dj4our Blog

Coens & McCarthy make compelling Country!

dj4our — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:44:47 GMT

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007) ****

rated R (for strong graphic violence and some language)

2 hrs. 2 min.

written by: Joel & Ethan Coen, from the novel by Cormac McCarthy

produced by: Joel & Ethan Coen, Scott Rudin

directed by: Joel & Ethan Coen

This movie still haunts me. I saw it back on November 23rd at 11:05am and I'm still thinking about it. I knew it would be great going in but as I left the theatre that early afternoon, I had no idea how to approach a review. Sometimes a movie is so good that you just want to tell people "Just go see it and see for yourself" because you feel that any words you have to promote the film wouldn't do it justice. I feel that way with this film and I also feel I don't want to give too much away. By now, many have seen this film and it has deservedly made it's way to several year-end top ten lists. It's complete with all the qualities a classic Coen brothers has: a great script with intelligent and witty dialogue, amazing cinematography, a perfect cast and layered themes. It's a movie I want to see again, maybe in the theatre but certainly on DVD where I can treat it like some great archaeological find and discover uncovered nuances.

The movie feels and at times looks like a western, but it is not. It has the qualities and characters of one but it is set in the late 1970's, possibly early 80's, primarily in West Texas. The vast open desert prairie of the Lone Star state is a character all on it's own here. As the film opens, we're introduced to the voice (who I feel is) the main character, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (the great Tommy Lee Jones, in his second amazing performance of 2007) with his tired, reflective voice serving as narrator. He's telling us a story about an arrest he made a while back, an arrest to this day he doesn't fully understand. There's an emptiness in his voice as we're shown the desolate Texas landscape with it's farmland and windmills. There's also confusion which sets the tone for what violent actions we will see and the results of those violent acts Bell will comes across.

The tone of the film then takes an ominous turn as we're introduced to a character everyone is declaring the most evil and violent presence cinema has ever seen. While I dunno if I can agree with that, I have to say that Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) is certainly one of the most unnerving and original characters I have ever seen. Right away, he's revealed to be a killer, a calm unstoppable force that is motivated and sustained by his own deranged code. He often decides the fate of those he encounters by the flip of a coin, which make for some of the most memorably unsettling scenes ever filmed. There's such uneasiness surrounding the atmosphere that Chigurh occupies wherever he goes that so captivating you can't take your eyes off him but you wish you could.

The plot of the film slowly and carefully revolves around an attache case of money. While out in the Texas desert hunting deer, Llewellyn Moss (Josh Brolin, another guy having a great year) happens upon the remnants of a drug deal gone bad. He finds $2 million in cash that was intended to be the buy money and makes a rash decision to take it home, leaving the lone survivor of the bloodbath to die on his own. Feeling guilty, he returns to the scene in the middle of the night, only to be spotted by bad guys who want their money back. Barely escaping alive, Llewellyn sends his wife Carla Jean (Kelly MacDonald) off to her mother's and goes on the run with the money. Moss is a stubborn Vietnam vet who sees this as an opportunity to totally change their lives and figures he can evade his pursuers until they grow tired and quit.

What he doesn't know is that his pursuer is a one-stop death machine who doesn't know the words tired or quit. Chigurh is hired to track Moss and get the money, what he does to anyone he encounters along the way is totally up to him. Thus his killing spree begins before he even gets to the mess in the desert, so Llewellyn is just going to be another notch in his belt. The simple act of filling up his stolen car with gas is like an existential exercise in flexing his muscles. There is nothing Chigurh (pronounced Shu-gur) does that doesn't end with blood, whether it's his own or someone else.

Soon enough, the film turns into a entangled chase picture. Chigurh is on the trail of Moss, the money men and drug dealers team up to chase them both, and Jones is scratching his head trying to keep up with all three. There's even a bounty hunter Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson), familiar with Chigurh, who tries to persuade Moss to give it up. Along their journey both Moss and Chigurh encounter some of the standard, quirky characters that have becomes a Coen brothers staple. When these all characters do catch up with one another at different times in the picture, the results are unexpected and harrowing. Each twist of the plot strides in on a very comfortable (and uncomfortable) gait. The best thing the Coens is not rush it when it doesn't need to be rushed, and they never inject a scene with an inflated sense of peril. The danger is always evident, there is nothing forced cuz there is time enough to get where they are all going.

The irony in all this thing about the pacing of this story is that ultimately, despite the lack of panic, time is running out. It's both a eulogy for a particular way of life and a lament for dying values. Chigurh represents the senseless, unstoppable and increasing violence that is in the world today, he's a force of nature remiss of any moral code. He comes seemingly out of nowhere with no backstory (none is really needed) and it his pace it would appear he represents the future. He twice lets his victims gamble on their life with his flippant coin toss that determines their fate by. The other two characters may also be two sides of the same coin. Sheriff Bell is heads, a thinker who follows a code and predetermined ideas, whereas Moss is tails, running on instinct, making choices that his counterpart would never make.

With all the dead bodies that are left in the wake of these men, the most devastating part of this film has really nothing to do with blood, guns, or carnage. Hell, most of the more surprising bends in that road (and there are several near the end) eschew those elements altogether. What lingers most is the passage of time, in our awareness of it, and in the inevitability of the countdown. That's what's so riveting. You know it's only a matter of time and it's time you're trying to hold onto but you know it's running out. You can't stop it by pure stubborn action, not even by the inclination of chance. Maybe it's better to be like Moss and try to remain ignorant of what lies ahead, because when it comes down to it, there is no comfort in acceptance. It's an excellent achievement for all of this to be conveyed in a motion picture and the Coen brothers deliver it excellently.

Back to the heart of the film though, some may feel Jones is once again channeling the same role he's known for, but it's been a long time since he's been this good. Now, I feel his performance in Paul Haggis' "In the Valley of Elah" was just as good, maybe better, but he does something great here. He takes this somewhat minor role of Sheriff Bell, one that could have been just another display of his good humored cynicism and corn-fed homilies and makes it the heart of the film. It's as if he rightly sensed that Bell would be the true emotional center of McCarthy's story, the spiritual symbol of its deeper themes.

I've heard from friends who have liked this film immensely for some of the same reasons I do and also from some who have left appreciating it but ultimately somewhat disappointed. I think those who are disappointed miss out on the themes here, which are essentially in the title and deal with Jone's character. He cannot understand the violence all around him much less how to enforce law in such a world. He feels like an old man in a foreign world, hence the title. The fact that he doesn't come out on top as the typical successful hero makes his character all the more attractive.

