erico_77375 Blog

Berg Rocks This Kingdom To It's Core

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

Under discussion:

The Kingdom (2007)

In our fourth year in Iraq, almost six years after 9/11, we have learned more about the Middle East than ever before, and yet we’ve only scratched the surface. The movies that have come out about these predominately Islamic states have painted a harsh look on these countries, from their rugged climates to their strict religious codes that make most Christian groups look like hippies. In a time where our two cultures are colliding in what most people want to think is a winner-take-all scenario; a movie like the Kingdom seems almost naive. And for the most part, I would agree, but not for the reasons most would use. And yet I find myself comforted by this movie in ways that might baffle most people.

The Kingdom in question is Saudi Arabia. The best part of the film is the opening credits where we are told the history of this country from the 30’s to September 11, 2001. This sets us up with an understanding of how the relationship between the US and the Saudis is one of a love-hate variety. We watch a terrorist double-whammy take place where American workers live while working for oil companies. A single bomber starts off what would be a much bigger attack during the confusion of ambulances and military. This attack makes the news and an FBI team lead by Ronald Fleury (Jaime Foxx) wants to get involved in the investigation. Big problem: The Saudi government doesn’t like American intervention in their affairs. But that doesn’t stop Fleury from blackmailing the Saudi ambassador to getting the approval to go. This, of course is behind the Attorney General’s (Danny Huston in a decent cameo) back. But getting to go was the easy part, the hard part begins when they get there only to find that the Saudi Military have placed them with Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom). He’s that one good cop who believes that detective work is much more effective than torture (which is why he’s babysitting this FBI team).

The movie ultimately has three acts; the first act deals with how the team (with also stars Jennifer Garner, Chris Cooper, and Jason Bateman) gets to work around the bureaucracy to be allowed to investigate. The second act is the actual investigation, where they find out who did it and how. And then, after a red herring (that anyone who has seen Silence of the Lambs can tell is a herring), the last 25 minutes is entirely action-packed. I would have been offended by the final act if it weren’t so well done. To be honest, it relegates everything we’ve experienced earlier to merely a filler to get to this point. What was a movie about two different cultures and how they solve a crime immediately becomes just another action movie. And with that said, this is one of the best gunfights this year.

But let’s talk about the first two acts. Yes, it’s your basic police procedural, but it also has some great moments when we get to know Al Ghazi as a character. He’s not really happy about the FBI coming involved, but his government won’t allow him to do his job (which we somewhat suspect they might be intentionally trying to blunder). He’s that character that believes in right and wrong, and isn’t afraid of standing up for those values. We find ourselves rooting for him most of the time because he’s the one character that we really get to know. The FBI team is seen as cogs in the machine of justice with only a couple of scenes where Fleury is talking to his son (and that feels forced just a little). The screenplay by Matthew Michael Carnahan seems to express more than what is seen, which leads me to think that a good chunk of his story was altered or taken out of the final product.

Director Peter Berg has made a movie that is entertaining, but seems to be insisting that it’s more than it really is; an action thriller. It seems that he was wanting to blend the good times of The Rundown with the more humble and thought-provoking Friday Night Lights into a movie that really shouldn’t have it both ways. And yet the movie does work and more effectively than it should have. But is that a credit to Berg as a director, or was he an obstacle to his own film’s success?

All in all, most people are going to enjoy this film’s action. And why not, since one of the film’s producer is Michael Mann (of Heat and Miami Vice for those who don’t know). And yet those who are looking for more might be disappointed. And why not, since terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism are very topical without the Hollywood shootout. But either way you want this movie to be, you will be holding on tight to the very end.

Posted Friday, September 28, 2007 3:05 AM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

As I Walk In The Valley, I Shall Not Fear

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

Under discussion:

In the Valley of Elah (2007)

A few weeks back, my colleague Cesar Villalta and I discussed war movies on our weekly podcast FilmScope (which you can find on iTunes if you care to listen). We were discussing how each war has been portrayed in a different way with a different context. World War II was seen as a hero’s war, with most of the films prior to Saving Private Ryan being very much objective-based. Vietnam was more of a rite-of-passage war movie, like Platoon, where a character saw harsh realities and accepts the gray tint outside the black and white views of the country they are fighting for. Now we have the Iraqi occupation, a link in the chain of the “War on Terror”. What kind of films would be spawned from this conflict where soldiers are fighting an enemy that blends into the crowds, where coming home is a pit stop only to be shipped back out again, where frustration and madness blends into an alloy where morality rarely has much say when the basic need for survival comes to a head.

