CinemaRian

Under discussion:

Nashville  (1975)

Nashville is Robert Altman’s best film.  That’s not a controversial claim, but its reputation is accurate.  This is one of the greatest American films of the 70’s, and certainly one of the most unique.

The tagline of the movie is “The damndest thing you ever saw” and few promotional lines are more accurate.  If the film were made today, I suppose it would be referred to as a hyperlink picture, but it doesn’t even have the required structure. There is either no plot, or about fifteen of them.  There is nothing approaching a main character, and in fact, all twenty four of its “lead” actors have equal billing (and, for that matter, two major characters are never seen onscreen at all). Altman shoots the film in a documentary style, and some of the characters are very real, but others and the situations they find themselves in are clearly satirical.  There is no other film like it, including others by its director.

The most basic storyline in the films involves an independent political candidate who is preparing for the Tennessee Presidential primary, but said candidate is only heard as a van travels around town, obnoxiously blaring one his speeches.  Among the many other intrigues is an undiagnosed illness of country superstar Barbara Jean (Ronee Blakley),  the struggling marriage between political operative Delbert Reese (Ned Beatty) and his wife, gospel singer Linnea (Lilly Tomlin), framed by observations of Opal (Geraldine Chaplin) a pretentious reporter for the BBC.  Unlike the modern films that Altman inspired, such as Babel, not everything fits together, but that’s not a criticism.  Not everything in life makes sense or is explained.  Too few movies understand that once in a while things are just plain random. 

Take the example of the Tricycle Man (Jeff Goldblum) who rides around town on giant, ugly motorcycle never saying a word and rarely interacting with other characters.  Or L.A. Joan (Shelley Duvall) a woman who seems to be everywhere in this conservative culture though she dresses like she’s a flamboyant male homosexual.  My favorite character is Sueleen Gay (Gwen Wells) a wonderfully endearing but naïve singer who (tragically) has no idea that she’s talentless and that audiences only appreciate her for her sex appeal.

The movie is kind of its own genre.  There is nothing else the film can be, for it is unlike any other film.  One entire of the movie (a third of its running time) is devoted to concert footage performed live by the actors, most of whom wrote their own songs (Keith Carradine won an Oscar for the best, “I’m Easy”.)  Few of the stories payoff, and the few that don’t have much of a setup. 

But that’s what makes film so endlessly fascinating.  It exists in an out of documentary, drama and comedy.  The characters are clearly constructs, but you end up caring about them.  I was tempted to say that climax says something about America, but I’m not sure even says anything about Nashville.  But its kind of like life. 

Under discussion:

The Horror of Frankenstein  (1970)

The Horror of Frankenstein(1970)

I’ve never responded to Frankenstein movies in the same way I have to Dracula films.  The reason is, I think, that there are near endless variations on the plot and themes to Dracula, whereas with Frankenstein you are pretty much stuck aquasi-mad doctor either bringing a dead creature to life or doing something else with one that he brought to life in the previous film.

There are many great Hammer Dracula pictures, but only one great Frankenstein film, the second, The Revenge of Frankenstein (1958) which took every ridiculous plot point and played as if it could actually happen, and in doing so made us feel a little sorry for the tragedy of the good doctor.

Perhaps sensing their Frankenstein series was not as strong as their Dracula films (or many of their standalone titles) Hammer in 1970 to reboot the pictures instead of doing another sequel.  They were eager for screenwriter the screenwriter
of the first film, Jimmy Sangster, to write the re-launch, so they offered him
both the producer’s reins and director’s chair as well.  Sangster probably had more control over this picture than any director ever did at Hammer (well, except for Michael Carreras on The Curse of the Mummy’s Tomb).

Although a lot of Hammer fans are not fond of this picture (perhaps due to the absence of Peter Cushing), I rather liked it, and I appreciated Sangster’s choice to make the film as a black comedy instead of another unsuccessful attempt at horror (was Frankenstein ever that scary, anyway?).  The picture follows the usual Frankenstein outline (boy dreams of monster, boy creates monster, monster kills people, boy tries to hide monster), but Sangster has fun with the usual cliché’s.

I was afraid that I would miss Cushing in the lead role, but Ralph Bates (who bears a stunning resemblance to The Kink’s Ray Daves) is really exceptional in the part and is quite funny.  He’s endearingly evil in the Richard III sense, and unlike Cushing’s interpretation, not the least bit mad.  At least this sociopath admits he’s one. The supporting cast (which also includes Graham James, who strangely looks just like The Moody Blue’s Justin Hayward) is mostly spot on, impressive for a first time director. 

The movie also looks good, but nearly all the Hammer films do, despite their budget.  If it can be said to have a flaw, it would be in the portrayal of the creature (David Prowse).  It’s not Prowse’s fault, but his character is given little motivation as to why he so loyal to Frankenstein when he otherwise so violent).  Perhaps it was supposed to parody why the doctor always fails at his attempts to create a good person, but wake-up-and-kill approach the character has doesn't work.

This is not a major cinematic landmark, but it is a fun movie that manages to present a couple compelling characters while still being mostly funny.  If there is one thing that all the Hammer director’s had in common, it was the fact that they
never played the material for laughs, which is usually suicide in speculative
fiction.  Here’s the only to my knowledge that Hammer did it, and amazingly, it worked.

Under discussion:

Film Name  Production Year

Sunshine Cleaning  (2009)

Sunshine Cleaning has all the signs of a movie that went into production too soon, with script that was either still being written or with one in serious need of revision.  The movie has the cast it needs and a setting that works, but lacks the crucial element of focus. 

