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

dj4our's movie tags

Advertisement
  • A Petition to Stop Lucas!

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

    written by: Henry Gilroy, Steven Melching, Scott Murphy (screenplay) & George Lucas (story)
    produced by: George Lucas & Catherine Winder
    directed by: Dave Filoni
     
    rated PG (for sci-fi action violence throughout, brief language and momentary smoking)
    1 hr. 38 min.
     
     
     
    I took my 8 year-old nephew to see this movie opening weekend and one of us had fun. As we sat in the large, barely-filled theater, I looked upon him in my sleepy haze of boredom and noticed how entranced he was at the intergalactic fantasia before us. I was saddened though. I wished more than anything that it was the summer of 1977 again and my dear nephew could witness the sheer wonder of the introduction to a world that shaped my childhood in a most amazing way. Alas, that is impossible. There is no way to physically and as in the case with this film, cinematically recapture that initial experience. Creator George Lucas couldn't do it with his prequel trilogy and he's proved once again that he cannot deliver the magic of the original trilogy in this animated form.....nor can he let go.
     
    I'll try to describe this formulaic story here with it's plot contrivances, lazy expositions and inane characters but I gotta tell you....I fell asleep a couple times. That's right. And I never fall asleep in a movie theater! Ever! Sure, it was boring but bottom line (except for a handful of scenes) it just didn't hold my interest. I just had to put that out there in case I miss a few things as I tell the story. The film opens with a lazy intro, gone is the dramatic opening crawl of the yellow letters we are used to seeing in the other theatrical releases. Instead we get a "the story so far" voice narration panning several scenes in an effort to throw us into the raging Clone Wars spread across the galaxy.
     
     
    Padawan learner Ahoska and Jedi mentor Anakin Skywalker in Warner Bros. Pictures' Star Wars: The Clone Wars
     
     
    Word is out across the universe that the kidnapping of Jabba the Hutt's infant son Rotta presents a new problem for the Galactic Republic. The Jedi Council take Anakin Skywalker (voiced by Matt Lanter) and Obi-Wan Kenobi (James Arnold Taylor) out of battle and assign them the mission to return the baby Hutt to Jabba in order to ensure good standing with the gangster, so critical space routes can be available. The Jedi are accompanied by a padawan (that's a Jedi intern) young Ahsoka Tano (Ashley Eckstein), who is given to Anakin despite his disapproval. As in the prequels, we see Yoda divvy out responsibilities in an effort to tell the audience who's gonna go where and why. Obi-Wan is sent off to thwart Count Dooku's (Christopher Lee earning a paycheck) evil schemes on Tatooine while Anakin (still petulant and whiny) and Ashoka (green and eager) are left in charge of the smelly little Hutt-let, eager to return the child to Tatooine safely before Jabba sides with the Separatists and the war plunges further into chaos.
     
    Of course, there are some other familiar supporting Star Wars characters present here but none are ever really given much to do. Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) hangs with Yoda and nods his head, Artoo shows off  his usual "save the day" action while assisting Anakin, and Senator Amidala (Catherine Taber) encounters Jabba's uncle, the effeminate Ziro the Hutt on the wrong side of Coruscant in an effort to assist the Jedi. Ziro sounds like Truman Capote and is clearly a gay stereotype that makes what Jar Jar Binks represented to the island of Jamaica look subtle by comparison. He's right up there with the lamest Star Wars characters ever created. Thank you very little, Mr. Lucas!
     
     
    Captain Rex and Obi-Wan Kenobi in Warner Bros. Pictures' Star Wars: The Clone Wars
     
     
    This all takes place between the last two live-action prequels, Episode II and III and the problem with that is....who cares? There's already two excellent volumes of Clone Wars stories with superior quality animation by Genndy Tartakowsky, so why in the world would we need more filler? Anyone who's seen the prequel trilogy knows the date of these characters from The Clone Wars, so why bother? There's just no real drama here cuz we know the future. Does it really matter that Anakin Skywalker has a lightsaber duel with Count Dooku when we already know what happens in Episode III? No. It's just an excuse to give the kiddies something to "Ooooo" and "Ahhhhh" over.
     
    Now, the film does have a few impressive actions scenes, the most notable of which is a vertical assault on a cliff-side fortress. This allows for the Jedi characters to do something besides repetitively slice ineffective battledroids. The visuals are unique here as the large AT-TE walkers climb up the cliff. Another impressive scene features Anakin piloting a clunker of a ship around a Republic Cruiser while being pursued by enemy ships.  Still, if these scenes are the highlight of a Star Wars film, that's just sad.
     
    No matter what way you flip it, Anakin Skywalker was a selfish brat who gave into fear and anger while The Jedi Council were just too dumb, gullible or limited to know how to deal with him. So, I'm tired of seeing him as a hero cuz he just doesn't cut it for me. You can show yourself a hero in action but if your heart ain't in it and you're not doing it for the sake of others, then forget about it. Yes, he redeemed himself in Episode VI, but all through the prequels he remained unfaithful to the Jedi Order and while that's another topic entirely it does support why I cannot sit here and root for a guy who will go on to destroy anything good and of value.
     
    It's quite obvious to me who this movie was for. All I had to do was turn to the right of me and see my lil nephew's gaping mouth. It's too bad Lucas has to polarize the now thirty-something fans of the Star Wars universe who remember themselves sitting in the theater just like my nephew. Time does that I suppose, you can never go back and all that but I was hoping to live vicariously through another youth.  I don't like what's being done with the universe I grew up not to mention the writing and style of animation is luke (pun intended) warm at best. That's not to say that "The Clone Wars" cannot be enjoyed, just not by me. Of course, in the twilight of the summer movie season,  there are worse alternatives out there at the local multiplex but I would suggest skipping the theater altogether (gasp!) and spoiling the child on a heavy helping of  ice cream.

  • Shaken Bond causes a Stir

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

    written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Paul Haggis & Joshua Zetumer (uncredited)
    produced by: Michael G. Wilson & Barbara Broccoli
    directed by: Marc Forster
     
     
    When I heard that the Bond producers had signed on director Marc Forster I immediately smiled with anticipation. I had hopes that what had exellently begun in 2006's "Casino Royale" could now be continued by a stylish, genre-skipping director with indie chops. I smiled again when it was revealed that this was the first Bond film that is a direct sequel, taking place right after the events of the last film. It only made sense to continue a story that has created a new Bond universe, free from forty years of continuity yet left the viewer with some unanswered questions. While I did have my hopes up, I also knew that this was a different director and there would be no way to duplicate the feel of the previous film's new direction.
     
    James Bond (Daniel Craig) is back, in fact he's only been gone a half hour or so. We're immediately thrust into the action, trying to catch up with a fast and furious 007 speeding through traffic in Italy. Bond wastes no time dispensing his gun-toting pursuers from Lake Garda to Siena, with the captured/injured Mr. White (Jesper Christianson) in the trunk of his car. He ends his brutal swath of destruction by dropping off his battered captive at the heel's of his frustrated boss, M, in order to begin his interrogation.
     
    Bond's goal in this film is to learn more about Quantum, the evil organization behind the death of his love, Vesper Lynd and uncover what their nefarious global plans are. It would appear they are everywhere and they are one step ahead of MI6. So much in fact, that the interrogation is interrupted by the betrayal of M's bodyguard Mitchell (Glenn Foster) who attacks her, allowing Mr. White to escape. An adrenalized chase ensues as Bond pursues Mitchell through the tunnels and across the rooftops of Siena, amid the crowd assembled for the Palio di Siena. He winds up killing him (much to M's disaproval) leaving forensics to find intel typing him to a contact in Haiti.
     
     
    More Photos


    Like every Bond film, we are now off to another country yet unlike any pre-Craig entry there is no time for sight-seeing here. This Bond is on a mission. He's like a bull in a china shop with cat-like agility as he takes out Slate (Neil Jackson), his intended target in a bloody tactile mess. Since his encounter with Slate didn't provide any useful information, Bond poses as his victim which leads him to a briefcase and an unexpected ride from a beautiful Russian-Bolivian woman named Camille Montes. They both discover that she has been targeted for termination by her supposed lover, Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric) the chairman of ecological organization Greene Planet and a member of Quantum. She kicks him outta the car thinking he's the hitman, but Bond pursues her by motorcycle to a dock warehouse and spies on her as she meets with Greene.
     
    Greene is a smarmy, effete eco-terrorist villian, in love with himself while showing little regard for anyone or thing but his own agenda. He awaits the arrival of  Bolivian General Medrano (Joaquín Cosío), a man Camille has worked her whole life to meet and kill since he murdered her entire family when she was a girl. Greene is helping the exiled general get back into power, in return for support of his organization. In doing so, he hands Camille over to Medrano to do with what he will. What does Greene get out of all this? A seemingly barren piece of desert land. 

    Bond rescues her in an exihilarating motorcycle/boat chase but finds out Camille's not too grateful for his intervention. After making sure an unconscious Camille is in good hands, Bond follows Greene to a private jet, which flies to Austria. His flight is accompanied by CIA agents Gregg Beam (David Harbour) and Felix Leiter. Beam offers U.S. support of the overthrow in return for Bolivian oil, which he believes Greene to have discovered. In return, Greene requests that the CIA eliminate Bond's interference. Beam agrees, despite Leiter's unspoken disapproval.

    Meanwhile, on the Austrian shore of Lake Constance near Bregenz, members of Quantum (including Greene and White) gather at a floating performance of Puccini's opera Tosca. They're holding a covert conference via concealed earpiecest to finalize plans for their Tierra Project. Among the talking heads is Guy Haines (Paul Ritter), an advisor of the British Prime Minister. In a clevr and humorous scene, Bond obtains an earpiece and disrupts the meeting, and then takes photos of various Quantum members as they flee the theater. As Greene abruptly departs from the opera with his entourage, he is intercepted by Bond in a standoff. A gunfight ensues with Quantum goons in a restaurant that carries over onto a rooftop where Bond confronts Haines' bodyguard, who is subsequently killed by Greene's goon.
     
     
     More Photos
     
    M is furious with Bond's activities at the opera and revokes his passports and credit cards. She demands that he return to London, on learning of the bodyguard's death, frustrated that there is no one to interrogate. Undeterred, Bond instead travels to Italy by boat, where he reunites with his old ally René Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini). Mathis is reluctant to help due to what transpired with the Le Chiffre incident, but Bond persuades the retired agent (once stationed in Bolivia) to accompany him to La Paz. They are greeted at the airport by Strawberry Fields (Gemma Arterton), an MI6 field operative from the British Consulate. Fields demands that Bond return to the UK on the next available flight, but he disobeys and they both wind up in his hotel suite bed. Mathis pulls some strings and gets them into a Quantum fundraiser that night held by Greene, where Bond runs into Camille again. When Bond and Camille leave together, but are pulled over by the Bolivian police. They order Bond to open the trunk of his vehicle to reveal a bloodied Mathis. As Bond helps Mathis out, the policemen open fire, killing Mathis. Bond disarms and kills the policemen and comforts the dying Mathis, who asks Bond to forgive Vesper Lynd.
     
    Bond and Camille make it to the location of Greene's suspected land acquisition, surveying the area in a Douglas DC-3 propeller plane. Suddenly they are intercepted and shot down by an Aermacchi SF-260 fighter and a Bell UH-1 helicopter. They barely escape from the crippled plane by parachuting into a sinkhole below. As they escape the cave, Bond and Camille learn that Greene's Tierra Project involves water, not oil. Quantum is blockading Bolivia's supply of fresh water, normally flowing in underground rivers, by damming it into hidden reservoirs beneath the desert. During this short down time, Bond also learns that Camille's family was raped and murdered by Medrano and that is why she seeks revenge.
     
    After these discoveries, they return to La Paz, where Bond meets M and discovers  Quantum murdered Fields by drowning her in oil. M orders Bond to disarm and end his activities in Bolivia, but he escapes by overpowering the MI6 operatives in a hotel elevator. As he makes his escape, he tells M he's not finished with his operation.
     
    Quantum of Solace


    Once again, Bond turns to a trusted ally in Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright) at a local bar, who advises that the CIA is now after him. Leiter discloses the location where Greene and Medrano will meet and gives Bond enough time to flee from American forces when they arrive. Bond and Camille make their way go to a hydrogen-powered eco-hotel in the Bolivian desert, where Greene and Medrano are finalizing their plans. As the various parties depart, Bond attacks and kills the departing Colonel of Police (Fernando Guillén Cuervo) for betraying Mathis, setting off a chain of explosions when a hydrogen fuel tank is hit by an out of control vehicle. Camille makes her way to Medrano and manages to kill him while Bond captures Greene after a vicious fight amid the deteriorating hotel.
     
    After interrogating him, he leaves Greene stranded in the middle of the desert with only a can of motor oil. Bond drives Camille to a train station, where they kiss before she departs. They both know it's not a romantic exchange, moreso one of gratitude as Camille is aware Bond's heart belongs to someone else. With this in mind, Bond knows he still has one last lead to follow.
     
    Bond arrives in Kazan, Russia, where he confronts Vesper Lynd's former lover, Yusef Kabira. Turns out Yusef (Simon Kassianides) is a member of Quantum with the job of seducing high-ranking women who have valuable connections. He gets them to give up government assets as ransom for himself by staging fake kidnappings where he is supposedly held hostage. Bond catches him at Yusef's apartment, attempting to do the same with Canadian agent Corinne Venneau (Stana Katic), even giving her the same kind of necklace he gave Vesper. Bond tells Corinne about Vesper and advises her to hit the road and alert the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Bond leaves Yusef's apartment and is met by M who is surprised that Bond did not kill Yusef, but rather left him alive for questioning.
     
    M (Judi Dench) reveals that Leiter has been promoted at the CIA to replace Beam. News that Bond is cotnent with. He also tells him that Greene was found in the desert, shot in the head twice with motor oil found in his stomach. Bond doesn't volunteer any information on Greene, but tells M that she was right about Vesper. M then tells Bond that MI6 needs him and fully reinstates him as an agent, to which he replied, "I never left," and then walks off into the cold night. As he leaves, Bond drops Vesper's necklace in the snow.
     
    I'll be so bold to say that for the first time Ian Fleming's James Bond is accurately portrayed on screen by the piercing Daniel Craig. If you've read the novels, you'll know that the charming spy was never described as gorgeous or cracking one-liners. Sure, he's charming but he's first and foremost a man about his duty, a cold killer and a stubbornly resilient one at that. Craig has this down. He's so good at exuding a cragginess on the outside while internally simmering that you can't even imagine him playing with puns like Roger Moore did. Craig won me over in the previous film and simply confirms he ownss Bond in this film.
     
    Composer David Arnold returns to score the franchise for the fifth time and he does an excellent job. Combining the classic Bond them with music indigenous to locales such as Haiti as he also includes some of Alicia Key's piano heard in her song with Jack White Another Way to Die that played during the traditional opening credits.  
     
    There are some flaws with this film but for me not as many as the critics would have you believe.  As I mentioned, it helps to see this as a direct sequel and not a stand alone story like we're used to. It also helps to understand this is who Bond is. He's not Jason Bourne as everyone is whining on about. I understand the comparison but Craig is utililizing the same physicality here that he brought to the role in "Casino Royale". This film suffered from being the shortest Bond entry yet. It would have been good to flesh out more of the Quantum organization or maybe even the character of Camille (although I'll admit Kurlyenko is kind of a bore) but that may have been for the better. It gives them more material to work with later. After all, Craig has signed for three more films.
     
    It would be impossible to live up to "Casino Royale" which is actually the highest grossing Bond film ever. Forster knews what he had to live up to and all the expectation of a sequel. Still, he makes his own film instead of copying anything done in the last film. I can respect that. While he's not known for being an "action director" he does a good job at combining the action scenes with a parallel plot point, holding your attention even more. Forster does a great job bringing closure to this whole Bond/Vesper story. Bond can still pursue Quantum in the next film but and maybe even start to grow into that gadget-weilding, womanizing spy everyone is used to. Maybe in time viewers will come to understand that it took these two films to make a return to the Bond they know possible.

  • Compelling Immigrant Song

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

    This documentary chronicles the courageous journey of three young Southern Sudanese men, John Dau, Daniel Pach and Panther Bior, to the United States where they strive for a brighter future.
     
    Along with 27,000 other young boys in the early 1980s known as "The Lost Boys of Sudan", they had walked a thousand miles barefoot through harsh terrain to escape the twenty-two year civil war that pitted the Sudanese government against the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army. They made it to a camp in Ethiopia where they lived for three years in hopes of returning to Sudan but then additional violence forced them to make yet another arduous trek to escape Ethiopia. During the five years they walked in search of safety, thousands died from starvation, dehydration, bomb raids and genocidal murder.
     
    Finally, with their number dwindled down to 12,000, they found relative safety in Kenya’s Kakuma refugee camp. While the refugee camp was their physical home away from Sudan, their real home become what they had nurtured in their hearts. Already forced into a makeshift family, these boys formed what they called Parliament, a gathering group where they can tell stories, encourage one another and share their hearts. They were inevitably brought together after years of children burying children, feeding sick brothers that could no longer move and watching their peers drop dead. These memories are brought to life as the three boys, now men, remember the harrowing events which brought them to the States.
     
    John, Daniel and Panther along with 3,600 boys were invited by the United States to live in America in 2001. Through sponsorship from Catholic Charities International, the three boys had their lives once again changed dramatically as they left their brotherhood to the unknown. We see their first encounter with electricity and the modern conveniences we are so used to as they step onto the airplane that will take them to Europe then to New York City. When John hears the captain speaking from the overhead intercom he wonders where "that voice is coming from?", this is just one of many humorous fish-out-water moments.
     
    The three young men were assigned specific American cities in which they will reside, John settles in Syracuse, N.Y. while Panther and Daniel arrive in Pittsburgh. They are given a tour of their apartments (a world which they were unfamiliar with) so they know how to operate: a light switch, a trash can, a shower, a refrigerator and an alarm clock. Their guide stresses the later device because, "In America, time is money." Work is one of the many things they have to get use to as they come to find it consumes the majority of their days. Yet, they have no problem working since their family and friends are always on their hearts. They put money aside to send back to their camp in Kenya as well as any family they've been able to find. At one point, John postpones his plans for school to work a third job when he finds that his family is alive and not-so well in Uganda.  
     
    The film continues to show how these "Lost Boys" have to adapt to the shock of being thrust into an economically intense culture. I didn't mind at all seeing how they have to learn new customs, adapt to new and strange foods, cope with the ordeal of getting, and keeping a job, or multiple jobs, while never forgetting who they are and where they're from. I just felt like at times the director took to much time on this, rather than the more interesting response of the white folks who would often stare at them in curious fear. It's during these times that an American viewer cannot help but examine his/her own lifestyle and culture.
     
    I was continuously impressed at the commendable resilience these men displayed. Sure, they would deal with loneliness and guilt but never once did I hear them express anger with the inequality they observed both in Africa and in the States. “It’s not in their nature," the narrator calmly explains."which is uniquely ‘Dinka’. They are not judgmental.” That in and of itself, is quite a unique trait and makes the lives of these men all the more impressive.
     
    The film was produced, written and directed by Christopher Quinn and co-directed by Tommy Walker. It wasn't until the help of actors Catherine Keener and Dermot Mulroney executive produced by Brad Pitt and narrated by Nicole Kidman. The title of the documentary is a quote from the tall, charismatic John Dau discussing the despair he and other Sudanese felt during their civil war plight.

  • An Artful Codger

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

    Gran Torino  (2008)

    written by: Nick Schenk (screenplay/story) & Dave Johannson
    produced & directed by: Clint Eastwood
     
    rated R (for language throughout and some violence)
    1 hr. 56 min.
     
     
     
    If it wasn't for iconic characters like The Man With No Name and Dirty Harry, there would be no way to take Clint Eastwood's latest acting role seriously. One of the more resonating characteristics of these gun-toting, take-no-crap personas is the way in which they resolve their problems with a blast of gunfire and a resoluting wisecrack, while walking away without a second thought. Many of us wish at times that we could get away with that behavior, so does racist Korean War vet, Walt Kowalski. Retired after 50 years from the local Detroit Ford plant and recently widowed, Walt grumbles and growls his days away as he nurses his perfectly-manicured postage stamp of a lawn in his well-maintained, picket-white fenced home.
     
    Walt is that old goat who looks around at his world and wonders how things have gotten the way they are. His selfish and chubby Midwest sons, busy with their careers, have alienated themselves (most likely due to his cold gruffness) as they plot out how to get Walt into a senior home. He groans at his grandkids with their piercings and blackberrys but also at the persistant Father Janovich (Christopher Carley) from his wife's church. Walt doesn't care for the baby-faced padre who promised his wife that he'd get him to confession. It would seem Walt cares only for a handful of things at this stage in his life: his Lab retriever Daisy, his M1 rifle from the war, and his mint condition 1972 Gran Torino, a symbol of days long gone. Walt finds himself as lost and without a place as the company he used to work for.
     
    What gets under Walt's skin the most though is the noticeable influx of Asian Hmong immigrants he finds himself surrounded by in what used to be a blue-collared neighborhood.  No country for this old man, indeed!  Eastwood plays up Walt's disdain to the hilt but we can't despise him because we realize he's cut from a different time period. While there's no excuse for his abrasive racism, you can't help but respect who he is and that's a tribute to the actor who's playin' this worn-down character.  With all this build up, it's obvious that Walt is destined to get a serious thawing.
     
     

    Clint Eastwood, Gran Torino

     

     

     

    That comes in the form of the neighbor teen, Tao (Bee Vang) who tries to steal Walt's beloved vehicle in a gang initiation stunt. He thwarts the freshman thief but this encounter just catapults the inevitable. The botched theft  is what brings a livid Walt rifle-first into the Hmong neighbors as he winds up breaking up a gang fight on his front lawn.  Inadvertantly scaring off the gangbangers, Walt unintentionally winds up saving Tao and his family from further violence. All he wanted was them to stay off his well-kept lawn. What follows is an outpouring of gratitiude from the Hmong family and as punishment for his actions, Tao is made to work for Walt (though it's unclear who this is punishment for) in order to restore honor to the family.

    Tao's older, plucky sister, Sue (Ahney Her) starts to wear down Walt's calcified heart as she becomes his introduction to her family which finds him coming to terms with the Hmong culture. Through his encounters with the various generations, he starts to see that he is a haunted man, empty and without peace. A man who hides behind any racial epithet possible without any possibility of anyone really getting to know who he is. Walt is soon won over by Hmong traditions, befriending Thao with hopes to teach him some self-respect before the gang activity worsens. But he sees there isn't much hope or future for Tao and his family and is compelled to intervene, driving away local gang members and earning the respect of the Hmong community.  

     

       

    For Walt, defending the defenseless is a form of atonement and an act of contrition. The killings in Korea still effect him, as he tells Tao, "I used to stash guys like you five fet high in Korea. Used 'em for sandbags," which only confirms that some resolve is needed. He now has a reason to do away with his bitterness and protect these kids against anyone who would do them harm. Yet unlike the typical Eastwood vengeance flick we're used to, this is as much in line with Will Munny (from "Unforgiven") in that there is a price one must pay when violence is used. Esatwood knows it would be plain stupid at his age to have Walt decimate the gangs in the hood. Instead, we're given an emotional resonance that becomes enthematic for the entire film. There's a final validation here for Walt which gives the viewer a rewarding cinematic experience.
     
    Eastwood successfully culminates all the tough-guy characters he's known for into Walt Kowalski, an incorrigible soul who has to deal with issues of life, death, racism and salvation. While it may not be his best performance it certainly is one of his more ballsy ones. Is it a perfect script? No, not really. Are there flaws? Some. It's not a scholastic take on race relations, but newcomer Schnek understands the venomous mentality of men like Walt, who live and breathe outdated American values, only to find their faith rewarded by the degeneration of respect in the youth and the rise of foreign perspectives in their own backyard. I appreciated the fact that Eastwood used primarily first-time Hmong and Asian actors. It lended an added authenticity and naturalness to the characters that at time is jarringly noticeable but a welcome surprise nonetheless.  
     
