Username Password Remember me Forgot password?

Wanna join? Sign up

Find movies you'll love

dj4our Blog

Penn gives soul to a soul-searching, sad tale

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Into the Wild (2007)

INTO THE WILD (2007) ****

R (for language and some nudity)

2 hrs. 20 min.

written by: Sean Penn (from the novel by Jon Krakauer)

produced by: Art Linson, Sean Penn & William Pohlad

directed by: Sean Penn

I made my way out to the movie theater on a numbingly cold December night. The wind was whipping through me on this last Saturday of 2007. I wondered what it would be like to wander off on your own with your only focus being just you and the surrounding natural elements. Familiar people and places left behind, the open road ahead with all it's possibilities of sights and sounds. I was alone (something I rarely do), on my way to see "Into the Wild" a movie based on the true story of a young man who did something similar with the last two years of life on earth.

Back in 1996, the cover to writer Jon Krakauer's book Into the Wild caught my attention in a bookstore. It had a cover image of an abandoned snow-swept bus on the top half and on the bottom half it read....

In April 1992 a young man from a well-to-do family hitchhiked to Alaska and walked alone into the wilderness north of Mt. McKinley. His name was Christopher Johnson McCandless. He had given $25, 000 in savings to charity and abandoned his car and most of his possessions, burned all the cash in his wallet, and invented a new life for himself. Four months later, his decomposed body was found by a moose hunter

....After I read that, I knew I would someday have to read this book.

What happened to McCandless in-between his departure and his death is just as extraordinary and shocking as his decision to discard his family and friends. This is the rugged territory covered by screenwriter/director Sean Penn in his film which adapts and takes its title from Krakauer's book. The film depicts McCandless (Emile Hirsch) as a restless searcher roaming from one fresh experience to another, be it working the land for a rascally farmer named Wayne (Vince Vaughn) in South Dakota, hitching a ride with a hippie couple Jan (Catherine Keener) and Rainey (Brian Dierker) in Oregon, or befriending a lonely old man named Ronald Franz (played superbly by Hal Holbrook) in the Southern California desert.

Along the way, McCandless (who renames himself Alexander Supertramp on his journey) made reckless and foolhardy decisions on his westward journey. He almost got himself arrested, injured and killed with no experience and it seems he's become for today's disaffected youth either a folk hero or a cautionary tale, depending on your point of view. Penn's take on McCandless sojourn is one of a tragic figure, and his film mixes the beautiful with the devastating. Nature witnessed in the film is powerful, communing with it can be rejuvenating; yet, to view it alone is indeed a terrible thing. When reading all this about McCandless, one obvious question continues to surface....Why? What compelled him to come to such a decision? How did all this come about?

Emile Hirsch in Paramount Vantage's Into the Wild

Well, the film gives us a look as to what elements may have contributed to his decision to drop off the grid. We meet 22 year-old McCandless near Atlanta, Georgia, as he graduates from Emory University in 1990. His parents Walt (William Hurt) and Billie (Marcia Gay Harden) are wealthy east coast socialites who want to purchase him a new car as a present and an incentive to go to grad school. The real reason could be that they're embarrassed by the Datsun clunker he drives. McCandless is insulted and refuses their gift, he could care less about a new car. Throughout the film there are scenes that portray his parents as superficial as they cluelessly raise McCandless and his sister Carine (Jenna Malone). In flashbacks, they're seen constantly bickering and abusive to one another yet always prepared with a facade in public. Whether or not his family was depicted accurately is unknown but it does show how this upbringing had a tremendous impact on McCandless' life. He wanted to be nothing like his parents and wanted nothing to do with them.

Having rejected his parents and their lifestyles, McCandless focused his love and attention on the words of Thoreau, Jack London, and other naturalists. This too possibly tainted McCandless. After all, these writers wrote romantic works of natural adventures and reflections but that doesn't mean they necessarily lived them out. Still Chris believed a life living off the earth without material possessions and personal ties could be possible and should be pursued. He wanted to leave society entirely....not just the material trappings of it, but all of it....and commune with the rivers and the forests.

Penn's film cuts between two time-lines which is a smart approach since we see where he is and also how he arrived there. One follows him on his westward journey, kayaking down the Colorado River, meeting hippies and foreigners, working for a time flippin' burgers at a McDonald's as well as a wheat harvester in for Wayne, all with the goal of his "Great Alaskan Adventure". The other time-line is two years later and shows McCandless living in an old bus he's found in the Alaskan woods. He has a rifle to hunt his food, some rice, his beloved books and of course the big surrounding country he cherishes. He's reached his destination and faces the peaceful beauty along with the unpredictable wild.

But McCandless learns the hard way that there's more to inner peace than that. Crushingly and heartbreakingly at times we see him scrounge for food and shelter, often meeting disappointment but sometimes making friends. Hirsch's surrender to the role is impressive, both physically and emotionally. We see the anger McCandless feels toward his parents in his performance, which has led to a disillusionment with society in general....and yet he remains a optimistic, good and decent person himself, more disappointed than cynical. His charisma enthusiasm and drive are witnessed by all who meet him but I wondered if this was the side McCandless wanted them to see. He has a solid moral code about him and it could be his parents' failure to live up to it that has turned him off. With all of these characteristics in mind, you can't help but to like him but you also wonder and worry about him.