As you’ve seen from the trailer, the movie is a light comedy about a two sisters who open up their own business cleaning up after bloody suicides or murders.  This is certainly an interesting idea for a movie, but the picture never bothers to consider most of the implications of this.  Instead it spends much of its time on a great many subplots, some of which are set up and never pay off.

The two sisters are Rose (Amy Adams) and Norah (Emily Blundt).  Rose works as a maid and has a young son named Oscar (Jason Spevack) and spends a great deal of time looking forward to her weekly rendezvous with a married police officer (Steve Zahn).  Norah lives with her father Joe (Alan Arkin), an unsuccessful businessesman who is trying to market a new kind of candy.  Oscar gets kicked out of school due to some troubling behavior (that the movie never resolves, nor mentions again) so Rose feels the needs to make more money to get him into a private school.  The cop advises that she can big bucks cleaning up after dead people, and she convinces Norah join her.

Among the nine million other subplots in the movie are Rose’s attempt to impress her former high school classmates at a baby shower, Norah’s quasi-voyeuristic interest in the daughter of one of the suicides (Mary Lynn Raskub) , Rose’s relationship with the cop, Rose’s potential relationship with the owner of a cleaning supplies shop (Eric Christian Olsen), the sister’s coming to terms with the death of their own mother, and Joe’s potential inability to deliver on a promise to Oscar.

Lost in all of this is any kind of analysis as to the implications of the cleaning company, the ostensible selling point of the movie.  At no point does director Christine Jeffs or screenwriter Megan Holley deal with any of the obvious questions.  Aside from the fact that the job would be disgusting, how would this effect a person psychologically?  Would this change someone’s opinion about death, or life or religion or whatever?  Is there much of a distance between cleaning up blood and tomato sauce if you clean up one enough after a while?

The screenplay is the central problem here, although the direction by Jeffs in uninspired.  Some plot points, such as Oscar’s trouble at school are introduced and never referred to again, while others, such as the death of the sister’s mother, are brought up too late and pay off too quickly.  The entire chronology of the movie seems off, with events that should be days apart apparently (and implausible) taking months to occur, while others seem to come along too fast.

Where the film works is in the acting, which is very impressive.  I really got the impression that Adams and Blundt were members of the same family, something that rarely happens in movies.  They share a sisterly bond that is utterly believable and silently real, more real that anything else in the picture.

I can’t flaw Sunshine Cleaning for a lack of ideas, or even a lack of good ones, but I can find fault in its inability to focus itself.  The whole is far less than the sum of its parts, though I have to say that the movie was not boring.  I think I might want to see a movie about a single mother with a troubled child, or a thirty something dealing with the emptiness of her life, or two sisters who start a weird business together, or two sisters dealing with death of their mother.  But not all at once.

Sunshine Cleaning(2009)

Under discussion:

Film Name  Production Year

I've Loved You So Long...  (2008)

The first thing we notice is the face of Kristen Scott Thomas.  She is a beautiful woman, and still is, but there is something in that face of extreme pain.  It is as if all of the life and happiness has been sucked out of it.  It is a face that not only lacks joy but seems to negate the possibility of it.

Her character is named Juliette, and she sits at an airport terminal waiting for someone to come. That someone is her sister, Lea, played by Elsa Zylberstien.  Lea hasn’t seen her sister for fifteen years, when she was a child, but there is only the most basic level of recognition at the reunion. For Juliette, there is no reason for anything anymore.

The movie works simultaneously as a drama and mystery, as we slowly find out what the characters know about what happened and what led to this reunion.  Most everyone walking into the picture will know that Juliette has spent the last fifteen years in prison, but the crime itself and that motive behind are revealed slowly. 

Because we do not know this information, we judge Juliette slowly.  It is not so much that she has no social skills as it is that she chooses not to use them.  There is no reason for her to do so, no society for her to believe in. She is intelligent, educated and articulate, but has nothing to say to anyone.

Lea, on the other hand seems to have everything- with kids and a loving husband, Luc (Serge Hazanavicius).  What makes the picture so interesting (and moving) is that Lea loves her sister unconditionally.  She believes that no matter what she did, she has not done anything beyond understanding or forgiveness.  This is the central conflict of the film.  One sister wants to recall the other to life, and the other has forgotten that there is any purpose in living.

The acting in this film is superb, but Scott Thomas is outstanding.  Setting aside the fact that nearly all of her dialogue is in a second language she manages to show us the utter darkness that her character lives in without ever becoming manipulative.  Zylberstien must also be complimented for playing a part that could have easily become maudlin without a trace of Robin Williams- like manipulation. 

Although an excellent movie, there are a few flaws.  There’s a rather ridiculous pastoral montage in the middle of the film that belong in another movie, and occasionally the screenplay (by director Phillipe Claudel) seems a bit contrived and lays on its points a bit obviously, especially in the subplot involving Juliette’s parole officer (Frederic Pierrot).  But overall, this is a moving picture about one person who knows, just knows, her sister is a person worthy of love and respect, and another who cannot conceive that anyone could feel that way.

I've Loved You So Long...(2008)

Under discussion:

Gran Torino  (2008)

Do you remember that guy on your street who people referred to as “Old Man Hastings” or what ever his last name was?  The kind of guy the kids in the neighborhood never played around, because he would get so scary if anyone touched a blade of grass on his lawn? 

The greatest strength of Gran Torino is Clint Eastwood’s sheer embodiment of that guy we all knew, the guy who seemed to be about 68 for the last thirty years.  Eastwood’s character has all of the attributes you would expect from That Guy- he’s tough, racially insensitive (if not a sheer racist), set in his ways and frequently uses the phrase “Get off my lawn!”

