erico_77375 Blog

Babies Are Made With Sugar And Spice And Orange Tic-Tacs

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

Under discussion:

Juno (2007)

What is it with all these baby movies all of a sudden? Between Knocked Up and Waitress, we’ve seen both male and female perspectives on pregnancy. August Rush is looking for his parents who don’t even know he exists (I’m not kidding). And now we have the best baby film this year in Juno, director Jason Reitman’s sophomore film after his amazing Thank You For Smoking. This time, he’s gone from razor-sharp satire to razor-sharp coming of age story with one of cinema’s most charismatic heroines in recent history with the only actress who could pull this part off.

That character’s name is Juno MacGuff and she is played by Ellen Page, most notably seen in 2005's Hard Candy. She’s sixteen, quick-witted, and just found out she’s pregnant. The boy involved (I won’t say he did it to her since we find out quickly she initiated) is the shy but cute Paulie Bleaker (Michael Cera). He’s a track runner in school who has two vices: Juno and orange Tic-Tacs. When she finds out, her first thought is abortion, but a combination of pie-flavored condoms and baby’s fingernails force her to back out (you have to see it to believe it). But now the real problem begins: what to do with the baby?
And like the I-Ching it is, the answer lies in the Penny-Saver. Juno finds an ad for a couple looking for a child to adopt. She tells her father and stepmother (The irreplaceable J.K. Simmons and Allison Janney), who takes the matter seriously, but they also take it in stride (“You’ll know I’ll stand beside through anything…apparently.”). Juno assures them she has found a solution.

They are Mark and Vanessa (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner), a well-to-do couple who lives in a suburb where Vanessa has been dedicating preparing the perfect house for a new child. Mark constantly looks as though the word baby would devour him whole. When Juno enters into the equation, she finds a kindred spirit in Mark, who used to be a rocker but now composes commercials. They argue about music and horror movies. We can tell that Juno is being irresponsible towards the couple and Mark is starting to crack under the pressure of the idea of being a father.

The film is devilishly inventive, incredibly smart, and strikingly original. Pregnancy movies usually revolve around the couple growing up. But Juno is not keeping the baby and the film never makes the mistake of making this a decision. But in her situation, her ideas of relationships are challenged and mended. We are seeing everything from Juno’s obscured perspective, giving everything a sharper edge to it. A great scene to see this is when she notices the track boys running by. Yes, it is crude, but that’s Juno. She narrates, but not in the usual sense. We are in her mind, so we’re going to hear her thoughts about the events going on.

A lot of credit must go to first-time scribe Diablo Cody, whose characters are memorable in their plainness. Her dialogue is sharp yet heartfelt. We don’t laugh at characters, but with them. There’s no villains here, no obligatory scenes for the sake of following a formula. Characters are very complex. None other than Juno herself, who is both incredibly smart incredibly stupid at the same time. But I also love how the screenplay respects the supporting characters, allowing them to be honest and real. Yes the dialogue is snappy, but remember that we’re seeing everything from Juno’s perspective and how she hears people talk. Ms. Cody’s screenplay has Oscar written all over it.

But the words can only be brought to harmony with the right actors in the parts. And this film is cast superbly. I just love watching JK Simmons and Allison Janney as Juno’s parents. The tiny mannerisms that Ms. Janney brings when she’s happy or upset that complete what the dialogue starts. Simmons, who was also in Director Jason Reitman’s Thank You For Smoking, again does his rapid-fire, scene-stealing thing that feels like improv, only better. Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner give their best film performance to date as a couple that seems perfect until you start digging a little deeper. Bateman, who is a master at the understatement, uses that to make his character. Garner goes completely against type in playing the guarded perfectionist Vanessa. Michael Cera again plays the shy sweet guy that’s becoming his foray, but this time he puts in a deeper reserve of yearning that isn’t very noticeable but in a few scenes but you can tell they’ve always been there. But the performance to beat this Oscar season is Ellen Page. This complex character in a sea of complex characters is the reason to see this amazing film, and Ms. Page really pulls off the best performance I have seen this year.

Jason Reitman in only two films has shown to be a better filmmaker than his father, the legendary Ivan Reitman of Ghostbusters fame. He allows his characters to be complex and real, not playing towards the laughs but allows the comedy to find it’s way to the story. His film feels independent, which is what this film needed. Reitman’s skill isn’t in amazing shots, but in pacing, structure and getting unforgettable performances out of his actors. And in only that do I feel that he’s going to have a long and fruitful career.

All in all, I love this film, but could I not? And I would have to ask the same of anybody who has also seen it. And who would have thought that a film about an unplanned teenage pregnancy would not only make you feel good coming out, but to make you think about the value of friends, family, and life? To know Juno McGraw is to love her. I implore everybody I can; meet Juno McGraw.

Posted Tuesday, December 04, 2007 7:23 AM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

A Movie To Leave You Bored For The Holidays

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

Under discussion:

Fred Claus (2007)

What is wrong with this picture: Vince Vaughn and Paul Giamatti in a family film about Santa Claus and his older, meaner brother, Fred? Well, you take out the family part of the sentence, make Neil LaButte the screenwriter and you’ve got something. But add in elves, the director of Wedding Crashers, and more pratfalls than a Charlie Chaplin film, now you have a recipe for disaster. And that is what Fred Claus is.

The movie starts off with one of the worst openings ever. It is the 16th Century. We find out that the arrival of Nicholas to the Claus family has made life hard for his older brother Fred. Their mother (Kathy Bates) from the start shows favor towards her younger “perfect” son. And then Nick becomes a saint, which comes with a clause (har-har) of it’s own that they come with immortality, but not just him, his entire family as well. Does this play at all into the rest of the film? Do we ever get a joke about Christmas during the Revolution? Nope.

We’re suddenly brought to present-day Chicago where Fred is now Vince Vaughn and he’s a Repo guy with dreams of becoming a bookie. The best scene in the film comes when he squares off with a little girl on how her belief in Santa could destroy her life. But when a ridiculous scheme gets him involved in a 100 Sidewalk Santa Brawl, he’s put behind bars. To get him out of trouble, he calls his little brother Santa (now Giamatti) to get him out. But Santa has decided to take the initiative and use this to help get his brother squared around. He brings him up north to help with the holiday. But this laurel leaf is quickly put the test when Fred starts causing trouble for the elves, letting his mouth get the best of him, and general smart-alleck behavior. And this year, Santa doesn’t have a lot of room available to shenanigans when an efficiency expert (Kevin Spacey) is brought in to shut down the joint. By Fred’s side is Santa’s top elf (John Michael Higgins getting the hobbit treatment) and on his mind is his on-again-off-again girlfriend (Rachel Weitz) as he bumbles his way into saving Christmas.

I have to wonder if Fred Claus was meant to be something more adult like Bad Santa only good. If you look at the core dynamics of what the characters represent, the actors in those parts, I’m starting to see drastic changes being made to make it a generic holiday movie that’s more about goofy pratfalls than verbal wit. There’s a scene that was begging to be in the movie after Santa puts Fred in charge of Naughty and Nice. It would have Fred defending his decision to Nice a bad kid (“The other kid had it coming…”). There are some scenes which should have worked but don’t like in-joke called Sibling’s Anonymous. As if any kid is going to know whom Frank Stallone is.