    Like many of his smaller films (Million Dollar Baby) there's an exacted simplicity that is to be commended here. A easy-going yet purposeful filmmaking style that is long gone. At 78 years, Clint has no peer. No one else can do what he does, making him the best there is at what he does. If this is to be Eastwood's swan song as an actor (gasp!) then this is quite appropriate.  For anyone who enjoys Clint's acting, his humor, his honesty and craftsmanship as a director....this is a must see.
     
     

  • Stallone should be proud!

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

    Son of Rambow  (2008)

    rated PG-13 for  violence and reckless behavior.
    1 hr. 35 min.
     
    written & directed by: Garth Jennings
    produced by: Nick Goldsmith
     
     
     
    Watching writer/director Garth Jennings new film, I couldn't help but recall the wonder and excitement I felt the first time I devoured the movies that shaped my childhood. Leaving the movie theater as a wee lad, I remember feeling as if there was no end to the movie I had just seen. It continued on in my mind, living inside me as the characters embodied my actions. I believed wholeheartedly that I could pilot a "piece of junk" through outer space with a wookie as my copilot or that I could crack a whip in search of the lost Ark. If that sounds familiar to you then this lovable film will bring you back to that time with a smile on your face and maybe even a tear in your eye.
     
    The film takes place just outside of England in 1982, right around the time Stallone's socially-challenged Vietnam vet was introduced to cinemas. It is indeed the movie "First Blood" that brings two young boys together in an unlikely friendship. Unlikely because they are worlds apart despite living in the same town. Will Proudfoot (Bill Milner) is an introverted loner who takes refuge in drawing up an entire book of colorful stories. He lives with his mother, younger sister and grandmother who are all part of the Plymouth Brethren, a religious sect that shuns worldliness, secular music, TV and movies. Then there's freckled Lee Carter (Will Poulter), the thieving, charismatic troublemaker at Will's school. His teachers call him "the devil child" and yes he is a hellion but right away we see that he is just as endearing as Will. He lives with his much-older brother, Lawrence (Ed Westwick), unchecked and on their own while his mother lives in Spain with their stepdad. A situation ripe with mischief.
     
     
    Will Poulter and Bill Milner in Paramount Vantage's Son of Rambow
     
     
    Lee runs a video piracy business at home for his brother and has secretly decided to make a home movie himself. His goal: to make it the best ever and enter it into the local young filmmaker's contest. Lee finds an awe-struck ally in the imaginative Will, who is soon recruited by Lee to be his stunt double for an action movie he is making. Once Will sees his first ever movie over at Lee's place, a pirated copy of "First Blood" well, it's all over! He becomes obsessed with all things Rambo! He imagines himself as the "Son of Rambow" (stay till the end of the credits for a funny audio clip about the title) and enthusiastically immerses himself in the character...literally. We see Will jump from heights, fall from a tree and swing into a lake all for the sake of the art. Both boys develop an indelible bond as they become amateur cinematic collaborators.
     
    But this wouldn't be the hilarious, touching and joyous film that it is if all went well for our boys. When a busload of French exchange students are dropped off at their school, pretty boy, Didier (Jules Sitruk) enters the scene. He captivates the uniformed girls and boys with his black leather, red boots and his new wave music but provides a driving wedge between the boys when he practically takes over production. Another challenge is fellow Brethren brother Joshua (Neil Dudgeon) outing his Will's forbidden celluloid adventures while horning his way into his  family, putting Will and his family in danger of expulsion. But the most heart-wrenching of challenges is of the hurt caused by the growing egos and stubborn pride of both boys. You really want them to be the best of friends and it breaks your heart when anything opposing that occurs.
     
     
    Jules Sitruk in Paramount Vantage's Son of Rambow
     
     
    Director Jennings ("The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy") and his producing partner Nick Goldsmith really hit the jackpot finding these two non-actors as their leads. They really are perfectly cast and just flawless. I would imagine that Jennings has reels of edited film of these boys that didn't make the released cut. The supporting cast is excellent as well, particularly Jessica Hynes as Will's devoted mother who patiently tries to relate to his burgeoning backsliding. Little does she know that as much as her son wants to be a good son, he also wants to be the "Son of Rambow". Not only do the laugh-out-loud scenes make the film but the quieter, character moments add a sweet sincerity.
     
    When I found out that the film is partly based on Jennings' own childhood experiences of filmmaking, it made me love the film all the more. No wonder the film has so much heart. It can be seen in the writing and visual storytelling which seem straight out of a fond reminiscing dream. His use of scribbly graphic animation is used wisely, not overdone but rather caters to Will's vivid imagination. The film is a wonderfully unpretentious reminder of the unlimited possibilities of make believe. The only possible way to not like this film is if you hated being a child and you hate children. It's been a long time since I sat in the theater and felt the same exuberance as the main characters but this film did just that for me. 

  • Unbearable!

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

    Untraceable  (2008)

    written by: Mark Brinker, Allison Burnett & Robert Fyvolent
    produced by: Andy Cohen, Hawk Koch, Gary Lucchesi, Steven Pearl & Tom Rosenberg
    directed by: Gregory Hoblit
     
    Rated R for grisly violence and torture, and some language.
    100 min.
     
     
    Untraceable? I don't think so. You shouldn't be able to predict every turn while watching a movie with such a title. I can't imagine anyone who couldn't follow such a tepid plot in this day and age of CSI, Bones and Cold Case. That's basically what this is combines with the cinechock of the "Saw" movies. was there anyone watching this who didn't see where the story was going? To be sure, there are worse movies out there but this was crud. Too bad cuz the cast isn't to blame, they're not that bad really. It's what they're given to work with. If anything, they are to blame for reading and saying yes to such a sucky script.
     
    The story is set in dour and rainy Portland, Oregan (too bad, I thought that place was supposed to be nice) where FBI cybercrime profiler, Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane) spends her nights trapping pathetic internet scumbags with her partner, Griffin (Colin Hanks). A new site is discovered called www.killwithme.com that features a live streaming video where victims are killed based on the number of hits received, the faster the hits the quicker the death. Of course, like a traffic accident on the side of the road, millions of people log on, hastening the victims' violent deaths. It woulda been more interesting if the writers focused on the phenomena of gawkers and how these viewers actually became murderers themselves by visiting this site. A unique perspective would be how to legally hold these viewers accountable but instead we're given shots of Diane Lane in the shower.
     

    Colin Hanks and Diane Lane in Screen Gems' Untraceable 

     
    So, cybercop Marsh, pieces together this so-called mystery at great risk to herself and her family. Isn't that always the case. Why do these protagonists always have to have family? I'd like it if the protagonist was someone that everyone hates, even her family. Ah well. Marsh knows her job and she's a loyal single mom and all but she's just not that interesting. Lane winds up looking tired throughout the film, as her character tries to isolate the location of the killer who racks up a curious roster of victims. With each gruesome execution committed online, the audience grows more impatient for the next thrill, leaving the FBI little time to solve the case.
     
    The film tries to teeter on "torture porn" thrills but thankfully it only shows the kinda tortue you might see on any similar TV show.  I got a kick outta the film's need for boring exposition that spells out terms like "LOL" or "ROTFL" possibly catering to those who aren't familiar with online lingo and "clever" internet shorthand.
     

    Diane Lane in Screen Gems' Untraceable

    The killer turns out to be some pretty-faced kid (Joseph Cross, looking like an X-Men reject) wanting to get even and perhaps teach the world a lesson. What's his deal? He's upset, disturbed and unhinged about live-footage of his father's suicide being saturated online. What's bizarre is this killer is revealed not even half way into the film. Where's the suspense in that? I was never sold that this klid was some brilliant criminal sicko, once he's revealed I just wanted to slap him and sent to bed without dinner. It's yet another interested thread that is left frayed and unexplored.   Director Gregory Hoblit  ("Primal Fear," "Fracture") helps Lane sell the suspense of the script but not by much. He has her spend most of the movie wet (either in the rain or the aforementuiioned shower) and furrowed with a serious look plastered on her face. Too bad Hoblit is so lazy with the camera in that he has to hold on certain characters or locations which blatantly gives away to who and where something will happen. It's obvious that the writes were going reaching for an opportunity to showcase the freedom of internet media and expression that today's technology provides but it's just too obvious making it downright insulting. Every shot was completely leading and predicatble. And the screenplay? Just lame. A better title would be Unwatchable. Now THAT'S a movie I'd watch just to see if the title was true, kinda like those online viewer/killers.

     

     


  • Marvel's Metal Man is Fun!

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

    Iron Man  (2008)

     

    PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content.
    2 hrs. 6 min.
     
    written by: Mark Fergus, Matt Holloway & Hawk Ostby
    produced by: Avi Arad & Kevin Feigue
    directed by: Jon Favreau 
     
     
    Terrence Howard , Jon Favreau and Robert Downey Jr. in Paramount Pictures' Iron Man 
     
     
     
    When it was first announced that Robert Downey Jr. was cast as billionaire/inventor/playboy Tony Stark for the big screen adaptation of Marvel Comics Iron Man all I could think of was....genius. I was already excited to see what actor/director Jon Favreau would do with the comic book icon. After all, he has over forty years of material at his disposal. Then once the rest of the cast had been locked, my confidence in this film was reassured. With Favreau being a fan and four award-winning actors locked in, the possibility of this movie getting it right on all levels was strong. And that's exactly what happened! Believe the hype cuz there is now a comic book movie that delivers and exceeds all expectations. Before I get into why the movie is worthy of repeated viewings, let's get familiar with the world of Tony Stark....
     
    Stark Industries is a global manufacturing corporation that sees most of it's revenue come from their creation of various weapons. Tony's father, Howard Stark, built the empire with partner and friend Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges) and once Howard died, Tony took over at age 21 with Stane as his mentor. Graduating at the top of his MIT class at age 15, Tony doesn't claim his inheritance ignorantly although his cavalier lifestyle might show otherwise. He'd rather zip around in one of his sports cars or hit the casino with some hotties than bother with accepting an award from his best friend and military liaison Jim "Rhodey" Rhodes (Terence Howard). But then again being a friend of Tony's means you expect such behavior. It would take something life-changing for Tony to see not only who he is but what he's responsible for.
     
    That something takes place in Afghanistan where Tony makes a business appearance demonstrating his new cluster bomb, the Jericho. The trip turns out to be quite literally a bust when Tony's military Humvee entourage is attacked by an insurgent terrorist group known as The Ten Rings. They throw their injured captive in a cave with another captive, Dr. Yinsen (Shaun Toub) a scientist who winds up saving Tony's life by installing an electromagnetic device in his chest, keeping deadly shrapnel away from his heart. It is here in the cave that we see who Tony Stark is. Stripped away from all the conveniences that he's used to having at his disposal, he is faced with something he often does not think of....mortality.
     
     
    Robert Downey Jr. and Shaun Toub in Paramount Pictures' Iron Man 
     
     
    The terrorist leader, Raza (Faran Tahir) demands that Tony build a Jericho bomb for them "or else" but the tables are turned. Out of the scrap they give him for materials (much of which are from Stark Industries) Tony and Yinsen builds a small arc reactor, basically a longer-lasting replacement to the device on his chest as well as crude but formidable full body armor. Soon an armored Tony escapes, barreling his way through the terrorist camp, flinging soldiers, destroying their weapons and spraying flame every which way before he is able to launch himself in the air and out of harm's way. When he's picked up by Rhodes and military crew, we know that things have changed for Tony Stark, although he still wants an American cheeseburger upon arriving on U.S. soil.
     
    A press conference is held where Tony surprises everyone by announcing that effective immediately the weapons division of Stark Industries will close down. Not only does this shows a different side of Tony to the public but also infuriates Stane who was just fine when Tony took no actual role of his company's business dealings. He's not the only one effected by Tony's new social awareness though. His taken-for-granted Girl Friday Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) is shocked by his new seclusion from Tony's usual party self.  Potts is the one who has endured the most from Tony, handling pretty much everything (like memorizing his social security number) and everyone (like escorting that blonde cutie the Morning After) for him. She has to deal with the mysterious Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) who follows her around with several questions regarding the events that took place upon Tony's escape. During his seclusion, we see Tony tinkering away in his workshop/lab with his A.I. servant, Jarvis (voiced by the uncredited Paul Bettany) on a new, souped up and sleeker suit of armor. Well, you just know these scenes are coming and they are some of the best scenes.
     
    While Tony builds a more powerful and reliable arc that can power both his heart and his suit he also learns that what misdeeds his company has made. Turns out Stane was supplying arms not just with the U.S. but also with terrorists, specifically the ones who kidnapped Stark. Hmmmm. After several test runs, an incensed Tony suits up and blows through the atmosphere in a super-sonic red and gold blur! As much as I thoroughly enjoyed all the character-building moments of the film (something rare in a comic book adaptation) these are truly the "geek out" moments that every fanboy and girl have been anticipating! It's an exhilarating payoff!
     
     
    Paramount Pictures' Iron Man 
     
     
    That's right, seeing Iron Man soar to Afghanistan to save Dr. Yinsen's village from The Ten Rings is the awesome cinematic action that this comic book geek desired! He gets shot outta the air by a tank and then deals with it accordingly. The coolest thing is that Tony is still getting used to the armor but he's willing to risk his life in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Here's a guy who just wants to atone for his mistakes and he has the power to do so. He's not thinking of any U.N. rules nor is he thinking how Rhodey will have to cover for him somehow when his body appears as an unidentified blip on the USAF screens. It's just another thing that Tony doesn't have time for but such behavior requires he include Potts and Rhodes, the only two people he trusts.
     
    Since Tony hasn't functioned without Pepper Potts and has come to heavily rely on her, he has to involve her. She knows about the suit, about the flying and really doesn't know quite what to think of all of it. She does know though that he's putting himself in harm's way and makes it clear she wants no part of it. Tony sees this and knows she deserves an explanation. His witty wise-cracks she continuously suffers won't suffice. She's capable and knows she can help him, it just might take persuading her to believe in herself. Tony also knows there's no way he can't include Rhodes seeing as how he's monitoring the skies with the military. Once this two are with him, Tony is free to suit up once again and tackle the man he at one time called mentor.
     
    Yes, it becomes clear throughout the film that Stane is up to no good and he is the requisite villain which requires a climactic standoff. At times it might become a bit too obvious that Stane is the villain and really that's my only qualm of the film. I'm guessing it's just the way the character is written rather than Bridges handle of Stane. It took me a second to believe that Stane would don his own armor but then again I suppose all weapons dealers have a propensity to play with their toys. What I liked most about the final battle that starts at Stark Industries and then spills into public streets is that it was kinda clumsy which is kinda expected. After all, we have two guys who are still new at wearing these armored suits. At one point, Iron Man gets run over by a family in an SUV after he saves them. It's funny but at the same time you think "yeah, that would happen".
     
     
    Gwyneth Paltrow in Paramount Pictures' Iron Man 
     
     
    Throughout the film, we know what's going to happen, it's a pretty straightforward origin story with very obvious bad guys. Admittedly, I've kinda grown tired of origin stories (except "Batman Begins") but here I see the need for it. This isn't mindless exposition, there is an actual reinvention of character here with Tony Stark. It's a definitive role for Downey Jr., who not only fits perfectly nails the casual apathy of a billionaire playboy weapons dealer but also nails the naive way the guy doesn't fully understand that it's not just the good guys that play with his toys. He brings a needed depth to an unlikable character that you can't help but be won over by. So, while there may not be a surprising twists and turns for a change there is actual character development in a comic book movie.
     
    I was surprised by what I enjoyed and appreciated most about this film. The whiz-bang action was fun of course (that's a given) yet it's the characters that really stand out here. It was actually refreshing to see actors play their age and provide characters that have some life in them. In her mid-thirties, Paltrow is the youngest and while she may be an actor I usually don't care for, she shines here giving a lively performance that keeps in step with Downey's snappy charisma to form a Dave & Maddy chemistry. Not much more can be said about Downey, this is his film. I now have no choice but to hear his voice the next time I read an Iron Man comic. It will be said that the always enjoyable Terrence Howard isn't given much here and while I liked what I saw from him here, I know there's much more for him in the sequels. That's right, the core cast has signed on for at least three more films!
     
    Favreau has made a funny film without being dumbed-down or heavy-handed with dazzling action sequences that actually enhance the story rather than distract us from the lack thereof. He gives the fans what they want while delivering an intelligent and fun summer blockbuster to everyone else. There are plenty of in-jokes and hints for the fanboys, especially after the credits. So, sit in your seat! Setting the tone for the rest of the summer, this is the film to beat right now...at least till Memorial Day weekend when a certain man with a hat and whip will be back!
     

  • Knocking on the door has never been so frightening!

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

    The Orphanage  (2007)


     
    written by: Sergio G. Sánchez
    produced by: Mar Targarona, Joaquín Padro, Álvaro Agustín & Guillermo del Toro
    directed by: Juan Antonio Bayona
     
    rated R (for some disturbing content)
    105 min.
     
     
     
    I'm a big fan of "less is more" which can be applied to almost anything really and it also correlates well with the phrase "show don't tell". I prefer when art stands on it's own without any additional interpretation. I don't want anything accompanying the art that states the obvious, tells me what to feel or think, or bats me over the head with a message. I especially feel this way toward film. There really is so much more that can be told to the audience when the filmmakers just show through images and let the film hold the audiences attention. That is certainly how I felt as I watched this amazingly beautiful film that had me reeling through an emotional gamut.
     
    It's no surprise to me that this suspenseful ghost story is a foreign film. I just don't see American filmmakers making any original and intelligent suspense films. If they aren't boring torture porn sequels then they're American remakes of successful Japanese horror films. There's an audience for all those films but to me there's just nothing special there. Unlike, Juan Antonio Bayona's debut film "El Orfanato" or "The Orphanage" which happens to be something very special. At the start of this film , there's a feeling of the traditional haunted house/ghost story but by the end of the film you are left with such a heavy and full heart that you're simply frozen.
     
    It begins with a scene outside a large seaside orphanage with a group of young kids playing a game similar to "Red Light, Green Light". A young girl named Laura is called from the game by one of the teachers there and is soon taken away by her new adoptive parents. Decades later, Laura, now a woman is back at the orphanage. She and her physician husband Carlos (Fernando Cayo) have bought the orphanage with plans to turn it into a home for disabled children, and they've moved in with their 7-year-old son Simón (Roger Príncep). The boy immediately starts acting odd, talking about an imaginary friend named Tómas. At a party for the opening of the home, Simón mysteriously disappears amid prospective children, and Laura (Belén Rueda) immediately suspects a strange old woman who has been lurking around the house. Months later, with her boy still gone, Laura is still convinced he is still alive or that his spirit is haunting the creepy old house. I'll stop right here....
     
    To say much more about the general plot might give far too much away. It really is a beautiful film where the less you know the better off you are and since I am fond of the aforementioned motto, I will leave the plot details alone. Is it enough to persuade you to see it? I hope so, even if you aren't a huge fan of the horror or suspense genre, this really will hit you in many surprising ways. There's a lot of depth at play and many layers throughout to the story as well as the characters, which slowly unfold as we learn more about what happened with the orphanage after Laura was taken away as a child.
     
    There is great care to meticulously construct a story that reveals itself in such an inventive, seductive fashion, it seems disrespectful to talk about it too much. You really need to see this at home with someone and experience it the same way I did, knowing very little. There are some real chills to be found in this film although not too many gross out moments and at first you may feel you know where it's going. You may think there are some genre cliches thrown in and even if there are, they aren't used in a typical manner. The shocks that come are really a result of your imagination that has been built up while watching the film. The creators know that if they can spark yours, you'll completely buy into the world they are showing (not telling), and the more engrossed you become, the more you enjoy it.
     
    As Laura, Belén Rueda gives a absolutely, stunning performance in a role that requires more than just acting scared or screaming and it has to. The grief involved over her missing boy, the fear that she'll never get him back, combined with the strength she calls upon to search for him could be considerably overwhelming for most actors but Rueda ("The Sea Inside") is simply amazing. This is the first movie I've seen her in and I plan on going back and finding others while I keep tabs on any of her upcoming projects. It's refreshing to 43 year-old woman get a great role and run with it. With this being his first feature-film, director Bayona is also one to watch, as he clearly has a sharp eye for visuals, creating a mood, and intricately telling a story. I'm interested to see if he stays in the horror genre or explores other genres for his next film, cuz from this film, I feel he can succeed in any direction.
     
    A good ghost story can inspire our imaginations, which is sadly the first thing that so many of us lose when we grow up. So, it makes a certain kind of sense that a story like this would reference the spirit of Peter Pan in its twisty narrative. Of course, there are also more dangerous lessons to be gleaned from Pan, particularly the danger of being stuck in one place, be it the eternal boy who can't move on or the avenging Hook who won't quit until he gets his revenge. Such themes are also applicable toward this Spanish (yeah, there's subtitles....deal with it!) tale of a haunted home for children.

    Writer Sergio G. Sanchez conveys a similar feel to other fright fests that have come from Spain and Latin America in recent years, most notably Alejandro Amenabar's "The Others" and Guillermo del Toro's "The Devil's Backbone". del Toro serves as producer (chiefly one of the reasons this film received an audience), and it's obvious that Bayona and Sanchez share the same love of storytelling that has made del Toro's best films such a joy to watch. While there doesn't seem to be any end in sight of Hollywood's endless recycling and remakes, here is a film carefully peeling a genuine story. There is an art to spinning a scary tale and there are times when that art makes it to the screen, this is one of those films.




  • Penn gives soul to a soul-searching, sad tale

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

    Into the Wild  (2007)

    INTO THE WILD (2007) ****
     
     
    R (for language and some nudity)
    2 hrs. 20 min.
     
    written by: Sean Penn (from the novel by Jon Krakauer)
    produced by: Art Linson, Sean Penn & William Pohlad
    directed by: Sean Penn
     
     
     
    I made my way out to the movie theater on a numbingly cold December night. The wind was whipping through me on this last Saturday of 2007. I wondered what it would be like to wander off on your own with your only focus being just you and the surrounding natural elements. Familiar people and places left behind, the open road ahead with all it's possibilities of sights and sounds. I  was alone (something I rarely do), on my way to see "Into the Wild" a movie based on the true story of a young man who did something similar with the last two years of life on earth.   
     
    Back in 1996, the cover to writer Jon Krakauer's book Into the Wild caught my attention in a bookstore. It had a cover image of an abandoned snow-swept bus on the top half and on the bottom half it read....
     
    In April 1992 a young man from a well-to-do family hitchhiked to Alaska and walked alone into the wilderness north of Mt. McKinley. His name was Christopher Johnson McCandless. He had given $25, 000 in savings to charity and abandoned his car and most of his possessions, burned all the cash in his wallet, and invented a new life for himself. Four months later, his decomposed body was found by a moose hunter
     
    ....After I read that, I knew I would someday have to read this book.  
     
    What happened to McCandless in-between his departure and his death is just as extraordinary and shocking as his decision to discard his family and friends. This is the rugged territory covered by screenwriter/director Sean Penn in his film which adapts and takes its title from Krakauer's book. The film depicts McCandless (Emile Hirsch) as a restless searcher roaming from one fresh experience to another, be it working the land for a rascally farmer named Wayne (Vince Vaughn) in South Dakota, hitching a ride with a hippie couple Jan (Catherine Keener) and Rainey (Brian Dierker) in Oregon, or befriending a lonely old man named Ronald Franz (played superbly by Hal Holbrook) in the Southern California desert.

    Along the way, McCandless (who renames himself Alexander Supertramp on his journey) made reckless and foolhardy decisions on his westward journey. He almost got himself arrested, injured and killed with no experience and it seems he's become for today's disaffected youth either a folk hero or a cautionary tale, depending on your point of view. Penn's take on McCandless sojourn is one of a tragic figure, and his film mixes the beautiful with the devastating. Nature witnessed in the film is powerful, communing with it can be rejuvenating; yet, to view it alone is indeed a terrible thing. When reading all this about McCandless, one obvious question continues to surface....Why? What compelled him to come to such a decision? How did all this come about?
     