In the movie, The Guy’s name is Walt Kowalski, and the picture opens at the funeral of his wife.  Walt’s marriage was successful and one gets the sense that the departed was a bridge between him and his sons (Brian Haley and Brian Howe), who do not seem very close, or indeed, very able to communicate with each other very well.  Walt is the last white left in his Detroit neighborhood, which consists almost entirely of Hmong immigrants and their children.  A veteran of the Korean War, Walt does not like Asians (although he doesn’t have much nice to say about African Americans and Latinos, either).  Next door, teenager Thao Vang Lor (Bee Vang) is being pressured by a gang to join them, and eventually the harassment spills over onto Walt’s lawn.  Motivated more his love of his property than altruism, Walt uses his rifle to rescue Thao, and unintentionally becomes a hero to the neighborhood.

I am not giving anything away if I state the unsurprising character development that Walt slowly begins to lose his racism.  In fact, there is a lot in the movie that is not surprising.  If you have seen the trailer, Gran Torino is pretty much the movie you would expect it to be, except for the climax, which is unsuspected though not satisfying.

I have consistently argued that I have found Eastwood’s recent series of critically acclaimed films (Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima and Changeling) to be overrated, and I still feel that I way about Gran Torino.  Like Baby and Iwo Jima, it’s a good movie, but not a great one, and not a film that’s particularly deep, either.  Perhaps the greatest weakness of Eastwood’s film as a director has been the fact the films seem more serious or profound than the actually are (Unforgiven being an exception that actually is deep).  But Gran Torino is more entertaining than any of the films listed above, merely because Eastwood’s character is so much fun to watch.  Even as we see the screenplay’s manipulations, the actor is a great screen presence. 

I am not sure, however, that this is a “great” performance, though Eastwood is considered to be the front runner for the Best Actor Oscar.  It’s more like a version of a movie stars persona than an actual “actorly” role, which Eastwood is capable of doing (as in The Beguiled, for example).  Still, the lead performance is clearly the best thing about the movie.  It is occasionally ridiculous, and usually predictable, but Gran Torino gives you a sold night of entertainment at the movies. 

Under discussion:

Frost/Nixon  (2008)

Ron Howard’s achievement must be acknowledged- more than perhaps any other filmmaker, he has found the ultimate cinematic style to con people into thinking there watching an important movie.  His films are rarely boring, and are often very good, but are never really profound, or important, or even memorable.  He’s caused me to give Frost/Nixon a three and half star rating, pretty impressive for a film I have contempt for.  

This is a film that pretends to be important, that states that it is about a subject and then discusses the topic hardly all.  The subject in question is the role of the media in politics, specifically, the 1977 serious of interviews between British journalist Sir David Frost (Michael Sheen) and disgraced U.S. President Richard Nixon (Frank Langella).

The thin plot of the film regards Nixon and his aids believing that Frost will be an easy mark for the former President to rehabilitate his reputation as a statesmen.  Since the trailer gives away the climax of the movie, I don’t think I’m giving much away when I reveal that for the most part, Nixon failed.  

The movie, written by Peter Morgan, who adapted his own stage play, spends far too much time with Frost, who the picture makes out to be a somewhat hapless, Barbara Walters-like journalist, neglecting the fact that he had in fact interviewed several major political figures before Nixon.  Michael Sheen also chooses to play Frost as a lightweight who is in over his head.  Sheen’s performance is a major flaw of the movie- he doesn’t look or sound much like the real Frost and his character comes off as such a dimwit that it’s hard to care what happens to him.

Frank Langella’s Nixon, on the other hand, is another story.  This is one of the best performances of the year, perhaps the best.  Langella seems to become Nixon before our eyes.  He looks like Nixon, he speaks like Nixon, and for all intents and purposes he is Nixon.   Comparing him to Sir Anthony Hopkins performance in Oliver Stone’s 1995 film and the difference is like night and day.  Hopkins did a good job, but you were always aware that he was acting.  Here, you just believe that you are looking at the 37th President, who somehow wandered into a movie.

But all the insight comes from Langella, not Howard. Because the movie is supposedly historically accurate, Howard occasionally uses a documentary style in which characters speak as though they are being interviewed on 16mm.  Is this supposed to make us think the movie is "real"?

And besides, what is the point of any of this?  There are other and better films about politics and the media (Network and Good Night, and Good Luck come to mind).  Those films actually bother to take a position on their subject.  But Howard is so set on pleasing everyone, of offering no offense to only the most sycophantic Nixon supporter that the movie says very little at all.  It is not boring and technically flawless, but it lacks one element crucial to great art- daring.  If you want to see a well made, perfectly safe movie that appears to be about something but really isn’t, with one brilliant performance, Frost/Nixon is the movie for you.

Frost/Nixon (2008)

Under discussion:

The Mark of Zorro  (1920)

Irony of ironies- what was once a standard, big budget Hollywood blockbuster now seems a bit more like an art movie.  The Mark of Zorro was an action adventures spectacle, and was received as such, but today there’s no doubt that no many audiences would have a problem with the movie’s leisurely pace.  Aside from an impressive action sequence towards the end, no one seems to be in much of a hurry to get anywhere in this movie.  Show this to the average action movie audience today and its likely that there would be large numbers of snores, in addition to a few snickers when Zorro is introduced as “The Gay Blade”.

However, an audience of movie fans will probably find much to love in this picture.  The fact that the movie is slow means that the picture draws us into its world at its own pace, and the intent in a picture like this seems to be not as much to get us super excited as it is too look at the evocation of California in the 1840’s.

