassin who has just been killed and a group called the Fraternity want him to join them and become an avenger like his father. Wesley can hardly believe the whole scenario yet is clearly fascinated. He resists at first, but he’s drawn into the world of killers/assassins headed by Sloan (Morgan Freeman, bringing more to this role than he has to others lately).
The middle of the film is all about Wesley “toughening up” with his teachers inflicting damage that then gets healed with special baths, and living up to his destiny. Fox is Wesley’s special tutor, and he develops some feelings for her, although “feelings” are low on the priority list for the Fraternity (and graphic novels in general). Wesley has to make some decisions about getting revenge for his father’s demise, and what he does shows that his special gifts for killing are not an accident.
There is probably something especially exhilarating about this storyline for men, with its sarcastic, ironic dialogue. The modern human condition has left most feeling like nobodies at one time or another---when Wesley googles his name he gets “no results,” then suddenly a beautiful woman is telling him he has skills and powers beyond belief, with others backing that up. The testosterone overflows but real-life women are unappealing: the ex-girlfriend is a whiny nag; the boss woman is obese and obnoxious, yet Fox, the dream woman, is credible and devastating as the beautiful assassin.
There is somewhat of an attempt to tone down the nihilism. Wesley and Fox both have father issues (mothers make no appearance) that cause them to pursue this murderous lifestyle, but it’s really all about being in control and revenge, and secondarily becoming an efficient killing machine; oh yes, with explosions and exciting action sequences, too. Any connection to reality is tenuous. The characters may live fast and die hard, but what a fantasy ride. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| GET SMART Rated PG-13 for some rude humor, action violence and language. Action /Comedy /Crime 110 minutes
4 stars |
It’s a pleasure to see an old television show revived and made into such a clever, funny movie. Based on the characters created by Mel Brooks and Buck Henry, the old TV show was a spoof on spy movies. There are some vestiges of the old Russian competition during the Cold War that carry over into the film, but director Peter Segal makes a wise choice to not have the actors try to mimic the original characters. Rather he lets them bring their own particular “take” to them. Steve Carell as Maxwell Smart, Agent 86, and Anne Hathaway as Agent 99 are excellent in their roles, and work well together. Mr. Carell does utter a few of the well-known Don Adams lines, but does it with his own style.
As the movie opens, Maxwell is the smart, detailed intelligence geek stuck in the offices of CONTROL (the good guys), but desperately wants to get out into the field. They are still battling the forces of KAOS (the bad guys) and coming up with clever gadgets. (Homage is paid to the old shoe phone and some of the other old gags.) Maxwell’s boss, The Chief (played with relish by Alan Arkin) wants to keep him in the office where he thinks he can serve CONTROL the best, even though Maxwell passed the agent test with high marks, and lost 150 pounds.
When the offices are broken into and others put out of commission, The Chief has no choice but to promote Maxwell to Agent 86, and have him partner with Agent 99. Anne Hathaway is beautiful and has good comic timing. She is less goofy than the original character (played so well by Barbara Feldon), but it works well here. Dwayne Johnson, as Agent 23, is cast in his usual role as the perfect physical specimen. He’s seems to taking over the Arnold Schwarzenegger parts—and looked what happened to him? On the KAOS side there is Terrence Stamp, who can probably play the evil boss in his sleep. Bill Murray has a silly cameo as Agent 13, and James Caan seems an odd choice as the President, but overall the casting is well done.
There are some genuinely funny bits and sight gags in the movie, including “dueling dances” where Agent 99 and her partner try to out-dance Maxwell and his partner, a very large lady. What makes the movie rise above the usual mediocre material is that the humor comes out of the characters, not forced on the audience by straining to make a joke out of nothing. Maxwell is a dork, which we all can identify with at one time or another, so we root for him to overcome, and it happily pays off. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THE LOVE GURU Rated PG-13 for crude and sexual content throughout, language, some comic violence and drug references. Comedy 88 minutes
1 star |
What makes a good comic go bad? Mike Myers has given audiences many funny moments, but The Love Guru, which he wrote and helped produce, is a total misfire, unless you think urine and feces jokes are the height of comic genius. In the first place, this supposed spoof on Indian gurus is not funny or fun. There are a few amusing moments, but for the most part the audience I saw this with sat numb. The juvenile humor is sub-par by any standard. What were they thinking?
Mr. Myers portrays Guru Pitka who wants to achieve higher consciousness. His master, in training him from when he and Deepak Chopra (that’s right) are boys, is Guru Tugginmypudha (Ben Kingsley with crossed eyes and little inspiration). There is a silly, convoluted plot about Guru Pitka saving a hockey team in the US if he can bring the star player Darren Roanoke (Romany Malco) and his wife Prudence (Meagan Good) back together. The wife is living with a rival hockey player called Jacques “le coq” Grande (Justin Timberlake, at least watch able in a turn as a French-Canadian ninny with a huge…you know). The hockey team is owned by Jane Bullard (Jessica Alba, pretty but---why is she acting again?)
