Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

PaL Blog

Reviews

 
  • Slumdog Millionaire: The Dark and the Light

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

    We went to see "Slumdog Millionaire," the new Danny Boyle movie that has caused such a stir and proved such a surprise hit in the theaters. 

    Deservedly so.  I had heard only the light part of the story--the poor boy from the slums of Mumbai winning millions on a television game show.  I had read no reviews, so I was unprepared for the dark side: the police brutality, the slum children eking out a living in the filth of garbage dumps, their exploitation as beggars and prostitutes by unscrupulous men, the murderous underworld of mafia-like gangs... At this level, the movie is a story of survival against all odds, the street smarts of bright young "artful dodgers" who learn how to trick the system.  It's also the Cain and Abel story of two brothers, themselves the reflection of the dark and the light--the one who from desperation turns to crime, the other incorruptible.  And on a more sentimental level, it's about the triumph of impossibly romantic love.

    The movie is intricately constructed out of several interwoven threads: the television show, with its scheming, ego-driven host; the police headquarters, where officials try to wring out from the hero a confession of cheating, first with torture, then beatings, and finally with the slowly dawning realization that he had earned the knowledge of his answers through the experience of his life; and the story behind each of those answers with flashbacks to his childhood and young teenage years.  The scenes of the game show itself, as the young man moves from lucky naive to idolized folk here, are actually gripping; while we know in advance that his answers will be the right ones, we're held at the edge of our seats with the suspense of waiting. 

    We know, too, that our hero will get his girl in the end.  How could he not?  They have been "meant for each other" since childhood, when violence and brutality brought their lives together with all the strange inevitability of randomly clashing forces.  The sentimentality of the lovers' eventual, improbable reunion in the movie's closing scene, despite all obstacles along the way, is tempered by the unexpected explosion of a credits sequence in which Hollywood transmutes magically into Bollywood in a scene of wildly choreographed ecstatic dance on the platform of the Mumbai train station--ah yes, alas, that same one where gunmen came a few weeks back to randomly unload their assault weapons into crowds of commuters...  But that's another story.  Or is it?

    A finely-constructed narrative, great parts played by a terrific cast of actors... (take a look at these beautiful young people!)

    along with action and suspense, all freighted with a serious undertow of social criticism and personal inner conflict--these make for a rare and rewarding experience at the cinema. I say, go see, if you haven't done already.


  • The Counterfeiters

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

    I have another movie to recommend--this one in current theatrical release: The Counterfeiters.  Set in the German concentration camps during World War II, the based-on-fact story concerns the Nazis' attempt to scuttle the Allies' economic standing by flooding the global economy with counterfeit pounds sterling and American dollars.  To that end, they assembled a team of the most skillful Jewish artisans and put them to work in a privileged quarter of the Sachsenhausen camp, under the leadership of one Salomon Sorowitsch (Sally), portrayed here with intense conviction by Karl Markovics.

    Under the constant threat of death and at the dubious mercy of their Nazi overseers, they managed to produce several denominations of English banknotes that were declared genuine even by experts at the Bank of England. Put back to work on the production of the American dollar, the team's efforts were delayed by a single recalcitrant fellow-prisoner whose conscience balked at the idea that their work risked helping the Germans win the war.  As the war's end approached, the threat became more imminent: produce, or die.  One of the many great, irresolvable moral questions at the heart of the movie was whether to betray one of their own--whose choice was inarguably the right one, from the idealistic point of view--and save themselves; or whether to tacitly go along with his sabotage at the certain cost of their own lives.

    What gives the movie its edge, I think, is the constant imminence of death.  The barbarous brutality of the German guards and their bland, unquestioning assumption that their charges are subhuman, scheming Jews unworthy of anything but contempt reinforces this sense of imminence: as we see at several dreadful moments in the course of the film, it means nothing to their keepers to exterminate those they consider to be vermin. Knowing this, the Jews are forced into cowering servility, simply to stay alive.  As viewers, we cringe for them and are sickened by the treatment they receive.

  • Michael Clayton Grabs you Round the Heart

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

    Michael Clayton  (2007)

    It's dawn.  Three horses on a hillside, powerful, serene, majestic.  They are connected with their natural environment, at peace with their own nature...  Behind the man who stands there, gazing at them, down at the bottom of the hill, his expensive black Mercedes explodes in a burst of searing flame.  Explodes again.  

    He was supposed to be inside it.  

    This is Michael Clayton's moment of truth, in the film whose title is appropriately his name.  It's the moment that he glimpses an end to his own suffering.  And suffer he does.   His life has gone awry, his moral compass long since lost.  Separated from wife and family, awash in gambling debts, he has surrendered his career as a lawyer to acting as the "janitor" to his corporate law firm, doing whatever it takes to clean up those inconvenient messes that threaten the firm's image--or that of its clients.  He has learned to skillfully manipulate the truth to serve the corporate interest.

    From that start on the hillside, we are led back through the last four days that have brought him to this epiphany.  He has been assigned the task of bringing back a partner, Arthur (wonderfully portrayed by that fine actor, Tom Wilkinson) who is also an old friend and colleague, into the fold of corporate contingency.  Arthur has lost his senses--or, as we discover, found them.  Building the defense of a corporate client desperate to save itself from the public exposure of its egregious poisoning of hundreds of its consumers--and potentially millions more--Arthur has done the unthinkable, switching his alliegeance from the client to its victims.  A traitor to the firm and to its bottom-line "values," this miscreant must be brought back in line, and Michael Clayton is the man relied upon to do it.

    Along the road, however, Clayton is brought face to face with the venality of the system that he serves.  Increasingly, he comes to realize that real justice is on the side of the plaintiff in the case in question, and that his friend is far from the lunatic he has been made out to be.  When Clayton's counterparts, the "janitors" who represent his firm's corporate client, spring into action and resort, finally, to murder, he turns coat himself, sacrificing his own interest and that of his firm to the revelation of the truth.