I sometimes think that silent films have there own type of beauty that was never seen since, perhaps because the intent is not a setting for actors to say their dialogue in but a painterly visual composition where the actors exist along the world the exist in.  So much information is conveyed by the costumes, art direction and cinematography that at times it’s hard to believe that this was a star vehicle for Douglas Fairbanks, except when he’s on the screen, and dominates everything.

Fairbanks produced and co-wrote the film, adapted from the first Zorro novella, The Curse of Capistrano , published only the year before.  With the exception of The Scarlet Pimpernel, audiences had never seen a character like Zorro- a Batman type character who performed his heroics while masked, with a secret identity.  There could not have been a better choice for the character, as Fairbanks is a hero to ten year old boys of all ages.  With an athletic physical presence and devil-may-care attitude, combined with an absolute knowledge of moral clarity, his Zorro is a hero for the ages, really, all superhero movies might in some owe something to this movie.

Despite the slow pace, the movie knows its audience well enough not to add too much unnecessary romance (isn’t kissing disgusting?) the film is pretty economical in its story telling.  If doesn’t say too much about the human condition, well, I should point out that I wasn’t interested that much in that type of thing when I was ten either.  The Mask of Zorro spoke the part of me that refuses to grow up, and so few movies acknowledge any kind of innocence that I kind of loved it for doing so.

Under discussion:

Staying Alive  (1983)

How can I begin to describe this movie?  A sequel to one of the greatest of hits of 70’s, made pointless by the fact that the disco craze it celebrated was long sense over?  One of the best bad movies of all time?  A perfect vehicle to gaze at John Travolta’s sweaty, muscular body?  All of these my friend, and more.

Staying Alive is so very, very bad that it’s very very good, given the right environment of course.  I would not reccamend you watching the picture by yourself, unless you wanted to freeze frame the images of Travolta and- well, I’ll leave that to you in your private affairs.

The movie is a sequel to John Badham’s 1978 Saturday Night Fever, but follows precious little of that films story and the main character, Tony Manero (Travolta) seems different- a lot more feminine and stupidier.  Manero was never a brainaiac to begin with, but that was part of his character’s charm- he knew that he was no Einstien and accepted that, but had a basic level of intelligence that most people without major brain damage seem to have.  In this picture, Manero is so dumb at times you expect him to see him drool, which makes you wonder how he was smart enough to put the rouge and eyeliner on his face.

The plot of the film involves Manero trying to make it as a professional dancer in a broadway show in Manhatten, and having to choose between two women, both his fellow dancers- his girl Friday, Jackie (Cyntha Rhodes) and Laura (Finola Hughes) a British bitch who sleeps around a lot and uses and abuses him.  Of course, Manero ends up making into a big show in which both Jackie and Laura appear in, along with Laura’s “guy Friday”, Jesse (Steve Inwood), who looks weird.  The name of the show is Satan Alley and it’s a piece of total garbage, set to hilarous 80’s synth pop.  The music in this film aside from a reprise of the title song at the end, is all ass-awful.  My favorite piece of music was “(We Dance) So Close the Fire” performed by Tommy Faragher, much of which seems to consists of the words “dance” and “fire” repeadited over and over again in the most melodramatic way possible. 

My friend Kristen pointed an important feature of Stallone’s films- Sly always seems to have the conviction of his actions, even when his pictures are totally stupid, which tends to make them entertaining, even while they lower your IQ points.  Staying Alive is so melodramatically directed while being totally hearfelt that at times the movie develops a kind of hypnotic quality, that you can understand why no one told Stallone his screenplay sucked- they were all caught up in his energy.

I can’t say that on any level Staying Alive is a good movie, but do I reccamend you see it? Hell yeah!

Staying Alive (1983)

Under discussion:

Slumdog Millionaire  (2008)

Spoilers: This review reveals the ending of the movie.  I don’t feel it’s a problem since it’s obvious from pretty much the first scene.

Why doesn’t anybody get the offensiveness of this movie?  Slumdog Millionaire is about a kid who grows up in abject poverty in India and due to mostly luck, wins 20,000,000 rupees on that country’s version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?  The movie, which has been called the time-warn cliché “The feel good hit of the year”, wants us to cheer when its protagonist succeeds.  Well, I would be pretty excited if I was in his position, but what about the millions of other people who will never get the chance to go on a Western game show?

The negative star rating is not soley because I do not agree with this movie’s message.  It is because it is a bad movie that delivers its message in a boring way.  It is slightly less exciting than a bad episode of Who Wants To Be a Millionaire? and is a whole lot more boring.

The biggest problem is the fact the movie’s protagonist, Jamal Malik (played as a child by Ayush Mahesh Khedekar and Tanay Chheda and as an adult by Dev Patel) is boring.  Neither directors Boyle and Tandan, nor screenwriter Simon Beaufoy (who adapted the script from the novel Q & A by Vikas Swarup) nor especially Patel seems to make any real effort and making Jamal an interesting, distinctive character.  I generally don’t like to critize the performances of actors, as you can never tell whether a bad performance is the fault of the performer or director, but Patel is one of the blandest leads I’ve ever seen a movie.  Comparisons can be made to George Peppard in his ability to “inspire” a total lack of audience engagement. 

The child actors are okay and do what they can, but the movie lingers on Jamal’s childhood far too long and the material kind of like something out of a Dickens novel.  Jamal and his brother Salim (Azaruddin Mohammed Ismail, Ahutosh Lobo Gajiwala, and Madhur Mittal) live in a dirt poor slum near a landfill, where they make money by charging admission to outdoor bathrooms.  What little childhood happiness they find is ruined when their Hindu mother (Sanchita Couhdary) is killed in religious strife with Muslims.  They allow an orphaned girl, Latika (Freda Pinto, Rubiana Ali and Tanvi Ganesh Lonkar) to lived with them and Jamal has a Great Expectations like lifelong connection to her.  Eventually, Salim and Latika get involved in mafia activities which  Jamal wants no part of, and so of course he goes on the game show, not only to win the money, but in the hopes that Latika will somehow see him again.