Penn's treatment of all this is passionate, ambitious and respectable. It's probably my favorite film he's directed thus far. He takes a lyrical, poetic approach that serves the film well from a visual standpoint. Throughout parts of the film we actually see words and phrases written across the screen, running along with Eddie Vedder's songs and Michael Brook's soundtrack. His weighty baritone provides earthy, folky tracks that temper the romance of absolute freedom with an eerie foreboding. At times, we also hear Carine's voice-over narration, presumably from her diary but Penn also injects some well-needed silence to the film. After all, when you're off on your own in the wild all that can be heard is what's around you.

Cinematographer Eric Gautier films outstanding shots of nature here but it's the performances though that really make this film fantastic. Starting with Hirsch's mature portrayal of the immature McCandless. Vaughn has a decent part as the shifty grain harvester who gives Chris a job. The always reliable Keener is great, playing a woman who is estranged from her own son about Chris' age. He runs into her and Rainey, these freewheelin' hippies, a couple times on his trek. They become replacement parents to him, in a way, and Jan has a conversation with Christopher late in the film that reminds him of the pain his real parents must be feeling after all these months of not knowing where he is. She almost gets him to confront his feelings, to maybe put himself in their shoes but he keeps his guard up and pretty soon he hits the road.

Hal Holbrook and Emile Hirsch in Paramount Vantage's Into the Wild

The most impacting character that McCandless encounters is an 84 year-old gentleman named Ron Franz, an old man Christopher meets in the California desert. Holbrook gives a buzz-worthy performance that supplies the film's needed emotional weight as it comes together as it heads into its final act. Ron was living on his own just fine until he came across McCandless with his backpack. Something in him must have immediately connected to this young man and when he tells Chris a lil of his history we see why. He gives plenty of sage advice, but he's more than just a typical Wise Old Man. Ron can see that someone this idealistic, naive, and unprepared as McCandless isn't going to make it in the harsh world without help, and he's visibly saddened by this knowledge, practically pleading with Christopher to forgive his parents and return to real life. Holbrook's work is a true definition of a great subtle supporting performance.

Sure I can appreciate what we're asked to believe were McCandless' motivations and hurts but his actions were ultimately selfish and irresponsible. The sad part of the film is really the lives that he touched. While he was a charming character and often a delight to be around he could also be a stubborn fool. He resisted the attempts of all those around him on his journey to love him, having determined that such concerns were irrelevant to him. He wasn't rude about it but right about the time that an opportunity would present itself for someone to really get to know him, he'd dodge them. It's not until it's too late that he realizes what they were subtly teaching him all along: that communing with nature can bring tranquility and joy, but it's ultimately nothing if you don't have someone to share it with.

Posted Sunday, October 19, 2008 3:47 AM by dj4our | with 0 comments

Marshall pays bloody homage

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Doomsday (2008)

Doomsday (2008) ***


R for strong bloody violence, language and some sexual content/nudity. 1 hr. 45 min.

written by: Neil Marshall
produced by: Benedict Carver & Steven Paul
directed by: Neil Marshall

I was really surprised to find out that this new film by writer/director Neil Marshall had not been screened before it's release. No press screenings for a film usually mean certain "doom" for a movie's chance of surviving the tumultuous box office waters. Generally, that's true. The studio may have been sitting on a film or they know the movie is a dud yet they also know they gotta release and see if at least makes them some kinda profit. Since none of the critics have seen a film that hasn't been screened there's usually some kinda automatic negative vibe when it's eventually released (I just think the critics are being' babies cuz they haven't been given a look at the film in advance). If I'm already stoked to see a film, bad reviews don't stop me.

Sometimes, if you enjoy a certain genre, especially a certain filmmaker, you just go see a film despite what the word is and make up your mind for yourself. Now I like pretty much any kind of post-apocalyptic sci-fi story be it action or horror. So when I heard that Marshall was essentially working on a homage to such films, I was in. Why? Primarily cuz his previous two films proved to me that there's someone out there willing to take a new twist on the action-horror genre. 2002's "Dog Soldiers" was an original look at the werewolf genre and 2005's spelunking, all-estrogen nightmare "The Descent" had me goin' to bed with the willies. While these films had originality going for them, they also had some decent character development in them to keep one's interest.

Rhona Mitra and Bob Hoskins in Rogue Pictures' Doomsday

In April 2008, the UK faces annihilation at the hands of something called a Reaper virus that is violently killing off Scotts. It's like "28 Days Later" only they die instead of going berserk. So, the British government decides to quarantine Scotland by erecting a 30 ft. wall, leaving those who couldn't escape to fend for themselves until they get sick and die. We're not only shown all these scenes but maps are drawn and narration is given as well by actor Malcolm McDowell. No one really knows what happened inside the wall since the quarantine but one can only imagine the horror.

Three decades later, that same virus is loose in London and the only hope (and perhaps civilization's) appears to be a blip found on satellite coverage of Glasgow. Since they thought that all life on the other side of the wall would've been annihilated by the virus, they're sure this means a cure. So, England's Prime Minister Hatcher (Alexander Siddig of "24") is coerced by his corruptible Number Two (David O' Hara) to send an "elite team" over the wall to get the cure in 48 hrs. They turn to a government handler, Nelson (Bob Hoskins) cuz he knows just the right someone to lead an elite group into Scotland. That would be his best operative, Eden Sinclair (Rhona Mitra), the chain-smoking, deadpan action heroine who is basically the female answer to Snake Plissken. It's never really clear what Sinclair's title is just that she kicks butt really good and in a movie that doesn't really get too deep, that's enough for me.