     
     
    Emile Hirsch in Paramount Vantage's Into the Wild 
     
     
     
    Well, the film gives us a look as to what elements may have contributed to his decision to drop off the grid. We meet 22 year-old McCandless near Atlanta, Georgia, as he graduates from Emory University in 1990. His parents Walt (William Hurt) and Billie (Marcia Gay Harden) are wealthy east coast socialites who want to purchase him a new car as a present and an incentive to go to grad school. The real reason could be that they're embarrassed by the Datsun clunker he drives. McCandless is insulted and refuses their gift, he could care less about a new car. Throughout the film there are scenes that portray his parents as superficial as they cluelessly raise McCandless and his sister Carine (Jenna Malone). In flashbacks, they're seen constantly bickering and abusive to one another yet always prepared with a facade in public. Whether or not his family was depicted accurately is unknown but it does show how this upbringing had a tremendous impact on McCandless' life. He wanted to be nothing like his parents and wanted nothing to do with them.
     
    Having rejected his parents and their lifestyles, McCandless focused his love and attention on the words of Thoreau, Jack London, and other naturalists. This too possibly tainted McCandless. After all, these writers wrote romantic works of natural adventures and reflections but that doesn't mean they necessarily lived them out. Still Chris believed a life living off the earth without material possessions and personal ties could be possible and should be pursued. He wanted to leave society entirely....not just the material trappings of it, but all of it....and commune with the rivers and the forests.

    Penn's film cuts between two time-lines which is a smart approach since we see where he is and also how he arrived there. One follows him on his westward journey, kayaking down the Colorado River, meeting hippies and foreigners, working for a time flippin' burgers at a McDonald's as well as a wheat harvester in for Wayne, all with the goal of his "Great Alaskan Adventure". The other time-line is two years later and shows McCandless living in an old bus he's found in the Alaskan woods. He has a rifle to hunt his food, some rice, his beloved books and of course the big surrounding country he cherishes. He's reached his destination and faces the peaceful beauty along with the unpredictable wild.
     
    But McCandless learns the hard way that there's more to inner peace than that. Crushingly and heartbreakingly at times we see him scrounge for food and shelter, often meeting disappointment but sometimes making friends. Hirsch's surrender to the role is impressive, both physically and emotionally. We see the anger McCandless feels toward his parents in his performance, which has led to a disillusionment with society in general....and yet he remains a optimistic, good and decent person himself, more disappointed than cynical. His charisma enthusiasm and drive are witnessed by all who meet him but I wondered if this was the side McCandless wanted them to see. He has a solid moral code about him and it could be his parents' failure to live up to it that has turned him off. With all of these characteristics in mind, you can't help but to like him but you also wonder and worry about him.

    Penn's treatment of all this is passionate, ambitious and respectable. It's probably my favorite film he's directed thus far. He takes a lyrical, poetic approach that serves the film well from a visual standpoint. Throughout parts of the film we actually see words and phrases written across the screen, running along with Eddie Vedder's songs and Michael Brook's soundtrack. His weighty baritone provides earthy, folky tracks that temper the romance of absolute freedom with an eerie foreboding. At times, we also hear Carine's voice-over narration, presumably from her diary but Penn also injects some well-needed silence to the film. After all, when you're off on your own in the wild all that can be heard is what's around you. 

    Cinematographer Eric Gautier films outstanding shots of nature here but it's the performances though that really make this film fantastic. Starting with Hirsch's mature portrayal of the immature McCandless. Vaughn has a decent part as the shifty grain harvester who gives Chris a job. The always reliable Keener is great, playing a woman who is estranged from her own son about Chris' age. He runs into her and Rainey, these freewheelin' hippies, a couple times on his trek. They become replacement parents to him, in a way, and Jan has a conversation with Christopher late in the film that reminds him of the pain his real parents must be feeling after all these months of not knowing where he is. She almost gets him to confront his feelings, to maybe put himself in their shoes but he keeps his guard up and pretty soon he hits the road.
     
     
     
    Hal Holbrook and Emile Hirsch in Paramount Vantage's Into the Wild 
     



    The most impacting character that McCandless encounters is an 84 year-old gentleman named Ron Franz, an old man Christopher meets in the California desert. Holbrook gives a buzz-worthy performance that supplies the film's needed emotional weight as it comes together as it heads into its final act. Ron was living on his own just fine until he came across McCandless with his backpack. Something in him must have immediately connected to this young man and when he tells Chris a lil of his history we see why. He gives plenty of sage advice, but he's more than just a typical Wise Old Man. Ron can see that someone this idealistic, naive, and unprepared as McCandless isn't going to make it in the harsh world without help, and he's visibly saddened by this knowledge, practically pleading with Christopher to forgive his parents and return to real life. Holbrook's work is a true definition of a great subtle supporting performance.
     
    Sure I can appreciate what we're asked to believe were McCandless' motivations and hurts but his actions were ultimately selfish and irresponsible. The sad part of the film is really the lives that he touched. While he was a charming character and often a delight to be around he could also be a stubborn fool. He resisted the attempts of all those around him on his journey to love him, having determined that such concerns were irrelevant to him. He wasn't rude about it but right about the time that an opportunity would present itself for someone to really get to know him, he'd dodge them.  It's not until it's too late that he realizes what they were subtly teaching him all along: that communing with nature can bring tranquility and joy, but it's ultimately nothing if you don't have someone to share it with.




  • Marshall pays bloody homage

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

    Doomsday  (2008)

    Doomsday (2008) ***



    R for strong bloody violence, language and some sexual content/nudity.
    1 hr. 45 min.
     
    written by: Neil Marshall
    produced by: Benedict Carver & Steven Paul
    directed by: Neil Marshall
     
     

    I was really surprised to find out that this new film by writer/director Neil Marshall had not been screened before it's release. No press screenings for a film usually mean certain "doom" for a movie's chance of surviving the tumultuous box office waters. Generally, that's true. The studio may have been sitting on a film or they know the movie is a dud yet they also know they gotta release and see if at least makes them some kinda profit. Since none of the critics have seen a film that hasn't been screened there's usually some kinda automatic negative vibe when it's eventually released (I just think the critics are being' babies cuz they haven't been given a look at the film in advance). If I'm already stoked to see a film, bad reviews don't stop me.
     
    Sometimes, if you enjoy a certain genre, especially a certain filmmaker, you just go see a film despite what the word is and make up your mind for yourself. Now I like pretty much any kind of post-apocalyptic sci-fi story be it action or horror. So when I heard that Marshall was essentially working on a homage to such films, I was in. Why? Primarily cuz his previous two films proved to me that there's someone out there willing to take a new twist on the action-horror genre. 2002's "Dog Soldiers" was an original look at the werewolf genre and 2005's spelunking, all-estrogen nightmare "The Descent" had me goin' to bed with the willies. While these films had originality going for them, they also had some decent character development in them to keep one's interest.

     
     
     
    Rhona Mitra and Bob Hoskins in Rogue Pictures' Doomsday
     

     
    In April 2008, the UK faces annihilation at the hands of something called a Reaper virus that is violently killing off Scotts. It's like "28 Days Later" only they die instead of going berserk. So, the British government decides to quarantine Scotland by erecting a 30 ft. wall, leaving those who couldn't escape to fend for themselves until they get sick and die. We're not only shown all these scenes but maps are drawn and narration is given as well by actor Malcolm McDowell. No one really knows what happened inside the wall since the quarantine but one can only imagine the horror.
     
    Three decades later, that same virus is loose in London and the only hope (and perhaps civilization's) appears to be a blip found on satellite coverage of Glasgow.  Since they thought that all life on the other side of the wall would've been annihilated by the virus, they're sure this means a cure. So, England's Prime Minister Hatcher (Alexander Siddig of "24") is coerced by his corruptible Number Two (David O' Hara) to send an "elite team" over the wall to get the cure in 48 hrs. They turn to a government handler, Nelson (Bob Hoskins) cuz he knows just the right someone to lead an elite group into Scotland. That would be his best operative, Eden Sinclair (Rhona Mitra), the chain-smoking, deadpan action heroine who is basically the female answer to Snake Plissken. It's never really clear what Sinclair's title is just that she kicks butt really good and in a movie that doesn't really get too deep, that's enough for me.
     
    We pretty much know already that Sinclair takes the mission or else it wouldn't be the adrenaline-crazed, post-apocalyptic movie that it is. He tells her that the team needs to find a doctor named Kane (McDowell) and get a cure outta him. No problem. Heh. Sinclair takes it not just cuz the fate of all civilization rests on her know-how but cuz she's haunted by the fact that her mother was left behind in the quarantined zone. The prospect of her mother being alive is slim but the curiosity of going back to her place of birth probably factors as well. Yes, Sinclair has the requisite tortured past and her fake Rt. eye to chow for it. She's introduced to head soldier, Norton (Adrian Lester), and is put in charge of a team of soldiers, doctors and other unknown specialists before the giant walls advance them to their, um "doom".
     
     
     
    Craig Conway and Rhona Mitra in Rogue Pictures' Doomsday 
     
     
    Once the armored team gets to the hospital in Glasgow where they think Kane might be all hell breaks loose. They immediately find out that the source of that satellite blip is actually a rogue community of punked-out cannibals led by Sol (Craig Conway). He's a skinny, psycho sporting a mohawked with raccoon-eyed make-up and intends to use Sinclair as his way back to civilization (I think he'd need a lil more than her). Of course that plan doesn't quite work out, soon enough Sinclair and what's left of her team are trekking across lovely Scottish landscapes to find Kane. Turns out he's holed up like Col. Kurtz in some castle in Edinburgh with a society of his own made up of  medieval rejects and heavily-armored knights. Bloody Middle-Age violence ensues with whizzing arrows, bludgeoning battle axes all while finding an unlikely cure.
     
    The rest of the film is more crazy-action turned up way past eleven. Logic throughout the film is loosey goosey at best but it definitely gets tossed out the window of Sinclair's 2008 Bentley she commandeers, especially when she finds a brand new cell phone that is able to patch her through to Nelson. Hullo? How would that happen? But when I saw it, I just laughed cuz this isn't the type of movie you question. If you like the genre, you just go with it. This film really is insane, it's a side of Marshall we haven't seen before except for perhaps in the final battle in Dog Soldiers but even this is 100% more in-your-face. Marshall adds his humorous subtleties and in-jokes that amid his chaotic homage that make you laugh-out-loud (like the running gag with a dead girlfriend) almost with queasy child-like glee. 
     
    If you can't stomach violence, lemme forewarn you, Marshall is all over the place with his violence here. There are severed heads and arms which are seemingly a running theme.  Blood sprays, splats, drips, hits the camera lens and pops in an crimson celebration of wet, vibrant viscera. What else? There's an eyeball cameras. Skanky chicks adorned with tattoos and piercings. Eviscerated rabbits  A herd of cows. There's a man barbecued alive and then his flesh consumed by punk-rock psychos. Yeah, it's just crazy but in some crazy way I had fun with it. It brought me back to all those action-heavy, futuristic movies I watched in the 80's. Marshall gets those movies and adds his own special brand of unbridled fury and tosses it all on the screen. 
     
     
     
    A scene from Rogue Pictures' Doomsday 
     
     
     
    Throughout the story's hyper-kinetic pace, there really isn't much time for character although there are some characters, let me tell you. This isn't an actor's movie anyway but Mitra really does deliver a great cold-hearted action hero. She's the estrogen-laden Snake Plissken wanna-be that you can't take you're eyes off, despite her characters defiance of logic. Hoskins and McDowell's roles are far too small but it's good to see them there. I was resolved from the start to not get too involved with these characters and just go along with the thrill ride.
     

    Marshall has said in interviews that the film is an homage to a variety of previous cult classics such as: "Escape from New York", "The Road Warrior", "The Warriors", "Maelstorm", "Zulu", "Excalibur" and "The Fisher King".  There's also a touch of  "28 Days Later" inspiration only the plague that effects Scotland here fills people instead of turning them into raging, murderous savages. While viewers and critics are crying rip-off and calling this the "worst movie ever" (to quote Kip from "Napoleon Dynamite", "How can anyone even know that?"), I think they are forgetting the definition of homage and not giving Marshall enough credit. He knows there are many elements in this film that have been seen elsewhere....how could he not? He's just celebrating those films.

     

     


  • Oil: A Bloody Timely Feud

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

    THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007) ****
     
     
    rated R (for some violence)
    2 hrs. 38 min
     
     
    written by: Paul Thomas Anderson (based on the novel Oil! by Upton Sinclair)
    produced by: Paul Thomas Anderson & Scott Rudin
    directed by: Paul Thomas Anderson

     
     
    Here's another film that has remained with me a week after viewing and that's why it made it on my Top Ten Films of 2007 list. I saw it because I have never seen a movie starring Daniel Day-Lewis where I wasn't absolutely mesmerized by his performance. This film only supported that statement, the man is an amazing actor and this movie is a quite an experience. It definitely supports the fact that oil and religion don't mix, not today and certainly not in the desolate Northern California landscape of the late 1800's. That's right, the film is about oil and greed and religion and deception. It's a dirty movie where you will feel the grime and dust cake your skin in your seat, you feel the heat just as much as the characters on screen do.
     
    This is a film that demands your undivided attention and does so easily from the beginning. Writer & Director Paul Thomas Anderson starts off with unprecedented form by not giving any dialogue for about the first 15-30 minutes. That's right, no one utters a word but the film still manages to speak volumes on many levels. We're shown a barren desert landscape somewhere in California with the swelling sounds of orchestral strings accompanying the sharp bite of a tool striking the earth. The man is Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) and he is indeed meticulously chipping away at a wall deep down a man-made well, searching for his fortune. He mines for silver alone, an independent man with no need of assistance let alone words. He has no one to turn to when calamity strikes, and yet he has the will to overcome that calamity in order to stake his claim.
     
     
     
    Dillon Freasier and Daniel Day-Lewis in Paramount Vantages' There Will Be Blood 
     
     
    In an unprecedented move, Anderson only uses music amid the sounds of a birthing industry for this opening scene and that's what hooks you in. I sat there finding myself riveted as I'm sure others were in the quiet theatre. I was forced to pay attention, almost as if right from the start viewers are asked to make the decision to become thoroughly invested. Very soon, we see that  Plainview is not your average turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who pulled himself up by his bootstraps. No, this is a man consumed by himself, who surrounds himself by those who would believe in him. Yet we see right through the charismatic salesman. Plainview doesn't care about anyone, he even flat out says later on that he often finds himself despising other people.
     
    Years later, Plainview has his hands in multiple wells which has made him a rich man. He travels around speaking to townspeople living in prospective lands with a prop, an adopted a son named H.W. (first-timer Dillion Freasier), who was orphaned as a baby when a collapsing rig killed his father.  That may seem like a compassionate act by Plainview but like anything else, we find he has his ulterior motives. H.W. is unaware that Plainview isn't his real pappy, and Plainview exploits his mini-me so he can call his enterprise a family business. This behavior is dealt with eventually as is many other of Plainviews unrepentant ways. We see that a man cannot repent until he actually sees the need to.
     
    The film does play like a work of classic literature in ways I can't really describe, it just has an epic scope. Like any such work, there is an antagonist and what's interesting is that a reader (or viewer) is usually already rooting for a respectable protagonist but not in this film. One night, a mysterious young man named Paul (Paul Dano) appears and tells Plainview he knows where there are untapped oil reserves. He tells Plainview that for $500, he will disclose the location of his family's ranch. Of course, Plainview is soon on the scene and trying to cheat the old farmer (David Willis) out of his property under the guise of wanting a quiet place to hunt quail. The farmer's other son, Eli Sunday (also played by Dano) suspects the real motivation for the purchase, and so their clash of wills gets underway. Hence, we have our classic protagonist in Sunday, a Pentecostal preacher in the small local church.  He wants to make sure his congregation--and their spiritual leader--are taken care of but he too is a charlatan with ulterior motives.
     
    So you have two charismatic people at odds with each other who are more alike than they'd ever admit. It's ironic that this is essentially a war between oil and religion....sound familiar? As much as these two characters are continuously at odds one commonality is that money and salvation can change who a person is. There are continuous clashes throughout this film of the material and the spiritual. I'm not gonna get into the specific cause and effects of either of these characters actions but both definitely cause serious repercussions to those around them. All of it is gripping and powerful, as Anderson shows us two men consumed with their own agenda and the misery that comes from it.
     
    The story comes from Upton Sinclair's eighty year-old novel Oil! about an oil baron who engages in a mental battle with a revival type preacher who holds the key to a plot of land with oceans of crude bubbling underneath the surface. Both want control of the gusher, because both are looking to line their coffers. Anderson uses that set up and runs with it, creating an ominous title change that does indeed provide that human life source but also blood from the earth. Oil is the fuel for everything. It powers cars, it invigorates communities, and it compels men to trade their souls for its reward.
     
    I'm probably not the best person to call this film a masterpiece but nonetheless, that's how I see it. The only other film by Anderson that I've seen is his last one, 2002's "Punch Drunk Love". I know some may find that shocking but I knew that "Boogie Nights" was more or less a cover of Scorcese's "Good Fellas" and that "Magnolia" was a take on Altman's "Short Cuts".There's nothing wrong with that but I figured if I'd seen those movies....why watch those? I know, heresy.
     
     
     
    Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis in  Paramount Vantages' There Will Be Blood
     
     
     
    A protagonist like Plainview can make or break a film. He's a great literary character that you can't take your eyes off of but you don't like him. What is most riveting as I watched the film is trying to find out why he thinks so highly of himself. Maybe he doesn't, maybe he has his demons, but he sure comes across like a guy who really believes what he's doing is right. An strong actor is needed for this role and I can't see anyone else but Day-Lewis as Plainview. I can't help thinking that this movie would not be nearly as excellent as it is had a different actor been cast in the lead. The entire cast is fantastic, including Ciaran Hines as Plainview's right-hand man and Kevin J. O'Connor as a shady grifter. Dano falters a little in trying to play a convincing older version of himself, but as the awkward and often sinister preacher, he's able to sell the man as both a righteous lunatic and a scheming con artist.
     
    This is by far Daniel Day-Lewis' film. That's who you see this for. He commands every scene with his John Huston-inspired characterization. He's an actor who famously gets lost in the roles he takes and this is no exception. I've enjoyed every performance I've seen him in since I first saw him in his Oscar-winning role as Christy Brown in "My Left Foot". He plays Plainview in multiple stages of life, from a determined young man to the over-confidence of middle age and on into old age, broken and alone with his ego. Though Plainview has the gift of gab when it comes time to pitch his sale, he is most often a man of few, carefully chosen, often biting words. Some viewers and critics see his performance as grand standing and entirely over-the-top. I can see that but Day-Lewis is so captivating that I forgive it and become absorbed by him.  
     
    There's also much talk about how the movie ends. While I would never spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet, I can't seeing it ending any other way. This topic isn't unusual though, I hear many discussing the conclusion of "No Country for Old Men" as well. I understand the complaints but I respect both endings for the fact that they remain true to the characters and however a story ends, that's what should matter. Like the Coen brothers film, here's a film that will haunt you for some time. I saw it three weeks ago and I'm still seeing images and discussing it with others. Not many films can do that today.




  • Doesn't live up to "Legend" status

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

    I Am Legend  (2007)

    I AM LEGEND: The IMAX Experience (2007) ***
     
     
    PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.
    1 hr. 40 min.
     
    written by: Akiva Goldsman & Mark Protosevich with source material from John William & Joyce Hopper Corrington("The Omega Man") and Richard B. Matheson (novel: I Am Legend)
    produced by: David Heyman, Neal H.Moritz, Akiva Goldsman & James Lassiter
    directed by: Francis Lawrence
     
     
    I had just finished a Christmas show performance on December 23rd at church (you can check out the pics here) which required a set of tedious rehearsals and I knew I needed some kinda outlet. For me, this outlet usually involves gettin' out and seein' a movie. I wanted some kinda escape, so I planned one which consisted of some of the usual suspects. The plan was to take in a 9pm showing of "I Am Legend" at the IMAX at Navy Pier. It would turn out to be one of the coldest, windiest nights yet. On the way there I started doubting my sanity which is exactly what I would see Will Smith do on a gigantic screen. But first....
     
    I chose to see this film in IMAX for two reasons: 1.) it would be cool on the big-big screen 2.) it had a prologue for "The Dark Knight" playing before it. All the non-IMAX showings of this film just had the new trailer for "The Dark Knight" but this was the actual beginning of the movie....and it was awesome! Filmed in IMAX, the intense prologue showed The Joker (Heath Ledger) and his masked goons robbing the Gotham National Bank. The way this is implemented is pretty twisted and ingenious (just like the comic book Joker) and in one particular scene where the goons are swinging to the roof of the bank from an adjacent skyscraper (clearly Chicago, yes!)....quite dizzying (yay for IMAX)! It was great to see the bank manager (the great William Fichtner) go up against the goons and Joker with a shotgun in the bank. It was also great to see how Joker deals with him and flees the bank (onto what looks like Jackson Blvd!) Something tells me this sequel will surpass the previous one in greatness. Heck, just the sheer joy of noticing all the Chicago locations will be worth it. Plus, it would be nice to spot myself as well but that may be wishful thinking.
     
    After seeing that, I was all excited and looking forward to seeing Dr. Robert Neville (Will Smith) go at it alone in a desolate Manhattan of the near future. By now, you're likely aware of the story....he's the Last Man on Earth! Whoa. How'd that happen? Well, it's 2012 and it turns out back in 2009 there was this virile outbreak that wiped out 90% of civilization by years end.The film starts out with some news recordings that reveal a genetically engineered measles virus that had been created by a Dr. Alice Krippin (an uncredited cameo by Emma Thompson-how'd they get her?) as a cure for cancer. Little did she know it would mutate into a lethal strain which would rapidly infect humans and animals. So, of the 10% left of civilization 9% were infected, but did not die. These survivors spiraled into a primal state of aggression and began to react painfully to UV rays, forcing them to hide in buildings and other dark places during the day. Less than 1% remained completely immune to the virus, but were hunted and killed by the infected.
     
     
     
    Will Smith in Warner Bros. Pictures' I Am Legend 
     
     
     
    That's how US Army virologist Lieutenant Colonel Robert Neville is left as the supposed last healthy human in NYC and quite possibly the entire world. We're shown in some well-done flashbacks that when the breakout went live, Neville being the army doc he is was able to get his wife Zoe (Chicago's own Salli Richardson) and daughter Marley (Smith's own Willow Smith) on a helicopter off Manhattan to hopeful safety. That was more than three years ago and now Neville's daily routine is trying to find a cure for cure for cancer. He feels it's his responsibility to see if their is a way to reverse the infected. Of course he and his daughter's German Shephard Sam (short for Samantha, played by Kona) need to stay away from the infected at night and do so in the safety of his fortified home.
     
    Slowly drained of his sanity and growing weary of battling the vampire-like infected that attack during the night, Neville is losing hope that his nightmare will end. By far, the finest moments of the picture are easily the sequences of the him and Sam driving around the city streets, interacting with a frozen world. Hunting deer or shooting golf balls into buildings off an aircraft carrier, Neville has the world to himself in the daytime, employing careful street geography sharpened over three years of seclusion. In this game of boredom and survival there appears to be no winner, just survival. The balance between the two is where "Legend" finds the strongest dramatic flavor, carefully studying Neville's fragile sanity while upping the tension with the menacing "Dark Seekers" and their escalating aggression toward the viral survivors.
     
    Neville's daily routine includes experimentation on the infected he manages to capture in order to find a cure for the virus as well as trips through a Manhattan devoid of humanity to hunt for food and supplies. He even goes through the local video store starting from A to Z, he's got the time (something I would do). He also makes friends with mannequins he's positioned in the store, he knows their names and back stories. Waiting each day for a response to his continuous transmission broadcasts, which instruct any survivors to meet him at midday at the South Street Seaport. When other survivors finally do start to surface, the revelation stuns Neville, who finds his struggle to remain optimistic is in constant battle with his knowledge that humanity has likely been snuffed out for good. Smith handles their appearance in a very real way. It's still hard to comprehend that he's not alone, that there are others out there beside these metropolitan night creatures.
     