I haven’t mentioned yet that the movie uses the obnoxious technique of intercutting Jamal’s appearance on the game show with his interrogation after he is arrested on the suspicion of cheating AND his life story. Or Boyle’s and Tandran’s employment of a tone and cinematic techniques that try too hard be cool.  Or the obvious screenwriting.  Every question save one is answered by some kind of meaningful moment in his past.  Couldn’t just one of these questions come from reading them in a book or learning them in school?

And what are we to make of this “joyful” movie, anyway?  Life has meaning because one person escapes poverty through mostly random chance and can now joins the upper classes, where he can live off the labor of the proletariat in luxury?   Lucky him. 

Under discussion:

The Spirit  (2008)

Why do critics hate this movie? Presently, it has a rating of only 14% on Rottentomatoes, a job dropping figure for one of the year’s best films. What gives?

Well, the consensus rating says it all: “Though its visuals are unique, The Spirit's plot is almost incomprehensible, the dialogue is ludicrously mannered, and the characters are unmemorable.” I suppose that is true if you were expecting a straightforward action adventure movie, a la Iron Man. The movie is probably mostly a failure when it comes to the standard stuff of these types of pictures: the action sequences aren’t very exciting and there is little suspense in the tradition sense.

But so what? The Dark Knight was not a success due to its action sequences, but due to the drama- we got involved in the characters and cared what happened to them. Indeed, the fact that The Spirit is based on a famous comic strip (by Will Eisner) might work against it in terms of audience expectations. It’s more like Warren Beatty’s Dick Tracy than all of the X-Men films and there ilk.

Like Beatty’s film, the movie is all style. The “ludicrously mannered” dialogue is intentionally so, the characters are archetypes, the plot is essentially irrelevant. I doubt that anyone over the age of nine or ten is going to care whether Doctor Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson) is going to drink the Blood of Hercules and take over the world, or are going to have any real doubt about whether or not he’s going to succeed.

The point is not the story, it’s about how the movie looks and feels, which is wicked cool. In a way, this is the movie that Sin City wanted to be, though this one has a heart and real sense of fun. The art direction and cinematography, which are mixes of real sets and props and CGI constructions create a look that fun to watch throughout the whole film. It is pleasurably startling, to see real people standing in drawn settings. Yes, I know that this is not the first film to use this technique, but it looks the best.

The picture is perfectly cast, and the actors all do a great job in their archetypal roles, which is not easy to do. Gabriel Macht is sensational as The Spirit, holding the picture with flair while wearing a mask throughout the entire film, something that is no easy to do. Jackson gives the funniest performance of his career as Octopus, playing every scene to the hilt. Scarlet Johansson gives her best performance as his sidekick, Silken Floss, showing a degree of skill with light comedy that she has not displayed previously. Finally, Eva Mendes manages to bring a level of pathos (no pun intended) as Sand Saref, a jewelry thief with a past of shattered innocence. Did I get across the idea that I love the characters in this movie?

So should you see The Spirit? Having never read the comic strip, I cannot comment on its faithfulness, but this does not seem like the kind of movie that fan boys would typically enjoy. It’s too visually sophisticated and uninterested in ticking off the mandatory clichés, except to have fun with them. If you are a movie fan however, you might be interested in hearing some of the funniest dialogue and joyfully stylized performances of the year. And certainly, it looks better than any film I’ve seen in a long time.

Under discussion:

Lifeboat  (1944)

Lifeboat sounds like torture- for the filmmaker.  You have to make an entire movie in one small location, with a series of people trapped in one space and make it visually interesting.  On top of that, the location is surrounded on all sides by water, which means you must either go out to ocean and have a Jaws-like nightmare shoot, use a tank in the studio that costs a lot, or use rear-screen projection that looks fake.  If you choose that last action, close to the entire movie could be a special effect.

Despite the fact that it is a work of major technical prowess, Lifeboat is a considerable artistic achievement as a drama, and is never stagey nor boring.  I spent about the first fifteen minuets of the movie trying to figure out the techniques Hitchcock was using, and then I just got into the movie, which shows they worked.

What Hitchcock choose to do was build an extremely small set and use rear screen projection, which works surprisingly well (it almost always looks better in black and white). Although there are some shots where the camera's bobbing doesn't quite match the backgrounds, for the most part the illusion works and we are drawn in to the world of the characters, which is simultaneously huge and claustrophobic.

Based on a novella by John Steinbeck, Lifeboat opens during World War II, as an American ocean liner is torpedoed.  The first to make it to boat is rich photographer Constance Porter (Tallulah Bankhead) who had enough time to put on her fur coat and jewels before boarding the boat (by herself).  Gradually, she picks up a series of passengers: a tough as nails sailor named John Kovac (John Hodiak), who forms shares an attraction with Constance, the somewhat more sensitive sailor "Sparks" Garrett (Hume Cronyn), George Spencer, a good-natured black steward (Canada Lee), Alice Mackenzie (Mary Anderson) a British nurse who lost her boyfriend in the war and is somewhat hopeless, Mrs. Higgins (Heather Angel), a young and very sick woman with a baby, Gus, (William Bendix), a wounded stoker who cannot walk and Charles Rittenhouse (Henry Hull), a millionaire whose money is worthless in the present circumstance.  After awhile they pick up another survivor: Willy (Walter Slezak), a Nazi from the ship that sank them.  The group is without a compass, but Willy claims that he can steer them in the direction of the nearest Allied ship, and although no one trusts him, only a few show much interest in stopping him.