As a result, Jones sheds the skin of easy comfort that he's worn through most of his recent films and let's his soul back out. Just as the Coen brothers appear to be going back to the feel of their earlier work (Blood Simple, Fargo) while blazing new trails for themselves, dropping their old tricks for serious storytelling, so Jones seems to have wearied of his image and has decided to put that weariness on film. This weary tone can also be felt through two Coen veterans: cinematographer Roger Deakins and composer Carter Burwell, both provide a rich yet calculated minimalism to the film. If this movie would've come out last March I still think it would be weighing heavy on my mind. It still would've been included on many best of 2007 lists and for a film to have such an impact is a rare treasure.

A Scary Waste of Talent with No Teeth

dj4our — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:22:37 GMT

SKINWALKERS (2006) *

PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and action, some sexual material and language)

1 hr. 50 min.

written by: Todd Jason, James DeMonaco & James Roday

produced by: Don Carmody & Dennis Beradi

directed by: James Isaac

Now here's a movie with no teeth that really bites. It's bad in a fun, laughable ways, and I'm not using "laughable" figuratively. I mean I literally laughed out loud at some of the things that happen in the film, things that were meant to be taken seriously. It's a "horror thriller" that is far from horrific and has less thriller than Michael Jackson (well, let's face it, Jackson has quite a horror thriller going for him all by himself). This film, deserves to be featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000 for so many reasons but even then many of the films on that show had some type of cult status. This one will never be a cult classic, in fact I don't know of any cult that would like it.

So, um, there are two groups of werewolves, the good ones who have assimilated into human society, hold down steady jobs in a small town (although you really only see them in this town. Huh?) and lock themselves up during the full moon so they don't hurt anyone; and the bad, sexy ones who roam the woods, cruise around in Sol-mo on their motorcycles and love devouring humans every chance they get. The bad ones, led by Garek (Jason Behr), are looking for a young boy who is the subject of an ancient prophecy involving a full red moon that could spell doom for them all.

It would been really cool if these bad wolfie's were trying to find this specific boy amongst several children. They could scour a playground or a school yard or even a day camp but that would make the plot too complicated, I suppose. Instead, we only get a simple and stupid plot and only one boy throughout the entire film. Right away we know this is the boy or we'd be pretty stupid, wouldn't we? So, his name is Tim (Matthew Knight), and he lives with his mother Rachel (Rhona Mithra) and her dead husband's brother, Jonas (Elias Kites) in a small town.

Unbeknownst to any of these three (except maybe Jonas), Tim's daddy was a werewolf (you'd think his mother woulda known) and since she was normal, when Tim turns 13 in a few days, he'll have the ability to end "the curse" of the werewolves forever. How will this boy end this curse exactly? It's never revealed, thus we can care less what happens.

Since the bad guys enjoy their lycan-fastic life, it goes without saying that the want the boy dead. Meanwhile, Tim and his mom are clueless. They don't know any of this. They don't even know that Jonas and his entire family are the good werewolves, or as he likes to call them "skinwalkers". Fortunately for them, everyone else in the east coast town of Huegonot does and they all carry weapons just in case some bad wolfies happen to roll into town. Apparently, they've been expecting the bad guys to come looking for Tim -- which is why, when Varek and his gang do arrive, every person in town has a shotgun handy with which to engage in a shootout in the middle of Main Street. This includes Tim's nana (Barbara Gordon) who is actually the boy's first line of defense, I really wish I just made up.

Thus begins a battle between all the skinwalkers, good versus bad....well, at least between the small groups representing each side, anyway. There's not much indication that this "epic struggle" affects more than about 10 people, which makes the movie seem even more lightweight than it is. As soon as I saw that the climactic showdown occurs in an abandoned warehouse I just laughed even more. I mean come on, THE most cliched of showdown locales! It just proves that director James Isaac ("Jason X") and his "trio of writers" weren't trying very hard here. Or maybe they were and their just really, really bad at what they do.

So, the movie's a dud. It's not the worst movie I've ever seen or of the year, for that matter. I wanted it to be good cuz I like Koteas and Mitra (both were in last year's "Shooter") and look forward to the roles they take. Maybe they just wanted to work on something dumb or could be that they liked filming in Canada. But in the end it wound up being something close to some bad horror film you'd see on Cinemax. It's silly and takes itself entirely too seriously (they shoulda focused on the mythical aspect of the actual term "skinwalkers" if they wanted to go that route) and it looks like it should have gone directly to DVD. Most bad movies are aggressively bad, irritating in some way or maybe even annoying. "Skinwalkers" isn't any of those, it's just dumb and predictable but it's certainly not dull.

Hot werewolf babes can't save this stinker.

Shelly serves excellent Final Film

dj4our — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:57:09 GMT

WAITRESS (2007) ****

rated PG-13 (for sexual content, language and thematic elements)

1 hr. 44 min.

written & directed by: Adrienne Shelly

produced by: Michael Roiff

If you like pies, watching a movie comfortably dish out real characters in real situations without apology....lemme give you a tip, Adrienne Shelly's "Waitress" is for you. Released right at the start of the summer zeitgeist on May 2nd, along with a lil film called "Spider-Man 3", it received rave reviews by critics and gained quite a word-of-mouth following. There was already significant buzz around the film when it debuted at Sundance in January. Most of that buzz was bittersweet because Shelly, the film's writer, director and co-star had been murdered two months earlier. Many in the film community had wondered if her indie was picked up for distribution simply because it had such a mysterious behind-the-scenes story. There was the curiosity of whether or not the film was actually good or just a movie with a sad real-life story.

Well, it turns out this isn't just a good film, but a great one that tells a funny and warm-hearted story about finding happiness, and the things people do while stuck in a place that can't find a way out of. Shelly's screenplay is witty, even poetic, and she demonstrates an seldom-seen understanding of human nature and an affection for her characters. She clearly understood that sometimes the most joyful happy endings only come after enduring some trials.

The title waitress is Jenna (Keri Russell), and she has indeed suffered her share of tribulation. She is young and pretty and an expert maker of pies, the envy of her friends and co-workers at Joe's Pie Diner in the little Southern town where the film is set. But no one would trade places with her for a minute, because she's married to Earl (Jeremy Sisto), a stifling derelict who is so insecure that he only knows how to love her by controlling her. He won't let her own a car or even keep her own tip money. In her narration, she states how he changed after they got married and that she hasn't loved him in years but one has to wonder how they ever got together or why she would stay with him.