    Francis Lawrence (who also directed "Constantine") is a skilled enough director to pull off the visual apocalypse of a deteriorated New York City and he also successfully sets up an environment for Smith to allow you to feel what it would be like to live in this world. The reason some of the scenes I mentioned work is due to the total silence Lawrence uses during the opening acts. He does this not just to amp suspense, but to have you feel the unnerving stillness in the air. One of the best, nail-biting scenes has Sam wander off in daylight into a building. A big no-no cuz we and Neville know that those insatiable creatures are lurking in there. It really draws out the horror, fear and dependence he has with his only companion.
     
    So, Lawrence succeeds in making the first three fourths of this film an excellent look at isolation, loneliness and aloneness. But (there had to be one) the final half hour just seem rushed. Once Anna (Alice Braga) and her son Ethan (Charlie Tahan), the two survivors who find him come into the story everything speeds up into an adrenalized action picture. The slow, tense build-up Lawrence gave us is replaced with a video game feel with the CGI-heavy creatures swarming all three of them. It had to come, I knew the action would kick up a notch as I watched it but I though it woulda been a notch, not full throttle. Ah well.
     
     
     
    Will Smith in Warner Bros. Pictures' I Am Legend 
     
     
    Some viewers have commented on how lame the infected creatures were in the film. They're saying they felt too similar to something you'd find in a video game, not life-like enough. At first, I didn't mind them (maybe cuz I saw less of them) but I have to admit something about them after awhile felt....goofy. This could be some of the worst CGI creatures put to film, making them look more like crude animation tests. What ever happened to the magic of makeup?Maybe it's cuz we don't know any of them to begin with, I mean supposedly all of those infected were once averages people, right? Yet, they all are skinny, half-naked and veiny, resembling Johnsonville brats. They all look the same! Why aren't they all different sizes? Average people are short and tall and fat and skinny so how'd they get this way? I know that Lawrence started out using real actors for these creatures but later opted for CGI. That's too bad.
     
    Obviously not just any actor can handle a role where the majority of the film you're hanging either by yourself or with a German Shephard. Tom Hanks could only do it for so long and then he needed (or rather the movie needed) a volleyball. But Smith has the charisma and talent to take on the character, putting in his best sci-fi acting work to date. He effectively portrays a man pushed to the brink of madness dealing with great loss and feeling burdened with trying to cure those infected. Smith offers up fantastic work here, from singing Bob Marley to Sam to his thickening depression. It's a dark and desperate performance that feels real but "Legend" is a dark and desperate film. Anyone stereotyping Smith's talent and expecting something similar to his previous work, will be surprised.
     

    Honestly, I woulda preferred watching an entire film of Neville confronting his despondent life, but Lawrence doesn't have the patience to see his mounting despair all the way through to the end. Instead, the third act is rushed and the ending a tad too tidy for me. I know the films overall look does benefit from 2007 technology but it is also ruined by it. As for the benefit of seeing it in IMAX, maybe I'm getting old but the IMAX films I see the more I seem to miss especially in action films. I tend to lose a lotta detail when a screen five stories tall is giving me dizzying visuals. So, unless it's filmed in IMAX, it's kinda hard to make everything out. In the end, the film slumps to the finish line, failing to find a pathway to a stimulating, satisfying finale. While there are some great things going on for the majority of the film, it's just too bad it runs out of gas as it speeds it's way to mediocrity.


  • An Unforgettable Directing Debut

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

    Away From Her  (2007)

    AWAY FROM HER (2007)
    ****
     
     
    PG-13 (for some strong language)
    1 hr. 50 min.
     
    written by: Sarah Polley (screenplay) & Alice Munro (from short story, The Bear Came Over the Mountain)
    produced by: Daniel Iron, Jennifer Weiss & Simone Urdl
    directed by: Sarah Polley
     
     
    I can't imagine a time where after fifty years of marriage my wife would look at me and not know who I am. That would be devastating. I would obviously want to provide her with the best care possible if her dementia increases but what about me? How would I manage? This may sound selfish but just think about how this would hit you if someone you love dearly was affected by this disease. The majority of my life would have been spent with this person who knows me better than anyone else but now all that is vanishing. That's exactly what position Grant Anderson (Gordon Pinsent) finds himself in as he comes to terms with his wife, Fiona (Julie Christie) being diagnosed with Alzheimers disease. As they both come to terms with this unexpected stage in their life, their challenging history is also brought to light and we see that their marriage wasn't always as cozy as they seem.
     
     
     
    Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsent in Lionsgate Films' Away From Her
     
     
     
    Until now, this was a couple who were comfortable with who and where they are in life. Yet as Fiona's memories fade, new ones seem to enter. We get the idea that in their past, Grant may have fooled around with a student during his tenure as a professor. It seems like an event that rocked their relationship but may have been uncomfortably glossed over. Well, it surfaces now as well as other doubts and frustrations. Since Grant still has his faculties, it is he who must now feel the same isolation that Fiona must have at one time felt. He wants to support Fiona in her decision to check herself into a nursing home not far from where they live but he still feels alone and somewhat guilty (both for the affair years ago and for not being able to help her). This decision becomes more real for both of them after Fiona is found after being lost in the snowy outdoors, it's then that they realize that she's going to need care. 
     
    For the first time, the couple are forced to undergo a long-term separation that brings pain, confusion and frustration. It's even more painful for Grant when he's told by the facility's administrator Madeline (Wendy Crewson) that new patients must have no outside contact for 30 days, so that they can become acclimated to their new stage of life. At least he's able to confide in Kristy (Kristen Thomson) a nurse who helps Grant deal with this new stage of life with stark honesty. When Grant is finally able to visit Fiona after the orientation period, he shows up with flowers and is devastated to find out that not only has she seemingly forgotten him, but she has transferred her affections to another man. It's up in the air whether or not this man, Aubrey (Michael Murphy) is all there since he's only shown as a wheelchair bound mute patient at the nursing home. Although he seems quite reliant on Fiona as she helps him move around and reads to him, I wondered if it was a ruse.
     
    As the distance between husband and wife grows, Grant must draw upon his love for Fiona to perform an act of self-sacrifice in order to ensure her happiness. Grant continues to visit but is relegated to the rec room sofa on the sidelines as he watches Fiona help Aubrey play board games with the other residents. Side note: if I have to admit myself to a nursing home, I guess I'm heading north to Canada cuz this was the nicest looking facility I've ever seen. Pinsent quietly commands these scenes. His eyes show a man frozen in love with a woman who no longer knows him. He doesn't know what to do but still cannot bare to be away from her. It's almost as if he is afraid that he too will forget her and will be left the strange voyeur in her life.
     
     
    Gordon Pinsent and Kristen Thomson in Lionsgate Films' Away From Her
     
     
    In an effort to provide for Fiona any way he can, Grant introduces himself to Aubrey's wife when she takes him out of the home due to financial reasons. With Aubrey gone from the home, Fiona is depressed which noticeably deteriorates her condition and Grant knows he is not the man who can provide what his wife needs. He gradually builds a connection with Marian (Olympia Dukakis), the blunt-talking, pragmatic wife of Fiona's catatonic friend. She seems as stuck and lonely as she is, the only difference is he's new to all this. This leads to a brief and awkward relationship for the two ostracized spouses. They need each other, perhaps Marian moreso than Grant since she's dealt with her husband's illness longer than he has but he clearly still loves Fiona.
     
    Clearly and deservedly, Christie is promoted as the mesmerizing star of the film and first-time director/actress Sarah Polley, focuses as much on her beauty as Christie does on her character. It doesn't take much for one to be absorbed by Christie's startling, mature beauty yet Polley keeps the camera tight and close on her magnificent face and those piercing blue eyes as Fiona takes leave of her life and her husband. I get the feeling that Polley is as much in awe of Christie as anyone else who sees her work. But Pinsent is formidable here and the story is just as much about his character if not moreso. It's a role that is just as challenging as Christie's and the two of them work wonderfully together. Until this film, I had never seen or heard of this Canadian actor. I'll definitely be looking to see what he does next.
     
    I gleaned that Canadian writer, Alice Munro is telling a story about hanging on and letting go, and about the mysteries of what binds men and women together. How Polley's screenplay differs from the source is unknown but the filmmaker does take the time to glance back at Grant and Fiona's past as much as their unknown future unfolds. Polley delivers a thoughtful and compelling meditation on the familiar lives older people with this disease are leaving and the frightening lives they find themselves entering. Deceptively simple but wrenching in execution, writer/director Sarah Polley has become a talent to look out for behind the scenes as well as in front of the camera. There have been several films released within the last six years that have dealt with Alzheimer's disease in some manner. I've only see Nick Cassavete's 2004 film "The Notebook" which I really enjoyed but I kinda felt like at times I wanted to see just the older couple currently dealing with the disease instead of flashbacks of their youth. That's one of the many things I like about this film, it has no problem focusing on characters over age 60 and it does so in a real manner. It's a beautiful film.
     
     
     
     
     

  • Stallone bloodies another iconic role....

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

    Rambo  (2008)

    RAMBO (2008) ***
     
     
     
    rated R (for strong graphic bloody violence, sexual assaults, grisly images and language)
    1 hr. 33 min.
     
    written by: Art Monterastelli & Sylvester Stallone (from source material by David Morrell)
    produced by: Avi Lerner & Kevin King
    directed by: Sylvester Stallone
     
     
     
    Let's get this outta the way right from the start. I like the Rambo films. It's not a guilty pleasure either or cuz I particularly like violent films. I like them solely because it's one man taking on injustice and the violent atrocities of man. I'll admit, the character of Rambo become more and more out-of-control as the sequels were released. He became more and more buff, put in impossibly outnumbered combat situations and escaped certain death countless times. The icon of Rambo became crazy with all the political mumbo-jumbo of the Reagan surrounding the second sequel, "First Blood: Rambo Part II", not to mention all the merchandise like action figures and cartoons. Ugh! Everything about the character got out-of-hand. No wonder everyone made fun of Stallone for his muscle-bound, seemingly muscle-headed role.
     
    Still, "First Blood", the first Rambo move was awesome! I was a lil over 10 years-old when I finally saw that 1982 film (unbeknownst to my mother) and it certainly left an impression on me. It was the action but soon after I realized Rambo's sensitive backstory. Yes, I included sensitive and Rambo in the same sentence. Here was a decorated Vietnam veteran, whose war buddies were all dead and found no place or function in society. He was trained by his country to be the ultimate weapon, the perfect warrior, but came to realize he had no place in his country anymore. It was one of the first movies where you saw a veteran at war with his own country. That still is a cool concept for me.
     
    Unfortunately, what began as a franchise of high adventure and sympathy for the underdog and the veteran protagonist became a feral cartoon. Now, 20 years later, "Rambo" comes full circle finding its rightful home in utter bloody chaos. We find John J. Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) in Thailand where he was at the start "Rambo III" working as a boatman and snake wrangler. He's away from America, away from any politics and trying to lead a life of solitude while evading his demons. A group of Christian missionaries find the battle-scarred loner and ask him to drive them up the river to the heart of the Burmese civil war in order for them to deliver some hope to the villagers there. Rambo know better, he knows without weapons the war zone up north will not change despite anyone's good intentions and actions.
     
     
     
    Sylvester Stallone in Lionsgate Films' Rambo 
     
     
     
    Rambo knows this and director Stallone shows us in the beginning previous scenes the atrocities of the Burmese military committed onto their own people. Villagers are mutilated and beheaded while a truckload of villagers are forced to walk in a swampy mindfield while the Burmese soldiers place bets on who might survive. When the movie title appears in blood red, we know that these oppressed people will have their rescuer and the dead will be avenged. But right now Rambo's not budging. He turned down the request of missionary leader Michael (Paul Schulze) which gives his spirited girlfriend (the only gal in the group) a chance to persuade the hulking loner. Either something she says stirs him or he just hasn't seen a cute blonde like Sarah (Julie Benz) in quite a while cuz we next a reluctant Rambo steering the group up the river.
     
    On their way, the group witness how dangerous both the river is and their quite guide, as they see how Rambo deals with pirates. This doesn't sit well with Michael and once they arrive he lets Rambo know he won't be needed on the way back as they plan on returning by land. Returning home alone, a conflicted Rambo thinks about what Sarah told him about making a difference in people's lives while wrestling with what he is, a warrior. When he's visited by a Colorado church pastor (Ken Howard) he knows the missionaries are in trouble. He asks Rambo to lead a group of mercenaries he's hired (wuh?) to the village to rescue them cuz communication has been cut off and we know why.  We were shown the vicious Burmese military obliterate the village where the missionaries are, cutting an unbelievable path of genocide. Woman are beaten and raped, limbs are cut off, children are stabbed or shot at point blank and thrown into a fire if their not old enough to join the military. Bodies explode near the missionaries as the try to evade death or capture. Amid the carnage, Sarah and Michael and another missionary are captured and taken away.  
     
    This leaves Rambo in a position to turn his back or assume his psychologically tattered solider mentality and launch into battle once again. Of course, it's obvious what he does. He does what he does best and he doesn't allow a band of mouth mercs get in his way. These mercenaries don't know what to make of Rambo until they actually see him in action and then they follow his lead. 
    Yes, once Rambo turns on his military mojo the film goes crazy!  It explodes with a hurricane of aggression aimed directly at those clueless Burmese soldiers. Wave after wave of bloody fury assault us as Rambo turns predator in a very dynamic manner that explodes across the screen with all the horror and fist-pumping that is expecting in franchise. Stallone serves up an insane amount of gore in the film's finale (amplified with rickety CGI), and I gotta say I commend him for the the fearlessness of the realism of it all. Sure, it's uneasy to look at, it's assaulting after all. But Stallone has built up the enemies despicable actions enough where you just hold on in your seat and go along with him.
     
     
     
    Sylvester Stallone as John Rambo in Lionsgate Films' Rambo 
     
     
     
    This is probably the first Rambo movie where you really feel what it would be like in the heat of battle. There's no shirtless, slo-mo shots (thank you!) with Rambo jumping over a gorge with a blasting M60. Stallone is going for the heart of darkness here, exhibiting this decades long civil war that most don't know about on very realistic terms, stunning viewers with real depictions of death and carnage. He's said in interviews that if he were to do another Rambo film, it would have to be socially relevant to some existing injustice. This film doesn't recoil from any of it, displaying a gruesome rain of death and unspeakable acts of violation. It's a bleak perspective and Stallone perhaps distances himself from the mindless body count craziness of the two earlier films by coming closer to authenticity. It still may seem overboard to some, but putting the viewer in the middle of pure hell really drives home a vivid theme about the futility of peace and war. Fighting slaughter with slaughter is exhilarating, but Stallone shows us there's an unavoidable price to pay.
     

    Unlike Stallone's return to his other iconic character in 2006's "Rocky Balboa", this film isn't about healing any old wounds nor is it necessarily a return to the melodrama underneath the first Rambo film. It's not the superficial action romp that most have come to associate with the character either.  It seems Stallone is hungry to prove a point this time around, and he unleashes a torrent of violence in a manner that's just plain berserk. It cannot be stressed enough: "Rambo" is a monumentally vicious film. Is it odd to see a hulking Stallone in his 60's run through the jungle like a runaway rhino? Nope. I like the idea of him not being the lean machine he once was and I find that time away from the character can bring an added dimension to the role.
     
    There's a lotta talk about how absurd it is for actors at this age returning to such physical roles but this is nothing new in cinema. John Wayne did it, so did Lee Marvin and James Coburn, why not Sly? After all, coming back to what became such a cartoon character at this age brings about a needed maturity. It seems that during this considerable downtime, Stallone has reassessed his work as John Rambo and his iconic screen history, and is comfortable raging again in this ruthless exclamation point on a surreal series of films. The film concludes Rambo's mournful journey well enough for me although it was way too short. Still, I'd be fine with it finally ending here. Then again, studio head Harvey Weinstein is quoted as liking the opening weekend numbers, so he might be pushing Stallone for another one. That'd be a mistake but a part of me would be curious. Stallone is far from my favorite actor but I do like the guy. He's funny, intelligent, self-deprecating and humble. I know....you're stunned.
     
     
     


  • Coens & McCarthy make compelling Country!

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

    NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (2007) ****
    rated R (for strong graphic violence and some language)
    2 hrs. 2 min.
    written by: Joel & Ethan Coen, from the novel by Cormac McCarthy
    produced by: Joel & Ethan Coen, Scott Rudin
    directed by: Joel & Ethan Coen
    This movie still haunts me. I saw it back on November 23rd at 11:05am and I'm still thinking about it. I knew it would be great going in but as I left the theatre that early afternoon, I had no idea how to approach a review. Sometimes a movie is so good that you just want to tell people "Just go see it and see for yourself" because you feel that any words you have to promote the film wouldn't do it justice. I feel that way with this film and I also feel I don't want to give too much away. By now, many have seen this film and it has deservedly made it's way to several year-end top ten lists. It's complete with all the qualities a classic Coen brothers has: a great script with intelligent and witty dialogue, amazing cinematography, a perfect cast and layered themes. It's a movie I want to see again, maybe in the theatre but certainly on DVD where I can treat it like some great archaeological find and discover uncovered nuances.
    The movie feels and at times looks like a western, but it is not. It has the qualities and characters of one but it is set in the late 1970's, possibly early 80's, primarily in West Texas. The vast open desert prairie of the Lone Star state is a character all on it's own here. As the film opens, we're introduced to the voice (who I feel is) the main character, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (the great Tommy Lee Jones, in his second amazing performance of 2007) with his tired, reflective voice serving as narrator. He's telling us a story about an arrest he made a while back, an arrest to this day he doesn't fully understand. There's an emptiness in his voice as we're shown the desolate Texas landscape with it's farmland and windmills. There's also confusion which sets the tone for what violent actions we will see and the results of those violent acts Bell will comes across.
    The tone of the film then takes an ominous turn as we're introduced to a character everyone is declaring the most evil and violent presence cinema has ever seen. While I dunno if I can agree with that, I have to say that Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) is certainly one of the most unnerving and original characters I have ever seen. Right away, he's revealed to be a killer, a calm unstoppable force that is motivated and sustained by his own deranged code. He often decides the fate of those he encounters by the flip of a coin, which make for some of the most memorably unsettling scenes ever filmed. There's such uneasiness surrounding the atmosphere that Chigurh occupies wherever he goes that so captivating you can't take your eyes off him but you wish you could.
    Javier Bardem in Miramax Films' No Country For Old Men
    The plot of the film slowly and carefully revolves around an attache case of money. While out in the Texas desert hunting deer, Llewellyn Moss (Josh Brolin, another guy having a great year) happens upon the remnants of a drug deal gone bad. He finds $2 million in cash that was intended to be the buy money and makes a rash decision to take it home, leaving the lone survivor of the bloodbath to die on his own. Feeling guilty, he returns to the scene in the middle of the night, only to be spotted by bad guys who want their money back. Barely escaping alive, Llewellyn sends his wife Carla Jean (Kelly MacDonald) off to her mother's and goes on the run with the money. Moss is a stubborn Vietnam vet who sees this as an opportunity to totally change their lives and figures he can evade his pursuers until they grow tired and quit.
    What he doesn't know is that his pursuer is a one-stop death machine who doesn't know the words tired or quit. Chigurh is hired to track Moss and get the money, what he does to anyone he encounters along the way is totally up to him. Thus his killing spree begins before he even gets to the mess in the desert, so Llewellyn is just going to be another notch in his belt. The simple act of filling up his stolen car with gas is like an existential exercise in flexing his muscles. There is nothing Chigurh (pronounced Shu-gur) does that doesn't end with blood, whether it's his own or someone else.
    Josh Brolin in Miramax Films' No Country For Old Men
    Soon enough, the film turns into a entangled chase picture. Chigurh is on the trail of Moss, the money men and drug dealers team up to chase them both, and Jones is scratching his head trying to keep up with all three. There's even a bounty hunter Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson), familiar with Chigurh, who tries to persuade Moss to give it up. Along their journey both Moss and Chigurh encounter some of the standard, quirky characters that have becomes a Coen brothers staple. When these all characters do catch up with one another at different times in the picture, the results are unexpected and harrowing. Each twist of the plot strides in on a very comfortable (and uncomfortable) gait. The best thing the Coens is not rush it when it doesn't need to be rushed, and they never inject a scene with an inflated sense of peril. The danger is always evident, there is nothing forced cuz there is time enough to get where they are all going.
    The irony in all this thing about the pacing of this story is that ultimately, despite the lack of panic, time is running out. It's both a eulogy for a particular way of life and a lament for dying values. Chigurh represents the senseless, unstoppable and increasing violence that is in the world today, he's a force of nature remiss of any moral code. He comes seemingly out of nowhere with no backstory (none is really needed) and it his pace it would appear he represents the future. He twice lets his victims gamble on their life with his flippant coin toss that determines their fate by. The other two characters may also be two sides of the same coin. Sheriff Bell is heads, a thinker who follows a code and predetermined ideas, whereas Moss is tails, running on instinct, making choices that his counterpart would never make.
    With all the dead bodies that are left in the wake of these men, the most devastating part of this film has really nothing to do with blood, guns, or carnage. Hell, most of the more surprising bends in that road (and there are several near the end) eschew those elements altogether. What lingers most is the passage of time, in our awareness of it, and in the inevitability of the countdown. That's what's so riveting. You know it's only a matter of time and it's time you're trying to hold onto but you know it's running out. You can't stop it by pure stubborn action, not even by the inclination of chance. Maybe it's better to be like Moss and try to remain ignorant of what lies ahead, because when it comes down to it, there is no comfort in acceptance. It's an excellent achievement for all of this to be conveyed in a motion picture and the Coen brothers deliver it excellently.
    Tommy Lee  Jones in Miramax Films' No Country For Old Men
    Back to the heart of the film though, some may feel Jones is once again channeling the same role he's known for, but it's been a long time since he's been this good. Now, I feel his performance in Paul Haggis' "In the Valley of Elah" was just as good, maybe better, but he does something great here. He takes this somewhat minor role of Sheriff Bell, one that could have been just another display of his good humored cynicism and corn-fed homilies and makes it the heart of the film. It's as if he rightly sensed that Bell would be the true emotional center of McCarthy's story, the spiritual symbol of its deeper themes.
    I've heard from friends who have liked this film immensely for some of the same reasons I do and also from some who have left appreciating it but ultimately somewhat disappointed. I think those who are disappointed miss out on the themes here, which are essentially in the title and deal with Jone's character. He cannot understand the violence all around him much less how to enforce law in such a world. He feels like an old man in a foreign world, hence the title. The fact that he doesn't come out on top as the typical successful hero makes his character all the more attractive.
    As a result, Jones sheds the skin of easy comfort that he's worn through most of his recent films and let's his soul back out. Just as the Coen brothers appear to be going back to the feel of their earlier work (Blood Simple, Fargo) while blazing new trails for themselves, dropping their old tricks for serious storytelling, so Jones seems to have wearied of his image and has decided to put that weariness on film. This weary tone can also be felt through two Coen veterans: cinematographer Roger Deakins and composer Carter Burwell, both provide a rich yet calculated minimalism to the film. If this movie would've come out last March I still think it would be weighing heavy on my mind. It still would've been included on many best of 2007 lists and for a film to have such an impact is a rare treasure.
    No Country for Old Men (2007) poster 1
    No Country for Old Men (2007) poster 2
    No Country for Old Men (2007) poster 3

  • A Scary Waste of Talent with No Teeth

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

    Skinwalkers  (2007)

    SKINWALKERS (2006) *
    PG-13 (for intense sequences of violence and action, some sexual material and language)
    1 hr. 50 min.
    written by: Todd Jason, James DeMonaco & James Roday
    produced by: Don Carmody & Dennis Beradi
    directed by: James Isaac
    Now here's a movie with no teeth that really bites. It's bad in a fun, laughable ways, and I'm not using "laughable" figuratively. I mean I literally laughed out loud at some of the things that happen in the film, things that were meant to be taken seriously. It's a "horror thriller" that is far from horrific and has less thriller than Michael Jackson (well, let's face it, Jackson has quite a horror thriller going for him all by himself). This film, deserves to be featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000 for so many reasons but even then many of the films on that show had some type of cult status. This one will never be a cult classic, in fact I don't know of any cult that would like it.
    So, um, there are two groups of werewolves, the good ones who have assimilated into human society, hold down steady jobs in a small town (although you really only see them in this town. Huh?) and lock themselves up during the full moon so they don't hurt anyone; and the bad, sexy ones who roam the woods, cruise around in Sol-mo on their motorcycles and love devouring humans every chance they get. The bad ones, led by Garek (Jason Behr), are looking for a young boy who is the subject of an ancient prophecy involving a full red moon that could spell doom for them all.