We pretty much know already that Sinclair takes the mission or else it wouldn't be the adrenaline-crazed, post-apocalyptic movie that it is. He tells her that the team needs to find a doctor named Kane (McDowell) and get a cure outta him. No problem. Heh. Sinclair takes it not just cuz the fate of all civilization rests on her know-how but cuz she's haunted by the fact that her mother was left behind in the quarantined zone. The prospect of her mother being alive is slim but the curiosity of going back to her place of birth probably factors as well. Yes, Sinclair has the requisite tortured past and her fake Rt. eye to chow for it. She's introduced to head soldier, Norton (Adrian Lester), and is put in charge of a team of soldiers, doctors and other unknown specialists before the giant walls advance them to their, um "doom".

Once the armored team gets to the hospital in Glasgow where they think Kane might be all hell breaks loose. They immediately find out that the source of that satellite blip is actually a rogue community of punked-out cannibals led by Sol (Craig Conway). He's a skinny, psycho sporting a mohawked with raccoon-eyed make-up and intends to use Sinclair as his way back to civilization (I think he'd need a lil more than her). Of course that plan doesn't quite work out, soon enough Sinclair and what's left of her team are trekking across lovely Scottish landscapes to find Kane. Turns out he's holed up like Col. Kurtz in some castle in Edinburgh with a society of his own made up of medieval rejects and heavily-armored knights. Bloody Middle-Age violence ensues with whizzing arrows, bludgeoning battle axes all while finding an unlikely cure.

The rest of the film is more crazy-action turned up way past eleven. Logic throughout the film is loosey goosey at best but it definitely gets tossed out the window of Sinclair's 2008 Bentley she commandeers, especially when she finds a brand new cell phone that is able to patch her through to Nelson. Hullo? How would that happen? But when I saw it, I just laughed cuz this isn't the type of movie you question. If you like the genre, you just go with it. This film really is insane, it's a side of Marshall we haven't seen before except for perhaps in the final battle in Dog Soldiers but even this is 100% more in-your-face. Marshall adds his humorous subtleties and in-jokes that amid his chaotic homage that make you laugh-out-loud (like the running gag with a dead girlfriend) almost with queasy child-like glee.

If you can't stomach violence, lemme forewarn you, Marshall is all over the place with his violence here. There are severed heads and arms which are seemingly a running theme. Blood sprays, splats, drips, hits the camera lens and pops in an crimson celebration of wet, vibrant viscera. What else? There's an eyeball cameras. Skanky chicks adorned with tattoos and piercings. Eviscerated rabbits A herd of cows. There's a man barbecued alive and then his flesh consumed by punk-rock psychos. Yeah, it's just crazy but in some crazy way I had fun with it. It brought me back to all those action-heavy, futuristic movies I watched in the 80's. Marshall gets those movies and adds his own special brand of unbridled fury and tosses it all on the screen.

Throughout the story's hyper-kinetic pace, there really isn't much time for character although there are some characters, let me tell you. This isn't an actor's movie anyway but Mitra really does deliver a great cold-hearted action hero. She's the estrogen-laden Snake Plissken wanna-be that you can't take you're eyes off, despite her characters defiance of logic. Hoskins and McDowell's roles are far too small but it's good to see them there. I was resolved from the start to not get too involved with these characters and just go along with the thrill ride.

Marshall has said in interviews that the film is an homage to a variety of previous cult classics such as: "Escape from New York", "The Road Warrior", "The Warriors", "Maelstorm", "Zulu", "Excalibur" and "The Fisher King". There's also a touch of "28 Days Later" inspiration only the plague that effects Scotland here fills people instead of turning them into raging, murderous savages. While viewers and critics are crying rip-off and calling this the "worst movie ever" (to quote Kip from "Napoleon Dynamite", "How can anyone even know that?"), I think they are forgetting the definition of homage and not giving Marshall enough credit. He knows there are many elements in this film that have been seen elsewhere....how could he not? He's just celebrating those films.

Posted Sunday, October 19, 2008 3:42 AM by dj4our | with 0 comments

Oil: A Bloody Timely Feud

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

There Will Be Blood (2007)

THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007) ****

rated R (for some violence)

2 hrs. 38 min

written by: Paul Thomas Anderson (based on the novel Oil! by Upton Sinclair)

produced by: Paul Thomas Anderson & Scott Rudin

directed by: Paul Thomas Anderson

Here's another film that has remained with me a week after viewing and that's why it made it on my Top Ten Films of 2007 list. I saw it because I have never seen a movie starring Daniel Day-Lewis where I wasn't absolutely mesmerized by his performance. This film only supported that statement, the man is an amazing actor and this movie is a quite an experience. It definitely supports the fact that oil and religion don't mix, not today and certainly not in the desolate Northern California landscape of the late 1800's. That's right, the film is about oil and greed and religion and deception. It's a dirty movie where you will feel the grime and dust cake your skin in your seat, you feel the heat just as much as the characters on screen do.

This is a film that demands your undivided attention and does so easily from the beginning. Writer & Director Paul Thomas Anderson starts off with unprecedented form by not giving any dialogue for about the first 15-30 minutes. That's right, no one utters a word but the film still manages to speak volumes on many levels. We're shown a barren desert landscape somewhere in California with the swelling sounds of orchestral strings accompanying the sharp bite of a tool striking the earth. The man is Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) and he is indeed meticulously chipping away at a wall deep down a man-made well, searching for his fortune. He mines for silver alone, an independent man with no need of assistance let alone words. He has no one to turn to when calamity strikes, and yet he has the will to overcome that calamity in order to stake his claim.