Aside from the obvious thriller aspect (will the Nazi trick them? Will they be rescued?) the movie is golden opportunity for social commentary, which takes a decidedly populist tone in the film.  Rittenhouse in an pretentious asshole (albeit a good natured one) and Constance becomes progressively more likable as she looses her valuables over the course of the film.  The content of the movie is surprisingly adult and well rounded, especially considering the fact that it was made in the '40s, when complex characters and drama was not to be found much in American cinema.

In fact, Hitchcock's refusal to use stereotypes got him in trouble, as many accused the film as showing the Nazi in too sympathetic a light, apparently wanting a drooling cartoon character.  The charge, though ridiculous, hurt the film at the time but the portrayal of the antagonists means that Lifeboat is one of the very few decent American films about WWII produced during the conflict.  Although its reputation has only improved over the years, in many ways, Lifeboat is still one of Hitchcock's most underrated movies.

Lifeboat (1944)

Under discussion:

Australia  (2008)

Here is something that sounds fun: a big budget, old fashioned Hollywood epic, with wonderful vistas, appealing stars and a passionate dedication to excitement and grandeur. That is not something you get in Baz Luhrman's Australia. On the other hand, if you were biting your nails to see an expose of the 1930's Australian cattle industry, have I got a movie for you!

Yes, I'm exaggerating, but just a little. The first half of this film is devoted to the breathtakingly exciting subject of whether a Australian cattle barron will get a monopoly over all the beef in the land down under, and believe me, this is not There Will Be Blood with hamburgers. The second half manages to make a subject that is inherently interesting (World War II) boring, using every cliché in the book and sucking any kind of original thought and passion out of the project. Way to go, Baz.

If the tone of this review is obnoxious, I must admit that I am not sure that I am not I can convey in words out utterly boring this movie is and how I desperately wanted it to end. At one point it looked it was going to, but went on for at least another hour, and then had two false endings on top of that. It's as if they were trying to deny me the blessed relief of getting the movie over with, so I could leave the theatre and complain to people about how damn long it was.

How exactly does the movie go wrong, aside from a premise that nobody cares about and a length that few directors should even consider reaching? It's built around a love story between an actress who has an intensely charming screen personality (Nichole Kidman) who is contrasted with a rather bland actor known mostly for his hunkiness (Hugh Jackman). The scenes with the two together do not give Omar Shariff and Julie Christie in Doctor Zhivago a run for their money. Jackman is so inferior to Kidman as a movie star that it's kind of embarrassing for him. It's not that he's is a bad actor (which he isn't) but Jackman has no screen presence and is all wrong in part like this that require intense charisma.

The other problem is that a massive amount of screen time is wasted on a racist subplot involving a young Aboriginal boy (Brandon Walters) and his grandfather (played by one of the world's greatest actors, David Gulpilil). I am neither Australian nor Aborigine, but I found the portrayal of the minorities in the film insulting. The Magical Negro stereotype (yes, I know that Aboriginals are not of African ancestry, I'm just using the most common phrase for this type of portrayal) is a dreaded way for white to show they are not racist to minorities by endowing them saintly or spiritual powers. Gulpilil plays essentially a wizard in this film, with about zero character development. And I don't need to mention that this is the nine millionth film that pretends to deal with racial issues but casts white leads.

Usually, annoyance on this level from me indicates a film I really hated or even found offensive in some way, but here its out sheer boredom. At two hours, Australia would be merely dull in an ordinary kind of way, but at three, it seems so pointless and such a waste of time and money that it's nearly unwatchable.

Under discussion:

The Duchess  (2008)

What kind of life must it be, to be rich but have barley any legal rights, and thus no real freedom? Sure, you get great food, nice clothes, and the best entertainment, but that's tempered by the fact that aren't really allowed to do anything, unless your spouse tells you to do so.

Although it looked like I was in for a Masterpiece Theatre costume pageant, I was pleasantly surprised when I found this movie to be an involving and thought provoking drama. The thought occurred to me that the human race has progressed in the last three hundred years, and that's got to count for something.

The movie opens as a young woman Georgiana (Kira Knightly) marries a William Cavendish (Ralph Finnes) a man she barely knows, mostly for his money and social position with a bit of naïve wishful thinking thrown in. He engages in passionless sex with her for the sole reason of producing a male heir, and has more emotional relations with other women, which he barely tries to cover up. Depressed, Georgiana throws wild parties and eventually falls in love with Earl Gray (Dominic Cooper), but the standards of the time and the hypocrisy of her husband mean that she is denied the freedom to do exactly what he is doing, merely because she is a woman.

The movie lays on its message without the didactic heavy handedness usually associated with this material. It makes it points by showing us the 18^th century letting us draw our own conclusions from our standards from the 21^st. It also has a great deal of sympathy for William, well played by Finnes, while not excusing his abhorrent hypocrisy and emotional and physical abuse. You feel sorry for him while not really liking him, which is difficult for most films to do.

The only major drawback to The Duchess is that there is a better movie made in recent years about the same basic material: Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette. Both films are about women whose entire lives have been decided before them, where intense partying makeup loveless marriages and how neither had the option of choosing their own destiny, the birthright of every human being.

The Duchess (2008)

Under discussion:

Religulous  (2008)

I’ve seen this movie before, when it less obnoxious, done better and potentially more offensive.  It was called The God Who Wasn’t There and it was directed by Brian Flemming. Both that film and Religulous are documentaries about atheists (although Bill Maher calls himself an agnostic) who interview people about faith, generally with the purpose of showing what they feel to be ludicrousness of religious belief. 