    It would been really cool if these bad wolfie's were trying to find this specific boy amongst several children. They could scour a playground or a school yard or even a day camp but that would make the plot too complicated, I suppose. Instead, we only get a simple and stupid plot and only one boy throughout the entire film. Right away we know this is the boy or we'd be pretty stupid, wouldn't we? So, his name is Tim (Matthew Knight), and he lives with his mother Rachel (Rhona Mithra) and her dead husband's brother, Jonas (Elias Kites) in a small town.
    Unbeknownst to any of these three (except maybe Jonas), Tim's daddy was a werewolf (you'd think his mother woulda known) and since she was normal, when Tim turns 13 in a few days, he'll have the ability to end "the curse" of the werewolves forever. How will this boy end this curse exactly? It's never revealed, thus we can care less what happens.
    Matthew Knight and Rhona Mitra in After Dark Films' Skinwalkers
    Since the bad guys enjoy their lycan-fastic life, it goes without saying that the want the boy dead. Meanwhile, Tim and his mom are clueless. They don't know any of this. They don't even know that Jonas and his entire family are the good werewolves, or as he likes to call them "skinwalkers". Fortunately for them, everyone else in the east coast town of Huegonot does and they all carry weapons just in case some bad wolfies happen to roll into town. Apparently, they've been expecting the bad guys to come looking for Tim -- which is why, when Varek and his gang do arrive, every person in town has a shotgun handy with which to engage in a shootout in the middle of Main Street. This includes Tim's nana (Barbara Gordon) who is actually the boy's first line of defense, I really wish I just made up.

    Thus begins a battle between all the skinwalkers, good versus bad....well, at least between the small groups representing each side, anyway. There's not much indication that this "epic struggle" affects more than about 10 people, which makes the movie seem even more lightweight than it is. As soon as I saw that the climactic showdown occurs in an abandoned warehouse I just laughed even more. I mean come on, THE most cliched of showdown locales! It just proves that director James Isaac ("Jason X") and his "trio of writers" weren't trying very hard here. Or maybe they were and their just really, really bad at what they do.


    So, the movie's a dud. It's not the worst movie I've ever seen or of the year, for that matter. I wanted it to be good cuz I like Koteas and Mitra (both were in last year's "Shooter") and look forward to the roles they take. Maybe they just wanted to work on something dumb or could be that they liked filming in Canada. But in the end it wound up being something close to some bad horror film you'd see on Cinemax. It's silly and takes itself entirely too seriously (they shoulda focused on the mythical aspect of the actual term "skinwalkers" if they wanted to go that route) and it looks like it should have gone directly to DVD. Most bad movies are aggressively bad, irritating in some way or maybe even annoying. "Skinwalkers" isn't any of those, it's just dumb and predictable but it's certainly not dull.
    Natassia Malthe in After Dark Films' Skinwalkers
    Hot werewolf babes can't save this stinker.

  • Shelly serves excellent Final Film

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

    Waitress  (2007)

    WAITRESS (2007) ****
    rated PG-13 (for sexual content, language and thematic elements)
    1 hr. 44 min.
    written & directed by: Adrienne Shelly
    produced by: Michael Roiff
    If you like pies, watching a movie comfortably dish out real characters in real situations without apology....lemme give you a tip, Adrienne Shelly's "Waitress" is for you. Released right at the start of the summer zeitgeist on May 2nd, along with a lil film called "Spider-Man 3", it received rave reviews by critics and gained quite a word-of-mouth following. There was already significant buzz around the film when it debuted at Sundance in January. Most of that buzz was bittersweet because Shelly, the film's writer, director and co-star had been murdered two months earlier. Many in the film community had wondered if her indie was picked up for distribution simply because it had such a mysterious behind-the-scenes story. There was the curiosity of whether or not the film was actually good or just a movie with a sad real-life story.

    Well, it turns out this isn't just a good film, but a great one that tells a funny and warm-hearted story about finding happiness, and the things people do while stuck in a place that can't find a way out of. Shelly's screenplay is witty, even poetic, and she demonstrates an seldom-seen understanding of human nature and an affection for her characters. She clearly understood that sometimes the most joyful happy endings only come after enduring some trials.

    The title waitress is Jenna (Keri Russell), and she has indeed suffered her share of tribulation. She is young and pretty and an expert maker of pies, the envy of her friends and co-workers at Joe's Pie Diner in the little Southern town where the film is set. But no one would trade places with her for a minute, because she's married to Earl (Jeremy Sisto), a stifling derelict who is so insecure that he only knows how to love her by controlling her. He won't let her own a car or even keep her own tip money. In her narration, she states how he changed after they got married and that she hasn't loved him in years but one has to wonder how they ever got together or why she would stay with him.

    So there she is, sad and trapped in a bad situation where her only hope is to secretly store away enough cash to leave Earl and start over somewhere else. Then wouldn't ya know it, she gets pregnant after one night when Earl got her drunk. She admits to doing crazy things when she's drunk with her defenses were down "like sleeping with my husband" and now she's with child. She's not thrilled about it in the least bit but she's not going to abort it. She's going to take care of herself while she's pregnant, but she has no interest in this baby. This is one of the first characters I've seen on the screen where those instinctual motherly feelings just don't kick in.
    Cheryl Hines , Keri Russell and Adrienne Shelly in Fox Searchlight's Waitress

    Jenna's two friends are her only real family and they happen to also be waitresses at Joe's Pie Diner. Becky (Cheryl Hines), the saucier one, is married to a never-seen old invalid and is constantly sparring with grouchy restaurant manager, Cal (Lew Temple). Dawn (Shelly) is single and trying not to let her optimism give way to despair as she continues to get older without finding love. The three women love and support one another through all their various trials, and they make some fine-looking pies all the while. There are so many different type of pies made and/or described in this movies, my mouth was watering as I watched. Shelly does a fantastic job using pie-making as an outlet for Jenna. She knows she makes killer pies and feels that making them is the only escape she has from her train-wreck of a life.
    As if being married to a jerk and pregnant with a baby she doesn't want weren't enough, Jenna's life becomes more complicated when she meets her new OB-GYN, Dr. Pomatter (Nathan Fillion). He's married, handsome, nervous, and a little odd. Call it hormones but before you know it, Jenna is throwing herself at him and their quirky affair clumsily takes off. Now there are viewers who may not like where the story goes from her with both married people having an affair. To me these characters don't make great choices and that's what's so refreshingly real about them. It's too bad some viewers can't withhold their judgment.
    One of the best things about the film is how Shelly doesn't denounce its characters' questionable behavior, nor does it condone it. It just lets them be who they are, flaws and all. Jenna knows it isn't right for her, a married woman, to be seeing Dr. Pomatter, a married man. But we also see what she knows: that this doctor actually listens to her and cares for her. When she's with him, she feels happy and safe....something she hasn't felt in a long, long time. No, the situation isn't ideal but she's used to that. The movie isn't saying you should go out and commit some adulterous act if you think it'll help you feel better. What it's saying is that happiness is not always where you expect to find it, and that our lives can often change for the better in ways in which we'd never imagine.

    A good example of this is Shelly's excellent portrayal of Dawn. She's plain-looking and simple, a down-home girl with damaged self-esteem. She started been doing what she calls "5-minute dates," so that if the guy turns out to be a dud, she doesn't waste a whole evening. "Have fun on your 5-minute date!" Becky chirps. "Be sure to use a 5-minute condom!" One dud she meets is named Ogie (Eddie Jemison, from all those Ocean movies), a sweet and less-than-average-looking man who has one thing going for him: endless enthusiasm. Ever-smiling, he shows up at the diner the day after their first date, insisting Dawn is the love of his life and he will never relent in his pursuit of her. He tells her he will never stop pursuing her until they are married. Sure enough, he eventually wins her over. Their romance is a sunny contrast to the love-gone-wrong that exists in Jenna and Earl's home, a reminder that happiness is out there somewhere.

    I gotta hand it to Fillion, best known for his roles in Joss Whedon's sci-fi/western "Firefly" and the film it spawned, "Serenity," he's at his best when playing characters who are mildly befuddled, as Dr. Pomatter is. His rugged good looks make you think he'll be suave and confident, and then his delivery reveals uncertain hilarity. Many of this film's funniest moments are the result of his interaction with Russell. As for Russell, if you don't already think she's a fine actress, you will absolutely fall in love with her in this film.
    Nathan Fillion and Keri Russell in Fox Searchlight's Waitress


    Some of Russell's best scenes are with veteran actor Andy Griffith, who plays the owner of the diner, Old Joe. He comes across as a cantankerous old coot who uses his grumpiness to hide his soft heart. He likes to sit in his favorite booth, eat his favorite pies, complain and can only be served by Jenna. It helps that I already love Griffith cuz I grew up watching re-runs of his classic Mayberry show but he proves here that even at 80 years old, he can still do something surprising. Here's a character that could easily be a cliche....that curmudgeon old fart who offers sage advice but instead he's engagingly colorful and nuanced.

    Now we wouldn't care about Jenna's situation one bit if not for the role that Sisto has to play as lousy Earl. I can't tell ya how many times I just wanted to hit him or wish someone had. Sure, it would be easy to stereotype him as the no-good husband yet if too much is done in an attempt to humanize him you deny the audience the satisfaction of watching a bad guy get his due. Then if you make him too one-dimensional, you lose the realism. It's the combination of Shelly's stellar script and Sisto's performance that strike a delicate ans successful balance between the two. We catch enough details about his insecurities to see him as a plausible character, but certainly not so much that he we feel for him. We believe him and we hate him and we still wanna hit him which is something that's quite rare.

    From a storytelling perspective, Shelly has kinda painted herself into a corner with the relationship of Jenna and her doctor. We want them to wind up together, but can't see how that can happen without ruining lives. It's obvious she's married to a jerk but that doesn't justify her actions, not to mention how it would effect Pommater's seldom-seen wife. I wondered how she even hooked up with Earl but that seemed irrelevant. In the end, the believable outcomes don't seem very plausible and all the plausible outcomes don't seem very believable.

    This is one of three movies out this year that dealt with unplanned pregnancies in a real, intelligent and humorous way. With such complicated characters to juggle it's a joy to see Shelly pull it off. The ending is both realistic and happy yet bittersweet cuz as I watched Jenna and her daughter (played by Shelly's actual daughter) I kept on thinking of how this cute lil girl's mother and the actress I just enjoyed watching was murdered. Like Jenna, I was ready for this story to not end well, it would only be natural for that to happen. When it does end happily it comes with a somewhat predictable surprise but that doesn't matter cuz defeat had been so close, which makes victory that much sweeter. I wasn't too surprised that I enjoyed this movie, I just had no idea how good it would go down. What a tasty and tart treat this lovable movie turned out to be. Heh.

    Waitress (2007) theatrical

  • A great Bruce Willis actioner but Not a Die Hard film!

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

    Live Free or Die Hard: 2-Disc Unrated Edition (2007)  ***
    2 hr. 10 min.
    written by: Mark Bomback & David Marconi (source material from John Carlin's magazine article A Farewell to Arms as well as characters created by author Roderick Thorpe)
    produced by: Michael Fottrell
    directed by: Len Wiseman
    As soon as I found out that this movie was gonna be released on DVD in an "unrated" edition, I knew I could hold off seein' it in the theaters. It's not that I craved more profanity or violence, it's just that all the other Die Hard movies were rated R and it isn't the same without those elements that kinda rating brings. It saddened me that director Len Wiseman was willing to "dumb down" the consistency of this film series in order to possible garner more PG-13 money. Didn't they realize that if fans see another Die Hard movie coming out, they're not gonna pay attention to what the rating is? They're just gonna want nostalgic familiarity and action. The only reason I paid attention to this rating was cuz it's been twelve years since the last one and everything about this new one would be scrutinized to ensure that the quality, consistency (there's that word again) and characterization in this new film would be intact.
    Taking that into consideration, this is a fun, over-the-top action movie. I'd kick up my feet and watch it again with some friends on a Friday night. Still, It just doesn't feel like a Die Hard movie and before I go into the reasons why, I'll just go ahead and give you the rundown. The film opens up with a handful of cyber-geek hackers being eliminated after they unknowingly assisted the requisite bad guy infiltrate the FBI's computer system. The killings are untraceable since once these hackers delete a message from our bad guy they explode into fiery oblivion along with everything else around them. Around the same time, the wee hours of the morning, the FBI found out something is up and ask that local police follow up on and any and all hackers that could possibly be doing this.
    Bruce Willis as John McClane in 20th Century Fox's Live Free or Die Hard
    Computer geek Matthew Harrell (Justin Long) fits this description and it falls to the responsibility of a certain veteran NYPD detective named John McClane (Bruce Willis) to pay him a visit at his apartment somewhere in Jersey. It's here where we become re-introduced to the iconic character that ignited Willis' career and I'm gonna have to get into that re-introduction a lil later. Right away I enjoyed the interplay between analog McClane and digital Harrell. I saw where it was going and has ready for their pairing to bring me all sorts of action, mayhem and hilarity throughout the film. McClane winds up saving the kid from permanent deletion when the foreign-accented bad guys attack his apartment and from that point on the two are on the run from terrorists, naturally.
    Along the way, the father and son-like duo run into some requisite supporting characters. Some of these are on the good guys team like Special Agent Bowman (the always great Cliff Curtis), McClane's daughter Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and the distracting presence of actor/director Kevin Smith as a computer guru names Warlock. The odd thing I found with many of the bad guy lackeys is that they were Italian (say what? Italian terrorists?) with no explanation as to how they hooked up with this American bad guy. On that note, it woulda been nice to see this guy switch roles with his right-hand woman, Mai (Maggie Q) who at least had a formidable presence. Plus, it woulda been refreshing for a woman to be the villain in a movie like this. Ah well.
    So, the main bag guy is a ruthless computer whiz named Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant) has taken over most of America's computerized systems, causing mass chaos nationwide. Harrell has to break that all down for McClane as they witness various traffic and power calamity on the way to DC's FBI branch. The premise is absolutely preposterous, but that's never really been a problem for "Die Hard" before and might even honestly be considered one of the series' hallmarks. That being said, it's still the least plausible of any of the "Die Hard" stories so far, and that even includes terrorists taking over an airport in "Die Hard 2: Die Harder".
    This is the first Die Hard film where McClane doesn't buddy up with an African American, instead we're given a generation gap to keep things interesting. Willis and Long manage to establish a fairly amusing rapport early on, and it's this dynamic that keeps things rolling through a few rough patches. Anyone knows that a great action movie must always be measured by the threat....or how "bad" is the bad guy. This is where the film goes limp. Olyphant is just miscast. He just comes across as a crybaby who didn't get what he wanted and is lashing back at "the system" like a wounded dog by using "the system". His evil intentions weren't convincing and were basically MIA for most of the film. But siding with or understanding the villain isn't what this entertaining action flick is about.
    Bruce Willis as John McClane in 20th Century Fox's Live Free or Die Hard
    My biggest problem is that re-introduction I mentioned, he just doesn't look like the John McClane we know. I know, it seems picky but it's kinda integral if you ask me. McClane's saved his head bald, is totally serious and is lean and trim. There's no explanation as to what became of the endearing, frazzle-haired wino that was peeled off the floor 12 years ago in the beginning of the last film. So, instead we're treated to a slim and fit, head-shaven Bruce Willis. I say that cuz that's all I saw. I saw Willis and not McClane. Not that I didn't enjoy seeing Willis run around in this film but he didn't look like John McClane and with the movie not explaining what had happened to him in 12 years. It's just a lil jarring for my continuity-conscious mind.
    It's obvious that action films must adapt due to "our changing times" but I just feel like the whole "computer hacker" bit has been done to death over the years. I imagine it's hard to find a good script for a McClane movie cuz viewers are inundated with all these tech-savvy Jack Bauer types. It felt like this time around McClane was this unstoppable supercop and that's why I'm fine with it as a Bruce Willis film. You can't tell me that McClane wouldn't have had several broken bones, a punctured lung and some severe burns. Then again this is a summer blockbuster movie so the believability factor thrown out threw the windshield.
    The action is expectantly brisk and non-stop: baddies are dispatched violently, car chases come fast and furious and explosions abound. McClane has almost become a caricature of the tough, wisecracking cop we first met in 1988---and there are still traces of mortality at times, but the danger doesn't feel quite as dangerous anymore. We could almost substitute Jack Bauer himself in John McClane's role---and let's be honest, it really wouldn't change much. It would been cool if the setting of the film went back to Christmas time like in the first two but I can't have everything. Still, there's a lot to like here: from the stylishly shot action sequences to the razor-sharp editing and effective comic relief....for a Bruce Willis action film. It just doesn't feel like a Die Hard film and once I acknowledged that, I enjoyed it and hey....what it lacks in believability it makes up for in action.

     

    intldiehard4poster
    Special Features:
    This unrated, two-disc package gives fans what they should've gotten at the theater: more profanity and blood (what can I say? It keeps with continuity) Interestingly enough, both cuts are included on Disc 1, which leads me to think, if you're given the better version, why would you opt for the watered-down? The story in this uncut version hasn't changed one bit, but it's good to know that such an lame marketing decision has been reversed for the DVD release. Thing is, I knew it would cuz the latest fad is to release a movie in an "unrated and uncut" version to draw in more numbers.
    There's a ton of good features here and some that are kinda weak, all of which have a solid technical presentation. As usual, I didn't devour them all but I'll list them out for ya and comment on what I did take in.
    The only extra on Disc 1 is a feature-length Audio Commentary with star Willis, director Len Wiseman and editor Nicholas de Toth. I didn't re-watch the film with this commentary but I wouldn't mind doing so, if the copy I had wasn't borrowed from a co-worker I woulda made time for it and the other extras.
    On Disc 2, the longest feature is entitled "Analog Hero in a Digital World: The Making of Live Free or Die Hard" This documentary is a fairly detailed promotional nugget, covering the story origins, franchise history, casting, stunts, editing, visual effects, sound mixing and music...everything is covered here. Because "Analog Hero" covers so much, I did wind up skimming through it. It was indepth and insightful but a lot of ground to cover.
    Then there's the "Yippee Ki Yay MotherF*****!" feature, a casual chat with co-star Kevin Smith and Willis, who discuss the star's career while simply hanging out on the Fox lot. It's just the two of them sitting on the steps if the set. Willis looks like a Hobbit next to Smith. It's a laid-back interview that doesn't include a much brand-new information, but the candid atmosphere really stands in good contrast to everything else. It was interesting to see what Willis thinks of his previous two sequels. While I liked them both, apparently he feels this film is the superior to those two....how wrong you are, Mr. Willis. Overall, this interview seems as pretentious and uneccessary as Smith's inclusion in the film.
    I didn't bother with the next three extras: first up is a Music Video for the film by Guyz Nite, which I actually did scan out of curiosity. I didn't know if the guys in this band were for real or what. After all, I didn't remember any song that stood out as I watched things blow up in the movie. From what little I caught, it's a stupid song with the gratuitous inclusion of the trademark Willis catchphrase in rowdy rock fashion. Accompanying the insipid music video is "Behind-the-Scenes with Guyz Nite", which will probably only be of interest to fans of the band (you know who you are).
    The final feature I did see was the boring "Fox Movie Channel Presents: Fox Legacy", a brief, promotional-type recap of the franchise which doesn't really add much but it did ceack me up when the host described why the movie is called "Die Hard 4.0" (see above) to non-U.S. theatres. Sigh.
    Of couse, there's the Theatrical Trailer, as well as a few Previews for current and upcoming Fox releases. Not all of these minor features fit in with the main "Analog Hero" one and it's too bad cuz I woulda preferred some focus on storyboards. They could even included some deleted scenes or man, at least a gag reel. Oh well.
    Bruce Willis and  director Len Wiseman set up a scene for 20th Century Fox's Live Free or Die Hard
    Live Free or Die Hard (2007) Poster

  • Talk Up this!

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

    Talk to Me  (2007)

    TALK TO ME (2007) ***1/2
    R for pervasive language and some sexual content.
    1 hr. 58 min.
    written by: Rick Famuyiwa & Michael Genet
    produced by: Joe Fries, Mark R. Gordon, Sidney Kimmel & Josh McLaughlin
    directed by: Kasi Lemmons
    I first noticed writer and director Kasi Lemmons for her acting work, playing Jodie Foster's fellow FBI trainee/student in Jonathan Demme's "Silence of the Lambs". It wasn't a standout performance but the movie left such an indelible mark that I found myself remembering almost everyone in it. She went on to build a reputable enough filmography as an actress but the next time her name caught my attention was for the 1997 film, "Eve's Bayou", her directorial debut starring Lynn Whitfield and Samuel L. Jackson. A critically lauded film set in 1960's Louisiana about a secret that tears apart a well-to-do family. I didn't see her 2001 follow-up film (also with Jackson) "The Caveman's Valentine" but it's a film that I been meanin' to check out. I'm always interesting in actors turned directors, usually the actors are more recognizable before they make the switch (Kevin Costner & Denzel Washington come to mind). This year, Focus Features released Lemmons' latest film which tells the true story of foul-mouthed, ex-con who became a sensation by just being himself.
    Ralph Waldo "Petey" Green (Don Cheadle), a formerly imprisoned hustler would go on to become a voice as a radio show host in the late 1960s. While visiting his brother Milo (Mike Epps) at Lorton prison, radio producer Dewey Hughes (Chiwetel Ejiofor) meets Petey for the first time, not knowing what an indelible mark he would make in his life. Petey asks him straight up for a job at WOL-AM, since he's been flippin' and spinnin' vinyl for the prison inmates. Dewey dismisses the convict, calling him a "low-life, miscreant", promising him he'd see what he could do, should the convict ever get out of prison. Of course we know where this is going, Petey does indeed "look up" Dewey and winds up hounding him for a DJ job with a ferocious tenacity. He soon shows up at the station, demanding a job, embarrassing straight-laced Dewey and laying the groundwork for a tumultuous relationship between the two men.
    Eventually Dewey gives in, much to his dismay and in time Petey becomes a huge hit with the black community, who are taken with his tell-it-like-it-is persona. Station owner E.G. Sonderling (Martin Sheen) has no idea what to make of Petey, but he loves the fact that the station's ratings are up. His success doesn't sit well with the other DJ's, Sunny Jim (Curtis Hondie Hall) or The Nighthawk (Cedric the Entertainer) but once Petey takes to the air to calm the violence that hits DC after the sudden announcement of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. he gains just about everyone's respect and even more intense fan-following. They love him because he's one of them and doesn't hold anything back while the station heads love him cuz of the ratings and flood of calls.
    Don Cheadle in Focus Features' Talk to Me
    He continues to tout himself as the voice of the people, urging callers, "Talk to me" as they call in to the station to commiserate and confide. With Dewey behind him as a guiding force, Petey eventually gets his own television show, which is more outrageous than his radio program. But, alas, with popularity and good fortune come many vices and temptations like booze and babes, which threaten Petey's career as well as his long-term relationship with girlfriend Vernell (Taraji P. Henson), But it's his friendship and partnership with Dewey that feels the most strain.
    It's not until Dewey tries to make Petey out to be a comic sensation instead of the fast-talkin' commentator that he is that they both hit rock-bottom. It's their relationship that drives the film as it becomes a complex and fascinating character study. Petey represents a brash flamboyance and reckless disregard for the rules of society that Dewey longs to express, whereas Dewey possesses ambition and inner strength that Petey lacks. The two men balance each other out, creating a fantastic dynamic that is driven by the excellent chemistry between Cheadle and Ejiofor.
    This all could've gone the wrong way and I give credit to the writers and Lemmons for delivering something genuine and real. Of course Cheadle is an amazing actor and he certainly shines here but he really is working from a great script. So often, biopics go wrong, often degenerating into sentimental slop that includes the classic rise and fall of any star. It can really just make a real person's life look like a series of ridiculous clichés. It would have been easy to play this story primarily for laughs, rather than exploring Petey or Dewey with any sense of depth or emotional complexity.
    Don Cheadle , Chiwetel Ejiofor and Martin Sheen in Focus Features' Talk to Me
    What Lemmons attempts and successfully pulls off is to create a pair of complex characters who are as interesting as they are flawed. Ultimately, the film is as much about Dewey as it is about Petey and that's perfect for such a fine actor as Ejiofor, who has been steadily building an impressive list of supporting roles in films like "Children of Men", "Serenity", and "Inside Man". He holds his own opposite Cheadle, and as the story shifts to focus on Dewey's story, he easily carries the film. It's a wonderful opportunity for both actors to showcase talents that would be relegated to character roles in lesser films.
    Other films "inspired by a true story" often fall short in that they come across as some sort of summary of a larger story, but here there is structure which gives the impression of being more complete. There is more emphasis on simply entertaining the audience, character development, and pushing a few emotional buttons then there is giving a history lesson. Still, I did feel educated cuz I knew nothing of Petey Greene, who not only served as a pioneer in the world of radio shock jocks, he also helped inner-city black America find its voice during the post-Civil Rights years. He's not the most respectable character but I give him credit for not becoming a sell-out and staying true to who he was. The film ends up bridging the gap between entertainment and social enlightenment while never falling back on the trappings that often plague films of this nature which can leave them either too heavy-handed or too light-hearted. I dunno if Oscar will remember this movie but I could easily see this on some Top Film lists at the end of the year simply due to the performances.