Dillon Freasier and Daniel Day-Lewis in Paramount Vantages' There Will Be Blood

In an unprecedented move, Anderson only uses music amid the sounds of a birthing industry for this opening scene and that's what hooks you in. I sat there finding myself riveted as I'm sure others were in the quiet theatre. I was forced to pay attention, almost as if right from the start viewers are asked to make the decision to become thoroughly invested. Very soon, we see that Plainview is not your average turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who pulled himself up by his bootstraps. No, this is a man consumed by himself, who surrounds himself by those who would believe in him. Yet we see right through the charismatic salesman. Plainview doesn't care about anyone, he even flat out says later on that he often finds himself despising other people.

Years later, Plainview has his hands in multiple wells which has made him a rich man. He travels around speaking to townspeople living in prospective lands with a prop, an adopted a son named H.W. (first-timer Dillion Freasier), who was orphaned as a baby when a collapsing rig killed his father. That may seem like a compassionate act by Plainview but like anything else, we find he has his ulterior motives. H.W. is unaware that Plainview isn't his real pappy, and Plainview exploits his mini-me so he can call his enterprise a family business. This behavior is dealt with eventually as is many other of Plainviews unrepentant ways. We see that a man cannot repent until he actually sees the need to.

The film does play like a work of classic literature in ways I can't really describe, it just has an epic scope. Like any such work, there is an antagonist and what's interesting is that a reader (or viewer) is usually already rooting for a respectable protagonist but not in this film. One night, a mysterious young man named Paul (Paul Dano) appears and tells Plainview he knows where there are untapped oil reserves. He tells Plainview that for $500, he will disclose the location of his family's ranch. Of course, Plainview is soon on the scene and trying to cheat the old farmer (David Willis) out of his property under the guise of wanting a quiet place to hunt quail. The farmer's other son, Eli Sunday (also played by Dano) suspects the real motivation for the purchase, and so their clash of wills gets underway. Hence, we have our classic protagonist in Sunday, a Pentecostal preacher in the small local church. He wants to make sure his congregation--and their spiritual leader--are taken care of but he too is a charlatan with ulterior motives.

So you have two charismatic people at odds with each other who are more alike than they'd ever admit. It's ironic that this is essentially a war between oil and religion....sound familiar? As much as these two characters are continuously at odds one commonality is that money and salvation can change who a person is. There are continuous clashes throughout this film of the material and the spiritual. I'm not gonna get into the specific cause and effects of either of these characters actions but both definitely cause serious repercussions to those around them. All of it is gripping and powerful, as Anderson shows us two men consumed with their own agenda and the misery that comes from it.

The story comes from Upton Sinclair's eighty year-old novel Oil! about an oil baron who engages in a mental battle with a revival type preacher who holds the key to a plot of land with oceans of crude bubbling underneath the surface. Both want control of the gusher, because both are looking to line their coffers. Anderson uses that set up and runs with it, creating an ominous title change that does indeed provide that human life source but also blood from the earth. Oil is the fuel for everything. It powers cars, it invigorates communities, and it compels men to trade their souls for its reward.

I'm probably not the best person to call this film a masterpiece but nonetheless, that's how I see it. The only other film by Anderson that I've seen is his last one, 2002's "Punch Drunk Love". I know some may find that shocking but I knew that "Boogie Nights" was more or less a cover of Scorcese's "Good Fellas" and that "Magnolia" was a take on Altman's "Short Cuts".There's nothing wrong with that but I figured if I'd seen those movies....why watch those? I know, heresy.

Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis in Paramount Vantages' There Will Be Blood

A protagonist like Plainview can make or break a film. He's a great literary character that you can't take your eyes off of but you don't like him. What is most riveting as I watched the film is trying to find out why he thinks so highly of himself. Maybe he doesn't, maybe he has his demons, but he sure comes across like a guy who really believes what he's doing is right. An strong actor is needed for this role and I can't see anyone else but Day-Lewis as Plainview. I can't help thinking that this movie would not be nearly as excellent as it is had a different actor been cast in the lead. The entire cast is fantastic, including Ciaran Hines as Plainview's right-hand man and Kevin J. O'Connor as a shady grifter. Dano falters a little in trying to play a convincing older version of himself, but as the awkward and often sinister preacher, he's able to sell the man as both a righteous lunatic and a scheming con artist.

This is by far Daniel Day-Lewis' film. That's who you see this for. He commands every scene with his John Huston-inspired characterization. He's an actor who famously gets lost in the roles he takes and this is no exception. I've enjoyed every performance I've seen him in since I first saw him in his Oscar-winning role as Christy Brown in "My Left Foot". He plays Plainview in multiple stages of life, from a determined young man to the over-confidence of middle age and on into old age, broken and alone with his ego. Though Plainview has the gift of gab when it comes time to pitch his sale, he is most often a man of few, carefully chosen, often biting words. Some viewers and critics see his performance as grand standing and entirely over-the-top. I can see that but Day-Lewis is so captivating that I forgive it and become absorbed by him.