So there she is, sad and trapped in a bad situation where her only hope is to secretly store away enough cash to leave Earl and start over somewhere else. Then wouldn't ya know it, she gets pregnant after one night when Earl got her drunk. She admits to doing crazy things when she's drunk with her defenses were down "like sleeping with my husband" and now she's with child. She's not thrilled about it in the least bit but she's not going to abort it. She's going to take care of herself while she's pregnant, but she has no interest in this baby. This is one of the first characters I've seen on the screen where those instinctual motherly feelings just don't kick in.

Jenna's two friends are her only real family and they happen to also be waitresses at Joe's Pie Diner. Becky (Cheryl Hines), the saucier one, is married to a never-seen old invalid and is constantly sparring with grouchy restaurant manager, Cal (Lew Temple). Dawn (Shelly) is single and trying not to let her optimism give way to despair as she continues to get older without finding love. The three women love and support one another through all their various trials, and they make some fine-looking pies all the while. There are so many different type of pies made and/or described in this movies, my mouth was watering as I watched. Shelly does a fantastic job using pie-making as an outlet for Jenna. She knows she makes killer pies and feels that making them is the only escape she has from her train-wreck of a life.

As if being married to a jerk and pregnant with a baby she doesn't want weren't enough, Jenna's life becomes more complicated when she meets her new OB-GYN, Dr. Pomatter (Nathan Fillion). He's married, handsome, nervous, and a little odd. Call it hormones but before you know it, Jenna is throwing herself at him and their quirky affair clumsily takes off. Now there are viewers who may not like where the story goes from her with both married people having an affair. To me these characters don't make great choices and that's what's so refreshingly real about them. It's too bad some viewers can't withhold their judgment.

One of the best things about the film is how Shelly doesn't denounce its characters' questionable behavior, nor does it condone it. It just lets them be who they are, flaws and all. Jenna knows it isn't right for her, a married woman, to be seeing Dr. Pomatter, a married man. But we also see what she knows: that this doctor actually listens to her and cares for her. When she's with him, she feels happy and safe....something she hasn't felt in a long, long time. No, the situation isn't ideal but she's used to that. The movie isn't saying you should go out and commit some adulterous act if you think it'll help you feel better. What it's saying is that happiness is not always where you expect to find it, and that our lives can often change for the better in ways in which we'd never imagine.

A good example of this is Shelly's excellent portrayal of Dawn. She's plain-looking and simple, a down-home girl with damaged self-esteem. She started been doing what she calls "5-minute dates," so that if the guy turns out to be a dud, she doesn't waste a whole evening. "Have fun on your 5-minute date!" Becky chirps. "Be sure to use a 5-minute condom!" One dud she meets is named Ogie (Eddie Jemison, from all those Ocean movies), a sweet and less-than-average-looking man who has one thing going for him: endless enthusiasm. Ever-smiling, he shows up at the diner the day after their first date, insisting Dawn is the love of his life and he will never relent in his pursuit of her. He tells her he will never stop pursuing her until they are married. Sure enough, he eventually wins her over. Their romance is a sunny contrast to the love-gone-wrong that exists in Jenna and Earl's home, a reminder that happiness is out there somewhere.

I gotta hand it to Fillion, best known for his roles in Joss Whedon's sci-fi/western "Firefly" and the film it spawned, "Serenity," he's at his best when playing characters who are mildly befuddled, as Dr. Pomatter is. His rugged good looks make you think he'll be suave and confident, and then his delivery reveals uncertain hilarity. Many of this film's funniest moments are the result of his interaction with Russell. As for Russell, if you don't already think she's a fine actress, you will absolutely fall in love with her in this film.

Some of Russell's best scenes are with veteran actor Andy Griffith, who plays the owner of the diner, Old Joe. He comes across as a cantankerous old coot who uses his grumpiness to hide his soft heart. He likes to sit in his favorite booth, eat his favorite pies, complain and can only be served by Jenna. It helps that I already love Griffith cuz I grew up watching re-runs of his classic Mayberry show but he proves here that even at 80 years old, he can still do something surprising. Here's a character that could easily be a cliche....that curmudgeon old fart who offers sage advice but instead he's engagingly colorful and nuanced.

Now we wouldn't care about Jenna's situation one bit if not for the role that Sisto has to play as lousy Earl. I can't tell ya how many times I just wanted to hit him or wish someone had. Sure, it would be easy to stereotype him as the no-good husband yet if too much is done in an attempt to humanize him you deny the audience the satisfaction of watching a bad guy get his due. Then if you make him too one-dimensional, you lose the realism. It's the combination of Shelly's stellar script and Sisto's performance that strike a delicate ans successful balance between the two. We catch enough details about his insecurities to see him as a plausible character, but certainly not so much that he we feel for him. We believe him and we hate him and we still wanna hit him which is something that's quite rare.

From a storytelling perspective, Shelly has kinda painted herself into a corner with the relationship of Jenna and her doctor. We want them to wind up together, but can't see how that can happen without ruining lives. It's obvious she's married to a jerk but that doesn't justify her actions, not to mention how it would effect Pommater's seldom-seen wife. I wondered how she even hooked up with Earl but that seemed irrelevant. In the end, the believable outcomes don't seem very plausible and all the plausible outcomes don't seem very believable.

This is one of three movies out this year that dealt with unplanned pregnancies in a real, intelligent and humorous way. With such complicated characters to juggle it's a joy to see Shelly pull it off. The ending is both realistic and happy yet bittersweet cuz as I watched Jenna and her daughter (played by Shelly's actual daughter) I kept on thinking of how this cute lil girl's mother and the actress I just enjoyed watching was murdered. Like Jenna, I was ready for this story to not end well, it would only be natural for that to happen. When it does end happily it comes with a somewhat predictable surprise but that doesn't matter cuz defeat had been so close, which makes victory that much sweeter. I wasn't too surprised that I enjoyed this movie, I just had no idea how good it would go down. What a tasty and tart treat this lovable movie turned out to be. Heh.