That’s why Paul Haggis’ In The Valley Of Elah is the face of the new war movie. This is a film that takes place at home, but where the battlefield is rarely seen only out of the frame. The film stars Tommy Lee Jones as Hank Deerfield, a gravel-hauler whose son has just returned from a tour in Iraq. He has gone AWOL and Hank decides to go look for him. He used to be an MP and once back into that world again, his mannerisms come out. He makes his bed the Army way, walks a little stiffer and talks a little more authoritive. He smuggles his son’s camera phone out of his room, but the heat of Iraq has messed it up a little. He gets a local tech to pull some of the video off. He enlists a local police detective (Charlize Theron) in his search, but she’s reluctant to help. She’s not a great detective, nor are her fellow detectives who wipe their feet of a crime scene the moment someone else takes over the case. But she’s despised by her fellow detectives because of how she got her job.

So when the boy’s body is found butchered and burned, Hank is determined to find out what happens. He finally convinces the detective to help when he shows her just how bad a job they did in the investigation. But they are by no means friendly to each other, but they do earn each other’s respect that leads to Hank telling her little boy the story of David and Goliath as a bedtime story.

The film does solve the crime, but that’s merely a means to an end. In The Valley Of Elah is more interested in characters and mannerisms. It wants us to understand each side of the subject, even from the killers. The film does involve a military cover-up, but not for anything so nefarious. We understand if we do not agree with their assessment. The film does involve a cranky old man as our protagonist who might have pushed his son too far, but we never believe that he did so maliciously. These are flawed human beings, but we understand them. These are flawed institutions, but they are trying to do the right thing. The reason behind the killing might not make sense, nor should it. But the characters understand their motives, and that’s all we need to know.

I have always respected Tommy Lee Jones as an actor, but never have I seen him do so much using so little. In fact, that’s really the reason he’s perfect for this character. This character is stoic but not heartless. He’s crass and rude at times and there are times that you don’t like him. But Jones isn’t playing him for your approval; he’s playing him as a human being who’s had a life before this movie started. That’s really refreshing after a movie like Premonition where I swore this woman was born the day the movie started. I also loved how Charlize Theron put in the same consideration with her character. She isn’t a sweet earnest policewoman like we see in other movies. She’s tired, frustrated, and angry. She is petty at times, but she has the capacity to be better. This film also has another worthy performance from Susan Sarandon as Hank’s wife. The scene where she sees the remains of her son is one of the film’s most powerful scenes.

But the real power behind this drama is Paul Haggis, whose sophomore directing gig is much better than his first (the also brilliant Crash). With this film, he is more patient, allowing scenes to build. He has taken this true-crime story from an article in Playboy and quite possibly made it the definitive film concerning Iraq. When Hank is told that his son harassed a stripper, he demands, “You’re talking about the wrong boy.” The boy he knew before the war had become someone else. And his final shot of the film might be considered controversial, but he waits for the right moment to present his final comment on the events.

This leads me to talk about the director of photography, Roger Deakins. His work with the Cohen brothers is legendary and has also worked on films like Jarhead. In this film, he mutes the colors in places and stresses lighting in others. This isn’t flashy like some other movies, but emphasizes the tones and moods of the story. His next film is back with the Cohens in No Country For Old Men, a film that I am excited about seeing that also stars Tommy Lee Jones.

All in all, this is a film that looks at the America that watches its soldiers come home tattered and torn not only physically but emotionally as well. Haggis decides not to lay blame, though no doubt people will not see it that way. It’s still amazing to me how people are apt to slander a films intention if it doesn’t portray the military in a shining light. It is that simplicity that this film is ultimately trying to combat. And that's really what Iraq war movies are going to be about.

Posted Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:47 PM by erico_77375 | with 1 comments

America's Next Pixeled Simian Champion

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

Under discussion:

The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)

There is something strangely familiar when it comes to the war between Billy Mitchell and Steve Weibe. Perhaps it’s because I used to be a chronic gamer and had known guys who lived, breathed, and worshiped classic games. But I honestly think that gaming has very little to do with this feud. It’s quite amazing how people will act when their place in history (albeit minor footnote) is threatened. And this documentary shows us how humanity’s need to leave an imprint will impair our general nature.