  • Rendition is Almost Extraordinary

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

    Rendition  (2007)

    RENDITION (2007) *** 
    R for torture/violence and language.
    2 hrs. & 2 min.
    written by: Kelley Sane
    produced by: Steve Gollin
    directed by: Gavin Hood
    2007 just might be the year of a cinematic political siege. With all the movies released this year about the war on Iraq, politics post-9/11 as well as the physical and psychological after effects, you'd think that movie studios are satisfying audience demand for such films. Unfortunately, for these films, the box office results are showing that's not the case. People are not flocking to movies like "A Mighty Heart", "The Kingdom" or "In the Valley of Elah" and it doesn't matter what critics say about them. They just aren't finding audience like a Tyler Perry movie or "The Game Plan" is. Maybe it's due to the incessant barrage of war and politics the media serve viewers and readers, that make them opt for films that will have more of an escapism feel.
    Since I don't pay much attention to 24/7 news channels and only vaguely cover news blurbs about the war and the politics related to it, these kind of movies rouse my curiosity. I'd much rather see a dramatization of something that is either inspired or based on true events then be bludgeoned with media scare tactics and body counts. I'd rather know the human element of all this senseless violence and confusion instead of the typical pie charts and statistics that are given. So, these movies don't bother me as they do some. The problem is with these (at times) message movies is that they either tend to be a little heavy-handed or labeled liberal agitprop.
    That's the dilemma here with Award-winning, South African film director Gavin Hood's new film "Rendition". It's a well-enough made film that at times does force some themes but it at least the topic is something I haven't seen focused on before, that being the case of "extraordinary renditions", in which the CIA has permission to extradite those thought to be involved in terrorism without needing any sort of warrant. This started under Clinton's reign and has supposedly gotten out-of-hand under Bush after 9/11. I don't proclaim to be a political expert but that's at least what I gathered from the film.
    The film uses the similar storytelling method as Crash, Traffic and Syriana which includes a number of seemingly disparate stories converging to show how small a world it truly is. Much of the story centers around a suicide bombing in North Africa, a deadly blast might immediately draw comparisons to "The Kingdom", although that was based on actual events and is a much stronger film in the way it deals with how the U.S. government deals with terrorists. So, sure we've seen an exploding market before but is it really something we've become desensitized to?
    Because of this, Egyptian chemist Anwar El-Ibrahami (Omar Metwally), mysteriously disappears when the CIA removes him from his flight home from a conference in Cape Town. After they conveniently remove him from the flight records, he is interrogated and prohibited a phone call home. They deport him back to North Africa (Egypt, it seems) where he's imprisoned, stripped naked and tortured since he's suspected of having collaborated with the terrorists responsible. Basically, the case against him revolves around some random phone calls made from the suspected terrorist to Anwar's cellphone. Of course, they use extreme measures in order to find out details about these calls and of course Anwar has no idea why the calls are traced to his cell.
    Reese Witherspoon in New Line Cinema's Rendition
    Meanwhile, his pregnant wife Isabella (Reese Witherspoon) and 6-year-old boy back at home in Chicago has no idea what happened to him.Isabella contacts Alan Smith (Peter Sarsgaard) an old friend (and possibly former flame) in Washington who works for a high-powered Senator Hawkins (Alan Arkin) who might be able to unlock the mystery behind Anwar's disappearance. Typically, they both are hesitant about damaging their own image and career by supporting someone potentially with roots to terrorists.
    CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (Jake Gyllenhaal) was in a vehicle in the Egyptian market when it exploded and say his supervisor die next to him. He's now reported to Lee Mayer ca(J.K. Simmons) the dead guy's superior, who is reported to CIA Head, Corrine Whitman (Meryl Streep), she's the one who authorized Anwars' rendition. Freeman is ordered to supervise the "questioning" of Anwar by an Egyptian official named Abasi Fawal (Igal Naor). But, there's another concurrent story, involving Fawal's daughter, Fatima (Zineb Oukach), who is caught up in a forbidden love story with Khaild (Moa Khouas), a passionate young boy who has some deadly secrets. I found this story the most interesting for some reason. It just seemed like these two young people had no one to turn to, no one on their side and I kept on wondering where their desperate decisions would lead them.
    Igal Naor in New Line Cinema's Rendition
    There are valid reasons for a movie like this to exist. It's sobering to see how my government can justify torturing "suspects" under the justification of a post 9/11 world. I kept on wondering who the terrorist really is in this storyline and for that, maybe the film did succeed. Still, the script by Kelley Sane isn't particularly impressive or convincing, everything seems to fall into place. Hood has made a good-looking second film and at times it is downright terrifying but it does wind up being a little predictable and redundant.
    Despite having a superstar cast who for the most part deliver the goods. The weakest being Witherspoon and Gyllenhaal, neither of which really feel like they're in the right movie Gyllenhaal just feels miscast as a CIA analyst, he looks way too young and spends much of the film brooding or overseeing the torture without saying much or doing anything significant. He just broods. Witherspoon also seems way too young for her role, and she overcompensates with over-dramatic hysterics. Sure, her role is a lil harder as she is relegated to playing the worried wife on the phone or sitting in CIA waiting rooms. Streep and Arkin come in and do the bang-up jobs that you'd expect and even Sarsgaard does a decent job. There's just nothing really riveting here from the "known" talent.
    They're just not nearly as not nearly as convincing as their Mideast counterparts. The two young unknown actors who play the desperate young lovers really do standout the most in the film. Metwally as the captured Anwar, gives a heart-wrenching performance as the tortured family man who feels hopeless. Just as strong is Naor as the man doing the torturing. At first he comes across as a poor man's Dr. Evil, but once his family life is shown we see the layers of his character and maybe why he is as hard as he is.
    The "surprise twist" ending that I won't give away explains the important part the young lovers play in the story, but by that point--over an hour and 45 minutes into the movie--it starts to create way too many questions and possible flaws in the film's temporal logic, and it does very little to make up for some of the bland storytelling leading up to it.I haven't seen Hood's Oscar-winning last movie "Tsotsi" but I've been meaning to. It too succeeded so well with the use of non-actors, it's surprising he didn't try to search out unknown American talent rather than going with big names who tend to derail the story.
    I knew nothing of the term "rendition" before this movie. I always thought of it as a musical term. So, the movie succeeded in educating me but it did lose me after a while due to it's miscasting. Regardless, I'd hate to see this movie ignored due to it's subject matter but I understand if some may feel a little "message fatigue". Films have come a long way in capturing current events. It took forever to release movies that really dealt with Vietnam. Movies that weren't glossing any reality over or hiding behind whatever propaganda was being sold. I have no problem with movies covering current events, a good story told well still makes a good movie. These topics aren't "too soon" or controversial to me, but just a reflection of how we need to try and understand what's going on in the world today.

  • Costner wisely spotlights Duvall

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

    Open Range  (2003)

    OPEN RANGE (2003) ****
    R for violence.
    2 hrs. 18 min.
    written by: Craig Storper (screenplay) & Laruan Paine (novel, The Open Range Men)
    produced by: Kevin Costner, Jake Eberts & David Valdes
    directed by: Kevin Costner
    I like it when I find myself sitting in a movie theater watching a film and actually realize that I'm really enjoying the experience. That was the case on a one hot summer day in August back in 2003, when I watched this movie. I remember sitting there thinking how I'd love to get away and live off the vast open plains as I maintained and defended what was mine. I also remember thinking about how this film would be received. I knew that most people already loathed Costner for movies like "Waterworld" and "The Postman" yet I remained optimistic about his work. There are, after all, worse actors out there. He's worked on enough movies that have succeeded to warrant my attention and this film was no different.
    Turns out, Costner's return to the western genre wearing both acting and directing hats once again was actually a success. Many were surprised. Most critics really enjoyed his expansive tale of nomadic cattlemen making a living on the open range who take a stand against a corrupt landowner. Some say that it was an "older audience" that made the film into an unlikely hit, as audiences saddled up and headed to the cinema to the tune of $58 mil, doubling the picture's minimal budget of $26 mil. I saw many factors that contributed to this western being a modern-day masterpiece but I'll get into all of that later. There, I said the "m" word for a Kevin Costner movie. Go ahead and hang me.
    Kevin Costner and Robert Duvall in Touchstone's Open Range

    Charley Waite (Kevin Costner) is a quiet and somewhat mysterious cattleman who has ridden with Boss Spearman (Robert Duvall) as his right-hand man for many years. Boss is a straightforward, kind man who serves as an unspoken mentor to Charley, who we come to find out is haunted by his time as a gunslinger and before that, a Civil War soldier. The two mind their own business, making their living as free-range cattlemen, moving their herd across the open range. They've recently taken on some hired hands to manage their load, the gentle giant Mose (Abraham Benrubi) and the orphan Button (Diego Luna) and together with their dog Tig, they make their way cross-country.

    With supplies a lil low, they send Mose to the local town of Baxter on an errand, but are worried when he doesn't return. The town is controlled by a greedy and corrupt land baron, Denton Baxter (Michael Gambon), who hates free-rangers. Charley and Boss arrive in town only to find Mose severely beaten by Baxter's men and jailed by Sheriff Poole, whom Baxter "owns." It is soon revealed that many townspeople look past Baxter's greedy dealings and accept the situation, while others secretly harbor animosity and anger towards him.
    Mose needs a doctor right away, so they find one after receiving a stern warning from Baxter regarding their free-ranging. The two of them find Doc Barlow (Dean McDermott), while Charley finds a love interest in the doc's sister, Sue Barlow (Annette Bening). Although at first he mistakens her for the doc's wife which results in some humorous interplay between Bening and Costner.
    Baxter allowed the group to leave once, he doesn't intend on leaving the matter settled - joined with marshal Poole (James Russo), the two round up a group to finish off Boss and his men. After all, what he really wants is their herd. Boss and Charley are able to subdue some of the men but things don't go as planned after a death and a severe injury. The two face a difficult decision and eventually decide to go back into the town to seek medical help for Button and try to plan their next move.
    Annette Bening in Touchstone's Open Range
    Knowing that the inevitable showdown with Baxter and his men is looming, Charley and Boss gather themselves for the violent encounter. Leaving Button in the doctor's care, they enter town where during a flash flood consumes them and everyone around. Charley saves a townsperson's dog and the owner buys him and Boss some coffee. They learn more about the mixed feelings of the inhabitants of the town and who might possibly be able to help them. One of those fellas is a bearded old, hobble-legged coot named Percy (played by the late, great Michael Jeter) who runs a stable in town. He's an actor I've enjoyed since "The Fisher King" and I really liked him channeling the classic supporting actor role often seen in older westerns.
    Before the final shootout, Boss and Charley go to a drugstore to spend their money on cigars and chocolate, reasoning that they might be unable to spend it later. Charley leaves money with a sympathetic townsperson to buy Sue a new tea set if he is killed. The showdown itself is an amazing cacophony of jarring gunfire with realistic ramifications. There's no crazy stunts or special effects here. With every shot fired you feel the pull-back and the smell of gunsmoke. It's a violent ballet of revenge and justice. most of the townspeople flee but the rest eventually chip in and help out Charley and Boss seeing it as their opportunity to finally stand up for what's right. After all the bloodshed, there's no rousing celebration just the dead and survivors left with decisions to either move on or rebuild.
    This realism is not uncommon for modern-day westerns such as Eastwood's "Unforgiven" and the recent "Seraphim Falls", that have a morality tale to tell but spends little time romanticizing that tale. So, for those who relegate westerns to sprawling yarns where everyone looks nice, has poor aim and Indians are always the enemy....there have been and still are westerns with realism and purpose. The violence in this film is a depiction of how violent the west was. In the Old West, it wouldn't be an uncommon sight for someone to be walking down main street and BLAM! he's shot in the back or in the head and slumped to the dirt. The film doesn't just show violence for violence sake, it just shows how it would all go down in those adrenalized moments.
    Costner and Duvall not only provide great work here, they were great together. Right away, I was interested in these characters and their interaction. Earlier when I hinted at the many factors that contribute to this being a masterpiece....Robert Duvall, so no more. The guy is just amazing. Anything he's in, I'll see it (even when he's Will Ferrell's soccer coach dad) and enjoy it, just cuz it's him. Here, he gives a decency and vulnerability to a character that has learned much from life. He wants to mind his own business and handle his herd but he will fight for what is his. I'll never know why he didn't get nominated for this. Probably cuz people saw Costner was attached and rolled their eyes and that's too bad cuz this is not a Costner film. Duvall owns this film in his most humble manner.
    The story was adapted from a novel and doesn't really bring anything terribly new to the table in terms of the genre, although I've read reviews that it's actually better than the novel. As rare as that is, it's not too hard to imagine seeing as how much love Costner has for the genre. The writers provided subtle layers to characters and wind up turning a basic revenge tale into an intense and compelling picture. Many complained about the length of the film, something I initially did not notice. It's a minor issue to me, I've spent the same amount of time watching movies that were much worse. Because of James Muro's stunning cinematography, excellent production and costume design, the film is an example of a picture that appears to have cost twice as much as it did. The late Michael Kamen's score is also very enjoyable. The cast is fantastic together and the movie somehow takes a great deal of the old cliches from the genre and make it all wonderfully entertaining.
    open_range_ver6 
    open_range_ver4
    open_range_ver2
    open_range_ver3




     



  • Dated but Far from Wilted

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

    Cactus Flower  (1969)

    CACTUS FLOWER (1969) ***
    rated PG
    1 hr. 44 min.
    written by: I. A L Diamond, Abe Burrows (play "Cactus Flower"), Pierre Barillet & Jean-Pierre Gredy (play "Fleur de Cactus")
    produced by: Mike Frankovich
    directed by: Gene Saks
    I happened upon this one the other night on television and was pleasantly surprised. I was fooling around with the free movies on my cable's free On Demand feature. I don't really go there that much for movies but on this particular Friday night, the selections were pretty dry. Not as dry as a cactus mind you (heh, sorry). Well, I saw that it was released in 1969 and it had Walter Matthew, an actor I just love and who's filmography I've been meaning to bone up on. I knew nothing about the film. The Turner Classic Movies guy came on before the film started and said something about how this was Goldie Hawn's debut feature film. Hmph. I hoped that her performance here was better than the majority of her work in the last coupla decades. I would see something fresh from her. I didn't even know about Ingrid Bergman was in it until I saw her name as the movie began. So, I was intrigued by this late night find from the start and found myself solidly entertained by this silly, well-written comedy.
    Julian Winston (Matthau), is an easy-going, middle-aged bachelor dentist whose delicately balanced scheme crumbles under some unexpected circumstances. He's stringing along his dizzy blonde mistress, Toni Simmons (Hawn), by telling her he has a wife and children. When he learns that Toni has tried to commit suicide over him, however, he promises to marry her. Of course, he thinks that will resolve everything but it just snowballs more unforeseen drama, in typical fashion. Refusing to be a home-wrecker, toni is distraught and insists on meeting Winston's wife. He convinces his loyal and lovelorn nurse Stephanie Dickinson (Bergman) to help him get outta this dilemma by posing as his wife.
    Stephanie refuses at first but once she follows through we not only see hilarity but also her character revealed. There plenty of typical twists, surprises and confusion for these three but it's Bergman who really carries the film. On Stephanie's unplanned journey out of her no-nonsense cocoon, Bergman simply glows with sweetness and confidence. At first, it seemed so odd seeing her in a late 1960's New York romp with Hawn and Matthau but then again I respected her all the more for it. It's clear that she is enjoying herself immensely, and it's infectious: as a viewer, it's impossible not to get drawn into the cheerful pandemonium of the movie. I regret to admit that his is only the second film I have seen Bergman in (I know. I know), the first being "Casablanca". Bergman is the type of actress who just got better as she aged. Not only is she beautiful but her talented range is apparent in the sheer variety of roles she took. I'm definitely going to work my through her filmography as well.
    There are, of course, some other character s that get caught up in Julian's lies. He tries to hook Stephanie up with a boyfriend, using his actor-neighbor Harvey (Jack Weston) who is not just her total opposite but a buffoon. The other innocent bystanders is Toni's next-door neighbor, Igor Sullivan (Rick Lenz) a frustrated playwright and the only man closer to her age. Lenz is the other absolute joy to watch in this film. I never even heard of the guy and there he was with a delightful character. Looks like he did mostly television work after this which is too bad cuz he scenes really enliven the movie.


    The film exudes a cheerful energy that might now be conceived as cornball but when you take it for the time it was made in, it's all for fun. It's evident that everybody (particularly Bergman) was having a good time making the film and that's always good to see. Nothing worse than seeing actors work in a movie where it look like just took a check. I found the film genuinely engaging from the very beginning where Toni is about to kill herself in her apartment to the setting up of a situation that we can't help but be interested in.
    One gripe I have and it's something I absolutely detest of older movies is how the opening credits roll through everyone who worked on the film as the film has started. Nowadays, this is all done after the film and rightly so. Studios and directors have learned that it's distracted to the story and just plain off-putting. But that's really a minor gripe. Turns out I was right, the film was adapted from a Broadway production of the same name that starred Lauren Bacall as Stephanie. That play was actually inspired from the French play Fluer de Cactus. The film adaptation doesn't really lose the feeling that it could be a play, it has a low-key theatrical feeling to it that caters to the actors.


    How was Hawn in her debut role? She was great! That's surprising to me cuz she generally annoys me. But here she makes Toni Simmons into a real person: perky, wide-eyed, innocent, and enthusiastic as a puppy, she brings an unassuming energy into all of her scenes. I couldn't believe that Hawn actually won a Best Supporting Oscar for the role! Wow. That shocked me even more than the film cuz it was equally Bergman who makes the movie. Most of Hawn's films from the 80's and on have come across to me as rather repetitious and somewhat annoying to me but it was great to see her fresh debut here.

    The movie does sneak in a look at society's expectations of relationships. While it might have been something new to touch on May-December romances back in the late 60's, it seems kinda old news now. Still, it shows that the film is taking a modern outlook as it looks at and why it is usually acceptable for an older man to have a barely-21-year-old lover, but disgusting for an older woman to contemplate an affair with a younger man. Other terms like "old maid" and "eligible bachelor" are thrown around as well when we see Bergman caught in such stereotypical labeling. But a lesser actress delivering such pointed lines of social commentary surely would not have had the presence Bergman has as she gives substance and believability to a story's message. Like Bergman, the film has aged very well and I found it to be an enjoyable, funny, energetic, and well-made comedy.

  • Apatow & Rogen in the sack again....

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

    Knocked Up  (2007)

    KNOCKED UP (2007) ***
    R for sexual content, drug use and language.
    2 hrs. 9 min.
    written by: Judd Apatow
    produced by: Judd Apatow, Shauna Robertson & Clayton Townsend
    directed by: Judd Apatow
    So I finally got around to seeing what is being touted as the best comedy of the year. That's really not saying much just cuz there just aren't many good comedies out there. In fact, there's currently not many good comedies period. Notice how I don't really review too many comedies? That's cuz most of the comedies out there are awful and awfully unfunny. Maybe it's cuz my taste for cinematic humor can range from "Rushmore" to "Hot Fuzz", films that aren't necessarily labeled as straight-up "comedies" but tend to serve my funny bone a lot more the some senseless (and often tasteless) guffaws seen in most comedies. I mean, really....Ben Stiller is fast becoming the Steven Seagal of comedy!
    When a comedy does come around that gets generally good reviews by both critics and average viewers as myself, I usually take note and wait for the film's DVD release. Unless, I'm in a rare mood and getting out with a mess of pals, waiting for the DVD suits me fine what with all the bells and whistles studios cram into their films. That's exactly what happened to this genuinely funny, raunchy yet real look at a freak encounter between a silly shlub of a man and a beautiful babe that (let's face it) could only have happened with a ginormous consumption of booze.
    The hit comedy by director Judd Apatow continues with his streak of re-establishing bawdy, R-rated comedies as viable box office success. I still haven't seen "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" and will wait for the DVD release of "Superbad" as well (for the same reasons I waited for this film). Overall, the movie goes a lil overboard with the sexism and lewd commentaries but amid all that sophomoric hilarity, there is hope. That's cuz Apatow is dealing with mature topics like the repercussions of a one night stand as well as the strain of a marriage and raising children. I like that he's not afraid to write about actual life moments while at the same time indulging the rude-minded adolescent in all of us. Speaking of which....
    Katherine Heigl and Seth Rogen in  Universal Pictures' Knocked Up
    Ben Stone (Seth Rogen) is in his mid-20s, slacking his way through life, living with his fellow pothead pals somewhere near Los Angeles. He's jobless, irresponsible, and sexist slob, who sits around with similar friends as they smoke pot and actually consider trying to find nudity in movies a job. While hanging with his pals at a nightclub one night, he stumbles into a drunken one-night-stand with ambitious entertainment reporter Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl). Of course, much hilarity follows due to the fact that, without the copious amounts of alcohol consumed, these two would likely never have come together, and they certainly would never have had unprotected sex. Ben is now faced with the prospect of being a father and has to figure out how to deal with responsibility not to mention how to stop being a selfish oaf and learn to make room in his life for two other people.
    The two of them try to make a go at making a relationship work. That is, as much as you can after a one night stand which proves very interesting. After all, where do you go after you've gone all the way with someone you don't know? They don't have a whole lotta positive role models or influences to exemplify a working marriage either. Allison lives in the backyard bungalow of her sister Debbie (Leslie Mann) and brother-in-law Pete (Paul Rudd), a battling couple in their 30's with two adorably cute lil girls. As much time is spent on these two and their dysfunctional communication (or lack of) as the two main characters, which I believe actually helped the movie. Their story is almost equal to the main plot in humor and importance cuz it's their often bickering lives that Allison and Ben look at and wonder if that's where they'll wind up in two years. Without them as a does of hard reality, I don't think the weight of the film's theme would not be as clearly felt.
    Iris Apatow , Maude Apatow , Leslie Mann and Paul Rudd in Universal Pictures' Knocked Up
    Not to mention that these actors together adds up to an unbelievable comedic foursome, grabbing laughs by handfuls and also nailing the right emotional beats to make the film so much more than a standard gross-out post-sex comedy. Of course these four are only the fraction of the comedy equation in this movie. Ben's stoner buddies, all regular Apatow cast members and "Freaks & Geeks" alumni like Jason Segal and Martin Starr, "Undeclared" star Jay Baruchel, and the motormouth of "Superbad'" motormouth Jonah Hill all play the polar opposite to Ben's oncoming life of being a dad. These guys spend all their time coming up with insane bets and inventing asinine theories about getting stoned, getting laid, and basically doing nothing. Once Apatow gets the exchange going between these five friends, the results are funny yes but often shockingly so. Funny for shock sake is alright a coupla times but it crosses the line at times and becomes distracting and insulting after a while.
    This is the first Apatow movie I've seen. I know all his trademarks already from his previous films that I just haven't gotten around to seeing. For some reason I found myself drawn to this one simply by the trailer and the poster. I wanted to see how this poor shlub good get such a hottie and based on the box office success this past summer, so did everyone else. So, it turns out that despite all the neuroses, despite the perverse humor, an Apatow script has a sweetness and real heart that has a draw. Very few other modern comedy directors could pull off the romantic side of Knocked Up, making Ben redeemable and finding a way to bring the main characters together in a way that is believable without pretensions.
    Most reading this have probably seen this in the theater already. Since I did not, I can't really say what more the film's Extended & Unrated Edition DVD is giving viewers. I have no clue. I did notice that the length of the movie is a tad long. I usually don't notice time length when watching a movie but this one did seem to drag here and there. It wasn't annoying it was just....noticeable. Maybe some of the stoner banter coulda been cut and more time spent with Harold Ramis (as Ben's dad) and Joanna Kerns (as Allison's mom), I really enjoyed those characters and found myself wanting more. The theatrical running time was 129 minutes, while the new time is 133, so I guess there's not a large amount added.
    This film was certainly a welcome surprise to me since there's just not many comedies out there that attract me. Sure it's kinda raunchy but it has enough reality and endearing elements to it that made it enjoyable and at times side-splittingly funny. I really enjoyed the main cast quite a bit. I've been a big fan of Leslie Mann's work since "Cable Guy" (which Apatow re-wrote and where he and Mann met) and even "George of the Jungle", so it's always good to see what she does next. I really enjoyed the interaction between Ben and Pete, I felt their friendship evolved quite naturally and real. I guess I could've done with a lil less of Ben's' stoner friends just for the sake of serving the main story better. But that's just a small gripe for a movie that naturally delivers some great laughs while not getting overly sweet with the sentiment.
    Seth Rogen stars in Universal Pictures' Knocked Up

  • Bale delivers yet again!