There's also much talk about how the movie ends. While I would never spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet, I can't seeing it ending any other way. This topic isn't unusual though, I hear many discussing the conclusion of "No Country for Old Men" as well. I understand the complaints but I respect both endings for the fact that they remain true to the characters and however a story ends, that's what should matter. Like the Coen brothers film, here's a film that will haunt you for some time. I saw it three weeks ago and I'm still seeing images and discussing it with others. Not many films can do that today.

Posted Sunday, October 19, 2008 3:38 AM by dj4our | with 0 comments

Doesn't live up to "Legend" status

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

I Am Legend (2007)

I AM LEGEND: The IMAX Experience (2007) ***

PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.

1 hr. 40 min.

written by: Akiva Goldsman & Mark Protosevich with source material from John William & Joyce Hopper Corrington("The Omega Man") and Richard B. Matheson (novel: I Am Legend)

produced by: David Heyman, Neal H.Moritz, Akiva Goldsman & James Lassiter

directed by: Francis Lawrence

I had just finished a Christmas show performance on December 23rd at church (you can check out the pics here) which required a set of tedious rehearsals and I knew I needed some kinda outlet. For me, this outlet usually involves gettin' out and seein' a movie. I wanted some kinda escape, so I planned one which consisted of some of the usual suspects. The plan was to take in a 9pm showing of "I Am Legend" at the IMAX at Navy Pier. It would turn out to be one of the coldest, windiest nights yet. On the way there I started doubting my sanity which is exactly what I would see Will Smith do on a gigantic screen. But first....

I chose to see this film in IMAX for two reasons: 1.) it would be cool on the big-big screen 2.) it had a prologue for "The Dark Knight" playing before it. All the non-IMAX showings of this film just had the new trailer for "The Dark Knight" but this was the actual beginning of the movie....and it was awesome! Filmed in IMAX, the intense prologue showed The Joker (Heath Ledger) and his masked goons robbing the Gotham National Bank. The way this is implemented is pretty twisted and ingenious (just like the comic book Joker) and in one particular scene where the goons are swinging to the roof of the bank from an adjacent skyscraper (clearly Chicago, yes!)....quite dizzying (yay for IMAX)! It was great to see the bank manager (the great William Fichtner) go up against the goons and Joker with a shotgun in the bank. It was also great to see how Joker deals with him and flees the bank (onto what looks like Jackson Blvd!) Something tells me this sequel will surpass the previous one in greatness. Heck, just the sheer joy of noticing all the Chicago locations will be worth it. Plus, it would be nice to spot myself as well but that may be wishful thinking.

After seeing that, I was all excited and looking forward to seeing Dr. Robert Neville (Will Smith) go at it alone in a desolate Manhattan of the near future. By now, you're likely aware of the story....he's the Last Man on Earth! Whoa. How'd that happen? Well, it's 2012 and it turns out back in 2009 there was this virile outbreak that wiped out 90% of civilization by years end.The film starts out with some news recordings that reveal a genetically engineered measles virus that had been created by a Dr. Alice Krippin (an uncredited cameo by Emma Thompson-how'd they get her?) as a cure for cancer. Little did she know it would mutate into a lethal strain which would rapidly infect humans and animals. So, of the 10% left of civilization 9% were infected, but did not die. These survivors spiraled into a primal state of aggression and began to react painfully to UV rays, forcing them to hide in buildings and other dark places during the day. Less than 1% remained completely immune to the virus, but were hunted and killed by the infected.

Will Smith in Warner Bros. Pictures' I Am Legend

That's how US Army virologist Lieutenant Colonel Robert Neville is left as the supposed last healthy human in NYC and quite possibly the entire world. We're shown in some well-done flashbacks that when the breakout went live, Neville being the army doc he is was able to get his wife Zoe (Chicago's own Salli Richardson) and daughter Marley (Smith's own Willow Smith) on a helicopter off Manhattan to hopeful safety. That was more than three years ago and now Neville's daily routine is trying to find a cure for cure for cancer. He feels it's his responsibility to see if their is a way to reverse the infected. Of course he and his daughter's German Shephard Sam (short for Samantha, played by Kona) need to stay away from the infected at night and do so in the safety of his fortified home.

Slowly drained of his sanity and growing weary of battling the vampire-like infected that attack during the night, Neville is losing hope that his nightmare will end. By far, the finest moments of the picture are easily the sequences of the him and Sam driving around the city streets, interacting with a frozen world. Hunting deer or shooting golf balls into buildings off an aircraft carrier, Neville has the world to himself in the daytime, employing careful street geography sharpened over three years of seclusion. In this game of boredom and survival there appears to be no winner, just survival. The balance between the two is where "Legend" finds the strongest dramatic flavor, carefully studying Neville's fragile sanity while upping the tension with the menacing "Dark Seekers" and their escalating aggression toward the viral survivors.

Neville's daily routine includes experimentation on the infected he manages to capture in order to find a cure for the virus as well as trips through a Manhattan devoid of humanity to hunt for food and supplies. He even goes through the local video store starting from A to Z, he's got the time (something I would do). He also makes friends with mannequins he's positioned in the store, he knows their names and back stories. Waiting each day for a response to his continuous transmission broadcasts, which instruct any survivors to meet him at midday at the South Street Seaport. When other survivors finally do start to surface, the revelation stuns Neville, who finds his struggle to remain optimistic is in constant battle with his knowledge that humanity has likely been snuffed out for good. Smith handles their appearance in a very real way. It's still hard to comprehend that he's not alone, that there are others out there beside these metropolitan night creatures.