A great Bruce Willis actioner but Not a Die Hard film!

dj4our — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:43:27 GMT

Live Free or Die Hard: 2-Disc Unrated Edition (2007) ***

2 hr. 10 min.

written by: Mark Bomback & David Marconi (source material from John Carlin's magazine article A Farewell to Arms as well as characters created by author Roderick Thorpe)

produced by: Michael Fottrell

directed by: Len Wiseman

As soon as I found out that this movie was gonna be released on DVD in an "unrated" edition, I knew I could hold off seein' it in the theaters. It's not that I craved more profanity or violence, it's just that all the other Die Hard movies were rated R and it isn't the same without those elements that kinda rating brings. It saddened me that director Len Wiseman was willing to "dumb down" the consistency of this film series in order to possible garner more PG-13 money. Didn't they realize that if fans see another Die Hard movie coming out, they're not gonna pay attention to what the rating is? They're just gonna want nostalgic familiarity and action. The only reason I paid attention to this rating was cuz it's been twelve years since the last one and everything about this new one would be scrutinized to ensure that the quality, consistency (there's that word again) and characterization in this new film would be intact.

Taking that into consideration, this is a fun, over-the-top action movie. I'd kick up my feet and watch it again with some friends on a Friday night. Still, It just doesn't feel like a Die Hard movie and before I go into the reasons why, I'll just go ahead and give you the rundown. The film opens up with a handful of cyber-geek hackers being eliminated after they unknowingly assisted the requisite bad guy infiltrate the FBI's computer system. The killings are untraceable since once these hackers delete a message from our bad guy they explode into fiery oblivion along with everything else around them. Around the same time, the wee hours of the morning, the FBI found out something is up and ask that local police follow up on and any and all hackers that could possibly be doing this.

Computer geek Matthew Harrell (Justin Long) fits this description and it falls to the responsibility of a certain veteran NYPD detective named John McClane (Bruce Willis) to pay him a visit at his apartment somewhere in Jersey. It's here where we become re-introduced to the iconic character that ignited Willis' career and I'm gonna have to get into that re-introduction a lil later. Right away I enjoyed the interplay between analog McClane and digital Harrell. I saw where it was going and has ready for their pairing to bring me all sorts of action, mayhem and hilarity throughout the film. McClane winds up saving the kid from permanent deletion when the foreign-accented bad guys attack his apartment and from that point on the two are on the run from terrorists, naturally.

Along the way, the father and son-like duo run into some requisite supporting characters. Some of these are on the good guys team like Special Agent Bowman (the always great Cliff Curtis), McClane's daughter Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and the distracting presence of actor/director Kevin Smith as a computer guru names Warlock. The odd thing I found with many of the bad guy lackeys is that they were Italian (say what? Italian terrorists?) with no explanation as to how they hooked up with this American bad guy. On that note, it woulda been nice to see this guy switch roles with his right-hand woman, Mai (Maggie Q) who at least had a formidable presence. Plus, it woulda been refreshing for a woman to be the villain in a movie like this. Ah well.

So, the main bag guy is a ruthless computer whiz named Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) has taken over most of America's computerized systems, causing mass chaos nationwide. Harrell has to break that all down for McClane as they witness various traffic and power calamity on the way to DC's FBI branch. The premise is absolutely preposterous, but that's never really been a problem for "Die Hard" before and might even honestly be considered one of the series' hallmarks. That being said, it's still the least plausible of any of the "Die Hard" stories so far, and that even includes terrorists taking over an airport in "Die Hard 2: Die Harder".

This is the first Die Hard film where McClane doesn't buddy up with an African American, instead we're given a generation gap to keep things interesting. Willis and Long manage to establish a fairly amusing rapport early on, and it's this dynamic that keeps things rolling through a few rough patches. Anyone knows that a great action movie must always be measured by the threat....or how "bad" is the bad guy. This is where the film goes limp. Olyphant is just miscast. He just comes across as a crybaby who didn't get what he wanted and is lashing back at "the system" like a wounded dog by using "the system". His evil intentions weren't convincing and were basically MIA for most of the film. But siding with or understanding the villain isn't what this entertaining action flick is about.

My biggest problem is that re-introduction I mentioned, he just doesn't look like the John McClane we know. I know, it seems picky but it's kinda integral if you ask me. McClane's saved his head bald, is totally serious and is lean and trim. There's no explanation as to what became of the endearing, frazzle-haired wino that was peeled off the floor 12 years ago in the beginning of the last film. So, instead we're treated to a slim and fit, head-shaven Bruce Willis. I say that cuz that's all I saw. I saw Willis and not McClane. Not that I didn't enjoy seeing Willis run around in this film but he didn't look like John McClane and with the movie not explaining what had happened to him in 12 years. It's just a lil jarring for my continuity-conscious mind.

It's obvious that action films must adapt due to "our changing times" but I just feel like the whole "computer hacker" bit has been done to death over the years. I imagine it's hard to find a good script for a McClane movie cuz viewers are inundated with all these tech-savvy Jack Bauer types. It felt like this time around McClane was this unstoppable supercop and that's why I'm fine with it as a Bruce Willis film. You can't tell me that McClane wouldn't have had several broken bones, a punctured lung and some severe burns. Then again this is a summer blockbuster movie so the believability factor thrown out threw the windshield.

The action is expectantly brisk and non-stop: baddies are dispatched violently, car chases come fast and furious and explosions abound. McClane has almost become a caricature of the tough, wisecracking cop we first met in 1988---and there are still traces of mortality at times, but the danger doesn't feel quite as dangerous anymore. We could almost substitute Jack Bauer himself in John McClane's role---and let's be honest, it really wouldn't change much. It would been cool if the setting of the film went back to Christmas time like in the first two but I can't have everything. Still, there's a lot to like here: from the stylishly shot action sequences to the razor-sharp editing and effective comic relief....for a Bruce Willis action film. It just doesn't feel like a Die Hard film and once I acknowledged that, I enjoyed it and hey....what it lacks in believability it makes up for in action.

Special Features:

This unrated, two-disc package gives fans what they should've gotten at the theater: more profanity and blood (what can I say? It keeps with continuity) Interestingly enough, both cuts are included on Disc 1, which leads me to think, if you're given the better version, why would you opt for the watered-down? The story in this uncut version hasn't changed one bit, but it's good to know that such an lame marketing decision has been reversed for the DVD release. Thing is, I knew it would cuz the latest fad is to release a movie in an "unrated and uncut" version to draw in more numbers.

There's a ton of good features here and some that are kinda weak, all of which have a solid technical presentation. As usual, I didn't devour them all but I'll list them out for ya and comment on what I did take in.

The only extra on Disc 1 is a feature-length Audio Commentary with star Willis, director Len Wiseman and editor Nicholas de Toth. I didn't re-watch the film with this commentary but I wouldn't mind doing so, if the copy I had wasn't borrowed from a co-worker I woulda made time for it and the other extras.