It is shown early on that Billy Mitchell during the early 80s had obtained the best gamer in history through his many top scores in games such as Centipede, Pac-Man, and Donkey Kong. We are told that Donkey Kong is the most difficult game in history, which most people don’t even last a minute, not to mention getting past the first screen. This is a thing of pride for Billy, possibly his most personal achievement, after which he had gone off to make his fortune on barbeque sauce and becoming a kind of gaming ambassador to the world. His scores are recorded in the halls of Twin Galaxies, the company that holds the records for all classic gaming scores. He is a leading referee alongside founder Walter Day, who seems to have a joy for all things good about gaming.

But out of the mists of Washington State comes Weibe (pronounced Wee-Bee), a science teacher who has constantly been second place in everything he’s ever taken part in. His life has been one near-success after another. So when he was fired from Boeing (and before taking the teaching gig), he bought a Donkey Kong arcade and started playing constantly (something that his wife tries to reign in, but only so much). And one day, he does it! He beats Billy’s score. He becomes a local celebrity and can finally put the game away. Not if Billy has anything to say about it. He sends his protégé (and lackey) to “inspect” Steve’s machine while he was away. They find that one of Billy’s oldest rivals had sent Steve a component for his machine and without actually testing it, nulls Steve’s score. Steve, coaxed by friends, decides to go to the Mecca of gaming to challenge Billy one on one. And just when he does the impossible (in front of a packed crowd no less), Billy pulls one of the most devastating fast ones that I have ever seen, and one of the most questionable ever. And if you think that’s the end of this sordid affair, think again.

It would be too simple to call Billy a rotten scoundrel (though the film does want to make that argument). There is no doubt that he is a jerk and a bit of a hypocrite, but far from villainry if I may say so. We have to admit that we understand why he does what he does, considering that his miniscule place in history (which he does blow out of distortion) is being threatened. Now a better man would be openly excited about having real competition, but how many people could say that they are? Does this excuse his behavior when it comes to meeting Steve’s challenge later in the movie? Not at all. But in not being the better sport, he left himself open to being demonized both by the movie and by the community he pioneered. That the effort put in by Steve to make it where he was brought more admiration to him, something that means more than the score itself.

This is one great documentary that tackles the issues outside of its subject, but without forgetting what it’s subject is. True, we learn a lot more about gaming and the physics of gaming, but we also learn about sportsmanship, the obsessions that have many people daring to do the craziest things for a place in history, and the even crazier things people do to KEEP their place in history. We can talk about the pettiness of Billy’s lackeys who talk about how they don’t mind who gets the score, yet you can tell that Steve’s success would mean a bigger defeat than Billy’s. In the end, Walter Day is the most honorable amongst the gamers, since he seems to be joyful no matter the outcome. And Steve’s wife is the most patient and caring woman on the planet to put up with Steve’s obsession to this meager title. In fact, I would love to see a small documentary called The Queen of Kong all about her.

But I think it’s interesting how American this story is. The underdog tale is one that America was built on. But even more interesting is how Billy flaunts his “American Dream” even to his screen name (USA). And yet it is Steve that comes off more of the idealistic American, the one that is perhaps a little clumsy but really has the heart to go the distance.

Director Seth Gordon is very talented in how he produced and storied out this tale. True, he forced a little more villainry on Billy than was needed, but I assume he felt he needed to make Steve’s journey more epic. I loved how nerdy his movie is, with its subjects talking in epic monologues about the most obscure things. I love the geeky music that comes from The Karate Kid and Rocky movies (if you’re not laughing at his use of “You’re The Best Around”, something is wrong with you). Even the cheap look of the photography is another brilliant stroke since the movie, like it’s subjects; aim to be more than it really is. That the filmmaker himself is striving for success of his own.

All in all, I love this documentary. It’s not one of the year’s best films, but it’s one that I cannot recommend lightly to all my friends, whether nerdy or not. Although nerds might be more entertained than their lesser brethren. It’s been said that many people thought this movie wasn’t real. The thing is if it weren’t, I wouldn’t have believed it.