Francis Lawrence (who also directed "Constantine") is a skilled enough director to pull off the visual apocalypse of a deteriorated New York City and he also successfully sets up an environment for Smith to allow you to feel what it would be like to live in this world. The reason some of the scenes I mentioned work is due to the total silence Lawrence uses during the opening acts. He does this not just to amp suspense, but to have you feel the unnerving stillness in the air. One of the best, nail-biting scenes has Sam wander off in daylight into a building. A big no-no cuz we and Neville know that those insatiable creatures are lurking in there. It really draws out the horror, fear and dependence he has with his only companion.

So, Lawrence succeeds in making the first three fourths of this film an excellent look at isolation, loneliness and aloneness. But (there had to be one) the final half hour just seem rushed. Once Anna (Alice Braga) and her son Ethan (Charlie Tahan), the two survivors who find him come into the story everything speeds up into an adrenalized action picture. The slow, tense build-up Lawrence gave us is replaced with a video game feel with the CGI-heavy creatures swarming all three of them. It had to come, I knew the action would kick up a notch as I watched it but I though it woulda been a notch, not full throttle. Ah well.

Some viewers have commented on how lame the infected creatures were in the film. They're saying they felt too similar to something you'd find in a video game, not life-like enough. At first, I didn't mind them (maybe cuz I saw less of them) but I have to admit something about them after awhile felt....goofy. This could be some of the worst CGI creatures put to film, making them look more like crude animation tests. What ever happened to the magic of makeup?Maybe it's cuz we don't know any of them to begin with, I mean supposedly all of those infected were once averages people, right? Yet, they all are skinny, half-naked and veiny, resembling Johnsonville brats. They all look the same! Why aren't they all different sizes? Average people are short and tall and fat and skinny so how'd they get this way? I know that Lawrence started out using real actors for these creatures but later opted for CGI. That's too bad.

Obviously not just any actor can handle a role where the majority of the film you're hanging either by yourself or with a German Shephard. Tom Hanks could only do it for so long and then he needed (or rather the movie needed) a volleyball. But Smith has the charisma and talent to take on the character, putting in his best sci-fi acting work to date. He effectively portrays a man pushed to the brink of madness dealing with great loss and feeling burdened with trying to cure those infected. Smith offers up fantastic work here, from singing Bob Marley to Sam to his thickening depression. It's a dark and desperate performance that feels real but "Legend" is a dark and desperate film. Anyone stereotyping Smith's talent and expecting something similar to his previous work, will be surprised.

Honestly, I woulda preferred watching an entire film of Neville confronting his despondent life, but Lawrence doesn't have the patience to see his mounting despair all the way through to the end. Instead, the third act is rushed and the ending a tad too tidy for me. I know the films overall look does benefit from 2007 technology but it is also ruined by it. As for the benefit of seeing it in IMAX, maybe I'm getting old but the IMAX films I see the more I seem to miss especially in action films. I tend to lose a lotta detail when a screen five stories tall is giving me dizzying visuals. So, unless it's filmed in IMAX, it's kinda hard to make everything out. In the end, the film slumps to the finish line, failing to find a pathway to a stimulating, satisfying finale. While there are some great things going on for the majority of the film, it's just too bad it runs out of gas as it speeds it's way to mediocrity.

Posted Sunday, October 19, 2008 3:35 AM by dj4our | with 0 comments

An Unforgettable Directing Debut

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Away From Her (2007)

AWAY FROM HER (2007)

****

PG-13 (for some strong language)

1 hr. 50 min.

written by: Sarah Polley (screenplay) & Alice Munro (from short story, The Bear Came Over the Mountain)

produced by: Daniel Iron, Jennifer Weiss & Simone Urdl

directed by: Sarah Polley

I can't imagine a time where after fifty years of marriage my wife would look at me and not know who I am. That would be devastating. I would obviously want to provide her with the best care possible if her dementia increases but what about me? How would I manage? This may sound selfish but just think about how this would hit you if someone you love dearly was affected by this disease. The majority of my life would have been spent with this person who knows me better than anyone else but now all that is vanishing. That's exactly what position Grant Anderson (Gordon Pinsent) finds himself in as he comes to terms with his wife, Fiona (Julie Christie) being diagnosed with Alzheimers disease. As they both come to terms with this unexpected stage in their life, their challenging history is also brought to light and we see that their marriage wasn't always as cozy as they seem.

Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsent in Lionsgate Films' Away From Her

Until now, this was a couple who were comfortable with who and where they are in life. Yet as Fiona's memories fade, new ones seem to enter. We get the idea that in their past, Grant may have fooled around with a student during his tenure as a professor. It seems like an event that rocked their relationship but may have been uncomfortably glossed over. Well, it surfaces now as well as other doubts and frustrations. Since Grant still has his faculties, it is he who must now feel the same isolation that Fiona must have at one time felt. He wants to support Fiona in her decision to check herself into a nursing home not far from where they live but he still feels alone and somewhat guilty (both for the affair years ago and for not being able to help her). This decision becomes more real for both of them after Fiona is found after being lost in the snowy outdoors, it's then that they realize that she's going to need care.