On Disc 2, the longest feature is entitled "Analog Hero in a Digital World: The Making of Live Free or Die Hard" This documentary is a fairly detailed promotional nugget, covering the story origins, franchise history, casting, stunts, editing, visual effects, sound mixing and music...everything is covered here. Because "Analog Hero" covers so much, I did wind up skimming through it. It was indepth and insightful but a lot of ground to cover.

Then there's the "Yippee Ki Yay MotherF*****!" feature, a casual chat with co-star Kevin Smith and Willis, who discuss the star's career while simply hanging out on the Fox lot. It's just the two of them sitting on the steps if the set. Willis looks like a Hobbit next to Smith. It's a laid-back interview that doesn't include a much brand-new information, but the candid atmosphere really stands in good contrast to everything else. It was interesting to see what Willis thinks of his previous two sequels. While I liked them both, apparently he feels this film is the superior to those two....how wrong you are, Mr. Willis. Overall, this interview seems as pretentious and uneccessary as Smith's inclusion in the film.

I didn't bother with the next three extras: first up is a Music Video for the film by Guyz Nite, which I actually did scan out of curiosity. I didn't know if the guys in this band were for real or what. After all, I didn't remember any song that stood out as I watched things blow up in the movie. From what little I caught, it's a stupid song with the gratuitous inclusion of the trademark Willis catchphrase in rowdy rock fashion. Accompanying the insipid music video is "Behind-the-Scenes with Guyz Nite", which will probably only be of interest to fans of the band (you know who you are).

The final feature I did see was the boring "Fox Movie Channel Presents: Fox Legacy", a brief, promotional-type recap of the franchise which doesn't really add much but it did ceack me up when the host described why the movie is called "Die Hard 4.0" (see above) to non-U.S. theatres. Sigh.

Of couse, there's the Theatrical Trailer, as well as a few Previews for current and upcoming Fox releases. Not all of these minor features fit in with the main "Analog Hero" one and it's too bad cuz I woulda preferred some focus on storyboards. They could even included some deleted scenes or man, at least a gag reel. Oh well.

Talk Up this!

dj4our — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:00:38 GMT

TALK TO ME (2007) ***1/2

R for pervasive language and some sexual content.

1 hr. 58 min.

written by: Rick Famuyiwa & Michael Genet

produced by: Joe Fries, Mark R. Gordon, Sidney Kimmel & Josh McLaughlin

directed by: Kasi Lemmons

I first noticed writer and director Kasi Lemmons for her acting work, playing Jodie Foster's fellow FBI trainee/student in Jonathan Demme's "Silence of the Lambs". It wasn't a standout performance but the movie left such an indelible mark that I found myself remembering almost everyone in it. She went on to build a reputable enough filmography as an actress but the next time her name caught my attention was for the 1997 film, "Eve's Bayou", her directorial debut starring Lynn Whitfield and Samuel L. Jackson. A critically lauded film set in 1960's Louisiana about a secret that tears apart a well-to-do family. I didn't see her 2001 follow-up film (also with Jackson) "The Caveman's Valentine" but it's a film that I been meanin' to check out. I'm always interesting in actors turned directors, usually the actors are more recognizable before they make the switch (Kevin Costner & Denzel Washington come to mind). This year, Focus Features released Lemmons' latest film which tells the true story of foul-mouthed, ex-con who became a sensation by just being himself.

Ralph Waldo "Petey" Green (Don Cheadle), a formerly imprisoned hustler would go on to become a voice as a radio show host in the late 1960s. While visiting his brother Milo (Mike Epps) at Lorton prison, radio producer Dewey Hughes (Chiwetel Ejiofor) meets Petey for the first time, not knowing what an indelible mark he would make in his life. Petey asks him straight up for a job at WOL-AM, since he's been flippin' and spinnin' vinyl for the prison inmates. Dewey dismisses the convict, calling him a "low-life, miscreant", promising him he'd see what he could do, should the convict ever get out of prison. Of course we know where this is going, Petey does indeed "look up" Dewey and winds up hounding him for a DJ job with a ferocious tenacity. He soon shows up at the station, demanding a job, embarrassing straight-laced Dewey and laying the groundwork for a tumultuous relationship between the two men.

Eventually Dewey gives in, much to his dismay and in time Petey becomes a huge hit with the black community, who are taken with his tell-it-like-it-is persona. Station owner E.G. Sonderling (Martin Sheen) has no idea what to make of Petey, but he loves the fact that the station's ratings are up. His success doesn't sit well with the other DJ's, Sunny Jim (Curtis Hondie Hall) or The Nighthawk (Cedric the Entertainer) but once Petey takes to the air to calm the violence that hits DC after the sudden announcement of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. he gains just about everyone's respect and even more intense fan-following. They love him because he's one of them and doesn't hold anything back while the station heads love him cuz of the ratings and flood of calls.

He continues to tout himself as the voice of the people, urging callers, "Talk to me" as they call in to the station to commiserate and confide. With Dewey behind him as a guiding force, Petey eventually gets his own television show, which is more outrageous than his radio program. But, alas, with popularity and good fortune come many vices and temptations like booze and babes, which threaten Petey's career as well as his long-term relationship with girlfriend Vernell (Taraji P. Henson), But it's his friendship and partnership with Dewey that feels the most strain.

It's not until Dewey tries to make Petey out to be a comic sensation instead of the fast-talkin' commentator that he is that they both hit rock-bottom. It's their relationship that drives the film as it becomes a complex and fascinating character study. Petey represents a brash flamboyance and reckless disregard for the rules of society that Dewey longs to express, whereas Dewey possesses ambition and inner strength that Petey lacks. The two men balance each other out, creating a fantastic dynamic that is driven by the excellent chemistry between Cheadle and Ejiofor.

This all could've gone the wrong way and I give credit to the writers and Lemmons for delivering something genuine and real. Of course Cheadle is an amazing actor and he certainly shines here but he really is working from a great script. So often, biopics go wrong, often degenerating into sentimental slop that includes the classic rise and fall of any star. It can really just make a real person's life look like a series of ridiculous clichés. It would have been easy to play this story primarily for laughs, rather than exploring Petey or Dewey with any sense of depth or emotional complexity.