Posted Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:25 PM by erico_77375 | with 1 comments

Eastern Promises Are Kept

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

Under discussion:

Eastern Promises (2007)

I went to Eastern Promises with a good friend of mine, along with our respected girlfriends. As we waited for the show to start, we started talking about David Cronenberg, his movies, and what we were expecting. That was when my friend’s girlfriend mentioned that she thought The Fly (one of my favorites) to be “wet, violent, and creepy.” In a way, that could be said of ALL of Cronenberg’s films, doubly said for his current one. And yet I found myself not only entranced by the film’s unique environment, but by the way the characters related to each other and how they saw themselves. In that matter, Cronenberg has actually ascended to a new level of storytelling along with screenwriter Steven Knight.

Eastern Promises is set in the London that Richard Curtis knows nothing about. It’s full of rain-filled alleys, dark corridors and Russians everywhere. The movie starts with two actions that seem unconnected; a bloody murder of a Russian mobster and the death of a pregnant 14-year-old prostitute. The midwife who helped to deliver the baby in time, Anna (played by Naomi Watts), takes an immediate liking to the baby. We find out she lost hers very recently. She decides to try to find the next-of-kin, and her only clue is a diary that the girl had with her. Inside that diary is a card for a Russian eatery ran by Semyon (Shine’s Armin Mueller-Stahl), who we immediately feel is more dangerous than he appears. He isn’t interested in the dead girl who might have worked for him until he knows about the diary, which he opens up his services to translate. But Anna isn’t fooled by the gesture; she opts to have her Russian uncle translate it for her.

In the midst of this are Semyon’s son Kirill (Vincent Cassell) and his driver Nikolai (Viggo Mortensen). Kirill is a violent hothead that is far from the apple of his father’s eye. Nikolai seems to be more a babysitter than anything else, cleaning up after the messes made. Nikolai takes a liking to Anna, although Anna doesn’t seem to have a thing for gangsters. But as the dairy gets translated, and we find the connections between the baby and the mob, she finds that he might be her closest ally or her most dreaded enemy. And the more we know about this man, we find ourselves even more mystified by him, even after a major revelation that comforts some, but doesn’t comfort me.

Bt as much as this is a movie about story, it’s even more about characters. Eastern Promises has some of the most dangerous characters I have seen in the movies this year, and not entirely because of their capacity of violence, but in the calm way they instill the threat of violence. In that case Semyon is the most dangerous man in the movie. His offer to translate the diary to anyone in his circle might seem noble, but outside of this small world, we wouldn’t buy it. Look at the scene where he sets up one of his own to be butchered. Even Tony Soprano would be jealous. Kirill is dangerous in only because he has no control over his impulses. On top of that, he might be dealing with a sexual matter that has him forcing his men to do things as means of transference. When blood is spilt, it’s neither, quick or slick. Each death requires effort and resistance, which makes the infamous bathhouse scene infamous.

Something needs to be said about the wonderful cast of this film. I love how Naomi Watts plays her character not so much innocent as she is yearning. She wants the baby for herself, but feels compelled to do the right thing. I love how Cassell takes his part and refuses to make this guy too villainous as much as he is childish. But when it comes to acting, we have to give it up to Armin Mueller-Stahl and Viggo Mortensen, both I feel might be looking at Oscar nominations. As Semyon, Mr. Mueller-Stahl really does make the dual nature of his character really come out. In no means do we think he’s a good man, but he feels comfortable in his role of dispensing life or death to others and sees it as justified. And Mortensen just disappears in his role. He talks in a fluent Russian that makes you think about his origins. I love how he moves and talks with an authority that would come with a man like this. He has that steel gray look that worked well for Tom Cruise in Collateral. And when we see those tattoos on his body, we are genuinely creeped out.

Writer Steven Knight had written another movie about the London underclass called Dirty Pretty Things that I didn’t entirely like but respected. That movie dealt with illegal immigrants in London trying to make their way in a city that swallows them whole. In this film, the script is much tighter; much more character-based and really gave us some intense moments. Knitted to David Cronenberg’s filmmaking style, it’s easy to see how it matches. Cronenberg’s A History of Violence was great, if not a little uneven. Here, he’s fixed the kinks, allowed for some truly remarkable casting and location uses, and gives us a movie that feels complete. By the time we get to the end, we feel full, needing no more of these characters or of this story. And does this movie ever feel wet, violent, and creepy? Sardonically, I smile to myself just thinking back on it.