    Before I get lost in the complexities of this finely-conceived, finely-written, and magnificently enacted story, let me get back to redemption--for that, as I see it, is the story's theme.  If Arthur forsakes the "meds" that have kept his life in balance and descends into a fit of madness that reveals itself as moral clarity, Michael's redemption is the greater struggle, because it involves the surrender of everything that has seemed important to him: money, status, the respect and trust of those he works for, his employment--and finally his very identity--in order to emerge from the hell he has created for himself.  In a remarkable feat of acting, as the film comes to its close, George Clooney's face alone conveys the transformation from misery and desperation to a kind of happiness.

    "Michael Clayton" kept me on the proverbial edge of my seat from beginning to end.  It's the kind of film where you're never allowed to pause and glance nervously at your watch.  It's a true thriller, but one where violence is reduced to the necessary minimum and where the characters and the complexity of their moral issues drive the action.  It's tough, uncompromising, but not lacking in tender moments, and it grabs you where good art is supposed to grab you--round he heart.  Clooney's Michael is at once strong and vulnerable, scared and angry, transparent and inscrutable.  We can forgive him for having lost his way, because we share his human failings, his desires, his attachments.  It's when he learns to let go of them--in good Buddhist fashion--that he finds the beginnings of his freedom.

    The other part of the Buddhist lesson of this film, by the way, is the karmic teaching: that cruel, unskillful actions lead inevitably to unhealthy and undesirable outcomes, while skillful action brings about the results that satisfy the soul.

    Cross-posted at The Buddha Diaries


  • Cruelty and the Futility of Torture

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

    "The Lives of Others" is a great film, and an uncomfortably timely reminder of the cruelty and the futility of torture in a week when the Burma junta of generals again comes to world attention with their human rights abuses; and on a day (yesterday) when the New York Times headlined the shameful story of Bush's continuing, secret authorization of techniques "to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics" in the course of interrogation. "The Lives of Others" is the story of a state-sponsored eavesdropper and torturer--not the kind who pulls out toenails and applies electrical shocks to the genitals, but one who gets results by sleep and sustenance deprivation and prolonged, relentless and implacable questioning followed up by threats to the subject's loved ones. The first scene shows that he's very good at what he does. He's on his way up in the Stasi (the former East German secret police) organization. He seems bloodless, pitiless, intent--and deadly fearsome in his impassivity. (A brilliant performance, by the way, by the actor Ulrich Muehe.) 

    Once it begins, the story involves a famous playwright of conscience and his actress lover--the unfortunate object of lust of a senior state official who orders the exposure of the playwright as a national enemy. Our hero is given the assignment to bug and monitor the apartment that the couple share, and the story is of his gradual awakening to the realization that neither he nor the state have the right to spy on the private "lives of others." Falsifying the reports from his nightly surveillance from a loft above the apartment, he increasingly puts his own career on the line, risking exposure, disgrace, and imprisonment himself. 

    The plot thickens with the suicide of a despairing friend of the writer in this oppressive regime, and his decision to smuggle an illegal article on the subject to a West German magazine. The events lead to a climax that is at once heart-breaking and, finally, uplifting, as our spy comes to listen to the voice of his own conscience with unintentionally tragic results. Forced by the Stasi to practice his dark art on the actress this lonely man has come, in some strange way, to love, he is confronted decisively with the inner conflict between the path his life has taken and a good, human, even compassionate heart. 

    The tragedy here is the senselessness of it all, the way in which truth evaporates in the grip of the police state, where torture and compulsion stifle it, wrecking lives along the way. It is shameful, indeed, to think that our own country practices such methods, employing terror in the name of fighting terror. It is shameful to have a President and a Department of Justice who sanction such behavior, in the face of common consensus that it is not only inhuman but that its results are as likely to be false and unreliable. We are not a police state in this country, but we have unforgivably allowed our government to adopt some of the police state's tactics; and to see this gripping movie about a period we have supposedly left behind us, along with the Cold War, is to be reminded, tragically, of what is still being perpetrated in our name. 

    (Oh, and then I open up my New York Times this morning and find this picture on the front page. Remind you of anyone?)

  • Powerful and Majestic

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

    Into the Wild  (2007)

    Small wonder that Christopher McCandless, the central character in the Sean Penn-directed movie, Into the Wild was afraid of water: from an elemental point of view, he was all fire. Unable to put down roots anywhere, he darted from place to place, infectiously re-lighting the fire in everyone he met--and unable to tame his own suffiicently to avoid being consumed by it. In the end, he was done in not only by water, as the river in spate prevented his return from "the wild"; but also, as fire inevitably is, by the absence of fuel to continue along his path. He died of starvation. Seen from this elemental point of view, "Into the Wild" was a powerful and majestic film. The earth figured prominently in the form of the great mountains of Alaska, the Southern California desert, the roads that led in all directions, predominantly north and south. There was water in plenty: the ocean where Chris learned to overcome his fear of water and passed his fire on to a woman whose passion had died; the rain and snow; the raging rivers, including the one he was unable to cross, the one that caused his eventual isolation and death. The air, the great, wide open skies that stretched above him everywhere, the air that fed the fire that consumed him. And the fire, chiefly within, where it raged, in contrast to those small campfires, match glows, embers, that stood in for the element in the outer world. A wonderful movie, I thought. Just a little bit longer than it needed to be, as though the director feared we might not get it, and risked boring us in order to be sure we got the point... Well worth the time. It's a movie one could see again, just to be overwhelmed, again, by the power of the elements.

 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<December 2009>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789


Categories
 


Advertisement