What Lemmons attempts and successfully pulls off is to create a pair of complex characters who are as interesting as they are flawed. Ultimately, the film is as much about Dewey as it is about Petey and that's perfect for such a fine actor as Ejiofor, who has been steadily building an impressive list of supporting roles in films like "Children of Men", "Serenity", and "Inside Man". He holds his own opposite Cheadle, and as the story shifts to focus on Dewey's story, he easily carries the film. It's a wonderful opportunity for both actors to showcase talents that would be relegated to character roles in lesser films.

Other films "inspired by a true story" often fall short in that they come across as some sort of summary of a larger story, but here there is structure which gives the impression of being more complete. There is more emphasis on simply entertaining the audience, character development, and pushing a few emotional buttons then there is giving a history lesson. Still, I did feel educated cuz I knew nothing of Petey Greene, who not only served as a pioneer in the world of radio shock jocks, he also helped inner-city black America find its voice during the post-Civil Rights years. He's not the most respectable character but I give him credit for not becoming a sell-out and staying true to who he was. The film ends up bridging the gap between entertainment and social enlightenment while never falling back on the trappings that often plague films of this nature which can leave them either too heavy-handed or too light-hearted. I dunno if Oscar will remember this movie but I could easily see this on some Top Film lists at the end of the year simply due to the performances.

Rendition is Almost Extraordinary

dj4our — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:55:37 GMT

RENDITION (2007) ***

R for torture/violence and language.

2 hrs. & 2 min.

written by: Kelley Sane

produced by: Steve Gollin

directed by: Gavin Hood

2007 just might be the year of a cinematic political siege. With all the movies released this year about the war on Iraq, politics post-9/11 as well as the physical and psychological after effects, you'd think that movie studios are satisfying audience demand for such films. Unfortunately, for these films, the box office results are showing that's not the case. People are not flocking to movies like "A Mighty Heart", "The Kingdom" or "In the Valley of Elah" and it doesn't matter what critics say about them. They just aren't finding audience like a Tyler Perry movie or "The Game Plan" is. Maybe it's due to the incessant barrage of war and politics the media serve viewers and readers, that make them opt for films that will have more of an escapism feel.

Since I don't pay much attention to 24/7 news channels and only vaguely cover news blurbs about the war and the politics related to it, these kind of movies rouse my curiosity. I'd much rather see a dramatization of something that is either inspired or based on true events then be bludgeoned with media scare tactics and body counts. I'd rather know the human element of all this senseless violence and confusion instead of the typical pie charts and statistics that are given. So, these movies don't bother me as they do some. The problem is with these (at times) message movies is that they either tend to be a little heavy-handed or labeled liberal agitprop.

That's the dilemma here with Award-winning, South African film director Gavin Hood's new film "Rendition". It's a well-enough made film that at times does force some themes but it at least the topic is something I haven't seen focused on before, that being the case of "extraordinary renditions", in which the CIA has permission to extradite those thought to be involved in terrorism without needing any sort of warrant. This started under Clinton's reign and has supposedly gotten out-of-hand under Bush after 9/11. I don't proclaim to be a political expert but that's at least what I gathered from the film.

The film uses the similar storytelling method as Crash, Traffic and Syriana which includes a number of seemingly disparate stories converging to show how small a world it truly is. Much of the story centers around a suicide bombing in North Africa, a deadly blast might immediately draw comparisons to "The Kingdom", although that was based on actual events and is a much stronger film in the way it deals with how the U.S. government deals with terrorists. So, sure we've seen an exploding market before but is it really something we've become desensitized to?

Because of this, Egyptian chemist Anwar El-Ibrahami (Omar Metwally), mysteriously disappears when the CIA removes him from his flight home from a conference in Cape Town. After they conveniently remove him from the flight records, he is interrogated and prohibited a phone call home. They deport him back to North Africa (Egypt, it seems) where he's imprisoned, stripped naked and tortured since he's suspected of having collaborated with the terrorists responsible. Basically, the case against him revolves around some random phone calls made from the suspected terrorist to Anwar's cellphone. Of course, they use extreme measures in order to find out details about these calls and of course Anwar has no idea why the calls are traced to his cell.

Meanwhile, his pregnant wife Isabella (Reese Witherspoon) and 6-year-old boy back at home in Chicago has no idea what happened to him.Isabella contacts Alan Smith (Peter Sarsgaard) an old friend (and possibly former flame) in Washington who works for a high-powered Senator Hawkins (Alan Arkin) who might be able to unlock the mystery behind Anwar's disappearance. Typically, they both are hesitant about damaging their own image and career by supporting someone potentially with roots to terrorists.

CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (Jake Gyllenhaal) was in a vehicle in the Egyptian market when it exploded and say his supervisor die next to him. He's now reported to Lee Mayer ca(J.K. Simmons) the dead guy's superior, who is reported to CIA Head, Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep), she's the one who authorized Anwars' rendition. Freeman is ordered to supervise the "questioning" of Anwar by an Egyptian official named Abasi Fawal (Igal Naor). But, there's another concurrent story, involving Fawal's daughter, Fatima (Zineb Oukach), who is caught up in a forbidden love story with Khaild (Moa Khouas), a passionate young boy who has some deadly secrets. I found this story the most interesting for some reason. It just seemed like these two young people had no one to turn to, no one on their side and I kept on wondering where their desperate decisions would lead them.

There are valid reasons for a movie like this to exist. It's sobering to see how my government can justify torturing "suspects" under the justification of a post 9/11 world. I kept on wondering who the terrorist really is in this storyline and for that, maybe the film did succeed. Still, the script by Kelley Sane isn't particularly impressive or convincing, everything seems to fall into place. Hood has made a good-looking second film and at times it is downright terrifying but it does wind up being a little predictable and redundant.

Despite having a superstar cast who for the most part deliver the goods. The weakest being Witherspoon and Gyllenhaal, neither of which really feel like they're in the right movie Gyllenhaal just feels miscast as a CIA analyst, he looks way too young and spends much of the film brooding or overseeing the torture without saying much or doing anything significant. He just broods. Witherspoon also seems way too young for her role, and she overcompensates with over-dramatic hysterics. Sure, her role is a lil harder as she is relegated to playing the worried wife on the phone or sitting in CIA waiting rooms. Streep and Arkin come in and do the bang-up jobs that you'd expect and even Sarsgaard does a decent job. There's just nothing really riveting here from the "known" talent.

They're just not nearly as not nearly as convincing as their Mideast counterparts. The two young unknown actors who play the desperate young lovers really do standout the most in the film. Metwally as the captured Anwar, gives a heart-wrenching performance as the tortured family man who feels hopeless. Just as strong is Naor as the man doing the torturing. At first he comes across as a poor man's Dr. Evil, but once his family life is shown we see the layers of his character and maybe why he is as hard as he is.