All in all, this easily one of the finest films from a great filmmaker. It is a mobster story that doesn’t feel like the mobster stories that we’ve heard. Nor does it end with thirty seconds of black screen.

Posted Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:24 PM by erico_77375 | with 1 comments

This Brave Has Weak Character

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

Under discussion:

The Brave One (2007)

Coming out of The Brave One, I wondered what it was about the movie that went wrong for it to be as bad as it was. I understood that there was a lot that didn’t work in it, but I found myself almost loathing the film, much more than I really wanted to. Some of it I feel comes from Jodie Foster, whom I think is a great actress, but I feel comes off as arrogant when choosing roles that make her out to be a heroine, as this movie does incestuously. Some of it comes from director Neil Jordan, whom I can almost feel the money falling into his pocket as he took this picture. Maybe felt that he could turn this movie into something, and there a fleeting moment when I felt that he was before the movie wallowed back into it’s self-aggrandizing once more.

The movie starts us off with Erica Bane (Foster playing a character where the last name means something about the character). She’s a radio DJ for a show that I’m surprised gets 5 listeners as she replays sounds of the city on the radio (which leaves me asking if anyone out on the street can even hear the show). She has the uber-perfect life with a younger boyfriend (Lost’s Naveen Andrews), the great apartment, and even a loving dog. One night they go through Stranger’s Gate (Haha) in Central Park, oblivious to something even us non-New Yorkers know about that park. And low and behold, they are mugged, boyfriend dead, dog stolen, and Erica in a coma. She comes out of it in three weeks, and feels threatened in what she believes is the safest big city in the world. She buys a gun to feel safe again (and of course she can’t do it legally). And one night very soon, she comes into a situation where her life is threatened and she uses the gun. Afterwards, she realizes she likes the feeling of the gun in her hand, the killing of people she deems bad. So she starts stalking the night Death Wish-style. Her vigilante justice puts Detective Mercer (Terrence Howard) on her case. One of her crimes, she comes back to the scene when Mercer notices her and they start a friendship that might become more. But he’s also not a fool and starts suspecting her. In one of the rare great moments, he tips his hand in a means of giving her a chance to stop. She refuses, and on the contrary, decides to go after the men responsible for her boyfriend’s death. The ending, which makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER, is so stupid and inept, I felt numb coming out of the movie.

Coming out of this movie, I felt that this was the female equivalent to Knocked Up. Where that movie was a male fantasy of getting the hot lady, this was a female fantasy about a woman who is trying to feel secure in a world out to crush them. But this character doesn’t get my sympathy after she starts looking for trouble. There is a line between victim and victimizer. That this character doesn’t see how one murder has repercussions to others, not just to the deceased is plain irresponsible. We are supposed to feel that justice is ineffective and uncaring, but does that justify this character’s need to kill? In the case of Taxi Driver’s Travis Bickle, we are compelled because he didn’t care what we thought about him. The Brave One wants us to find sympathy for Erica, which I cannot give.

Back on Jodie Foster, I remembered something she said in her commentary for The Silence of the Lambs DVD (Criterion Collection release). She states that she wants to play parts with strong female characters. What did she see in Erica Bain that had her seeking to make this? If she was seeking to make an antihero on the same level as that of her overzealous savior in Taxi Driver, she tried too hard to gain our acceptance. If she was seeking to create a strong female hero, she tried failed to make us care for her. Terrence Howard, a great actor worthy of much better material, seems to be out of step in this movie if only because the character he’s up against doesn’t engage either a sense of threat or sense of need. His character is too centralized to be an obstruction and too moral to be an ally. That makes the ending even more stupefying.

Director Neil Jordan has made great movies about people with guns, either how they deal with the presence of guns or how guns influence people and situations. And for the slightest moment, I felt that he was going to be tackling this issue with an interesting antihero, but alas I was wrong. He does some of his technical tricks that seem out of place in this kind of movie. But then, I don’t think that the movie turned out the way he wanted it to.