The problem of reviewing a movie like this is that your opinion of its going to be inevitably influenced by your own personal beliefs.  Since I am neither an atheist nor agnostic, I don’t agree with the arguments of Maher or Flemming.  But Flemming was such a good filmmaker that his movie was fascinating to watch and the jokes were genuinely funny, even when they were made at my own faith’s expense.

Maher, on the other hand, is at times rude and even mean to his guests.  He’s not as funny either.  Something has always bothered me about Maher.  I used to watch his TV show, Politically Incorrect and his main problem seemed to be arrogance mixed with dose of chauvinism.  I got tired quickly of constant discussions of the “feminization of America” and it’s not surprising that he got his ass cancelled after he said one stupid thing to many.  Less than a week after the attacks, he entreated the grieving nation to this pearl of wisdom: “We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.” Smooth move, Bill!

Anyway, Religulous consists of mainly of director Larry Charles (who made the way better Borat) following Maher around as he “interviews” various religious figures.  He treats all of them, even the ones who attempt to be logical and rational with contempt and disdain.  He doesn’t try to come up with logical arguments as to why they are wrong, but instead just rails against how ridiculous they are.  He even walks out on one person with letting them finish what they have to say. Throughout all this, he keeps mentioning that he has no idea what’s going to ha

Obviously, Maher is miffed at religion, for what reason I don’t know.  In his film, Flemming mentioned being emotionally abused at his religious elementary school, so at least that’s understandable.  Maher is an angry man who inspires anger in other people.

The other valid comparison between this film and Flemming’s is that the fact many of the arguments and cinematic techniques are the same, such as using  clips from cheesy Christian movies and intentionally offensive intercuts.  But Flemming is a superior filmmaker and a more likable screen precense.

You may have determined from this review that I do not like Maher very much and you’d be right.  I might venture to guess that even those who agree with his views might find his approach distasteful or at least annoying.  If you want to see this exact same movie, but better, rent The God Who Wasn’t There.

Religulous (2008)

Under discussion:

The Reptile  (1966)

After three films I can be comfortable in saying this: John Gilling is a great lost auteur.  He's not a good horror director, he's just a plain good filmmaker, with a unique and compelling style that for some reason has never been adequately respected. 

If you have to reduce his work down a genre, he's made two of the best horror movies ever made: The Plague of the Zombies (1966) and The Mummy's Shroud (1967).  Almost is good is The Reptile, which is would be in the league of those film if it had cut about ten minutes out of its climax.  Otherwise, this is a great movie.

The brother of Harry George Spalding (Ray Barrett) has just died, and he and his wife, Valarie (Jennifer Daniel) plan on moving into the deceased estate in 19^th century Cornwell.  Unfortunately, the town doesn't take kindly to strangers and they most definitely don't want to head out to the new couple's home.  Spoilers ahead.  A friendly bartender (Michael Ripper) tells them that the town has had a series of deaths from a strange plague of mysterious origins that no one is particularly keen on explaining.  The couple soon discover that the townspeople are not actually avoiding the Spaldings but their neighbors.  Aside from their servants, there are three, anthropologist Dr. Franklyn (Noel Willman), his daughter Anna (Jacqueline Pearce) and an  East Indian (Marne Maitland) who is mostly silent but seems to be overly interested in Anna.  Indeed, everyone seems to overly interested in Anna, who turns out to be one of horror's most tragic characters.

With the possible exception of Karl Fruend, no horror director has better achieved the since of atmosphere that Gilling has.  The filmmaker draws us into the world of the film and makes us believe in events that would have been ridiculous in the hands of others. 

In addition to the wonderful director, there is Pearce's performance as Anna.  Although her screen time is too short, she creates such a wonderfully likable and somewhat pathetic character that you can't help but really care about what happens to her.

I know that some people who are reading this are thinking that they don't like horror film, and that The Reptile is just another boring '60's B movie.  While it is from the 60's, it is neither a B film nor boring.  It is a movie that deserves to be recognized on its own merits without it entering into the genre gutter.  To all movie fans: John Gilling is worth investigating.

The Reptile (1966)

Under discussion:

Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason  (2004)

Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason shares with its predecessor the number one thing that made the first film so endearing: Renee Zelweger as Bridget Jones.  Watching this movie, I realized that wouldn't mind seeing a Thin Man type series of Bridget movies, each one featuring the indominatatble protagonsit as she encounters another major life stage- marridge, children, perhaps struggling for tickets to see a Madonna concert.

And for the first forty five minuets or so, this movie appears to be on the brink  of being the rare sequel that's as good as its predeccesor.  Picking up six weeks after the last film left off, this one finds Bridget in seeming bliss with her new boyfriend, Mark Darcy (Colin Firth).  But Bridget's paranoia is begings to take over and she tends to see problems when they aren't there.  Then it seems that there's a problem that is real- Mark is apparently having a too close for comfort "friendship" with fellow lawyer Rebecca Gilles (Jacinda Barrett).  But then the movie starts going on some odd and rather implausible tangents, including one that's stunningly bizzare and tantamount to racist (I won't reavel the surprise here).

The first movie and the beginnig of this one were endearing light comedy.  The film, which could have essentially been a drama, was played slightly exagerated for laughs and always had a degree of plausablity.  But this film is misguided in its attempt to please the audience. (Moderate spoilers ahead).  I think that the director, Beeban Kidrom, and her four screenwriters (one of which was Helen Fielding, adapting her own novel) must have figured that bigger was better.  If the first movie contained a scene where Bridget exposes herself while sliding a fire pole that was funny, then her doing the same thing in this one while skydiving must been even funnier, right?