Again, whoever cast this movie was looking at the wrong script. Here you have some of the most edgy actors in film today basically playing with the kiddies. What’s next: the cast of Jackass performing A Christmas Carol? The reason you get Vince Vaughn is for his mouth. When he’s talking, he’s great! The problem is that the film doesn’t have him talking so much as he is taking pratfalls. Giamatti just cannot play one-dimensional characters and watching him do so is painful to watch. And then there are the supporting actors like Rachel Weitz, who really doesn’t even belong in the feature, not to mention the great misuse of Kathy Bates.

Did I mention that I hated the first fifteen minutes? Director David Dobkin has always had a problem with prioritizing what matters in the films he creates. This is no exception. I’m getting really tired with directors who think anything can be funny if you put some sort of prop or silly action into it. He again misuses his resources and comes to the wrong conclusion as to what his movie is about. But I don’t think he makes movies to be thoughtful or smart. He thinks the same fart joke is funny the hundredth time around. Unfortunately, enough people go to see the movie that they let him make another fart joke.

All in all, this is nothing more than just another holiday flick meant to make a little money and do nothing more. I would have to say that if you can’t find a better holiday movie this year, you’re not looking hard enough.

Posted Friday, November 30, 2007 1:36 AM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

Bee Movie Nearly Put Me To Zzzz

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

Under discussion:

Bee Movie (2007)

I don’t know exactly what to think of Bee Movie, but then again, I don’t think the movie knows either. Written by Jerry Seinfeld, animated by Dreamworks, the movie seems to have serious potential, but only minutes into the film, the flaws become clear.

This is the story of Barry B. Benson, who is a bee if you can’t tell by now and is voiced by Mr. Seinfeld. He’s just graduated Bee College and is about to be placed in his permanent job in the hive where he will stay forever. But Barry, like Benjamin Braddock before him, isn’t so sure that plastics…sorry, honey is in his future. But one day he takes up a dare laid down by a “pollen jock” and decides to leave the hive. His little day trip takes a detour when a tennis ball, a rainstorm and a leather boot puts him in the house of a young florist (Rene Zellweger). By the way, bees can really talk, but they don’t around humans. They spark a friendship that sometimes feels eerily like a relationship. But then Barry finds out that humans are selling honey. Outraged, he decides to sue to put a kibosh on this operation and decides to sue on behalf of all bees.

Throughout the entire feature, I found myself asking whom is this movie really trying to entertain? I knew it couldn’t be the kids when one little girl around five said what everyone else felt during the movie: “No Fun!!!” The problem with the story is that most of the jokes are in witticisms targeted more towards adults that there’s very little that kids will like. Yes, it’s pretty though a distant cousin to Ratatouille. I do appreciate some of the movie, such as a mosquito voiced by Chris Rock. I enjoyed how they made the link between bees and the environment that is told with urgency but without making any political statements. But that doesn’t excuse the meandering, the lack of true sophistication and well-conceived characters.

Dreamworks Animation has been on a rapid decline since the second Shrek film and this year has already given us the lackluster Shrek the Third. Why do they think they need to have so much pop-culture in their films? Why won’t they give up the ghost and try something different? I remember their first animated film with admiration, Antz. That was really the much-better retelling of what Bee Movie is going for. Not only does Bee Movie sport a dull story, but the animation is so incredibly lame that it makes me wonder how on earth did it cost $150 to make?

All in all, this movie is going to have families flocking to it no matter how much I tell them not to. Some kids will like it because it’s animated and won’t realize until too late that there’s better stuff out there. Although a little girl did encourage me to hope, and I wonder if I just heard the next great critic.

Posted Friday, November 30, 2007 1:16 AM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

This Black Book Is Worth A Peek

1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]

Under discussion:

Black Book (2006)

What can I say; Paul Verhooven has proven me wrong. How, you may ask? Because he’s probably the only director with enough guts to make this kind of film. And in doing so has shown that he commands cinema like a fierce conductor; without fear or limit. I had to remind myself that this is the man behind Basic Instinct, Hollow Man, and Showgirls. He has also done RoboCop, Total Recall, and The 4th Victim, which were not bad. But nothing prepared me for Black Book, an absolutely brilliant film that dares us to hold on for dear life and gives us a story that challenges as well as entertains.

The film starts off in the 50s in a small town in Israel. A bus full of Dutch tourists stop for a quick spell. A woman from that group recognizes a woman who lives there. It turns out they knew each other from The War. The rest of the film is in flashback to the war, but this scene is important for several reasons, the biggest is to assure the audience that no matter what happens in the film, these two women will survive. That is something that we’ll need to know later on.

Then we are taken back to 1945, it’s near the end of the war and Holland’s Jews are holding their breaths waiting for word about the Allies. Amongst those is Rachel played by Carice van Houten. She’s the daughter of a rich Jew who has taken up residence in a house full of Christians. To eat, she has to memorize a verse from the bible. She tries to keep her neck down and not cause attention to be drawn on her. But when a stray bomb kills the family she is staying with, she is forced into making a run for it. Her family’s lawyer sets her and her family up to be taken to neutral territory, but are discovered enroute. The boat’s cargo are all killed, except for her. She slips off the boat and watches as the Nazis plunder the dead Jews. Infuriated, she decides to join a radical resistance movement whose intent is to infiltrate the Nazi headquarters. During a standard mission, Rachel finds herself cornered with the Nazi commander himself. Not knowing she’s a Jew, he starts hitting on her. When the resistance sees an opportunity in this, they order her to be his mistress in order to but the headquarters. She does so, but in the process, she finds herself starting to become attracted to him. But when circumstances has some of her comrades arrested for gun smuggling, events lead her to being considered a double-crosser on both sides, and her lover to be a Jew sympathizer (which it turns out that he really is in a way). And that’s when the war ends and the real trouble begin.

Black Book is a Hitchcock thriller that Hitchcock would have been afraid to tell. It’s willing to look at Nazis objectively without the automatic stamp of evil. The film that came closest to attempting this was Wolfgang Peterson’s brilliant Das Boot. Not to say that Nazis are good, but we are given a Nazi that is disillusioned by the rhetoric, who knows that Germany cannot win and only wants to do his part to end things with the least amount of bloodshed. Is it possible that a high-ranking Nazi would be like this? Yes, but highly unlikely. But the film isn’t trying for historical accuracy as it is about these two people put in the worst-case scenario imaginable. This isn’t a film out to stir controversy, but entertain with its superior storytelling and incredible performances.

The film lives or dies on Ms. Van Houten’s performance, which she gives in spades. The character is juicy enough to begin with considering that she’s caught between two very delicate forces that could crush her if she’s not careful. Watch as she plays the parts asked of her from both sides, and yet she never turns into the people she’s portraying, but still being affected by the consequences. Take the scene where she gets involved in a botched murder plot

But the real star is Paul Verhooven, who shows mastery in this film that I didn’t think he had in him. His shots are beautiful, well composed and extremely well blocked. This filmmaker has been better known by his exploitations than his skill, and while there is a urination scene that some might see as going too far, I don’t because it is meant to get you behind a character instead of punishing them. Later this year, Ang Lee’s Lust, Caution took a swipe at the same idea and came off hollow.

All in all, this is a great thriller worthy of your attention. And it just goes to show that some directors have hidden resources that just need the right conditions to bloom (Eli Roth, I’m looking at you). But the problem is that Verhooven is now playing at a different level now and cannot creep down to his usual gutter any more. And for a quick moment, I find that to be sad. But then I pinch myself and rejoice for one of the best thrillers ever filmed.

Posted Friday, November 30, 2007 1:02 AM by erico_77375 | with 1 comments

Darabont Got Lost In The Fog

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

Under discussion:

Stephen King's The Mist (2007)

Five minutes can change everything, especially in how you see a film. This is doubly the case when it comes to the ending. Sometimes it’s intended (The Sixth Sense), sometimes not so much (Manhattan). Looking back at The Mist, the last five minutes is what I think about, and not for good reasons. And it will be these five minutes that most of my review is going to be talking about. I’ll try not to spoil it intentionally, but I cannot make any promises.

The Mist is the third Stephen King adaptation by director Frank Darabont, who’s The Green Mile is a small classic and his The Shawshank Redemption is a mega classic. This time, he turns to one of King’s oldest novellas about a group of Maine townspeople who get cornered into a supermarket by an unnatural mist. The story focuses on David Drayton (Thomas Jane), an artist who comes to town with his small son and is trapped in the store when sirens go off and a bloodied townsfolk scream about something in the mist and the sounds of screams outside encourage that idea. Later, when a really stupid idea by a couple of the townies brings about a monster attack, this intensifies the fears going through their heads and they start forming their own little groups. One small band led by a big city judge (Andre Braugher) ignores the screams and the blood and insists that there’s nothing outside and wants to leave. Another lead by the local religious freak Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden), believes this the sign of the Apocalypse and that God wants blood. When Drayton decides that he and a handful of people might need to leave, they soon learn that there might be more to worry about than the creatures outside.

The question the movie ultimately asks is who is the more dangerous species: the one inside or outside the store? It also is a look on the ways fear plays upon mankind and the psychology of fear. We can tell that Mrs. Carmody was off her rocker before the world ended, but the easy answers and lack of need to do anything about it makes what she believes very appealing to those who care not to seek a plan. Drayton might be the voice of reason, but to most who are facing imminent death, reason doesn’t have the same value. These are the key elements to the original King story that correctly sees the mist not as the enemy but the situation to test man’s soul. Darabont, when evoking King’s work, is doing the same thing. These elements are fascinating, even chilling. Darabont correctly makes the monsters indifferent to humans (though they do enjoy eating them, of course).

The ultimate problem is the ending. To end his version of the story, he does a complete 180 from the original story, which I would only be mildly upset about if it weren’t for the fact that looking back at the rest of the movie, it defeats the whole intent of the story. ***Spoiler Alert*** King’s ending eluded that the fate of his characters was not certain, but that they held on the belief of hope. The film decides to give a definite answer, and betrays how the characters would actually act. Why did the filmmaker make this decision at the end? He’s made a case against hope against uncertainly, almost siding with the film’s villain for that matter. It certainly wasn’t done for the sake of making the audience happier. There are only two answers that make any sense. The first was that he wanted to shock the audience with an ending they weren’t ready for, but at the expense of destroying the tone of his movie. The second one is more childish, but makes more sense. Darabont’s last film, The Majestic, was a great film in the spirit of a Frank Capra heartstring-tugger. It was a beautiful film that nobody saw, that most of the critics panned as being sappy. It makes me wonder if he’s decided to punish his audience. Many people might argue that this version of the film is a cautionary tale, but that doesn’t explain how you have your decent character going through all those trials and tribulations only to get to the point he does in the last five minutes.

Okay, the spoilers are over. But even without the ending, this is a mild film all the way around. The monsters look like bad CG, the acting isn’t anything to write home about (even Ms. Harden pushed her character a little too far for me to truly find interesting. And visually speaking, mist doesn’t leave much to look at. And yet I was pulled into the story, it’s characters, and their fates. Again, this is more a testament to King’s story than Darabont’s film.

All in all, I really hate this film because five minutes told me more than I wanted or needed to know. It told me that hope is futile and that those who do should be punished. It told me that the filmmaker didn’t believe in his characters from the first minute on the screen. It told me that you have to punish the good as much as you punish the bad. In the end, I just wanted it to be a really bad dream that I can forget in the morning. Such a waste of great material.

Posted Friday, November 30, 2007 12:23 AM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

The Times, They Are A-Confusing

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

Under discussion:

I'm Not There (2007)

When does innovation end and pretentiousness begin? I found myself asking this question near the start of I’m Not There, director Todd Haynes’ follow-up to Far From Heaven. The idea is interesting: Six actors who couldn’t be more different in both look and feel playing one of the most contradictory of American icons, Bob Dylan. We have Batman and the new Joker Christian Bale and Heath Ledger, Ben Whishaw from Perfume, Richard Gere, a 10-year-old black kid (the sensational Marcus Carl Franklin), and the greatest actress of our generation, Cate Blanchett. Here’s the kicker: We never hear the name Bob Dylan used with any of these six actors.

They tell Dylan’s story through his music, without any care to chronology or to the people who inspired or were inspired by Dylan, except for one great scene where the Woody Guthrie Dylan (Franklin), goes to the deathbed of the actual Woody Guthrie and sings him a song. We do get a sense of a few of the defining moments of Dylan’s life, which is explored in interesting ways, such as his transition from protest songs, his even more controversial move from the acoustic guitar to electric, and his divorce to his first wife. The film steps around his short acting career, his near-death motorcycle accident, and his time as a preacher. These events are interspersed between his six (possibly seven) incarnations, jumbled together without any sense of time or emotional chronology.

The movie is incredibly smart and does ask you to contemplate on the complexities of Dylan, but almost at the expense of seeing how childish and bane he really is. Some scenes allow you to see him from outside his mind, such as when the movie-star Dylan (Ledger) makes an ill-advised comment about women not being poets or when the “electric” Dylan (Blanchett) is confronted by a BBC journalist (Bruce Greenwood) who asks a reasonable question and gets attacked for his efforts. I am fascinated by the decisions Dylan made in his tremultuous career, but I understand the gist of his reasons. This was a man who didn’t want to be owned by any one thing, didn’t want to be pigeonholed into a stereotype. But in doing so has isolated himself from those cared about his work. But what does that say about his fans who got angry when he branched out? These are elements of the story and the movie that I loved, not to mention that great music played by both Dylan and his many admirers (The I’m Not There Soundtrack, go get it, no matter what you think of the movie).

And yet, I cannot get over the fact a lot of the film is incredibly pretentious. First and worst of these trespasses is in the fact that none of the actors playing Bob Dylan are ever called such. I know they’re meant to represent the different faces of the man, but the fact that they act as completely different people apart from each other (the Ledger version, at one point, is the actor portraying the Bale version). This takes the idea of Dylan having different faces in to the realm that he is a close cousin to Sybil. This case can also be made of the Gere Dylan, who sees himself as an old Billy the Kid. While the analogy does ring true, we have this character actually living in the Old West. But then again, the movie doesn’t even try to hide its pretentiousness in a facade of earnestness. My biggest complaint is the misuse of the music in the movie. Dylan’s music never feels apart of the movie, merely a side dish to the action going on. But then, most of his work couldn’t be put to the context of any story because they were stories of their own.

The film’s acting is very interesting considering how the film looks at Dylan. Since it neither side with or against it’s subject, there’s a void of love and hate for the man. Again, this is an interesting aspect of the film, especially in how each of the six actors look at their part of the puzzle. Bale’s part is ultimately a man confused in both the young idealist and the older preacher-man that is Dylan’s outcome, though the later man seems to accept the confusion. The Richard Gene portion of the movie is by far the most disappointing and least interesting, and his performance does nothing to alleviate this. Heath Ledger’s performance is not entirely raw or as intense as it may seem to be at the beginning, primarily because outside of being a pompous jerk, there’s not much more to him. Again, maybe that’s the point, but I’m not feeling it. And then there’s Cate Blanchett’s Dylan who is the version we most recognize. She looks most like the man and talks most like him. And yet this is another performance that she gives where the actress is much better than the part given. She plays the outraged rebel in his most explosive time and while I’m receptive to the situation, because I know that I’m only seeing a part of the persona Dylan I don’t feel that I’m seeing the whole. The only one that I found myself really getting behind was young Mr. Franklin’s version, the boy who felt compelled to sing the songs of yore, who is both too young to feel so old and too old to look so young. This is a great performance and I hope to see this young actor again someday.

But this does come back down to being a film of its maker and Todd Haynes is certainly a capable director. But I believe he has gotten lost in the woods of this extremely complex material and wasn’t able to fully pull this film off. His shots are inventive but they lack a certain kind of heart that leaves the film feeling cold and isolated. But then again, that might be intentional since Dylan’s life is full of emptiness. His film is full of genius, but at the price of creating a compelling look at a very complex man.

All in all, I love this movie and I hate it passionately. And strangely enough, I love the movie for the same reasons I hate it. This is the kind of film that I can recommend now and berate five minutes later. But I also think that’s what Bob Dylan would have wanted in a film about him. He never wanted the love given to him; he just wanted to be seen as somebody and nobody at the same time. And if you can understand that sentence, you might be able to appreciate this movie.

Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 9:26 PM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

How The Middle East Was Lost

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

Under discussion:

No End in Sight (2007)

Maybe the appeals of Michael Moore’s tactics are just wearing a little thin on me. I still consider him to be an influential filmmaker (and his Bowling for Columbine to be one of the best documentaries ever made), but there’s something very self-promoting about his technique. That’s probably why the likes of Charles Ferguson is starting to quench the thirst for thoughtful political documentaries that are not intended to scathe, but to reflect. In doing just that, his first film No End in Sight is one of the best-planned, best executed documentary I have ever seen.

In the course of 108 devastating minutes, Ferguson lines out the big and small events that lead America to a quagmire in Iraq, one that has very little hope of ever getting better. Unlike the feel-good documentaries that loves to kick an already lame president, No End in Sight is more interested in fact over opinion and gets it’s facts from the people that made the decisions and that were there (and a few that were supposed to be but weren’t). We’re hearing from the horse’s mouth how very little planning was allowed before the initial invasion. We meet with lower-level White House insiders (as though Rice, Rumsfeld, Rove and Cheney would allow themselves to be interviewed) who give their own testimonials. And then there are the Iraqis and foreign journalists who have been marginalized along with the rest by trying to be heard.

This documentary is surgical in it’s approach, dissecting each point with the thoroughness of a CIA briefing that this film shows our president ignores on a constant basis. And Ferguson shows no political leaning, scouring both sides with contempt as they either instigate or play accessory to one of America’s greatest tragedies. It sees the problem’s roots all the way back to the 80s and systematically show how each President made the matter worse until 9/11 kicked the ball into play. The documentary doesn’t get bogged down into semantics. Instead, it treats its audience as though they are capable of making intelligent conclusions. Not since Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room has a documentary had this much faith in its audience.

I will go on record to say that if President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz or Condoleeza Rice ever find themselves on trial for their part in the misdirection of the people, mismanagement of the war, or the misplacement of funds by putting known corruptors in places of power, this would be the definitive indictment against them. But it’s more than that, much more. It shows how small miscommunications added to the blunders made on Capitol Hill. There’s a powerful scene where Walter Slocombe, a White House insider, realized that one small mistake made by him out of laziness could be linked to the creation of the insurgency. The realization left me sympathetic to him because we all know how one mistake, in the right circumstances, can start Armageddon.

And yet the film is brave enough to stay neutral concerning politics. It wisely stays away from making a case to leave Iraq, but shows just how next-to-impossible such an act may be. Ferguson is too smart to beg us to do anything, which would come off trite, but seems to hope it will lead by example, to better inform to audience and allow them to make up their own minds.

This is my favorite documentary this year and one of the year’s best films. There is a hidden power in this film that comes from its structure and discipline. Charles Ferguson, like his mentor Alex Gibney aims to overwhelm not by dramatizing the truth, but by peeling away the unnecessary. In taking away the rhetoric and by giving a clear timeline, we can see the events taking place in a historical aspect (something that Ferguson took away from being a Brookings fellow).

All in all, this year has been amazing in non-fiction work on film. In fact, many of the documentaries this year have pushed the limit in how documentaries are filmed and seen. My Kid Could Paint That opened a new discussion on how art is perceived and how fame is fickle. The King Of Kong showed us how men can succumb to new lows when dealing in child’s play. Even Moore’s Sicko was able to put the human face on inhuman suffering created by a bottom line. But above them all is this amazing film that will have you up all night afterwards, numb by the knowledge you hold and the sick feeling that things will get worse before they get better. And what makes this interesting is that the filmmaker is banking that the truth will set you free, and he’s just handed you the lock pick.

Posted Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:32 AM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

The Grandfather Of Action Heroes Gets A Makeover

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

Under discussion:

Beowulf (2007)

I am beginning to believe that Beowulf, as a story, is one that you have to admire, but can never really love. While even the poem has action and adventure, it also has a detachment to it that leaves a lot to want. And while director Robert Zemeckis seems to enjoy this story, it’s easy to see that he doesn’t ever truly embrace this hard-as-nails tale of lust in all it’s forms.

The film has the spirit of the old poem, but dances to a completely different tune. Writers Neil Gaiman (author of the novel that inspired this summer’s Stardust) and Roger Avery (the co-writer of Pulp Fiction) take the story and circle around the wheels of raw lust, be it for sex, ambition, immortality, fame, or gold. It starts off at a Norwegian king’s (Anthony Hopkins) new mead hall in the middle of winter. The wine, women and song seems friendly enough to those in attendance. But the monster Grendel who lives in the caves outside of town seems to dislike any kind of merry-making and decides to crash the party in a scene that Rob Zombie might be jealous of. The king wagers his fortune to any man who can kill Grendel. Enter Beowulf (Ray Winstone), who announces himself once every ten minutes and swaggers with the arrogance of a He-Man reject. He has come to kill Grendel for glory…and mead (but he wouldn’t say no to the king’s riches or his beautiful young wife voiced by Robin Wright-Penn). This leads to one of the strangest and funniest action scenes this year when Beowulf opts to fight his opponent in the buff, leaving for some of the most hilarious covers for his manly parts. From this point, Beowulf it pitted against Grendel’s mother (Angelina Jolie) and offered the devil’s deal, which leads us to the more somber second act and an eventual battle with a dragon that is the highlight of the film.

Beowulf has always been thought of as a morality play, historically used by the first Christian emissaries when trying to convert the Pagans. The film has a character voiced by John Malkovich that embodies that spirit. The film ultimately wants to see the events both with a satirical edge with a hint of human drama. Beowulf is arrogant and foolish, but he’s also a warrior. The movie is incredibly bloody and teeters on the R-Rating more than a few times (another notch against the MPAA). The first act has most of the jokes and satire and is the best part of the film. The second act is dry, thoughtful which hurts the film as a whole. Yes, it does have the best action sequence, but at the expense of the tone of the overall film.

While I complain about the film’s unevenness, there’s a lot to love. But I will admit that most of it consists with the presentation on the big screen. While the standard 2-D version is still a good way to see it, the film really needs the IMAX-3D touch to make this a sensation. It can rightfully be said that the gimmick of 3D is what makes the movie work, but oh does it work. While there are moments designed specifically to throw things at the audience, there are some great moments that allows the screen to breath outside itself, just like Zemeckis’ classic The Polar Express. Another great thing about the animation this time around is the photo-realistic look of human CG actors, something that has always been out of reach, even in the latest Shrek movies. I will honestly say that given a few more years, we will have computer-generated actors who could be passed off in live-action films without detection

But the question now needs to be asked: can their computer counterparts enhance human actors. Look at Ray Winstone, who easily has the voice of Beowulf, but would never in a million years have the body for it. And yet they have made the character look like we expect the warrior to look like, and we can imagine him sounding like Ray Winstone. And then there’s Angelina Jolie, whose character looks like Angelina Jolie with a tentacle or three. But the one that looks exactly like his human counterpart is Brendan Gleeson who plays Beowulf’s right-hand man.

Motion capture, the art used to create these characters, allows actors to not just voice the parts but to be the actors in a digital studio. Earlier this year, Pixar’s Ratatouille boldly stated that there was no motion capture used in their film, as though the use of the technique is lazy. While I consider Ratatouille the more artful film between the two, I can see that both styles are capable of high art, especially in the hands of directors like Brad Bird and Robert Zemeckis.

All in all, Beowulf is the pure definition of popcorn entertainment. This is a movie meant for the big screen with a large audience, funny glasses on your face, not to mention a smile. But I must implore that you watch this movie in theaters with the earth-shattering surround sound and the larger-than-life screen, I hardly doubt it will be nearly as impressive at home.

Posted Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:20 AM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

This Old Man's Country No Place For The Faint

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

Under discussion:

No Country for Old Men (2007)

When I think about No Country For Old Men, the word that comes to mind is fate. And while the film is ultimately about fate, I thinking also about how the Cohen brothers have been angling towards this film from their first bloody satisfying Blood Simple. Cormac McCarthy, whose novel is being adapted, has written better works himself (The Road by far his most important), but whose sensibility makes for the creation of the ultimate film we are bestowed upon. And we have three actors who have been moving towards their unforgettable roles in a film that I will deem now to be a classic.

The film starts us off with Sheriff Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) discussing in a monologue about how the times are changing when he talks about a boy who killed a 14-year-old girl just for the sake of killing. We can tell that he doesn’t flinch at the violence that is around him, but he isn’t unaffected. While he talks, we see the barren wastes of the open ranges of West Texas. This will be the epic battleground for a war that few will ever know existed. We meet its key warriors. There’s Lewellyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a Vietnam veteran-turned-welder who goes hunting one day only to find a drug deal gone terribly wrong. All are dead, the last man standing only getting so far as to the shade to die with two million dollars in a case beside him. Then there’s Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), a killer without remorse, though does have a knack of killing people with a bottle of compressed air. He’s after the money as well and is uncanny in tracking his prey. These three men will play a game of cat and mouse in a house full of dynamite. Chigurh has the upper hand as he tracks Moss from one flea-bitten motel to the next, finally culminating in one of the greatest moments of suspense ever filmed with Moss trapped in on one side of a door with Chigurh on the other end (though we don’t see him). As the game continues, we meet others involved in the game such as a band of Mexican goons after the money for themselves, a fellow hunter like Chigurh (Woody Harrelson) who is hired to hunt the killer, and Moss’ wife (Kelly MacDonald).

The film works as a first-rate thriller for most of the film, and then takes a sharp turn into something much more satisfying, deeper, and meditative about the nature of good and evil, the delicate balance between the innocent and the murderers. And overall, this is a character study of all of these characters and a few others not mentioned. This film takes the Cohen’s most accomplished work, Fargo, and makes it look like a first draft. Gone are the quirky and mildly exaggerated accents, replaced by hard linguists who say little if anything at all. The film is interested in decisions, choices, and actions made by characters. We watch Bell as he reluctantly gets drawn into this dance between Moss and Chigurh. The killer is responsible for the senseless murder of one of his deputies in one of the most brutal on-screen murders I’ve seen, but Bell isn’t a fool. It might be luck if he ever meets the killer again. We are intrigued by Moss’ actions, including his first decisions in the film. Whether he’s being chased through a creek by a dog (I think it’s the reincarnated spirit of the dog Brolin shot in American Gangster) or he’s choosing a second motel room in the same motel where his hunters are laying in wait, we wonder what he has in mind. But the character we find ourselves most curious about is Chigurh. That’s a testament to Bardem’s deadpan performance, McCarthy’s infamous character, and the Cohen’s eye for detail in their script and direction. Take the scene where he is staring down a gas station owner who was unlucky enough to be friendly. To anybody in the audience, we know Chigurh means to kill this man. Even the man knows this even though it’s never even indirectly mentioned. Or the confrontation between the killer and the closest thing to a friend he has. We know he’s pure evil, and yet he has a method to his madness. Not since Hannibal Lecter have we a more disturbing psychopath, and Chigurh would rip the old man into pieces and feed it to himself.

This brings up an interesting element in the film, the most horrific violence in the film is seen off-screen. In fact, there are two major gun battles that occur in the film, but all we ever get to see is the aftermath. The Cohen’s aren’t interested in glorifying violence, in fact there’s never a moment of murder that could be considered fun. Other interesting things about the film to contemplate when watching is the lack of Carter Burwell’s score for the entirety of the film but in small unnoticeable places. Also note that there is never a shot that has two of the three leads in the same frame. The lack of score is meant to keep the severity of the events in the foreground by taking away the most distinguishable element of a film. Keeping from putting characters in the same frame always reminds us that these men, no matter what they think, are hurting each other, using every resource in their possession.

If you are a fan of McCarthy, I can say that it is faithful to the spirit of the novel’s ideas, core characters, and pessimism about the future. When the film gets to the end, we realize that the film isn’t interested in conclusion, but in meditation, as the novelist himself is. Take the scene with Barry Corbin at the end, which is one of my favorites in the film. When he says, “You can’t stop what’s coming,” you understand what the film has spent every shot, every character, every storytelling device to get to. The Coens, who have never out-right adapt a film, had to realize the instant they finished the first chapter that they needed to make this film. They needed their actors, their brilliant crew headed by cinematographer Roger Deakins (who does Oscar-Worthy work here. West Texas has never looked more beautiful, or more dangerous), and their amazing control over the material (also Oscar-Worthy).

Acting-wise, I have nothing but admiration for every member of the cast, including those who played Chigurh’s victims. But the pairing of Jones, Bardem, and Brolin is brilliant. Jones, like John Wayne before him, plays one note so well that it doesn’t need to change it. And yet he allows us to really look into this disillusioned lawman who cannot understand what he sees to be a more violent world evolving away from his ideas of civility. If I could, I would nominate both Brolin and Bardem for Best Actor. Bardem would easily win since his character has more to play with, more charisma, and more interest. But I loved how Brolin allowed his character to come off as fully dimensional without saying much. Special mention must be made to Garrett Delahunt who plays the thankless part of Jones’ deputy. He’s partially comic relief, but not at the expense of the character as so many deputies in films.

All in all, No Country For Old Men is a film that doesn’t ask for a second screening, but demands it. It will be the next classic film from directors whose work has been spotty from time to time. But when they’ve focused their material, they’re unstoppable. Just watch Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Blood Simple, or Miller’s Crossing. Here they’ve made their best film so far, one that will stand alongside the tales of Margie Gunderson and Jeffrey Lebowski. What can I say, the Chugh abides.

Posted Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:10 AM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

Washington Vs. Crowe: Round Two

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

Under discussion:

American Gangster (2007)

This has been the rematch I’ve been waiting for since 1995 when a little-known film came out called Virtuosity. It starred Denzell Washington as a cop-turned-convict who is used to track down a serial killer computer program who literally grew legs. That program, joyfully called Sid 6.7 was played by the wildly over-the-top Russell Crowe. That movie was one of my favorites when I was a teenager, primarily because it was just so insane and silly and Crowe, whom I had never heard before, seemed to be having so much fun that I kept waiting to hear about any other film that he starred in. So when I heard that Washington and Crowe, both of now are at the height of their respected careers, were going to match wits ala Heat, I could hardly contain my joy. And while American Gangster isn’t anywhere as crazy as Virtuosity, this is a much better film.

American Gangster is Frank Lucas (Washington), a second-in-command under “Bumpy” Johnson during the 60s in Harlem where he learns the tools for the trade by the master himself. Johnson, whose heydays were in the 30s and 40s (which are chronicled in Bill Duke’s underrated Hoodlum), seems to be out of touch with this new world where giving to the community means little and making money means everything. He literally dies of a broken heart (not historically accurate, but I’ll give it a pass) with Lucas by his side. Frank, a very quiet man, does what every pupil should do and takes what he learned from Johnson and tweaks it. He finds a direct buyer in Vietnam (while America was in the midst of the conflict) and finds a way to get heroin back to the US in a way that would infuriate Fox News (not that they need much prodding to be infuriated).

At the same time we are following Detective Richie Roberts is in the midst of crooked cops from both sides of the river. His own partner (John Ortiz) is a dope fiend who isn’t underneath stealing from dealers. One day they find a million dollars in a car and Roberts turns it in, something that seems to be heard of in his department before. He becomes the mirror that reflects the corruption at his department, and they blacklist him. But it also puts him in the position to lead a new narcotics unit meant to take down the big cases.

From what I just wrote, you might think you know what kinds of people Lucas and Roberts are, but the film is much more intelligent than that. While no doubt Lucas is a gangster, he’s also very loyal to his family and his community, overpays his employees, and sees what he does as just another business as any other (which reminds me of a Chris Rock joke about how black people can only make their fortunes as long as no one gets hurt). The Roberts character is a terrible husband and father, a womanizer, and quite possibly an egotistical blowhard who thinks being an honest cop automatically makes him a good human being. And yet we care about these guys even though the film boldly doesn’t shy away from their faults. One of the things I loved the most is that every once in a while, we’ll see junkies on the street, an overdose, and the pain that comes with drug addiction just to remind the audience what Lucas is selling.

The film follows the investigation to the point that Lucas is taken down, but the focus is more on the people involved in the takedown, and not just on the two heavies. We have a great ensemble of actors in small roles that give them life. Take Ruby Dee who plays Lucas’ mother. At the end of the film, she gives a ten second monologue that hits to the heart of the matter. Look at Josh Brolin who plays a corrupt New York cop whom is arguably worse than Lucas, this character could teach the guys from The Shield a few new things. Even rappers such as T.I. and Rza bring an authentic look and feel for their characters (especially Rza who has a great scene during the final takedown). And how can I forget one of my all-time favorite actors Joe Morton in what could be a throwaway character that is Lucas’s old confidante back in the days of Bumpy.

But the film is primarily focused on Washington and Crowe, and they couldn’t have cast this film better with their two leads. These two men don’t even share a scene together until we get to the end of the film, where it decides its fate not in a shootout but in a series of conversations. That’s what these two men really are all about, getting results without being flashy. Take the opening shot where Lucas shoots a man Johnson had ordered to be set aflame. Johnson wanted to send a message; Lucas only wanted to get the job done. What he built in Harlem could be considered inspirational if his product was anything other than heroin. And yet he didn’t build his empire to be seen as powerful, to have the mob bow to him (which they did), or even to satisfy his own ego. He made his empire to have something that he could call his own. I don’t think Roberts was an honest cop just for the sake of being one. I think he did so because that would make him good for at least one thing. And this is what you get from these two powerhouse actors who don’t have to pull a gun every five seconds to be in the tradition of badass that goes all the way back to Bogart and Cagney.

Ridley Scott hasn’t made the quintessential gangster movie, but he has made one that will have you following every footstep of every character with interest and curiosity. His technique is as epic as the films he directs. And yet he doesn’t let the scale get to his head. He gets the feel of the age without having to use many pop culture references. He puts his faith in his actors and his crew to create the environment of the time. Needless to say, he’s made up for the drab A Good Year.

All in all, this is a great story and a great film that will keep you involved to the very end. And maybe in another twelve years, Misters Washington and Crowe will find themselves once more clashing swords, perhaps in a sequel to Master and Commander or perhaps a Spike Lee film? You know that all great things come in threes.

Posted Sunday, November 04, 2007 1:09 PM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

Lee Let Lust Get Away From Him

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

Under discussion:

Lust, Caution (2007)

If there is one filmmaker that can be called one of the new masters of cinema, that man would be Ang Lee. Over the course of nearly 20 years, he has given us a wide variety of films to celebrate. Like Spielberg, there might be one film of his you don’t like, but there’s at least one that you do, no matter your taste. He has paved new ground more than a few times, a couple of them most recently with his Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Brokeback Mountain. And to follow up the latter, he has decided to go back to China to tell a World War II drama. How can any film nut pass that up?

The film is Lust, Caution and truer words could not explain this movie. It’s been the epicenter of debate over the NC-17 Rating given by the MPAA due to graphic sex scenes that Lee refused to edit (and for good reason). The film stars a newcomer Tang Wei as the young college student Wang Jiazhi who gets involved in a revolutionary drama group during the Japanese occupation of China during the war. They start off producing patriotic plays that stirs their audiences to their feet. But while they do believe that the pen is mightier, the sword gets more immediate results and plan the murder of a Japanese sympathizer. They decide to target Mr. Yee (Tony Leung), a Hong Kong industrialist who helps get materials in for the Japanese.

Their initial plans get torn to shreds by Mr. Yee’s paranoia, he doesn’t take chances. But he does let his guard around Wang Jiazhi, who masquerades as a married woman to infiltrate his wife’s mahjong group. But before she could bait him into the perfect trap, he leaves for Shanghai with a promotion. After a few years, the major resistance movement swallows up the college radicals, and they call upon Wang Jiazhi to once again lure Mr. Yee into a death trap. But as she gets closer to her target, she realizes more about herself than she’s ready for. And Mr. Yee’s brutal nature makes her doubt her own.

And yet, all of this feels worn thin by the end. The characters are well thought-out but they lack any particular edge or sensibility. And ultimately we see that the story, like the characters, is indeed hollow. Mr. Lee makes the mistake an admirable mistake; he believed the material had meaning that didn’t exist. It wants to tackle the idea of occupation and the mindset that brings out. Wang Jiazhi is occupied by Mr. Yee in every way a man can occupy a woman. That’s why the sex had to be explicit. It’s not meant to be playful or joyous, but brutal, painful, and sad.

That’s also why I believe that the film was better suited as NC-17. It’s not in the content that I say this, but the ideas behind the film. I doubt anyone but a mature mind can see his kind of domination and understand what it means, to learn something from it that isn’t perverse. That’s not to say that I agree with the MPAA’s rulings when it comes to sex and movies. I’ve had parents email me about a film’s sexual content and my response is pretty much the same; if I have a child, I’d be more concerned about the violence my child watches than nudity and sex. But this is one of those times I would stress that ONLY adults should see this film.

I haven’t gotten to mention the great cinematography, costume and set design this film sports. Rodrigo Prieto is still in form with this visually beautiful film. In fact, I doubt there will be a better-shot film this year (although it does look like No Country For Old Men might give it a run for it’s money). Costumes and set designs are first-rate, giving this film a very classy look, style and feel that is authentic without feeling insufferable.

Acting-wise, this film goes a long way on very little. Emotions are held in, playing towards what we don’t see instead of what we do. The sex in the film is really the most external emotion that we see in the picture. But I must say that Tang Wei gives an electrifying performance as this girl who is caught up in forces that she only thinks she can control. Tony Leung is still the king of internal brooding that gives his Mr. Yee a little more pity than he deserves.

From what you’ve read, you probably think that I like this film, but I don’t. I respect the film in many ways, but I cannot like it nor can I recommend it since it’s ultimately a pretty, yet hollow film about people that do not feel entirely real. Complex, true, but not authentic.

And what really makes the film’s flaws even more noticeable comes from another film released recently; Paul Verhooven’s Black Book, which ultimately tells the same story (except that it’s told in Holland), but is much better realized with more compelling characters.

All in all, I forgive Ang Lee already since I know what he set out to do, which is admirable. The problem is that he either lost sight of his goal or realized that what he had really wasn’t there. And if I had a list of interesting failures, Lust, Caution would be on that list.

Posted Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:44 PM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

One Thing Is Lost, Another Is Gained

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

Under discussion:

Things We Lost in the Fire (2007)

It is said that when a good man dies, that his song will resonate to all who loved him. That certainly is the case from Steven, who died trying to keep a man from killing his wife, only to killed along with the wife in a murder/suicide. And what stems from that is the focus of Things We Lost In The Fire, the first American film from Swedish filmmaker Suzanne Bier (After The Wedding, Brothers).

Steven (David Duchovony) leaves behind a wife, Audrey (Halle Berry) and two kids. She is a hysterical mess with little to do than to go over the good times she had with her husband and try raising two children on her own. Just before the funeral, she realizes that one person doesn’t know about Steven’s death, his childhood friend Jerry (Benicio Del Toro). Audrey doesn’t like Jerry too much, even with Steven was alive. A former lawyer in another life, Jerry is now a heroin junkie living for the day. When everybody turned their back on him, Steven didn’t. Audrey feels that the wrong man has died. Jerry feels the same way.

After the funeral, Audrey goes through a suspended stage of mourning, snapping at her kids for the tiniest thing, going through longer stages of insomnia. Jerry decides to try to go clean again, goes to meetings where he finds a friend in a fellow traveler (Allison Lohman). In a moment of clarity, Audrey offers a place in a renovated room to Jerry. She needs help around the place, she says. It’s easy to see that she needs another adult to be around while she copes with her loss. Jerry agrees begrudgingly. He tries to keep himself isolated, but the kids refuse to be ignored. They are intrigued by their father’s best friend, which they’ve only recently known existed at the funeral (no doubt Audrey’s doing). He strikes a friendship with them that they mistaken to be a means of replacing their father. The problem is that Audrey starts to feel that he’s starting to do just that as well. And it is when she pulls the rug out from under him that the story takes its final act to a sad yet satisfactory ending.

Things We Lost In The Fire is a good movie that stems from what could be bad stuff. That’s the trick with melodrama; finding characters that you are rooting for, hoping for, to care about and even love. Most melodrama is based on situation instead of character. When scenario dictates of how people respond, it’s rare that you’re going to find true human emotion. We feel sympathy for Jerry, Audrey, and the kids. We wonder if Steven would have been proud of them moving on as they are. When Jerry teeters closer to the edge of losing himself, we are truly afraid for him and for all of them since we know what he means to them.

And the best way to see how the film moves you is how the film is cast. I’m not a big fan of Halle Berry (whom I still say is the scrawnier, softer version of Angela Bassett), but she hits many of the right notes here. We believe that she loved her husband as much as she shows and that the loss is killing her inside. And then you put Benicio Del Toro as the broken yet recovering Jerry, and he knocks the ball out of the park. He is deadly when he underplays a character, which is exactly what he does here. We see his emotion behind the skin, in the subtle ways and tiny mannerisms. But I also want to talk about the performance of John Carroll Lynch who plays the neighbor who used to be friendly with Steven and sees in Jerry a man who could use a friend as well. Lynch has never received the recognition he deserves in his film and television work. He doesn’t steal scenes, but makes the scene work better just by playing the character out the way it should be played.

For Suzanne Bier’s first American film, she could have done worse. She plays to her strengths here, but she really needs to elevate her game if she wishes to become great. The film makes some very unusual artsy decisions, such as tons of close-ups on eyes of characters. I somewhat understand the reasoning, but it’s still very weak in context.

All in all, this is a pleasant movie that does a good job at getting into your heart without being cute about it. It shows that the heart can heal even when that’s the one thing you probably don’t want. And that the one thing that you thought was the bane of your existence turns out to be your lifeline in the time of true disaster.

Posted Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:43 PM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

Move Over Grisham, Here Comes Clayton

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

Under discussion:

Michael Clayton (2007)

Coming out of the theater, my fellow film critic Cesar Villalta commented “It’s great to finally see a film for adults!” I thought about it for a second and realized that he had a point. Most of the films that we had seen this year were targeted towards the tweener crowd between 16 to 22. Very rarely have we seen films that actually required an adult sensibility and patience. Michael Clayton requires intelligence and sensibilities, a film that takes time to tell its story, but makes up for it by being about something.

In a Milwaukee deposition room, a great lawyer goes crazy and starts taking off his clothes. That lawyer is Arthur Eads (Tom Wilkerson), a high-class New York lawyer defending a fertilizer producer that is linked to cancer. His film calls in a fixer, Michael Clayton (George Clooney), to fix the mess made by his friend. But Arthur quickly eludes Clayton and goes rogue. Clayton thinks that Eads is up to something, considering that he’s also the film’s expert in insanity cases.

Also in this mix is the fertilizer company’s own lawyer (Tilda Swinton), an up and coming fixer who sees it as her responsibility to repair the damage that Eads has done, not to mention the damage he will do when it’s revealed that he might be changing sides. When Clayton finds that his apathy has a bitter cost, he is left to make a choice between doing the right thing and most advantageous thing.

From what you’ve just read, you would think that this film is a legal thriller amongst the best of John Grisham and Scott Turrow, but the film is better than that. The legal thriller is the disguise for it’s real intention; a character study of people caught in a moral dilemma. Eads finds out that his life’s work was for nothing and he makes a choice between doing the right thing and the wrong thing. His decision kicks off a chain of other choices made by other characters, none more important than for the characters of Clayton and (?). When we get to the end of the film, we are satisfied, though in a way we know how this is going to end.

My only real problem with the film is the finale, which I saw coming from a thousand miles away. While I do say yes, the confrontation between Clooney and Swinton might be considered classic later on, the events surrounding that scene are extremely predictable. But then again, this isn’t a real legal thriller after all. If it were, the stakes would be higher and the tension would be unbearable.

Another amazing thing about the film is the way it performs what I consider to be the perfect foreshadow. This isn’t meant as a gimmick. It allows us to see the same events, a pivotal event as it would turn out later, to be seen from a different perspective under different conditions. This kind of technique is very surprising to see in even the veteran filmmakers, not to mention first-time directors such as Tony Gilroy.

Another thing of curiousity; why is the film called Michael Clayton? It would be easy to say because that is the character we're following, but we're also following two other characters too. I think it's to put more focus on this particular character and the choices he makes in comparison to the two other stories we're following as well.

But what really demands attention is the superb acting skills on range here. From the first minute when we hear Mr. Wilkinson’s opening voiceover (which sets up the film perfectly) to the very last scene, the acting is always on task, elevating great material to an even better level. Clooney leads this cast with such exuberance, which is amazing considering that he’s very solemn. This is a man who is on his way to being a has-been who never liked what he did, but has failed in the restaurant business and looking at heavy gambling debts. Tilda Swinton also hammers her scenes with silent furiousity. Pay attention to those scenes she has at the mirror, timing her presentation, her rebuttals, and making sure that she says and does everything right, which will eventually lead to her own downfall. Even Sydney Pollack, who has a thankless role as The Exposition (the character that lets you know what the score is at that part of the film), makes his part actually seem like a living human being that doesn’t live in the office closet (but not for a lack of trying). But the real showstopper is Wilkinson who gives an Oscar-worthy performance. From the opening monologue we get a sense of this character as he rants and raves, but never going over the top (which is important since this a part of the character he plays).

Tony Gilroy has been writing screenplays since 93’s The Cutting Edge about figure skaters. He’s better known for his work on the Bourne films. For his directorial debut (which he also penned the film), he slows the action down, using long takes to set tones. There’s a lot of quiet time that the film uses to maximum efficiency. He’s playing his story close to the vest, going for the jugular with razor-sharp dialog and steadfast direction. Along with cinematographer Robert Elswitt, he creates a cold palate that is still colorful but stark at the same time. All I have to ask is when will he don the camera again?

All in all, Michael Clayton is a great film, a solid entertainment, and a pure thrill to those who are willing to not be talked down to. It treats its audience like adults; with respect and consideration. Not many films will do that, especially films that are supposed to be for adults.

Posted Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:40 PM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

How Can You Fight When They Make You Never Exist?

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

Under discussion:

Rendition (2007)

I was handcuffed once by a police officer who wanted to search me for something that he never made very clear. It was two in the morning, I was tired and hungry after putting a hard day’s work, and I complied. He would let me go after five minutes of searching without even so much as an apology. To him, it was perfectly fine to detain someone without even the slightest shred of just cause beside the fact that I was in the wrong place and the wrong time. Does this make him bad? I don’t think so, he’s doing a job and prudence comes along with it. But does it make what he did right, either?

That’s what I think is at the heart of Rendition, the new film by Academy-Award winner Gavin Hood. The film’s primary concern is about Extraordinary Rendition, a US law passed by former President Clinton that has been a major backbone in the foreign policy of current President Bush in his “war on terror”. It involves the detaining of people with possible links to terrorists in interrogation centers outside the US where torture or “enhanced interrogation” is legal. The film focuses on bombing in Africa that was meant to be an assassination attempt on a particular torturer. The film centers on three stories that are interconnected.

The first story involves an Egyptian businessman Omar Metwally who lives in America. He is coming home from Africa to his very pregnant wife (Resse Whitherspoon) and son when he’s detained at the airport and sent into the clutches of the nearly assassinated torturer. The CIA handler overseeing this interrogation (Jake Gyllenhaal) is actually an analyst who is stuck with the job when the usual handler is killed in the bombing. The effect of seeing what goes on drives him deeper to drink than before, guilt for seeing a possibly innocent man being mutilated for something he has no knowledge of.

The second story involves the businessman’s wife, whom after husband goes missing starts seeing discrepancies. She contacts an old boyfriend (Peter Saarsgard) who works for a powerful Congressman (Alan Arkin) to find out the truth. But they run up against a wall with the likes of Corrine Whitman (Played by Meryll Streep). She firmly believes that these actions produce the results that make these laws a vital part of protecting America This ultimately puts the Congressman in a no-win situation.

The third (and best) story involves the daughter of the torturer (Zineb Oukach) who is unknowingly involved with a young man who is involved in a terrorist cell. It doesn’t take a genius to see that he started dating her to get close to her father, but has softened in respect that he doesn’t want to hurt her. There are moments of insight in these scenes that transcend the other material on its own.

This is deeply thought-provoking film that keeps the pace nice and tight and gives you compelling characters and outrageous situations that extremely modern and calls the audience to think about what’s happening in the world around them. No doubt the film thinks that torture doesn’t bring enough results for it to be considered effective (no doubt it works some of the time, otherwise it wouldn’t be used). But it asks the question most people refuse to face: How far will you allow fear to dictate your actions before your humanity comes into question? It would be so easy to turn this review into a discussion on world affairs, which is what the film is insisting that you do. The problem is that those who really need to see the film are those who will avoid it like the plague.

The film has an impressive array of great actors, all of which do a good job. But the two that were most impressive to me were Ms. Whitherspoon who made this highly sympathetic character to feel honest and real, justified in her cause but also naive and scared. Perhaps it was a little too much that she also had to be 8 months pregnant in the film which is beating the dead horse a little bit, but when she has her breakdown scene near the end, it makes that scene even more unforgettable. And then there’s Zineb Oukach as Fatima the daughter. Not only is she incredibly beautiful, but also she brings a heart to her story as we care about her, especially being so close to someone who could use her for his own means.

Gavin Hood has made a great film as his American debut. His next film is going to be Wolverine, based on the Marvel comic book hero. It will be interesting to see what he can bring to the character, coming from geopolitical films like Tsotsi and Rendition.

All in all, this is certainly a solid film that I can recommend to everybody though I know only a few will actually give it a chance. Politics in movies, especially films that deal with current events, seem to repel people who probably need to see it. It’s sad that films that want to engage an audience such as this or Michael Clayton are only seen by a handful of people and only because a celebrity has their name in it. Or perhaps people know that once they’ve been called out on something they’ve seen, they’ll have to do something about it. Maybe seeing the film won’t change the fact that this is still happening, but maybe it will make you think hard about things when election time comes around, where you CAN change things.

Posted Wednesday, October 31, 2007 11:38 PM by erico_77375 | with 0 comments

Don't Put This Baby In The Corner

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

Under discussion:

Gone Baby Gone (2007)

Something amazing happened when I left the theater from watching Gone Baby Gone, something that rarely happens; people who came out with me started to talk about it. Not just the usual compliments and complaints, but about a moral decision made at the very end. And even more unusual is the fact that not one particular side of this coin was dominant, but that’s primarily because both options laid out to one cha