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

    Harsh Times  (2006)

    HARSH TIMES (2006) ***
    R for strong violence, language and drug use.
    2 hrs.
    written by: David Ayer
    produced by: David Ayer & Christian Bale
    directed by: David Ayer
    Honorably discharged Army Ranger, Jim Davis (Christian Bale) is messed up, he's having violent and sweaty post-traumatic nightmares from his recent tour in Iraq. Upon returning home to South Central Los Angeles, he has hopes of a career in LAPD law enforcement or any kind of legal, um....enforcement that he can get his hands on. He sees such a career helping him meet his other goal of marrying his Mexican girlfriend Marta (Tammy Tull), making her a legal citizen and migrating her to his barrio. What gets in the way of these desires though is himself. Jim is a walking time bomb of frustration, paranoia, rage and bitterness yet he's a loyal friend. But he's the type of loyal friend that you wanna stay on good terms with to ensure your own safety.
    Mike Alonso (Freddy Rodriguez) grew up with Jim in the hood and remains like a brother to him despite Jim's erratic behavior. Nothing comes between Mike and Jim, not even Mike's girl, Sylvia (Eva Longoria) who just wants him to get a job and is afraid of Jim's influence on him. She knows that whenever these two hang out they fall back to what comes naturally: drinking, smoking weed, and finding any drug or gun deal out on the streets they come across. Anything that will help them escape the realities of life while scoring some easy money. While Mike is trying to get his act together by getting a respectable job, Jim is falling deeper and deeper into the allure of illegal street life as his psyche unravels. Because of their bond, Mike is dragged along with Jim and starts to see just how much his friend has changed.
    Freddy Rodriguez and Christian Bale in MGM's Harsh Times
    Events take an even worse turn when the LAPD denies Jim a position due to his psychological evaluation results. Jim doesn't handle this very well at all and takes Mike and everyone else on his descent into madness. Jim gets a break when Agent Richards (JK Simmons) offers him a Federal gig in Columbia, but it comes with a hard cost. The FEDS advise against him marrying Marta anytime soon if he decides to take the job. Jim opposes at first but knows he can do nothing else with his life, so he agrees which only sends him further down into darkness. Step after destructive step, Jim becomes more morally unstable as the pressures of street life combined with his career opportunity which would lead to a life without Marta collide. This only accelerates his post-traumatic instability. The problem is that Jim just doesn't see that he needs help while it becomes evident to everyone around. Everything is cool, dog! He tragically finds out though that the realities of life overcome the quick fixes he's so used to, as he starts to see the effects of his actions.
    Watching this I couldn't help but see how similar this film is to both "Training Day" and "In the Valley of Elah". It has the same gritty street life feel of L.A. to it that "Training Day" had and also has the serious issue of Combat PTSD that "Elah" touched. Both of these elements are integral to the characterization of Jim Davis. It's no surprise that the film has a similar tone to at least "Training Day" cuz it's the directorial debut of writer David Ayer, who wrote that film as well as "Dark Blue" and "S.W.A.T." both showing L.A. street life. The script is based on some real-life stories from Ayers own teen years growing up in South Central and I cannot imagine actually living such a life. For his first shot at directing, it makes sense that he succeeds in directing what he knows. I kinda like it when some directors (like Woody Allen) show a certain affinity for a particular city. Spotlighting on many different aspects of a certain neighborhood in that city can really flesh out not just it's inhabitants but also the city itself.
    Eva Longoria and Freddy Rodriguez in MGM's Harsh Times
    While giving credit to Ayers on his directing that's certainly not the draw of the film. There are some areas where the plot fishtails and it woulda been nice to see just how unhinged Jim was before he went off to Iraq. Still, I didn't see this for Ayers writing or directing, the main draw for me was Christian Bale. As a white boy fostered into the Chicano culture in South Central L.A., Bale is not just convincing he's incredible. The guy is a chameleon in just about anything he's done lately. He has become one of the best actors of his generation in my mind. The presence that he brings to any character is captivating and here with Jim Davis he is both charismatic and eerie. I was drawn to him but I was also afraid of him, just like everyone around him in the movie. Bale doesn't pull off the role, he disappears into it and owns it. Just like Denzel Washington in "Training Day", there is a sense of foreboding anticipation. Every time I saw Bale march around like a shark swims through water or glances around like a lion scans his prey, I was glued. You just feel something is about to happen soon, something not good at all. That's great acting.
    Christian Bale is probably the greatest actor working today, simply because, no matter the character he portrays, he makes you want to watch him work. That's certainly the case with this film, despite it being a bit nihilistic and at times very hard to embrace. If not for Bale, and to a lesser degree Rodriguez and Longoria, it would be tough to make it to the end of this dark film. The audience for a film like this would be anyone looking to explore the hopeless darkness of a man's heart and how bad choices can unfortunately sometimes be the only choice.

  • Less Haggis, More Jones!

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

    IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH
    ****
    R for violent and disturbing content, language and some sexuality/nudity.
    2 hrs.
    written by: Paul Haggis (screenplay) & Mark Boal (from article: Death and Dishonor)
    produced by: Larry Becsey, Paul Haggis, Darlene Caamano Loquest, Steve Samuels & Patrick Wachsberger
    directed by: Paul Haggis
    Recently, I attended a free screening of a movie that will resonate with me for some time and I'm sure will be the cause of controversy for some viewers once it's released. That's no surprise considering writer/director Paul Haggis is best known for his 2005 Best Picture winner "Crash" which was a controversial film and win. I liked that movie and felt it deserved the win but I know that some critics and moviegoers felt that Haggis' themes were a lil ham-handed or forced upon them. I can understand all that and I was okay with those claims cuz overall the film's performances ascended any of my gripes. This film has less gripe and more praise from yours truly.
    Retired career military police officer Hank Deerfield (Tommy Lee Jones), receives a call in his Tennessee home from Fort Rudd in New Mexico. He sits on his bed, tired yet attentive to the information he's given: his son Mike has gone AWOL. At first, Hank cannot understand this seeing as his son is still in Iraq serving in the army. He's told Mike has been back from Iraq but has recently turned up missing. Hank knows he's gonna have to look into this on his own as he leaves a message on Mike's cell asking him to call. His wife Joan (Susan Sarandon) quietly observes as he packs a suitcase for his trip along with a picture of Mike in military dress. She asks Hank if there's anything she should know about with that demeanor of a mother/wife who has seen all the men in her family serve their country. He tells her not to worry and that it'd be best if he look into this first but assures her that he will find their son.
    On the way outta town, Hank parks his pick-up truck at a nearby school where he sees an alarming site. The U.S. flag is flying upside down on the school's flagpole. He assists the school's groundskeeper in both setting the flag right-side up and educating him on what an upside down flag represents. It's quiet scenes like this that develop the character of Hank as well as the overall tone throughout the film. Upon arriving at the base, Hank is shown around by Sgt. Carnelli (James Franco) and introduced to Mike's army buddies, all polite yet none of which have any idea where their fellow soldier is. Since the military police seem to be preoccupied, he takes his missing person report to the local police where Det. Sanders (Charlize Theron) automatically refers him back to the military base. Unfortunately, the often seen stereotypical "take care of their own" mentality comes to play between the police and the military.
    Tommy Lee Jones in Warner Independent Pictures' In the Valley of Elah
    Hank starts his own investigation, using the combined concern of a father paired with his investigative intuition from the service. He manages to swipe his son's camera phone from his quarters and finds a local street hacker, who decodes all calls as well as the picture and video files and sends them along, one by one. Hank sits alone in his motel room and watches the choppy, shakey replays of Mike's missions in Iraq and we study each frame with him hoping to learn the truth of what went on, and how, if at all, it might explain what has happen to Mike (Jonathan Tucker). He reports to his wife each night as he checks various restaurants and nightclubs frequented by local soldiers. All the while, Hank remembers a desperate call he received from his son in Iraq, asking to come home.
    These scenes are told with such precision by cinematographer Roger Deakons and lamenting strings if composer Mark Isham. There's nothing overstated about this movie let alone over-acted. All the acting is excellent with Tommy Lee Jones giving what I consider one of his best performances in quite a while. Some of his best work here is how he conveys such emotion without expressing it. He's always had quite a distinctive face what with his rather large ears and nose as well as those squinty, baggy eyes of his but in this role he uses it all to the benefit of the character and the story. The few scenes that Sarandon has with and without Jones are pretty powerful. She really takes some emotional scenes and knocks then outta the park. Theron holds her own quite well and a lot of it has to do with the well-written material she's been given. Jason Patric also has somewhat of a complicated small role as a reluctant, by-the-book lieutenant overseeing the investigation.
    Charlize Theron and Tommy Lee Jones in Warner Independent Pictures' In the Valley of Elah
    I could go into the rest of the movie's plot but I'm gonna choose not to as I feel the trailer tells enough already. I'm not gonna go into the details of why Det. Sanders decides to investigate and help Hank get to the truth of his missing son's whereabouts or what her own motives could be. Soon all that will be revealed in various interviews, articles and reviews. The controversy of the film will be over the last hour of the film and that's unfortunate. Instead of watching the layers of an investigation slowly unpeel, some viewers may take offense at how soldiers who have returned home are portrayed. That's too bad because movies about combat PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) have been around since Vietnam. There's no getting around it, if a young man or woman is living such a high-adrenalized life for months (for some years) 24/7 they are going to be effected once they return back home.
    Movies like "Coming Home" and "The Deer Hunter" have captured elements of this and as long as there's war there will be stories like these to tell. I dunno if the movie can be an "anti-war" movie as it will most likely be labeled. That's mostly due to Hank's tight demeanor of a patriot who is not in any way questioning ''the troops'', in fact, he doesn't even have it in him to do so. I think he has a hard enough time learning some hard truths about who his and what kind of relationship he had with him. As he proceeds with his investigation, he can't help but to ask himself ask: What is what we're doing in Iraq doing to us? Sure, there is one final scene that is a blatant message and statement of the current war but it's not like it's necessarily outta character. I could've done without it, in fact I woulda given the film three and a half stars because of it but the performances here warranted I bump it up a notch to four. Still, I understand why Haggis put it in there and it may even have been needed. I really hope this message can be taken for what it is and leave it open for discussion.
    "In the Valley of Elah" is Haggis' follow up as writer/director and it's another well-told story about relevant themes. I can only hope that this incredibly moving film can be taken just for what it is. Still, I see some critics are already skeptic as soon as they see who directed this and that's a shame. For those who are passionate about stories based on actual events, this is a film for you. The story is based on an article written by Mark Boal, a contributing writer for Rolling Stone and Playboy magazines. I don't know if that article had the same title as this film or how close this film follows that article but regardless it's essential a harrowing look at the psychological state of the young soldiers returning from Iraq....hence the controversy. Anything involving the current war can be a hot topic, sure to be scrutinized, but there is more going on here besides any critique of politics and the war. It's just simply a father trying to find out what happened to his son.
    The Q&A was alright but I woulda preferred to hear and speak to someone who had been involved in the filmmaking process, even if it was just as a source or reference. Still, it was interesting to hear what is being done and what is needed for those in need of treatment for combat PTSD.
    One question and answer that kinda stuck with me was when a guy asked one of the nurses if there were ever cases where a soldier came back from war without any need for treatment. Her reply was that's like kinda like saying someone who experiences something as horrific as being raped doesn't need help. Seemed like somewhat of an extreme answer but she got her point across.

  • Actors keep this one right on track!

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

    3:10 to Yuma  (2007)

    3:10 TO YUMA (2007) ****
    R for violence and some language.
    1 hr. 57 min.
    written by: Michael Brandt, Derek Haas & Halsted Welles (screenplay) and Elmore Leonard (short story)
    produced by: Kathy Conrad & James Mangold
    directed by: James Mangold
    This review comes with my own bias seeing as how I grew up watching westerns on TV. I'd watch reruns of The Lone Ranger, The Cisco Kid, Bonanza & The Big Valley. Then I became quite fond of Eastwood feature film westerns and many of the more realistic and gritty takes on the genre. It was probably back then when I fell in love with the Wild West and all it's expansive open country and living-off-the-land lifestyle. Sure, it was a dangerous time to live with seldom a cure for common illnesses and all the six-gun shooting goin' on but I just loved the idea that a man could get his hands dirty, work his land for a living and provide for his family. It seems simple yet hard but certainly not complicated. Maybe that's what I like about most great western genre movies, there's nothing complicated about them. There's usually a journey the protagonist has to take and the obstacles he has to overcome to get where he needs to be.
    Director James Mangold's new film is indeed an uncomplicated remake of the same-titled 1957 that starred Glenn Ford. Both of which are based on a short story by Elmore Leonard that was first published in Dime Western Magazine in 1953. It's a typical morality tale similar to what you might find in a old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock Presents with all the familiar western genre conventions. But there's more going on with the two main characters here and that's what I really appreciated. Sure, there's a taut stagecoach robbery, some dastardly bad guys and sweaty railroad building but seeing these characters develop was a real treat. After all, many westerns have fallen flat in the past due to their heavy lean on convention instead of character.
    Logan Lerman and Christian Bale in Lionsgate Films' 3:10 to Yuma 
    The story follows Dan Evans (Christian Bale), a troubled farmer and Civil War veteran who has found that the quiet life he wanted for his family is harder to come by than the restitution the government owes him for his war-damaged leg. Dan's got debt and if he doesn't pay up in seven days, Hollander (Lennie Loftin) the local land owner of Bisbee, Arizona will take his land and sell it to the railroad. He needs cash and he needs it fast. Not only does he need the money to save his land but also for medicine for his sick youngest son Mark (Benjamin Petry) Through not so subtle turns, we see that Dan fears he has lost the confidence of both his wife Alice (Gretchen Mol) and teenage son Will (Logan Lerman), who doubt he can make the ranch work. Will, who has practically memorized dime novels about nefarious outlaw Ben Wade, doesn't see in Dan the father he would like to look up to.
    After witnessing a stagecoach robbery with his boys while trying to find his missing cattle, Dan finds himself in an unlikely situation that just might pay off all his needs....literally. Turns out Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) and his gang were the cause of that robbery (and his missing cattle) and Wade has now found himself captured and cuffed by bounty hunter Byron McElroy (a great, grizzly Peter Fonda). Wade and his gang have been behind over 20 major robberies on the Southern Pacific Railroad in 19th-century Arizona. Local bank suit Mr. Butterfield (Dallas Roberts) offers Dan two hundred dollars to join a posse that will take captured Wade to the town of Contention and put him on the 3:10 train to Yuma Prison. Dan takes the offer ands takes it seriously, seeing it as a way to not only make ends meet and also finally see something through.

    Christian Bale and  Russell Crowe in Lionsgate Films' 3:10 to Yuma
    On the hazardous way to the train all sorts of complications happen in requisite western fashion. Pistols are fired, blood is shed, and the traditional thematic elements are all present and well-filmed with a modern, realistic tone. Without Wade, his gang is led by obsessed, right-hand man Charlie Prince (Ben Foster, in a standout performance), are tracking their trail, set on freeing their leader. But Wade doesn't seem to concerned about a rescue as he sits antagonizing his captors or contently drawing on a sketch pad whatever he sees around him. These scenes are well-acted and written with a combination of intense edginess and wry humor. Still, underneath it all, you just know that a guy like Wade, a take whatever he wants kinda guy, is just biding his time, waiting for any opening to break free.
    The psychological duel between Dan and Wade on the way to the 3:10 is the most interesting and entertaining thing about this film. Not to discredit the action sequences or other characters like Doc Potter (Alan Tudyk) but it's just kinda rare to see two great actors in a western given such great material to work with. The two start out as rivals and in the end pretty much remain that way yet with mutual respect. There's no blatant team-up (a good thing) but there is an unspoken admiration between the two that it interesting to see develop. The action sequences are good, particularly the frenzied climactic gun battle, but it's nothing original and I was fine with that. The feel of the film was refreshing in that I felt like I was watching a modern classic telling of the Old West.
    Mangold is coming off his success of the award-winning "Walk the Line" where he showed a good sense of storytelling and an ability to bring out the best in actors, which is evident here for sure. He must be a fan of westerns to film with such zeal but credit should also be served to the writing team. I haven't seen the original but I'm betting it couldn't compare to this one, at least for my tastes. The two lead actors get to convey their moral tussle through just the right dialogue but mostly through their behavior which tells me that the writers knew when to reign it in and let the actors do their thing. In the end, these men both believe in something, even if the morality of their personal code may be questionable from the other's point of view. They believe in the individual and the rights of a man to take action, whereas everyone else just seems to be worrying about making money and they'll remove whomever is in their way to do that.
    Ben Foster in Lionsgate Films' 3:10 to  Yuma 
    Bale is becoming an actor that pretty much always has a film out and ordinarily I'd grow tired of that. not with him though, I continue to be impressed by his range and variety of choices. He manages to keep finding fresh angles to approach conflicted characters. Bale conveys Dan's core in such great subtle ways, he's a man trying to stand up and do what is right, but there shouldn't be so much standing in the way of making an honest living. All of this can often be seen in just an expression and that is great acting. One of his disagreements with Wade manifest as a battle for young William who is fascinated by the dark figure. In the boy's eyes, his father is meek and slow to act, whereas the criminal takes what is his, reacting with the speed of his shooting arm. For his part, Crowe has the more fun albeit harder role. He sheds any outlaw stereotype and exudes a philosophical intelligence and sympathy that runs well with his ruthlessness. Sure, there are those who dislike Crowe but is that really for his acting....really? Crowe makes the smart choice of steering clear of being showy. He has his moments of verbal dexterity, playing mind games on his captors to try to get them to drop their guard, and less careful actors would have gone "maniacal villain"with the role. But Crowe makes Wade subtly charming, he seems to barely lift a finger for the duration of the story, and yet he owns his screen time.
    There are quite a few people out there who have aversions to westerns (my wife included) but a good story should be able to translate to any genre and this one does. Am I proven wrong in thinking this seeing as how the movie was number one at the box office in the U.S.opening weekend? I dunno. There aren't that many westerns made anymore, so when one is released it's scrutinized and everyone says how it's a dying genre. Well, I'd rather have a few good or great ones released sparsely then have a slew of hack jobs spewed out on a regular basis like the horror genre. Filmmakers don't need to reinvent the genre, just do a great job and use a great script. As much as it was smart casting to sign Crowe and Bale, it was just as smart of them to agree to do it and you can tell they had fun with it. Excellent work by both of them make this film a worthy entry into an excellent genre.
    Click to view  full size image


     
    3:10 to Yuma Poster

  • Third Bourne is Charmed

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

    THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM
    ****
    PG-13 for violence and intense sequences of action.
    1 hr. 51 min.
    written by: Tony Gilroy, Scott Z. Burns, George Nolfi & Tom Stoppard (uncredited); based on characters created by Robert Ludlum
    produced by: Patrick Crowley, Frank Marshall, Paul L. Sandberg & Doug Liman
    directed by: Paul Greengrass
    Around the time I had heard that Matt Damon had been cast as Jason Bourne, the action-amnesiac hero of Robert Ludlum's novels, I went and bought used copies of all those novels. Not because I wanted to prepare or familiarize myself with the Bourne world, no that wasn't why. It was for my wife. I knew she liked Damon (as do I) and I thought this might be something we could both get into. Now, I'm fortunate enough to be married to a woman who likes an intelligent action/suspense (as well as war movies...woo hoo!) She wound up devouring each novel and would keep me up to speed with what was going on with Bourne. So far, we've loved each of these somewhat-related film adaptations and having recently seen this recent sequel, we both agreed that it would be fine if they ended the series with this film....or maybe not. It's just that good and would be a perfect end to it all but we wouldn't mind visiting this world again.
    When we last saw our CIA-trained, assassin hero in "Supremacy" he was still chasing the McGuffin introduced in "Identity". You'd think taking a common plot thread like a character tryin' to figure out how he got to be who and what he is and who is responsible for his past and present state would be a lil tedious. Nope, not in these movies. Anything but. At times it's kinda complicated but if you pay close enough attention it all comes through. All three of these movies can certainly stand viewing apart from each other but one obviously benefit from the character development in watching all three.
    This film starts out with a battered Bourne (played once again to steely perfection by Damon) recovering from that now-legendary car chase through Moscow at the end of the last film. The event seems to have jarred loose some memories that we see as he hazily digs these images up from the back of his mind. I'm thinking with all these jarring auto bang-ups, he outta remember everything already! Those glimpses of the past, plus his fury over the murder of his girlfriend Maria in the last film, make him more determined than ever to learn who's responsible for all this, and to deliver the appropriate punishments.
    Bottom line, he's ticked and he wants to see this to the end and that means going to the beginning. This is a sublimely uncomplicated film in which Bourne tries to find the truth and the people who have the truth try to kill Bourne. Real easy. That's the movie. As with the last film, direction is excellently handled by Paul Greengrass ("United 93") and written by Tony Gilroy from Robert Ludlum's novel. The movie is as lean, efficient, and ruthless as Bourne himself. while there's no need to 'get-to-know' Bourne (cuz he doesn't know himself) that's not the reason that the dialogue is used sparingly. This story needs to move and any exposition dialogue would just slow it down but what dialogue there is crackles with serious-spy-movie electricity. This movie is not kidding around, and that no-nonsense attitude during all the clever reversals and bruising fight sequences makes it a joyful thrill to watch.

    Scott Glenn , Joan Allen and Tom Gallop in Universal Pictures' The Bourne Ultimatum
    Bourne and the CIA become each other's enemies again when a London newspaper reporter Simon Ross (Paddy Considine) publishes a story about Bourne that mentions a top-secret operation called "Blackbriar." The CIA, under the power-mad and slightly paranoid Noah Vosen (the great David Strathairn), furiously searches within itself to learn who the reporter's source was. Could it be from within or is it someone connected tio the CIA? Upon learning that Bourne himself may be involved, they bring in Pamela Landy (Chicago's own Joan Allen), the CIA operative who has dealt with Bourne in the past.