The movie is one self-indulgent shtick after another. Stephen Colbert as sportscaster Jay Kell, and Jim Gaffigan as his on-air partner Trent Lueders, do what they can with the parts as written, but it’s not easy to inject humor where there is none. Verne Troyer, who plays Mini-Me in Myers' Austin Powers movies, plays the bad-tempered coach of the hockey team. Telma Hopkins shows up as star player Roanoke’s mother, who of course, he’s afraid of (it’s always Mom’s fault isn’t it?). Not to mention cameo appearances by: Jessica Simpson, Val Kilmer, Mariska Hargitay (whose name they use as a chant), and Kanye West.
Obviously, great care was taken with the technical aspects of the movie. How could it not when you have two live elephants on the set? But what’s with all the extreme close-ups of Mike Myers? Talk about in-your-face…
Even though the movie is short at 88 minutes, it seems like an extended Saturday Night Live script. What might have worked as a skit on the television show is a dud here. The humor doesn’t translate. Many former comics from that show should reevaluate the characters they are creating. Good will from the show won’t last forever. I predict Mike Myers will go back to another Austin Powers movie in the future---and I didn’t need a guru to tell me that. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE Rated R for disturbing images and content involving torture and graphic nudity, and for language. Documentary/War 116 minutes
3 stars |
There is no doubt that the incidents of torture and maltreatment at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq are shameful for the United States, even considering the prisoners were suspected terrorists. Yet some turned out to be low level at best. As Americans we always feel that because of our actions and our conscience we have moral authority over others, but some of our men and women in uniform disgraced us and it’s impossible not to acknowledge that.
Sitting through this documentary, though, is painful in more than one way. It is by far too long, and too heavy-handed. In his effort to be thorough, director Errol Morris gives the audience too much repetition. When a point is made, it’s stronger when not repeated over and over. That only serves to lessen the impact. The style of interviewing those involved, too, who look directly into the camera is effective, at first, but then just becomes one talking head after another.
Yet, the guilty words’ indict them. They talk about some of these incidents as if they were no different than taking a dog for a walk, or observing some scenario they had no part of. It’s one thing to be an obedient soldier, it’s another to cross the boundary of decency and morality.
The excuses range from: it was like that when I got there; so-and-so told me to do whatever needed to be done; I didn’t want to let my friends down or leave them alone; I personally really didn’t do anything bad, although others did; the prisoners might know others out on the street trying to kill our soldiers, etc. The prison photos belie these casual explanations. As the investigator said, criminals usually make a mistake; that’s what the photos were, not to mention chilling and disgusting.
There is an especially horrifying sequence when a prisoner died. They put him in a body bag with ice covering him to preserve the body, and into a prison cell by himself. But then the soldiers go in and open the body bag look at the dead body, like it’s some sort of freak show. It gets worse. They take photos of the body, and themselves with the body.
Are some of these soldiers more culpable than the others? Probably. War is awful and stressful, and pushes people to do terrible things. Except these weren’t immediate battlefield decisions. Each person had to make choices. No matter what excuses they come up with, it’s sickening. Yet, this documentary pushes too hard to make obvious points. Review by Ann Marie Oliva
| THE INCREDIBLE HULK Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action violence, some frightening sci-fi images and brief suggestive content. Action/Fantasy/Sci-Fi 114 minutes
4 stars |
Universal is on a roll with comic book superheroes this summer. More surprising is that one of them is The Incredible Hulk. With its checkered history, much wasn’t expected of this remake, but the filmmakers came through with an intelligent, interesting, appealing, exciting movie. Rather than picking up the story and creating a new episode, we get quick flashback versions of how Bruce Banner became the Hulk. It’s not labored, which is good, because many already know the story.
A big decision that pays off is casting Edward Norton as Bruce Banner. He creates a believable Banner, in part because the character’s regular persona of a mild-mannered scientist fits him so well. Although there’s no doubt he’s a good actor he’s not the first one that would come to mind for the part, but that’s exactly what makes it work. Good for director Louis Leterrier whose instincts were sound. Screenwriter Zak Penn and others (reportedly Edward Norton under a pseudonym) do a credible job with the script, with appreciation and esteem going to the original comic book writers, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. Imagine how they must be feeling about their creations coming to movie screens?
One thing that has always made The Incredible Hulk work is the metaphor that when men get angry and go into a rage, they and those watching them feel like they turn into a monster. This psychological fact has always been used to great advantage in this series. What they do is show that Bruce doesn’t change of his own accord. He is given the serum by General Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt” Ross (William Hurt) because he wants to create a super soldier. That’s why Bruce goes to Brazil, so he can “do no harm.” Yet the General tracks him down and bring home his monster so he can create more of them. But the movie goes out of its way to show that even when Bruce is the Hulk, he still knows who his enemies are and who he should protect.
The General gets