For the first time, the couple are forced to undergo a long-term separation that brings pain, confusion and frustration. It's even more painful for Grant when he's told by the facility's administrator Madeline (Wendy Crewson) that new patients must have no outside contact for 30 days, so that they can become acclimated to their new stage of life. At least he's able to confide in Kristy (Kristen Thomson) a nurse who helps Grant deal with this new stage of life with stark honesty. When Grant is finally able to visit Fiona after the orientation period, he shows up with flowers and is devastated to find out that not only has she seemingly forgotten him, but she has transferred her affections to another man. It's up in the air whether or not this man, Aubrey (Michael Murphy) is all there since he's only shown as a wheelchair bound mute patient at the nursing home. Although he seems quite reliant on Fiona as she helps him move around and reads to him, I wondered if it was a ruse.

As the distance between husband and wife grows, Grant must draw upon his love for Fiona to perform an act of self-sacrifice in order to ensure her happiness. Grant continues to visit but is relegated to the rec room sofa on the sidelines as he watches Fiona help Aubrey play board games with the other residents. Side note: if I have to admit myself to a nursing home, I guess I'm heading north to Canada cuz this was the nicest looking facility I've ever seen. Pinsent quietly commands these scenes. His eyes show a man frozen in love with a woman who no longer knows him. He doesn't know what to do but still cannot bare to be away from her. It's almost as if he is afraid that he too will forget her and will be left the strange voyeur in her life.

Gordon Pinsent and Kristen Thomson in Lionsgate Films' Away From Her

In an effort to provide for Fiona any way he can, Grant introduces himself to Aubrey's wife when she takes him out of the home due to financial reasons. With Aubrey gone from the home, Fiona is depressed which noticeably deteriorates her condition and Grant knows he is not the man who can provide what his wife needs. He gradually builds a connection with Marian (Olympia Dukakis), the blunt-talking, pragmatic wife of Fiona's catatonic friend. She seems as stuck and lonely as she is, the only difference is he's new to all this. This leads to a brief and awkward relationship for the two ostracized spouses. They need each other, perhaps Marian moreso than Grant since she's dealt with her husband's illness longer than he has but he clearly still loves Fiona.

Clearly and deservedly, Christie is promoted as the mesmerizing star of the film and first-time director/actress Sarah Polley, focuses as much on her beauty as Christie does on her character. It doesn't take much for one to be absorbed by Christie's startling, mature beauty yet Polley keeps the camera tight and close on her magnificent face and those piercing blue eyes as Fiona takes leave of her life and her husband. I get the feeling that Polley is as much in awe of Christie as anyone else who sees her work. But Pinsent is formidable here and the story is just as much about his character if not moreso. It's a role that is just as challenging as Christie's and the two of them work wonderfully together. Until this film, I had never seen or heard of this Canadian actor. I'll definitely be looking to see what he does next.

I gleaned that Canadian writer, Alice Munro is telling a story about hanging on and letting go, and about the mysteries of what binds men and women together. How Polley's screenplay differs from the source is unknown but the filmmaker does take the time to glance back at Grant and Fiona's past as much as their unknown future unfolds. Polley delivers a thoughtful and compelling meditation on the familiar lives older people with this disease are leaving and the frightening lives they find themselves entering. Deceptively simple but wrenching in execution, writer/director Sarah Polley has become a talent to look out for behind the scenes as well as in front of the camera. There have been several films released within the last six years that have dealt with Alzheimer's disease in some manner. I've only see Nick Cassavete's 2004 film "The Notebook" which I really enjoyed but I kinda felt like at times I wanted to see just the older couple currently dealing with the disease instead of flashbacks of their youth. That's one of the many things I like about this film, it has no problem focusing on characters over age 60 and it does so in a real manner. It's a beautiful film.

Posted Sunday, October 19, 2008 3:32 AM by dj4our | with 0 comments

Stallone bloodies another iconic role....

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Rambo (2008)

RAMBO (2008) ***

rated R (for strong graphic bloody violence, sexual assaults, grisly images and language)

1 hr. 33 min.

written by: Art Monterastelli & Sylvester Stallone (from source material by David Morrell)

produced by: Avi Lerner & Kevin King

directed by: Sylvester Stallone

Let's get this outta the way right from the start. I like the Rambo films. It's not a guilty pleasure either or cuz I particularly like violent films. I like them solely because it's one man taking on injustice and the violent atrocities of man. I'll admit, the character of Rambo become more and more out-of-control as the sequels were released. He became more and more buff, put in impossibly outnumbered combat situations and escaped certain death countless times. The icon of Rambo became crazy with all the political mumbo-jumbo of the Reagan surrounding the second sequel, "First Blood: Rambo Part II", not to mention all the merchandise like action figures and cartoons. Ugh! Everything about the character got out-of-hand. No wonder everyone made fun of Stallone for his muscle-bound, seemingly muscle-headed role.

Still, "First Blood", the first Rambo move was awesome! I was a lil over 10 years-old when I finally saw that 1982 film (unbeknownst to my mother) and it certainly left an impression on me. It was the action but soon after I realized Rambo's sensitive backstory. Yes, I included sensitive and Rambo in the same sentence. Here was a decorated Vietnam veteran, whose war buddies were all dead and found no place or function in society. He was trained by his country to be the ultimate weapon, the perfect warrior, but came to realize he had no place in his country anymore. It was one of the first movies where you saw a veteran at war with his own country. That still is a cool concept for me.