The movie also thinks that we want a rehash of the first one, so we get a return visit from Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant), a jerk who tempts Bridget to return to him.  The problem is that we have must less sympathy for her this time.  What's that quote?  "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?"  Besides, every human being in the audince who has ever seen a romantic comedy knows how this movie is going to end, so we kind of wish that the movie wouldn't waste time with absurd (in a negative sense) sidetracks and get us there sooner, or maybe risk trying something unique.

For the most part, this is not a boring movie, and at times it is quite funny, particularly in the first third.  But the satisfaction that came with the first movie was not there.  I would not mind seeing a third Bridget Jones movie, but she to exist in a semi-plausable world where I can care what happens to her. 

Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (2004)

Under discussion:

Bridget Jones's Diary  (2001)

I could write a basic synopsis for 99.9% of all the romantic comedies ever made quite easily: two people who are absolutely perfect for each other meet and hate each other. They then slowly realize that they are really soul mates and become really happy, and them demonstrate their happiness by having sex. Their bliss is thwarted by some misunderstanding and their dreams are dashed. They eventually figure out what really happened and make up and get married, or become engaged, or at least there is some implication that they will be together forever.

Bridget Jones's Diary looks to be suspiciously close to this formula at its opening, and indeed, the first twenty minuets or so are close to what you would expect. Even at that point, my cute sensors, usually only activated in the presence of a certain overweight feline or my Shetland Sheepdog, were aroused at the presence of Renee Zellweger in the title role. Not only is Zellweger cute, she is close to the essence of cute. I am not sure she is capable of not being cute.

Zellweger is a pleasure to watch as Bridget, a slightly overweight Brit in her early thirties. She lives a lonely life and feels that she is becoming past her prime. We like Bridget, who is sort of a female, British version of Ernest Borgnine's Marty, but even more likable and not quiet as sad. Or at least, the movie doesn't want us to think so. Just as Marty would be a great husband but is totally unable to meet anyone, Bridget is trapped by the fact that she is painfully honest, sometimes inappropatley so. If this had been a standard movie, she would meet an unattractive (by movie standards) guy and they would draw each other out of their respective shells, but instead she meets a hunk played by Hugh Grant? Jackpot? Well, not really, but that's what makes this movie so good. It takes a fantasy and turns it on its head, showing that it's still sometimes just a fantasy.

I suppose I have made the movie sound more serious that it is. Although it does have a dose of reality in it, the movie is very light, and at times humorous and always pleasant. Zellweger received an Oscar nomination for her performance, and she deserved it- although she exudes charm, she is not content to leave the performance at a Meg Ryan level and goes deeper (She lost to Halle Berry in Monster's Ball).

It's actually kind of hard to watch her trials and tribulations, as we want her to be happy and find the man that she deserves very badly. The movie's main problem is the fact that it is still tied a bit too much in the standard romantic comedy vein. There are too many pop songs on the soundtrack, and Bridget's friends are, like virtually all friends in this type of movie, underwritten to the point that they seem like Bridget's groupies. But overall, this is a kind of wonderful movie that is a pleasant surprise. Their must be just as many Bridget Joneses as there are Marty Pilatti's, and here's hoping they all find the people they deserve.

Bridget Jones's Diary (2001)

Under discussion:

Jimmy Carter Man From Plains  (2007)

I'll admit my bias upfront:  There are few public figures that I admire more than Jimmy Carter.   Carter gives me hope for American politics.  He is the walking proof that there is such as a thing as an honest, hardworking and decent politician.  I sometimes wonder how much better of the country would have been if he had been re-elected in 1980 and we had been save eight years of Ronald Reagan. 

However, having read five of his books, sat through a four hour PBS documentary about him, and zipping through a memoir by his political ad Hamilton Jordon (a book so compelling I read it almost in one sitting), I was no closer to understanding who this person really is, other than that he's good.  It's popular to say that Lyndon Johnson was hard to understand, but Carter is another notion altogether. 

He certainly comes from a strange family. As his brother Billy put it in 1977: "I got a mama who joined the Peace Corps when she was 68. I got one sister who's a holy roller preacher. Another wears a helmet and drives a motorcycle. And my brother thinks he's going to be president, so that makes me the only sane one in the family."  Billy was known for being a bit of a character himself.

Time and again, while watching this film, I thought What makes this guy tick?  Carter was eighty two at the time of this film and he seems to have an insane amount of drive.  Demme follows Carter as he goes on a tour to promote his controversial book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid and goes on constructions projects for his beloved Habitat for Humanity. Somehow, I kind of doubt that George W. is going to be writing major foreign policy documents or flying to India to help people build houses at the age.

The movie is most interesting when it observes how Carter, who seems to almost totally ignore the camera, interacts with others.  He flies on commercial airlines, and shakes the hand of every person on the plane.  He has a family reunion in his home town of Plains, Georgia, and everyone is so at folksy that you'd never guess a former President was in their midst.  There is also a charming moment when we talks on the phone to his wife, and we see that his marriage is successful, to say the least.

But the movie has some serious editing problems.  Demme spends far too much showing us TV excerpts of the interview, which are boring and widely available on the internet.  Too much of the film is about the Israeli..Palestinian problem without the director bothering to give it much depth.  It essentially shows people either praising Carter or yelling at him.  I doubt a viewer who knew little about the conflict before the film would learn much, something I'm sure Carter would be disappointed with.

But the picture certainly worth a recommendation as this is the most candid footage we are ever likely to get of a former President.  No President in modern history has been more open then Carter, and although I didn't understand him much better through this film, it is at least relieving to know he has nothing to hide.

Jimmy Carter Man From Plains (2007)