The "surprise twist" ending that I won't give away explains the important part the young lovers play in the story, but by that point--over an hour and 45 minutes into the movie--it starts to create way too many questions and possible flaws in the film's temporal logic, and it does very little to make up for some of the bland storytelling leading up to it.I haven't seen Hood's Oscar-winning last movie "Tsotsi" but I've been meaning to. It too succeeded so well with the use of non-actors, it's surprising he didn't try to search out unknown American talent rather than going with big names who tend to derail the story.

I knew nothing of the term "rendition" before this movie. I always thought of it as a musical term. So, the movie succeeded in educating me but it did lose me after a while due to it's miscasting. Regardless, I'd hate to see this movie ignored due to it's subject matter but I understand if some may feel a little "message fatigue". Films have come a long way in capturing current events. It took forever to release movies that really dealt with Vietnam. Movies that weren't glossing any reality over or hiding behind whatever propaganda was being sold. I have no problem with movies covering current events, a good story told well still makes a good movie. These topics aren't "too soon" or controversial to me, but just a reflection of how we need to try and understand what's going on in the world today.

Costner wisely spotlights Duvall

dj4our — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:33:18 GMT

OPEN RANGE (2003) ****

R for violence.

2 hrs. 18 min.

written by: Craig Storper (screenplay) & Laruan Paine (novel, The Open Range Men)

produced by: Kevin Costner, Jake Eberts & David Valdes

directed by: Kevin Costner

I like it when I find myself sitting in a movie theater watching a film and actually realize that I'm really enjoying the experience. That was the case on a one hot summer day in August back in 2003, when I watched this movie. I remember sitting there thinking how I'd love to get away and live off the vast open plains as I maintained and defended what was mine. I also remember thinking about how this film would be received. I knew that most people already loathed Costner for movies like "Waterworld" and "The Postman" yet I remained optimistic about his work. There are, after all, worse actors out there. He's worked on enough movies that have succeeded to warrant my attention and this film was no different.

Turns out, Costner's return to the western genre wearing both acting and directing hats once again was actually a success. Many were surprised. Most critics really enjoyed his expansive tale of nomadic cattlemen making a living on the open range who take a stand against a corrupt landowner. Some say that it was an "older audience" that made the film into an unlikely hit, as audiences saddled up and headed to the cinema to the tune of $58 mil, doubling the picture's minimal budget of $26 mil. I saw many factors that contributed to this western being a modern-day masterpiece but I'll get into all of that later. There, I said the "m" word for a Kevin Costner movie. Go ahead and hang me.

Charley Waite (Kevin Costner) is a quiet and somewhat mysterious cattleman who has ridden with Boss Spearman (Robert Duvall) as his right-hand man for many years. Boss is a straightforward, kind man who serves as an unspoken mentor to Charley, who we come to find out is haunted by his time as a gunslinger and before that, a Civil War soldier. The two mind their own business, making their living as free-range cattlemen, moving their herd across the open range. They've recently taken on some hired hands to manage their load, the gentle giant Mose (Abraham Benrubi) and the orphan Button (Diego Luna) and together with their dog Tig, they make their way cross-country.

With supplies a lil low, they send Mose to the local town of Baxter on an errand, but are worried when he doesn't return. The town is controlled by a greedy and corrupt land baron, Denton Baxter (Michael Gambon), who hates free-rangers. Charley and Boss arrive in town only to find Mose severely beaten by Baxter's men and jailed by Sheriff Poole, whom Baxter "owns." It is soon revealed that many townspeople look past Baxter's greedy dealings and accept the situation, while others secretly harbor animosity and anger towards him.

Mose needs a doctor right away, so they find one after receiving a stern warning from Baxter regarding their free-ranging. The two of them find Doc Barlow (Dean McDermott), while Charley finds a love interest in the doc's sister, Sue Barlow (Annette Bening). Although at first he mistakens her for the doc's wife which results in some humorous interplay between Bening and Costner.

Baxter allowed the group to leave once, he doesn't intend on leaving the matter settled - joined with marshal Poole (James Russo), the two round up a group to finish off Boss and his men. After all, what he really wants is their herd. Boss and Charley are able to subdue some of the men but things don't go as planned after a death and a severe injury. The two face a difficult decision and eventually decide to go back into the town to seek medical help for Button and try to plan their next move.

Knowing that the inevitable showdown with Baxter and his men is looming, Charley and Boss gather themselves for the violent encounter. Leaving Button in the doctor's care, they enter town where during a flash flood consumes them and everyone around. Charley saves a townsperson's dog and the owner buys him and Boss some coffee. They learn more about the mixed feelings of the inhabitants of the town and who might possibly be able to help them. One of those fellas is a bearded old, hobble-legged coot named Percy (played by the late, great Michael Jeter) who runs a stable in town. He's an actor I've enjoyed since "The Fisher King" and I really liked him channeling the classic supporting actor role often seen in older westerns.

Before the final shootout, Boss and Charley go to a drugstore to spend their money on cigars and chocolate, reasoning that they might be unable to spend it later. Charley leaves money with a sympathetic townsperson to buy Sue a new tea set if he is killed. The showdown itself is an amazing cacophony of jarring gunfire with realistic ramifications. There's no crazy stunts or special effects here. With every shot fired you feel the pull-back and the smell of gunsmoke. It's a violent ballet of revenge and justice. most of the townspeople flee but the rest eventually chip in and help out Charley and Boss seeing it as their opportunity to finally stand up for what's right. After all the bloodshed, there's no rousing celebration just the dead and survivors left with decisions to either move on or rebuild.

This realism is not uncommon for modern-day westerns such as Eastwood's "Unforgiven" and the recent "Seraphim Falls", that have a morality tale to tell but spends little time romanticizing that tale. So, for those who relegate westerns to sprawling yarns where everyone looks nice, has poor aim and Indians are always the enemy....there have been and still are westerns with realism and purpose. The violence in this film is a depiction of how violent the west was. In the Old West, it wouldn't be an uncommon sight for someone to be walking down main street and BLAM! he's shot in the back or in the head and slumped to the dirt. The film doesn't just show violence for violence sake, it just shows how it would all go down in those adrenalized moments.