All in all, I hate this movie in profound ways that I cannot hate worse films due to lack of vision. This movie has vision, but fails to understand it. And it is in that failure that I find myself disappointed. The Brave One isn’t that which takes the fight to her enemies. It is the one who is able to embrace life after tragedy strikes

Posted Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:23 PM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

Oslo Might Not Have Sand and Sun, But It Still Works

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

Under discussion:

Hawaii, Oslo (2004)

There’s something magical about multiple narratives that makes it one of the most intriguing ways to tell a story. From the time George Lucas used it in his teen classic American Graffiti to it’s perfection under Robert Altman in his classics Nashville and Short Cuts, multiple narratives are a way to identify with characters and feel that we are looking inside a complex world with many different perspectives going on at the same time. Now it seems that it’s becoming more of a sub-genre than a storytelling technique with Magnolia and Crash, among a plethora of knock-offs from many different countries.

Hawaii, Oslo from Norway isn’t a knock-off so to say, since it uses the technique as a means to propel the story instead of becoming a gimmick. Set in a 24 hour period, we follow nine characters as they understand more about themselves and how the play in the bigger picture. We meet pretty much everybody in the beginning when a mental asylum caretaker named Vidar (Trond Espen Seim) dreams the accidental death of one of his patients Leon (Jan Gunnar Roise) by being run over by an ambulance. Two things we need to know right now: 1) Leon is capable of leaving his room through an open window and 2) Vidar is capable of dreaming the future, though these dream states are apnea-inhibiting making him feel like he’s never slept. Also involved in this day is Frode (Stig Henrik Hoff) whose wife has just had their first baby, which becomes a nightmare when they’re told that the child doesn’t have long to live. There’s an experimental cure, but it would cost almost a million to perform it. We also have Leon’s brother who has been in prison for four years and is getting a furlough to enjoy his brother’s birthday, not understanding that his brother already has plans with a childhood sweetheart back in town for a very special meeting.

During the course of the day, characters run into each other as we realize how they connect with one another. But they also come to terms with who they are as people. Sometimes these encounters among people are helpful, sometimes they’re dangerous. One of the most dangerous is Leon’s brother, whom we feel is being underestimated by the guards when we first meet him. When he does get away from his chaperone, we’re not entirely surprised. We’re not surprised that he would want to kidnap his brother and prepare to bolt for Hawaii. Though I was incredibly surprised that he would boldly rob a bank in broad daylight just hours after fleeing. He’s capable of taking down everybody he cares about just by being near him or her, and yet he fails to see that connection. Leon himself isn’t a big fan of his brother, opting to go to a completely different Hawaii to meet his childhood love (this one is a bar).

I really don’t know how to describe Hawaii, Oslo since it’s not bad, but not all that great. It’s not lazy, but it lacks inspiration. There are times that I loved the movie (I deeply enjoyed the Frode character and all the situations he got in), and there are times I just felt like I’m being put-on (like the two boys in the movie that are living on their own after their dad dies). But put it this way: What is the movie trying to say? Nashville was about the people and town. Magnolia is about the past and how it correlates with the future. This movie might almost be about accepting who you are, except that no one really does in the end. It understands the formula in multiple narratives, but it doesn’t understand what makes this choice powerful.

Overall, the acting was decent, but not really noteworthy, except for Stig Henrik Hoff as Frode. He makes his man come alive, constantly afraid of losing his son (something tells me that having children is very difficult for him). I love how he constantly keeps allowing himself to be tempted into doing something stupid. His wife just wants him to accept their son’s fate and stay by her side. Eventually, he finds himself in a bank in an unusual outfit and we know what he’s thinking. By that point, another event occurs that acts as a reprieve. I love how Hoff takes that moment and makes about being thankful that temptation was removed.

Director Erik Poppe is a steady director, but he really needs to flesh out exposition of his characters a little better. I’m still not certain as to why Leon was in that asylum. His final shot is truly masterful, though I feel it was a little self-conscious. And I really don’t get what Hawaii has to do with anything (or just why there are two Hawaii in this film). But as a director, Poppe skips between the late night droll and the not-nearly-irony as characters meet up with each other. His direction, like the rest of the movie, is not entirely bad, but far from what is to be expected.

All in all, I will recommend Hawaii, Oslo because the movie does have some great moments and you will find yourself interested in how the story ends. When you’re finished, you’ll either feel you’ve been had or that you’ve gotten what you should have expected. Either way, you’ll see the ghost of Robert Altman in the wings, smiling and frowning at the same time. But getting a smile from Altman is still a pretty big deal.

Posted Tuesday, September 11, 2007 5:27 AM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments