JJ79 Blog

Traitor (2008)

2 out of 2 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]

Under discussion:

Traitor (2008)

Don Cheadle loves his political activism. How else do you account for his starring role in "Traitor," a movie which sounds like a good idea on paper, but becomes too muddled with characters and story to be truly effective? To be sure, the feature isn´t something he should have run from. Rather, it is an important production (much like 2006´s criminally overlooked "Catch a Fire") which refuses to paint a quick and easy portrait of what it means to be a terrorist, opting instead to question the conventional wisdom as well as the audience´s own perceptions. It´s the second part "Traitor" has issues with.

Samir (Cheadle) witnesses his father being blown up in Sudan as a young boy. Years later, he is captured delivering explosive material to a known terrorist and jailed. It is there he makes a name for himself, so much so that when the inevitable prison break happens, he is included in the escapees. As Samir bounces from country to country-and continent to continent-two FBI agents are hot on his tail, intent on stopping a new attack. But in this game of chess, how do you tell the good guy from the bad guy?

Fully half of "Traitor" is a riveting experience. Had the screenplay (by director Jeffrey Nachmanoff from a story he and Steve Martin came up with) omitted FBI agents Clayton and Archer and refocused that screen time on Samir, I have no doubt we´d be talking Oscar in relation to "Traitor." Because the action crosscuts between the terrorists and agents for a majority of the production-eventually culminating in a ho-hum action sequence-the script fails to achieve a proper flow.

It´s not a sin for any movie to try and give the audience something they haven´t seen before. Rather, to fail spectacularly in an experiment is preferable to not trying something different. Let´s be clear: "Traitor" does not fail. Far from it, actually. It tries to weave a complex tale of espionage and deceit, trust and loyalty, across borders. We´re supposed to understand why it is people become so-called terrorists. And how loyalties are flipped in the blink of an eye. Keeping up with the FBI plotlines becomes a bore halfway through the film. Guy Pearce and Neal McDonough do nothing remarkable to make their characters memorable or even pleasant to watch.

Why is it we don´t care about them? Because Samir is always in the back of our minds, easily the most compelling character in the entire film. This is his story, not theirs. I couldn´t care less if Clayton and Archer question everyone in the free world. The focus needs to be on Samir. Let us delve even deeper in his psyche. The who´s and why´s and how´s of helping blow people up. The scars seeing his father die as a boy left on him. The internal conflict at being forced to kill innocent people. Those are the story beats the script is lacking.

There´s something not quite tangible about "Traitor," a quality I latched onto early. I think it is the relationship between Samir and terrorist middleman Omar (Said Taghmaoui). Initially based on distrust, the two men find themselves trusting each other in every way. Their relationship forms before our eyes, lending credence to the second half of the production, particularly the ending. This is the kind of gradual building the script proper needed to gain traction.

And that is the half of the film which works like gangbusters. Any time Cheadle commands the screen, regardless of material, it is impossible not to be amazed at the man. He never allows himself to be too low or too high; Samir´s internal conflict is mostly seen through his eyes. Wide and expressive, the minimalist Cheadle even lends credibility to the absurd sub-plot he shares with Jeff Daniels. He commands the screen in a way the material demands, bringing sympathy to an inherently unsympathetic "profession."

Still, I can´t get away from the inherent problems in the narrative structure. The script bobs and weaves like a basketball player on the way to a lay up with no real endpoint in sight. With the myriad plot points bandied about, I half expected Keifer Sutherland to jump out of a car at some point. Nachmanoff has stuffed the film with so many potential paths, he can´t service any of them adequately, leading to disappointment. "Traitor" could have been a great film. As is, it´s mediocre. The material deserves better.

Writer Jeffrey Nachmanoff is also responsible for "The Day After Tomorrow," the 2004 disaster flick maligned by critics and audiences alike. "Traitor" is an obvious step up from that, well, disaster; at least it, though, managed to fulfill all its story lines. The presence of Cheadle, Pearce and McDonough isn´t enough to elevate the film (particularly McDonough, who has next to nothing to do here). A 5 out of 10.

Posted Sunday, August 31, 2008 9:15 PM by JJ79 | with 0 comments

Bangkok Love Story (2007)

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

Under discussion:

Bangkok Love Story (2007)

I will confess right off the bat: I fell in love with "Bangkok Love Story" approximately a half hour in to the movie. The pivotal scene which drew me lock, stock and barrel into the film centers on hit man Cloud being washed by his would-be target Stone on the top of a Bangkok building, skyscrapers littering the background behind them. It is a sensual, lyrical, romantic sequence full of passion and lust. Not a word is spoken between the two; all we need to know is written on their faces. This scene elevates "Bangkok Love Story" from a hybrid shoot ´em up/romance to something different, something more. The film, the first written by writer/director Poj Arnon, suffers when it tries to meld the two, failing spectacularly in the shoot ´em up scenes. But it´s the romance which carries the day.

When we first meet Cloud (Rattanaballang Tohssawat), he is killing seemingly random people on the streets. This is his job: murder. The money then goes to his mother and brother, who live in squalor, dealing with the AIDS virus in their bodies. Cloud is also infected, all courtesy of a stepfather´s rape. Cloud is then hired to kidnap Stone (Chaiwat Thongsaeng); he does, but can´t complete the murder. With both men now on the run and Cloud injured, they have no choice but to rely on one another. And then the fateful afternoon occurs, throwing their tenuous relationship into chaos.

Reviews have taken "Bangkok Love Story" to task for its melodrama, its iffy handling of subject matter and even the potentially cheesy dialogue. They are perfectly valid criticisms if you must know. I acknowledge them, celebrate them, even. (About the dialogue: I´m not certain the problem is with the actual script and not the subtitled translation. The words are undoubtedly more poetic in their native Thai.)

Despite the issues, you can´t help but be swept away by the romance. Compared to other films in which the leads spend the entire running time together, the amount of screen time shared by Cloud and Stone is minimal, making it all the more necessary for every shot to contribute to the overall story.

"Bangkok Love Story" isn´t a typical romance, following the lovers as they battle their feelings over a period of time. Rather, Arnon puts together a story where the two must overcome obstacles to their relationship after it has been consummated. There are side plots concerning family members and a score to settle with former employers. Stone´s fiancé figures into the proceedings sporadically, also. That is to say Arnon wants to show us how people in love combat a wide array of issues-and not just parents objecting or societal pressure.

Aside from the criticisms I´ve already mentioned, there´s something else I need to address: the AIDS subplot. It adds nothing to the story as a whole, except to introduce Cloud´s family. Stone rarely-if ever-mentions it. Most of the scenes concerning the disease are taken out (see the deleted scenes). Stone, despite being the receiving partner (and presumably without a condom), doesn´t seem to be worried. And even though other HIV+ characters die because of their affliction, Cloud remains a healthy man until the finale. The scenes and moments reserved for the AIDS issues could have been better used as character moments for Cloud and Stone.

(There is one more point I´d like to bring up in regards to this train of thought. For too long, gay characters in the movies fell into certain categories: the AIDS patient, the "best friend" and the non-sexual gay man. Cloud falls into the AIDS patient category, leading an entire culture-the Thai-to believe being gay results in AIDS. In the movie´s reality, it is a stepfather who rapes Cloud who passes on the virus, not a male lover. It´s the tangled web of causation not supported by the facts I am most concerned with, especially for people who may not know better. The ending, to which I´ve already alluded to, further feeds into the stereotypes for gay males, that they can´t live a happy life together.)

I mentioned a moment ago the lack of dialogue in the scenes between Stone and Cloud. This quiet is punctuated by a melodic, sweeping score by Giant Wave. The music swells and ebbs in concurrence with the action; when the two finally kiss, the score is robust, nearly a fanfare. And in the heartbreaking finale, Giant Wave reinforces the emotions with moribund sadness. It´s the perfect compliment to the actors and the script.

The city of Bangkok, with its grimy alleys and run down appearance, has a personality all its own in the film. All part of the overriding theme of despair, there is always a feeling of the location being associated with Cloud-the streets, for all intents and purposes, are his home-and not Stone. In contrast, Stone´s house is modern, with lavish furniture and technology, benefitting the character. With sweeping camera moves from every conceivable angle (up and over, above, through, sideways), the audience can´t help but feel like an insect watching the relationship unfold. This is a brave film on nearly every level, from the acting to the writing and the unconventional direction.

VIDEO:
To be perfectly honest, "Bangkok Love Story" looks bad. A thick layer of grain permeates every single scene, rendering anything taking place in the dark muddy and scenes in the daytime plain dirty. Blacks, as a result, don´t come across as well as they should or could; the muted color palette used by the filmmakers to convey characters in despair is diffused even father because of the grain. Because this is a Thai film centering on a nearly taboo subject, I´d expect the budget was low and the grain is intentional. Still, it doesn´t exactly help the 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer.

AUDIO:
TLA Releasing does right by foreign titles by not including English dubbed tracks on its discs. Here, we´re given the choice of two Thai mixes, both standard in the DVD world: 5.1 and 2.0. (English subtitles are also provided.) Outside of ambient sounds from the city, there´s not a whole lot of difference between the two options. Both are free of distortion, allowing the native language to come through loud and clear. Those background sounds I mentioned a moment ago are also rendered well, adding another layer of depth to the audio field.

EXTRAS:
A nice, if easy, suite of special features is included on the disc. A series of three deleted scenes-all of which focus on Fog-are provided (non-16:9). While all three add to the character and, by default, the world surrounding Stone and Cloud, they don´t focus on the relationship the two men have. As a result, they are superfluous to the main story. The same can be said about the alternate ending, running 4:28. In it, we´re shown what happens to Fog following the train station incident. It´s provocative, yet doesn´t mean anything to the romance, hence a cut.

And the obligatory series of trailers: this film´s original theatrical trailer (3:16), "The Houseboy" (2:35), "The Blossoming of Maximo Oliveros" (2:25), "Socket" (2:07) and "Boy Culture" (1:46).

PARTING THOUGHTS:
It is entirely possible to be enchanted with a movie and yet understand its shortcomings. That´s the camp I fall into concerning "Bangkok Love Story." It is impossible not to root for Cloud and Stone to find some way out of their respective lives and be together, even though they may not be the most likeable of characters. Their screen time together is limited, furthering the desire to see them together.

Posted Saturday, August 30, 2008 5:51 PM by JJ79 | with 0 comments

The Riddle (2007)

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

Under discussion:

The Riddle (2007)

Had you told me prior to watching "The Riddle" Vinnie "Juggernaut" Jones was starring in a movie with Vanessa Redgrave and Derek Jacobi, I would have laughed. Seriously, "I´m the Juggernaut, bitch" with British-and acting-royalty? Those names don´t compute for me. After watching the feature, it turns out to be the least bewildering aspect of the production.

Mike Sullivan (Jones) is a sports reporter itching to cover something over than dog races. His abrasive attitude doesn´t ingratiate him to a local detective (P. H. Moriarty), though a police press liaison takes a liking to him. When a friend-and pub owner-dies, Sullivan begins to follow the story, but where it ends up taking him spans centuries.

The acting is the least of the problems in "The Riddle." Really, it happens to be the strong suite, with a remarkably adept Jones in the lead and a solid roster of actors backing him up. Redgrave, in only two scenes, brings to the screen a villainous cold newspaper publisher in the mold of Glenn Close or Meryl Streep. She is by far the scariest character in the entire piece, more than the actual villain, even. And then there´s Derek Jacobi, one of many actors pulling double roles. As a homeless man and Charles Dickens, Jacobi presents a mirror image of the same person (hint hint). While Dickens is calm and logical through his part of the story, the tramp is a nearly unhinged person, a loose cannon, if you will. With the simple addition of a rain slicker and colored hair, Jacobi presents a man in the pre- and post- phases of loss.

Writer/director/producer Brendan Foley´s script lets down the actors. Foley tries to combine too many disparate elements into a cohesive story without bothering to answer the questions posed. The dueling subplots of the pub keeper´s death and an unpublished Dickens manuscript don´t gel at any point in the two hour film; instead, they compete for time, pushing one another out of the way with no good reason, accompanied by awkward transitions. (Jacobi as flashback Dickens suddenly appears on the screen, narrating the final story.) The story of the current day murder or the one we´re told of in the final manuscript would have worked on its own. Together, though, they butt heads, forcing the audience to try to piece together their relationship.

Turns out, shock of shocks, the similarities are strikingly sparse, tied together in the last scene by a plot contortion with no basis in any realistic fact. I won´t spoil it here, mind you. Just be prepared. I´m also being purposely vague as to plot specifics because of the genre "The Riddle" plays in. To mention one aspect of the plot may serve to unravel the entire thing.
I´m sure you´re asking where the dickens Dickens comes into the picture, right? Pub keep Sadie (Vera Day) finds the last story-"The Riddle," clever right?-and winds up dead shortly afterward. Mike solves a riddle to find it…but why? It doesn´t add anything to the murder investigation, nor is there an insight Mike hasn´t thought of. Without any concrete tie to the main plot, each and every flashback to Dickens means nothing in the grand scheme of things. (The final twist I´ve alluded to ties in, but it´s so convoluted I still don´t believe Foley didn´t rethink it.)

And therein lays my biggest gripe with "The Riddle": instead of being a straight up murder mystery/romance, it wastes too much time with Dickens. Not enough is spent on the actual investigation or Mike piecing the clues together. People and evidence seems to fall into his lap at random intervals to keep the story advancing forward. Secondary characters, all of whom play a part in the finale, are dropped for prolonged periods of time in the narrative to make room for Dickens. Either is a viable idea for a movie. But throwing them together? It´s a haphazard mesh of plot elements.

In its defense, Foley´s script keeps the action flowing in both time periods, not stopping long enough to dwell on any one event or to take the time to document burgeoning relationships in any real detail. Take Kate (Julie Cox) and Mike. Their romantic relationship is glimpsed in small spurts, almost like snapshots instead of being shown in every painstaking detail. Even if the screenplay messes up the story it is trying to tell, it doesn´t become boring. It´s something at least.

VIDEO:
Though the original 1.78:1 anamorphic widescreen aspect ratio is respected, I can´t help but feel the video presentation of "The Riddle" could have been better. Roughly half the film looks okay, despite the presence of grain and soft details. It´s the other half-the half taking place in the dark or low light areas-which presents the problem. To be succinct, the grain is magnified when the lights go down to the point of distracting attention from the action. It´s an almost muddy affair, perhaps on purpose and perhaps not. I paused a random "flashback" moment with Charles Dickens. The result was something straight off a well-used VHS tape: white flecks all over the screen, like snow. Artifacts also pop up early on, most noticeably of the black variety, though they taper off after the first fifteen minutes.

AUDIO:
Both the 5.1 and 2.0 English tracks are serviceable mixes without any counterpart problems of the things seen in the transfer. In a rare change, the 5.1 variety sounds a bit louder coming from the front speakers than the other one does. Ambient sounds, like water crashing on the banks of the Thames, are rendered adequately, if unremarkably. A minor gripe: the dialogue mix is either too low in portions of the film or the score is ratcheted too high. I had a very hard time understanding the dialogue. (Some of the issue could be the British slang and accent.) English and Spanish subtitles are included.

EXTRAS:
A bevy of trailers for Image Entertainment product: "My Brother is an Only Child" (1:55), "The Secret" (2:06), "Walker Payne" (1:22) and "The Riddle" (1:34).

PARTING THOUGHTS:
"The Riddle" is a film too complex for its own good. Gaps in logic (the end, hint hint) are never adequately addressed while the finale showdown borders on the ludicrous. The acting talent is above reproach and the location shooting in the United Kingdom adds to the mystique. I venture to think this would have worked better without the Dickens nonsense.

Posted Wednesday, August 27, 2008 9:55 PM by JJ79 | with 0 comments

EliteXC: Uprising (2007)

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

Under discussion:

Elitexc: Uprising - Rua vs. Lawler Production Year

The first EliteXC 2-disc set in a while which doesn´t feature brawler Kimbo Slice lacks drama. Despite the presence of returning fighters (from previous events) Nick Diaz, Gina Carano, Jake Shields and Joey Villasenor, "EliteXC: Uprising" can´t quite combine the freshness of "Destiny" or "Renegade" with the crowd appeal of "Street Certified." And for the life of me, I can´t figure out why.

It´s not the historical aspect to the presentation. Even if the World Middleweight Champion Murilo "Ninja" Rua hadn´t been upset by "Ruthless" Robbie Lawler, the second appearance by Carano should have done the trick. Featured in the third televised fight, Carano-also known as Crush on the new "American Gladiators"-wins her first match by submission. The fact females get into the cage to pummel one another is something I remain intrigued by. Why? Because both Carano and her challenger Tonya Evinger are every bit the fighters the men are, though you wouldn´t know it by the pitifully quick work Carano makes of Evinger.

Of course, there are four other fights on the main card. The first match up, that between Jake Shields and Renato Verissimo is particularly violent, with Shields mounting his opponent and then unleashing a barrage of attacks. It is the first of two fights stopped by the referee, something we did not see much of in the previous DVD´s. In fact, when you factor in Carano´s rear naked choke (submission) and the two matches halted by the ref, it´s a disappointment to see the last two actually go to the judges for a decision.

With the Joey Villasenor/Riki Fukuda battle fittingly going to Villasenor-he has the upper hand for a majority of the three five-minute rounds-Nick Diaz/Mike Aina is a bit sketchier. Coming off a six month marijuana suspension (we´ll get to this in a minute), Diaz uses the first round to regain his fighting legs, to figure out exactly what Aina is going to do. It is here his opponent gives his best performance. As the second and third rounds carry on, though, Diaz would find the chops to go against K. J. Noons in "Renegade" for the Lightweight Title.

About that continuity: it might sound silly to even mention a continuing storyline for something like mixed martial arts, yet I find it necessary to enjoying the material in its entirety. While I do understand releasing bouts with Slice and other MMA royalty to build the fanbase, I have to believe EliteXC, ProElite and Image Entertainment would have been better served releasing in some sort of reasonable order. Isn´t it better for the audience to watch the rise (and potential fall) of a personality than it is for them to enter at their high point and then go back to see what was missed?

In three previous EliteXC reviews, I have failed to mention the announcing team in any meaningful way, despite always having the same reaction to them. The main card is called by the team of Mauro Ranallo, Bill Goldberg and Stephen Quadros. There is no doubting the pedigree of the three: Ranallo has been announcing since the age of 16 in various wrestling and combat arenas; Quadros practices martial arts, as well as holding positions for several different publications; and Goldberg is a retired wrestler.

With the exception of Goldberg-who is the most grounded of the three-there is no hyperbole they don´t know. For one fight, or maybe even two, hearing Ranallo shout into the microphone isn´t all that bad. But after two hours of the same voice telling us how wonderful the fight is? Boring and a bit irritating. Of course, I am holding these three to the pinnacle (for me) of announcing teams: Marv Albert, Matt Goukas and Bill Walton. That might be unfair. In the context of MMA announcers, I can only guess they are on par with their peers.

"Uprising," like "Street Certified," "Destiny" and "Renegade," follows a precise formula, down to scripts, type of coverage and even DVD menu´s. It shouldn´t be very surprising, something I noted in "Street Certified." If it works once, you might as well go back to the well until it runs dry.

VIDEO:
"Uprising" took place on September 15, 2007, the sixth EliteXC event following the formation of the league earlier in the year. ("Destiny," already on DVD, was the first televised event.) I only mention this in the video section of the review to point out a peculiar problem with the transfer: it´s not presented in anamorphic widescreen like the other three events now on DVD. The DVD box and slipcover mention a 1.78:1 anamorphic transfer; all we get here is a fullscreen affair.

More than a labeling problem, the transfer is riddled with distortion around fine details like the letters on the cage mat, on top of heads and hats and through the cage fence. I don´t recall any of the previous televised fights looking this bad. Blacks remain adequately rendered, though even they are one or two steps away from true black. I noticed more than a couple blue dots lingering on the screen as the camera tilted up toward the rafters. Could it be from the spotlights illuminating the cage? Sure, but this was not a problem before. "Uprising" got the short end of the stick in the video department.

AUDIO:
Now this is more like it. A standard English 2.0 track is provided and it´s a definite step up from its tech specs counterpart. Granted, it´s not a spectacular mix, though it remains on par with the other releases and what I´d expect from a live sporting event on a pay cable network. Unlike other outings, the audio on "Uprising" very rarely becomes distorted or overpowered. Not that we always want to listen to $kala (on the bonus fights) or the hyperbolically overblown announcing team on the main fights.

There was only one moment of cringe worthy audio courtesy of Bill Goldberg. It occurs in the post-fighter interview with Robbie Lawler. Goldberg tries to pimp the winner by drawing out his name via a scream leading to an audio warble near the end. Otherwise, it´s a solid affair. No subtitles are included.

EXTRAS:
There is a template ProElite, EliteXC and Image Entertainment have come up with for these discs and they slavishly adhere to it from one release to the next. The main attraction here is a series of five-not seven, as the cover art suggests-untelevised fights. Running nearly 79 minutes (in play all and individual fight options), these additional bouts were shown on ProElite.com to subscribers. Outside of the first-Nam/Manners-and last-Wolf/Klingensmith-there´s no reason to delve too deeply into these matches. The other three last less than one full round and one (Hose/Cox) is particularly inept.

And now we come to the stock extras. A series of Fighter Bios-one for each of the main card combatants-is included for a total of 10 short biographies. The Behind the Scenes section includes promotional videos. Major headings include "Weigh In," "Pre-Fight," "Post-Fight" and "Showtime Uprising Promo." The first and last include only one video each, while "Pre-Fight" contains 10 interviews; "Post-Fight" has 9.

Photo Galleries are up next, again in different sections: "Promo" (9 images); "Pre-Fight" (9 images); "Fight" (8 images); "EliteXC Girls on the Beach" (14 images); and "EliteXC Girls in the Arena" (8 images). The obligatory Rules of the Cage and Term Glossary round out the special features.

Two trading cards are included in the double disc amaray case: Robbie Lawler and Ninja Rua. A metallic slipcover comes over the keepcase, just like the previous releases.

PARTING CHOKE:
EliteXC and Image Entertainment do the viewer a disservice by not releasing these fights in any sort of continuity order. Part of the idea, I suppose, is for the audience to begin feeling a kinship with each fighter, as well as their personal story. But when each DVD set bounces around between more current and older matches, it´s impossible to form any sort of coherent narrative through line. Granted, the target audience for these discs is the EliteXC fan and not the casual DVD buyer; they undoubtedly know the in´s and out´s of the sport better than anyone else, precluding the need for continuity. Still, aside from the glaring packaging mistakes and/or content missing from the disc, this is another worthy, if not remarkable, MMA presentation.

Posted Monday, August 25, 2008 7:37 PM by JJ79 | with 0 comments

Cthulhu (2007)

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

Under discussion:

Cthulhu (2008)

Somewhere inside "Cthulhu" is a decent, if not good, story featuring the supernatural, the dark secrets of one coastal town, strained family dynamics and a burgeoning romance. Thanks to a tediously slow opening half hour and poor editing, the film doesn´t add up to much in the end, besides a wasted opportunity.

Upon learning of his mother´s death, Russ Marsh (Jason Cottle) returns home to a strained relationship with his father and sister. It seems as though the elder Marsh isn´t thrilled with his son´s homosexuality, leading to the rift. Even though Russ is keen on returning to his other life, he becomes sucked into the seedy underbelly of the Oregon coast, one which may alter his destiny forever.

I didn´t intend to be glib when I say "Cthulhu" carries all the hallmarks of a project from a first time writer and director (Grant Cogswell and Dan Gildark, respectively). What the film takes from Lovecraft is the titular creature and a concept from the 1936 novella "The Shadow Over Innsmouth." Otherwise, neither man has any real concept of how to create tension, build characters or develop an idea. The problems could stem from a hackish editing job, as I alluded to earlier, though just as much blame should be placed on the creators.

Where to start? How about storytelling fundamentals, namely character? Cogswell tries to give us complex characters to watch by providing insight in their current personalities through flashbacks. At the very least, he´s showing and not just telling. However, each flashback is such a quick snippet of an event, there´s never time for the audience to adjust to the time shift before the story moves back to the present.

Then, as if trying to throw a bone to the gay audience, there is the half-hearted introduction of familial strife over sexuality. It is these types of storylines we´ve seen dozens of times done with more panache and heart, not to mention substance. Take the obligatory dinner scene, for instance. It brings four characters together (Russ, his father, sister and brother-in-law) and begins storylines the script has no intention of wrapping up at any point. Yes, it does finally bring the family issues to the forefront, explaining why Russ has been estranged from these people for so long. But there are no long term ramifications to dinner. It´s all exposition.

The vast majority of the first forty minutes of "Cthulhu" plays in much the same way. Bringing new personalities onto the screen, trying to build a mystery. The mystery itself is another problem area. Quite frankly, we never really know in concrete terms what the stakes are. There is some mention of the sea, a creature, people disappearing and possibly a cult at work, though these elements are never explicitly spelled out. The script sprinkles information of catastrophes across the earth (wars, weather, hate) and, to be fair, they do tie in with the end result of taking over the planet.

About that mystery: who cares? We´re never given any real reason to be invested in any of the people on screen. Not even the central relationship of Mike and Russ. And certainly not by anything in the final shot of the film. To be blunt, it doesn´t make sense. What possesses Russ to turn to the dark side, so to speak, especially in light of a terribly convenient video tape? You´d think it would have made him run as fast as he can in the complete opposite direction.

I feel compelled to point out Tori Spelling has a part in "Cthulhu." Not because I´m a fan, but because Susan is involved in one of the biggest gaffes in the film. See, she lures Russ to her home under the pretense of giving him information about an object (don´t ask). Instead, she and her husband drug Russ, essentially rape him and, presumably, use his semen later in the film (again, don´t ask). You´d think this would be a major point in this film, or really any film. How many male characters are drugged and raped in the medium, anyway?

The actors do as good a job with the material as they can, but it is a battle they can´t hope to win. Cottle has the majority of the screen time, portraying a man going more and more mad as the film progresses. Even Spelling, apparently being told to be a sex kitten, is watchable in her brief scenes. Green, for his part, can´t seem to speak above a whisper most of the time, sadly.

If there had been a problem with one or two parts of the film, it´s possible the end result would have been watchable. But a combination of one dimensional characters, plot points appearing and disappearing at the drop of a hat, only the slightest hint of the creature Lovecraft originally intended-as well as some irritating music mixing, complete with an overpowering score in certain scenes-and "Cthulhu" is a disappointment on almost every level.

Note I said "almost." The look of the film, nearly completely bathed in an ice blue tone, sets a mood of uncertainty and detachment from the very beginning of the picture. It is carried through the entire production, lightened to a warm ethereal look in the flashbacks and when Mike and Russ are together. Gildark doesn´t commit many directorial sins; it is the editing (I presume) which doesn´t work, among other things.

It has been said a gay protagonist was inserted into this story in order to correlate the horror Russ faced in confronting his family with being gay against how a person feels about coming back to a small town. The analogy doesn´t work, mostly because the script won´t let it. It´s much too concerned with "solving" a convoluted mystery than it is in developing actual people. "Cthulhu," playing now in limited release, doesn´t have much going for it; a 3 out of 10. A definite strike out.

Posted Sunday, August 24, 2008 10:01 PM by JJ79 | with 0 comments

The Secret (2007)

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

Under discussion:

Secret (2007)

In spite of its origin, "The Secret" manages to craft a compelling, thought-provoking and heart breaking narrative of love and loss thanks to an outstanding performance from Olivia Thirlby and solid turns from both David Duchovny and Lili Taylor. ("The Secret" is a remake of a 1999 Japanese film. That film, in turn, is an adaptation of a Japanese novel.)

When Hannah Marris and her daughter Sam (Taylor, Thirlby) are in a car accident, Hannah´s spirit is transferred into the younger body in a moment of paranormal transference. It is then up to the combined Hannah/Sam and Ben to navigate this new relationship, including marital sex and Sam´s teenager life, while maintaining the illusion of a mourning-though functional-family.

There is a situation we fully expect to see in the movie, based on the actions and diagloue present in "The Secret." It´s not a scene we especially want to see; this one seems inevitable, almost like the predetermined confrontation between good and evil in every fantasy film ever made. To its great credit, though, despite teasing a romantic coupling between a father and his daughter´s body, it never does. As an audience, we´re let off the hook of having to endure an awkward sex scene when wiser heads should have prevailed.

Much of this 2007 production works in the same manner. Difficult topics are brought up and the characters find their way through them in tasteful, if not always loving, ways. There is no blueprint for Ben, Sam and Hannah to adhere to. Spirit transference doesn´t happen-we assume-on a regular basis. And if it does, people don´t talk about it. How are you supposed to react to suddenly being someone you don´t understand? What types of potentially hurtful secrets do you find out about them? How does the relationship dynamic change?

"The Secret" slowly introduces the three main characters, taking its time to show the depth of love Ben and Hannah share. Scenes such as their night alone allows the drama to come to hold an emotional resonance with the audience, as opposed to being another weird event happening to normal people. It´s no small feat, then, to integrate Sam into the picture, complete with her rebellious streak and disdain for Hannah. Most of the first half hour is devoted to setting up the relationships, gently prodding them along without repeating the same scene over and over. Director Vincent Perez and screenwriter Ann Cherkis understand the difference between reinforcing an idea and needlessly bashing the audience over the head with it.

We are shown Sam´s first day at school with the requisite situations she´d find herself in: forgetting a locker combination, being overwhelmed in honors classes, finding school has changed over the years, and so on. These are all necessary events to play out for the audience to further create a real world. As with the relationship building before it, there are not endless scenes of the "fish out of water." Just enough to give us a taste before moving on. Whether by design or out of necessity, it´s a strategy which works as well as it possibly could have.

Thirlby, best known for "Juno," is third billed on the DVD and is the least known of the three leads, yet the power of "The Secret" rests on her ability to play both a teenager and forty-something mother. With a grace, determination and confidence to challenge Duchnovny, Thirlby exudes Taylor from her pores. She doesn´t overthink the part, opting to understand each emotion and situation from both perspectives, as evidenced by her multi-layered performance. This film is a calling card for the young actress, a highlight reel if you will and one of the gripping female performances from last year.

Plotlines screaming either "boring" or "unnecessary" find themselves quickly moved to the sidelines. Following the transference, there´s never one magical moment in which Ben finally believes Hannah. Instead, we see a montage of reading in the library, followed with his verbal acceptance of the situation. And then a minor subplot with a potential love interest goes as far as it needs to in order to assist with the main story. That´s the way "The Secret" works: economical, forthright and fearless.

VIDEO:
Despite a dark, intentionally washed out look to the film, "The Secret" sports a remarkable 2.35:1 anamorphic widescreen transfer. I didn´t notice a single problem in the presentation; not a spot of grain, artifacting, ripples or distortion. Blacks are deep throughout the picture while both indoor and outdoor scenes are perfectly rendered. Even one potentially problematic sequence late in the film-a redish glow-doesn´t smear or cause a problem. This is a beautiful presentation.

AUDIO:
I´m not quite as happy with the audio options (English 5.1 and 2.0) only because the score and soundtrack on both versions tends to overpower some of the quieter, dialogue driven moments in the film. "The Secret" relies on its words to generate an impact; when pieces of conversations are lost for no good reason, something is wrong in the mixing booth. However, as with the video, there aren´t any other problematic aspects to either mix. Both versions appear nearly identical, with the 2.0 more forceful through the front speakers. Aside from a couple sequences, there really isn´t a need for the enhanced track. English and Spanish subtitles are included.

EXTRAS:
I won´t lie: I hoped for more special features than what is included. First up is roughly eight minutes of behind the scenes footage. It largely consists of director Perez shooting scenes and interacting with the cast. Shot in fullscreen, I can´t help but label it as suplurflous fluff. Slightly better are a series of interviews with the leads (Duchony, Taylor and Thirlby) discussing the film and their roles. Again, it´s nothing groundbreaking and Taylor seems ill at ease early in her section. They´re nice, though only Taylor´s delves into the meat of the story, so to speak.

A couple trailers start the film: "My Brother is an Only Child," "The Riddle" and "Walker Payne" while this film´s red band (R-rated) trailer is also included.

PARTING THOUGHTS:
"The Secret" wisely avoids falling into "icky" territory by addressing the sexual component of the situation without resorting to lowest common denominator titillation. By following a singular through line, the story is able to hit the moments it needs to in the journey of the Marris family. There is just enough on screen to show character and plot development, yet not so much scenes feel familiar.