Costner and Duvall not only provide great work here, they were great together. Right away, I was interested in these characters and their interaction. Earlier when I hinted at the many factors that contribute to this being a masterpiece....Robert Duvall, so no more. The guy is just amazing. Anything he's in, I'll see it (even when he's Will Ferrell's soccer coach dad) and enjoy it, just cuz it's him. Here, he gives a decency and vulnerability to a character that has learned much from life. He wants to mind his own business and handle his herd but he will fight for what is his. I'll never know why he didn't get nominated for this. Probably cuz people saw Costner was attached and rolled their eyes and that's too bad cuz this is not a Costner film. Duvall owns this film in his most humble manner.

The story was adapted from a novel and doesn't really bring anything terribly new to the table in terms of the genre, although I've read reviews that it's actually better than the novel. As rare as that is, it's not too hard to imagine seeing as how much love Costner has for the genre. The writers provided subtle layers to characters and wind up turning a basic revenge tale into an intense and compelling picture. Many complained about the length of the film, something I initially did not notice. It's a minor issue to me, I've spent the same amount of time watching movies that were much worse. Because of James Muro's stunning cinematography, excellent production and costume design, the film is an example of a picture that appears to have cost twice as much as it did. The late Michael Kamen's score is also very enjoyable. The cast is fantastic together and the movie somehow takes a great deal of the old cliches from the genre and make it all wonderfully entertaining.

Dated but Far from Wilted

dj4our — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:27:00 GMT

CACTUS FLOWER (1969) ***

rated PG

1 hr. 44 min.

written by: I. A L Diamond, Abe Burrows (play "Cactus Flower"), Pierre Barillet & Jean-Pierre Gredy (play "Fleur de Cactus")

produced by: Mike Frankovich

directed by: Gene Saks

I happened upon this one the other night on television and was pleasantly surprised. I was fooling around with the free movies on my cable's free On Demand feature. I don't really go there that much for movies but on this particular Friday night, the selections were pretty dry. Not as dry as a cactus mind you (heh, sorry). Well, I saw that it was released in 1969 and it had Walter Matthew, an actor I just love and who's filmography I've been meaning to bone up on. I knew nothing about the film. The Turner Classic Movies guy came on before the film started and said something about how this was Goldie Hawn's debut feature film. Hmph. I hoped that her performance here was better than the majority of her work in the last coupla decades. I would see something fresh from her. I didn't even know about Ingrid Bergman was in it until I saw her name as the movie began. So, I was intrigued by this late night find from the start and found myself solidly entertained by this silly, well-written comedy.

Julian Winston (Matthau), is an easy-going, middle-aged bachelor dentist whose delicately balanced scheme crumbles under some unexpected circumstances. He's stringing along his dizzy blonde mistress, Toni Simmons (Hawn), by telling her he has a wife and children. When he learns that Toni has tried to commit suicide over him, however, he promises to marry her. Of course, he thinks that will resolve everything but it just snowballs more unforeseen drama, in typical fashion. Refusing to be a home-wrecker, toni is distraught and insists on meeting Winston's wife. He convinces his loyal and lovelorn nurse Stephanie Dickinson (Bergman) to help him get outta this dilemma by posing as his wife.

Stephanie refuses at first but once she follows through we not only see hilarity but also her character revealed. There plenty of typical twists, surprises and confusion for these three but it's Bergman who really carries the film. On Stephanie's unplanned journey out of her no-nonsense cocoon, Bergman simply glows with sweetness and confidence. At first, it seemed so odd seeing her in a late 1960's New York romp with Hawn and Matthau but then again I respected her all the more for it. It's clear that she is enjoying herself immensely, and it's infectious: as a viewer, it's impossible not to get drawn into the cheerful pandemonium of the movie. I regret to admit that his is only the second film I have seen Bergman in (I know. I know), the first being "Casablanca". Bergman is the type of actress who just got better as she aged. Not only is she beautiful but her talented range is apparent in the sheer variety of roles she took. I'm definitely going to work my through her filmography as well.

There are, of course, some other character s that get caught up in Julian's lies. He tries to hook Stephanie up with a boyfriend, using his actor-neighbor Harvey (Jack Weston) who is not just her total opposite but a buffoon. The other innocent bystanders is Toni's next-door neighbor, Igor Sullivan (Rick Lenz) a frustrated playwright and the only man closer to her age. Lenz is the other absolute joy to watch in this film. I never even heard of the guy and there he was with a delightful character. Looks like he did mostly television work after this which is too bad cuz he scenes really enliven the movie.

The film exudes a cheerful energy that might now be conceived as cornball but when you take it for the time it was made in, it's all for fun. It's evident that everybody (particularly Bergman) was having a good time making the film and that's always good to see. Nothing worse than seeing actors work in a movie where it look like just took a check. I found the film genuinely engaging from the very beginning where Toni is about to kill herself in her apartment to the setting up of a situation that we can't help but be interested in.

One gripe I have and it's something I absolutely detest of older movies is how the opening credits roll through everyone who worked on the film as the film has started. Nowadays, this is all done after the film and rightly so. Studios and directors have learned that it's distracted to the story and just plain off-putting. But that's really a minor gripe. Turns out I was right, the film was adapted from a Broadway production of the same name that starred Lauren Bacall as Stephanie. That play was actually inspired from the French play Fluer de Cactus. The film adaptation doesn't really lose the feeling that it could be a play, it has a low-key theatrical feeling to it that caters to the actors.

How was Hawn in her debut role? She was great! That's surprising to me cuz she generally annoys me. But here she makes Toni Simmons into a real person: perky, wide-eyed, innocent, and enthusiastic as a puppy, she brings an unassuming energy into all of her scenes. I couldn't believe that Hawn actually won a Best Supporting Oscar for the role! Wow. That shocked me even more than the film cuz it was equally Bergman who makes the movie. Most of Hawn's films from the 80's and on have come across to me as rather repetitious and somewhat annoying to me but it was great to see her fresh debut here.

The movie does sneak in a look at society's expectations of relationships. While it might have been something new to touch on May-December romances back in the late 60's, it seems kinda old news now. Still, it shows that the film is taking a modern outlook as it looks at and why it is usually acceptable for an older man to have a barely-21-year-old lover, but disgusting for an older woman to contemplate an affair with a younger man. Other terms like "old maid" and "eligible bachelor" are thrown around as well when we see Bergman caught in such stereotypical labeling. But a lesser actress delivering such pointed lines of social commentary surely would not have had the presence Bergman has as she gives substance and believability to a story's message. Like Bergman, the film has aged very well and I found it to be an enjoyable, funny, energetic, and well-made comedy.