Unfortunately, what began as a franchise of high adventure and sympathy for the underdog and the veteran protagonist became a feral cartoon. Now, 20 years later, "Rambo" comes full circle finding its rightful home in utter bloody chaos. We find John J. Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) in Thailand where he was at the start "Rambo III" working as a boatman and snake wrangler. He's away from America, away from any politics and trying to lead a life of solitude while evading his demons. A group of Christian missionaries find the battle-scarred loner and ask him to drive them up the river to the heart of the Burmese civil war in order for them to deliver some hope to the villagers there. Rambo know better, he knows without weapons the war zone up north will not change despite anyone's good intentions and actions.

Sylvester Stallone in Lionsgate Films' Rambo

Rambo knows this and director Stallone shows us in the beginning previous scenes the atrocities of the Burmese military committed onto their own people. Villagers are mutilated and beheaded while a truckload of villagers are forced to walk in a swampy mindfield while the Burmese soldiers place bets on who might survive. When the movie title appears in blood red, we know that these oppressed people will have their rescuer and the dead will be avenged. But right now Rambo's not budging. He turned down the request of missionary leader Michael (Paul Schulze) which gives his spirited girlfriend (the only gal in the group) a chance to persuade the hulking loner. Either something she says stirs him or he just hasn't seen a cute blonde like Sarah (Julie Benz) in quite a while cuz we next a reluctant Rambo steering the group up the river.

On their way, the group witness how dangerous both the river is and their quite guide, as they see how Rambo deals with pirates. This doesn't sit well with Michael and once they arrive he lets Rambo know he won't be needed on the way back as they plan on returning by land. Returning home alone, a conflicted Rambo thinks about what Sarah told him about making a difference in people's lives while wrestling with what he is, a warrior. When he's visited by a Colorado church pastor (Ken Howard) he knows the missionaries are in trouble. He asks Rambo to lead a group of mercenaries he's hired (wuh?) to the village to rescue them cuz communication has been cut off and we know why. We were shown the vicious Burmese military obliterate the village where the missionaries are, cutting an unbelievable path of genocide. Woman are beaten and raped, limbs are cut off, children are stabbed or shot at point blank and thrown into a fire if their not old enough to join the military. Bodies explode near the missionaries as the try to evade death or capture. Amid the carnage, Sarah and Michael and another missionary are captured and taken away.

This leaves Rambo in a position to turn his back or assume his psychologically tattered solider mentality and launch into battle once again. Of course, it's obvious what he does. He does what he does best and he doesn't allow a band of mouth mercs get in his way. These mercenaries don't know what to make of Rambo until they actually see him in action and then they follow his lead.

Yes, once Rambo turns on his military mojo the film goes crazy! It explodes with a hurricane of aggression aimed directly at those clueless Burmese soldiers. Wave after wave of bloody fury assault us as Rambo turns predator in a very dynamic manner that explodes across the screen with all the horror and fist-pumping that is expecting in franchise. Stallone serves up an insane amount of gore in the film's finale (amplified with rickety CGI), and I gotta say I commend him for the the fearlessness of the realism of it all. Sure, it's uneasy to look at, it's assaulting after all. But Stallone has built up the enemies despicable actions enough where you just hold on in your seat and go along with him.

Sylvester Stallone as John Rambo in Lionsgate Films' Rambo

This is probably the first Rambo movie where you really feel what it would be like in the heat of battle. There's no shirtless, slo-mo shots (thank you!) with Rambo jumping over a gorge with a blasting M60. Stallone is going for the heart of darkness here, exhibiting this decades long civil war that most don't know about on very realistic terms, stunning viewers with real depictions of death and carnage. He's said in interviews that if he were to do another Rambo film, it would have to be socially relevant to some existing injustice. This film doesn't recoil from any of it, displaying a gruesome rain of death and unspeakable acts of violation. It's a bleak perspective and Stallone perhaps distances himself from the mindless body count craziness of the two earlier films by coming closer to authenticity. It still may seem overboard to some, but putting the viewer in the middle of pure hell really drives home a vivid theme about the futility of peace and war. Fighting slaughter with slaughter is exhilarating, but Stallone shows us there's an unavoidable price to pay.

Unlike Stallone's return to his other iconic character in 2006's "Rocky Balboa", this film isn't about healing any old wounds nor is it necessarily a return to the melodrama underneath the first Rambo film. It's not the superficial action romp that most have come to associate with the character either. It seems Stallone is hungry to prove a point this time around, and he unleashes a torrent of violence in a manner that's just plain berserk. It cannot be stressed enough: "Rambo" is a monumentally vicious film. Is it odd to see a hulking Stallone in his 60's run through the jungle like a runaway rhino? Nope. I like the idea of him not being the lean machine he once was and I find that time away from the character can bring an added dimension to the role.

There's a lotta talk about how absurd it is for actors at this age returning to such physical roles but this is nothing new in cinema. John Wayne did it, so did Lee Marvin and James Coburn, why not Sly? After all, coming back to what became such a cartoon character at this age brings about a needed maturity. It seems that during this considerable downtime, Stallone has reassessed his work as John Rambo and his iconic screen history, and is comfortable raging again in this ruthless exclamation point on a surreal series of films. The film concludes Rambo's mournful journey well enough for me although it was way too short. Still, I'd be fine with it finally ending here. Then again, studio head Harvey Weinstein is quoted as liking the opening weekend numbers, so he might be pushing Stallone for another one. That'd be a mistake but a part of me would be curious. Stallone is far from my favorite actor but I do like the guy. He's funny, intelligent, self-deprecating and humble. I know....you're stunned.

Posted Sunday, October 19, 2008 3:29 AM by dj4our | with 0 comments