    It only makes sense though that some in the CIA have become sympathetic to Bourne and his search for answers about who he was before the CIA trained him. Landy might be among his supporters, and so might Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles), a field agent whom Bourne re-encounters in Spain (How does this guy get around so much? Where's he get the funds?). Just when we might believe that Bourne doesn't needs a lot of help, she appears and in a palpable way that adds to his past. Like many other famous movie or TV spies, it would appear that Bourne is indestructible. Sure, trying to kill him only makes him angrier but Damon plays his action scenes on the edge of assuredness and desperation. He has the mad skills and brains of Bond, but without that part of the suave personality that lets him relax. Bourne can't relax. He does not engage in clever repartee with villains. In fact, I only remember him smiling at all once in the first film and that's when Maria (Franke Potente) made him crack one.


    The film fits in smoothly and seemlessly with the previous two. I've like all three of them but I do see how they have improved upon each other in many aspects each time. Greengrass still favors the shaky camera style of photography that many complain about (hey, sit int he back then!) and he's quite fond of staging fight sequences without any music or other adornment. But, although there may not be any frenetic music playing alongside these well-choreographed fights, the sound cannot be missed. As Bourne ties to through ever thing at Desh (Joey Anseh) in a close-quartered duel, all the crashes and groans can be felt as clear as they are heard. Bourne used a magazine as a lethal weapon last time; this time it's a book and a towel that figure into his hand-to-hand combat, in a fight scene that's brutal and seemingly never-ending. Although, Greengrass doesn't even try to top the Moscow car sequence from last time around, there is a bone-crushing jaunt through downtown Manhattan that serves as a quite a follow-up.
    Matt Damon in Universal Pictures' The Bourne Ultimatum
    Some new players this time around are played with actors that fit right in with this series. The tip-top, shady head CIA Head Director Exra Kramer played by the always reliable Scott Glenn with delicious mystery. Bourne finds the man who hired him into this covert mess, Dr. Albert Hirsch (Albert Finney, always a delight) who actually tells Bourne who he really is and all about the program that he initially signed up for. I really enjoyed how Damon and Finney handled these scenes. In the finalle, Damon is cornered by everybody as he comes face to face with Paz (Edgar Ramirez) who tried to kill him previously. But Bourne is done in the end, he's just too smart for everyone. He knows what he wants now that he found out who he is and that's all that matters to him.

    There are some out there that have actually complained that this is film is too similiar to the other two films or that it's just not the action movie they were looking for. Those who've enjoyed the first two movies might get mildly irked by how "Ultimatum" rarely tries to tread new ground in terms of storytelling, especially with a number of blatant homages that mirror classic scenes from the first movie, but it also ups the ante in terms of action, outdoing the car chase climax from the last movie with ease. Those who've been following the story so far shouldn't be too disappointed by the resolution that brings Bourne to New York City and answers many of the questions about Bourne's past and the program that changed him. Just think of these three movies as one long six hour film that takes you on quite a ride, literally.


    As I mentioned, if this is the final film in the series, I'm totally cool with that. "Ultimatum" is brings closure to Bourne's search for answers. It does this satisfactorily, and we realize that the scarcity of dialogue and lack of information about Bourne's pre-spy life doesn't really matter. Bourne has somehow become a real, flesh-and-blood, fully developed character despite anything these movies may lack. The series has been surprisingly carried by Damon's stern somberness, plus his ability to use just his eyes and face to speak volumes about his character's thoughts, vitalizing the screen. In a summer full of disappointing threequels, it's nice to know that at least one franchise knows how to deliver the goods by replicating the thrills of the first two movies by sticking to a similar formula while answering the burning questions that have kept so many people interested for so many years. That's why if this isn't the last one....well, I'd be fine with that too.
    Universal Pictures' The Bourne Ultimatum

  • Sub-Par Historic Sandal Romp

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

    The 300 Spartans  (1962)

    THE 300 SPARTANS (1962)
    **
    Unrated
    109 mins.
    written by: George St. George
    produced by George St. George & Rudolph Maté
    directed by: Rudolph Maté
    Since reading Frank Miller's historical-fantasy graphic novel "300" back in 1998 I had often wondered what made Miller write about such a topic. Then I remembered reading what he said at last year's Comic-Con, where he revealed, "I had wanted to do this story since I was six years old. It's so compelling that I think each generation has to retell it." He went on to say how this 1962 sword and sandal epic was what had inspired his young self but that it was now stiff and stilted. Out of curiosity, I recently watched this movie that many had grown up with and I'm gonna have to go ahead and agree with Miller. It's not necessarily cuz I think this year's controversial adaptation of Miller's graphic novel was superior either. Zack Snyder's recent film actually had much more drama compared to this film's wooden melodrama.
    No, this movie's failures unfortunately outweigh it's merits as a historical epic. Like many movies of the same genre made around this time period, the film just doesn't hold up and suffers from bad writing and either tepid or over-the-top acting. Sure it sticks to the facts much more than the average fantasy-oriented sword 'n sandal epic and has a fine music score and some attractive cinematography, the script for this ode to the warriors of 2600 years ago is simply terrible.
    The story should now be pretty familiar. Back in 480 B.C. power-hungry Persian King Xerxes (David Farrar) and his massive army is in assimilation or annihilation mode as he makes his way to his next target....Greece. At the Greek Council. Themistocles of Athens (Ralph Richardson) is dismayed by all the dissent and pride that he convinces the Spartan, King Leonidas (Richard Egan) to do whatever he can to meet the Persian army with a Greek defense. Leonidas bypasses his doting wife, Queen Gorgo (Anna Synidinou) to rouse whatever Spartans he can. Due to some religious festival only his personal guard, an elite 300, are able and willing to back up the king.
    Obviously outnumbered, It doesn't look good for them but they are Spartans and they carry on their way to Thermopylae, a narrow mountain pass while Themistocles commands his small navy against the Persian armada. There is a supblot about Leonidas' niece Ellas (Diane Baker) who is crazy-in-love for Phylon (Barry Coe) a soldier wanna-be who has been dishonored due to his father's alleged disloyalty to Greece. Phylon believes he cannot marry her because of this disgrace and Leonidas rejection yet follows the 300 as the march to meet the Persians. The goal was to march out and meet their foe until reinforcements could arrive. Xerxes believes his sheer numbers will over power these few Spartans. Yet, he doesn't count on the Spartans cunning tactics and zeal on the battlefield. But a betrayal and lack of back-up result in the brave Spartans dramatic demise. They are lauded as those who had stubbornly fought for their freedom.
    I knew nothing of anyone involved in the making of this film. See? I'm not such a movie snob. I guess that was a good thing though cuz I knew of no other work to compare these actors. Upon research of this film, I discovered that Austrian director Rudolph Maté was considered a legendary camera stylist for many classics that I haven't seen. I know, can ya believe it? He started out on movies like "The Passion of Joan of Arc", "Dante's Inferno", and "To Be or Not to Be". then he went on to direct "Miracle in the Rain", "D.O.A.", and "When Worlds Collide". I might just put some of those on my list of movies to see. I dunno, maybe. I haven't seen any of these and that's kind of a good thing cuz that way I can't really compare this with any of his other films.
    As for the flat script, call me ignorant but I can't recall any of these sword and sandal types having any noteworthy screenplays. This film is the same as all those others with it's stiff exposition and tedious self-explanations. For example, when Xerxes token girlfriend Artemisia (Anne Wakefield) comes floating in, the attention pans to two pristine underlings who exchange excited statements about who she is and where she comes from. Ugh, they might as well be commentators at a sporting event! What cracked me up about this girlfriend of his was that he addresses her by her name whenever she's around....who does that? Meh. As Xerxes, all Farrar does is growl, sneer and play tonsil hockey with this chick. Between this Xerxes and Rodrigo Santoro's pierced femme portrayal, I can't seem to get an accurate bead on how this Xerxes was. He was obviously power-hungry but did he make so many stupid decisions like refusing to secure Thermopylae before the Greeks or killing all of his army's wives so that they will be without women until the seize Greece (and their women). Huh? No, really.
    There are some similarities both in dialogue and in plot to Snyder's frenetic opus. The line about how Spartans are expected to return holding their shield or on it is there. That line from Xerxes emissary about how the "Persians arrows will blacken the sky" and Leonidas tough-guy retort, "Then we'll just have to fight in the shade!" is all there. I found myself noticing there was just too much excess story here yet not nearly enough drama. One standout line from he whole film really caught my attention as being out of place and that's when one of Xerxes' commanders exclaims, "Those Greeks aren't human, they fight like machines!" Huh? How does he know what a machine is let alone looks like? As I researched this, turns out Greeks actually were familiar with the concept of machines in their plays. Plots would be resolved by a god being lowered or raised to the stage by machine, referred to in Latin as a "Deus ex machina" but this was not spoken by a Greek.
    The film does have a great look to it at least, shot by Geoffrey Unsworth (who also shot the first two Superman movies in the 70's), one of England's greats cinematographers, but somehow visually it all just sits there. Athens and Sparta are represented by a few interiors and depopulated exteriors, and their cultural differences must be established by more boring exposition. Nothing looks lived-in or anything more than a set for the actors to enter, argue, and exit. that's too bad but still that's how these movies were done back then.
    The authentic Mediterranean locales are pretty but are not well used. Thermopylae looks more like some placid lake shore in Minnesota, not the rocky and furious Aegean sea you'd expect. The visual treatment of the battles is especially disappointing. The battles all seemed to be shot from far away lessening any type of drama or danger. Despite all the talk of the Spartans being outnumbered, Xerxes' army doesn't seem any bigger than that of Leonidas. The rocky, sloping site of the fighting doesn't lend itself to anything grandiose, and it doesn't read as the kind of geographic tight-spot where a few determined men could withstand a larger number.
    Some of the fighting, with Xerxes angrily watching from his observation post, is structured well even if it reminds of some kind of football game with spears. I don't like watching football on TV so you can imagine who my attention wained during these scenes. There are countless boasts of Spartan military superiority and savagery but when the armies clash, it's just a jumble of swords where nobody seems to have an upper hand. Clanging and clashing like some neighbor kids down the block re-enacting something they were told in Sunday school.
    The requisite romantic element in the film of Phylon and Ellas (pronounced enthusiastically by Phylon EVERY time he sees her as "Eeee-las!" Sigh) was tiresome and stupid. Coe as the handsome soldier fighting to regain his pride is just kinda clueless as to how to court and maintain a fair maiden. He works alongside poor contract player Baker who is wasted in a silly part as the faithful damsel. She does get to contribute an interesting sidelight on the emancipation of Spartan women - the rigid culture grants her no civil rights, but she hilariously bests both Coe and Greek traitor Ephialtes (Kieron Moore, who recently died this summer) when they try to get fresh with her. That was too funny.
    The mighty navy of Themistocles is never even glimpsed, making one guess that the extensive model shooting to represent it was scrapped - or was wiped out by the cost overruns being racked up by the same studio's super-production of "Cleopatra". Ah well, that's another story, I guess. The formations of Greek warriors in their shining armor and red capes are occasionally impressive, but the compositions and framing are mostly dull, as if poor Maté; thought the film was being shot flat or something. This is one movie where amazingly the full widescreen makes the visuals seem less compelling.
    There is Manos Hadjidakis' great score which lends a lot of feeling and interest to many scenes. Greece was a battleground of Cold War ideologies in the 1960s. As in many pictures of the time, the narration implies a modern parallel, a certain degree of social commentary if you will. It's a lil hard to ignore that the hordes from the east represent the barbaric commies come to rape our women and grind our superior culture into dust. To resist, Greece needs unity. After being abandoned by isolationists, Leonidas' 300 have to defend Thermopylae virtually alone. They lay down their lives as an example of patriotism to shame future generations.
    For those who saw "300", whether they liked it or not and are interested in another cinematic take on this film then this is worth a rental. It's one of those Saturday morning matinee types that should be on AMC (except AMC would rather play "Catwoman" as a "classic" instead). I don't regret seeing the film. It has it's moments and is worth viewing but only if you feel you might be into something like this....you know who you are.

     

     


  • A Modern American Epic

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

    THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007) ****
    rated R (for some violence)
    2 hrs. 38 min
    written by: Paul Thomas Anderson (based on the novel Oil! by Upton Sinclair)
    produced by: Paul Thomas Anderson & Scott Rudin
    directed by: Paul Thomas Anderson

    Here's another film that has remained with me a week after viewing and that's why it made it on my Top Ten Films of 2007 list. I saw it because I have never seen a movie starring Daniel Day-Lewis where I wasn't absolutely mesmerized by his performance. This film only supported that statement, the man is an amazing actor and this movie is a quite an experience. It definitely supports the fact that oil and religion don't mix, not today and certainly not in the desolate Northern California landscape of the late 1800's. That's right, the film is about oil and greed and religion and deception. It's a dirty movie where you will feel the grime and dust cake your skin in your seat, you feel the heat just as much as the characters on screen do.
    This is a film that demands your undivided attention and does so easily from the beginning. Writer & Director Paul Thomas Anderson starts off with unprecedented form by not giving any dialogue for about the first 15-30 minutes. That's right, no one utters a word but the film still manages to speak volumes on many levels. We're shown a barren desert landscape somewhere in California with the swelling sounds of orchestral strings accompanying the sharp bite of a tool striking the earth. The man is Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) and he is indeed meticulously chipping away at a wall deep down a man-made well, searching for his fortune. He mines for silver alone, an independent man with no need of assistance let alone words. He has no one to turn to when calamity strikes, and yet he has the will to overcome that calamity in order to stake his claim.
    Dillon Freasier and Daniel Day-Lewis in Paramount Vantages' There Will Be Blood
    In an unprecedented move, Anderson only uses music amid the sounds of a birthing industry for this opening scene and that's what hooks you in. I sat there finding myself riveted as I'm sure others were in the quiet theatre. I was forced to pay attention, almost as if right from the start viewers are asked to make the decision to become thoroughly invested. Very soon, we see that Plainview is not your average turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who pulled himself up by his bootstraps. No, this is a man consumed by himself, who surrounds himself by those who would believe in him. Yet we see right through the charismatic salesman. Plainview doesn't care about anyone, he even flat out says later on that he often finds himself despising other people.
    Years later, Plainview has his hands in multiple wells which has made him a rich man. He travels around speaking to townspeople living in prospective lands with a prop, an adopted a son named H.W. (first-timer Dillion Freasier), who was orphaned as a baby when a collapsing rig killed his father. That may seem like a compassionate act by Plainview but like anything else, we find he has his ulterior motives. H.W. is unaware that Plainview isn't his real pappy, and Plainview exploits his mini-me so he can call his enterprise a family business. This behavior is dealt with eventually as is many other of Plainviews unrepentant ways. We see that a man cannot repent until he actually sees the need to.
    The film does play like a work of classic literature in ways I can't really describe, it just has an epic scope. Like any such work, there is an antagonist and what's interesting is that a reader (or viewer) is usually already rooting for a respectable protagonist but not in this film. One night, a mysterious young man named Paul (Paul Dano) appears and tells Plainview he knows where there are untapped oil reserves. He tells Plainview that for $500, he will disclose the location of his family's ranch. Of course, Plainview is soon on the scene and trying to cheat the old farmer (David Willis) out of his property under the guise of wanting a quiet place to hunt quail. The farmer's other son, Eli Sunday (also played by Dano) suspects the real motivation for the purchase, and so their clash of wills gets underway. Hence, we have our classic protagonist in Sunday, a Pentecostal preacher in the small local church. He wants to make sure his congregation--and their spiritual leader--are taken care of but he too is a charlatan with ulterior motives.
    So you have two charismatic people at odds with each other who are more alike than they'd ever admit. It's ironic that this is essentially a war between oil and religion....sound familiar? As much as these two characters are continuously at odds one commonality is that money and salvation can change who a person is. There are continuous clashes throughout this film of the material and the spiritual. I'm not gonna get into the specific cause and effects of either of these characters actions but both definitely cause serious repercussions to those around them. All of it is gripping and powerful, as Anderson shows us two men consumed with their own agenda and the misery that comes from it.
    The story comes from Upton Sinclair's eighty year-old novel Oil! about an oil baron who engages in a mental battle with a revival type preacher who holds the key to a plot of land with oceans of crude bubbling underneath the surface. Both want control of the gusher, because both are looking to line their coffers. Anderson uses that set up and runs with it, creating an ominous title change that does indeed provide that human life source but also blood from the earth. Oil is the fuel for everything. It powers cars, it invigorates communities, and it compels men to trade their souls for its reward.
    I'm probably not the best person to call this film a masterpiece but nonetheless, that's how I see it. The only other film by Anderson that I've seen is his last one, 2002's "Punch Drunk Love". I know some may find that shocking but I knew that "Boogie Nights" was more or less a cover of Scorcese's "Good Fellas" and that "Magnolia" was a take on Altman's "Short Cuts".There's nothing wrong with that but I figured if I'd seen those movies....why watch those? I know, heresy.
    Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis in  Paramount Vantages' There Will Be Blood
    A protagonist like Plainview can make or break a film. He's a great literary character that you can't take your eyes off of but you don't like him. What is most riveting as I watched the film is trying to find out why he thinks so highly of himself. Maybe he doesn't, maybe he has his demons, but he sure comes across like a guy who really believes what he's doing is right. An strong actor is needed for this role and I can't see anyone else but Day-Lewis as Plainview. I can't help thinking that this movie would not be nearly as excellent as it is had a different actor been cast in the lead. The entire cast is fantastic, including Ciaran Hines as Plainview's right-hand man and Kevin J. O'Connor as a shady grifter. Dano falters a little in trying to play a convincing older version of himself, but as the awkward and often sinister preacher, he's able to sell the man as both a righteous lunatic and a scheming con artist.
    This is by far Daniel Day-Lewis' film. That's who you see this for. He commands every scene with his John Huston-inspired characterization. He's an actor who famously gets lost in the roles he takes and this is no exception. I've enjoyed every performance I've seen him in since I first saw him in his Oscar-winning role as Christy Brown in "My Left Foot". He plays Plainview in multiple stages of life, from a determined young man to the over-confidence of middle age and on into old age, broken and alone with his ego. Though Plainview has the gift of gab when it comes time to pitch his sale, he is most often a man of few, carefully chosen, often biting words. Some viewers and critics see his performance as grand standing and entirely over-the-top. I can see that but Day-Lewis is so captivating that I forgive it and become absorbed by him.
    There's also much talk about how the movie ends. While I would never spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet, I can't seeing it ending any other way. This topic isn't unusual though, I hear many discussing the conclusion of "No Country for Old Men" as well. I understand the complaints but I respect both endings for the fact that they remain true to the characters and however a story ends, that's what should matter. Like the Coen brothers film, here's a film that will haunt you for some time. I saw it three weeks ago and I'm still seeing images and discussing it with others. Not many films can do that today.

  • A delightful family creature feature!

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

    THE SPIDERWICK CHRONICLES (2008)
    ***
    PG for scary creature action and violence, peril and some thematic elements.
    approx. 1 hr. 30 min.
    written by: David Berenbaum (adaptation), Karey Kirkpatrick (screenplay) & John Sayles (2nd rewrite) based on source material by Holly Black & Tony DiTerlizzi (from children's book series: "The Spiderwick Chronicles")
    produced by: Mark Canton. Ellen Goldsmith-Vein, Larry J. Franco & Karey Kirkpatrick
    directed by: Mark Waters
    Well look at that! English actor Freddie Highmore turns sweet 16 today on Valentine's Day and what is he doing to celebrate? He's got a new film coming out called "The Spiderwick Chronicles"! Not every 16 year-old can claim that! Pretty cool, huh? I guess I celebrated early with him by seeing a screening the other night of this film. It's based on Holly Black and Tony Diterlizzi's bestselling children's book series of the same name. I never read them and probably never will but I did enjoy the movie plenty. I felt like a lil kid again watching magical movies like "The Neverending Story" or "Labryinth". It was a welcome break from the moody, serious fare that I've taken in recently. Although, the story has it's share of thrills, humor, slime and wonder, it's no lightweight.
    The story opens up with a frantic man holed up in a cob-webbed attic of a large house in the surrounded by a howling forest. He's fumbling through this large old book full of what appears to be his own writings of instructions and maps as well as drawings of creatures and fairies. It appears he's in what looks to be a study full of shelves, books, desks, creepy-crawlie things in jars and papers with pinned butterflies. He sits in his chair reasonably spooked by the wild sound in the distance as he closes his book with a wax seal, obviously determined that no one opens it again as he wraps it up and locks it in a chest.
    Sarah Bolger and Freddie Highmore in Paramount Pictures' The Spiderwick Chronicles
    Eighty years later, the large house is still there and we just know that book will be opened by someone in the SUV that's pulling up the drive. Soon enough, the Grace family is introduced and we see that the film will revolve around the three children. There's Jared and his twin brother, Simon (both played by Highmore), their older teen sister, Mallory (the wonderful Sarah Bolger) and their recently separated mother, Helen (Mary Louise Parker) all of them are starting anew here after moving from New York. Strange things start to occur and at first Jared gets the blame as he's the one who usually gets into the most trouble. He insists what he hears crawling in the walls is not his imagination nor his own doing but no one believes him.
    Jared is that misunderstood and often unappreciated child often seen stuck in a family on the verge of breaking. He blames his mother for his parents' failing marriage and wants to move in with his dad. His frustration though is derailed by whatever is stirring in the house and once he follows the curious trail up into that old attic, we know something will be found.
    Jared finds a key that opens a certain trunk and a book written by his great-uncle Arthur Spiderwick (David Strathairn). The book is Spiderwick's "Field Guide to the Fantasy World" and it is indeed the book that was desperately locked away eighty years ago. Well, we know how curious young boys can be, especially ones that are short-tempered and adventurous. Does he take heed of the note attached to the book warning anyone not to open the book? Of course not, instead Jared finds that the book is crammed with all sorts of information about faeries, brownies, boggarts, goblins, trolls, and a big ogre named Mulgarath.
    Little does Jared know that after he broke the seal on that book, it's existence is made known to all those magical beings in the forest surrounding the house. The one who will do anything to get his crawls on it is Mulgarath (played with Nick Nolte looking like he did in that DUI pic) and we don't even really need to know why cuz he is the baddie who can take on all shapes and sizes. All we're told is that if the book falls into his possession all that exists is doomed. That's reason enough to keep the book safe. Common sense right? If you wanna live keep the book away from anybody. But then again it is in the hands if a curious young boy who has no clue that cuz scent of the book is in the air and Mulgarath's goblins are in hot pursuit.
    A scene from Paramount Pictures' The Spiderwick Chronicles
    Jared doesn't find out all this just by reading the book. The keeper of the book turns out to be a brownie named Thimbletack (voiced by Martin Short). No, not a chocolicious treat but a fat lil rodent-looking creature who was pals with Spiderwick back in the day. He tells Jared as long as the book stays with them in the protective circle around the house that Spiderwick conjured up, they'll be safe. But children don't stay within a magical protective circle for long and pretty soon all mayhem breaks loose with the children running from trolls and goblins while unsuccessfully trying to keep the book in one piece.
    The children aren't alone in their desperate attempt to keep the book intact and the,selves alive. They get some assistance from Hogsqueal (hilariously voiced by Seth Rogen), a "hog-goblin" wanting Mulgarath dead for the killing of his family yet he often gets distracting while trying to eat birds. They also seek the help of the house's previous inhabitant, their poor Aunt Lucinda (Joan Plowright) who grew up without her father (yes, Spiderwick) due to his obsession with all things magical. Now she's living in the local looney home on account of her talk of goblins and ogres. It probably didn't help that she had piles of salt on the window sills and a stockpile of honey, oatmeal and tomato sauce. Yeah. But once she realizes what Jared has done, she tells him there's only one thing he can do and that's find her father, who she believes is still alive in some fairy land and have him destroy the book.

    As I mentioned I haven't read the book and was unaware of what exactly there about before I saw this film. While I feel it was while written, I do wonder where the screenwriters pulled a lame subplot of two dead-beat fathers from. I know it's my own personal gripe, but I didn't like seeing Jared heartbroken when his sister had to break it to him that his father (a brief cameo by Andrew McCarthy) has left the family form some chick in the city. I also didn't like seeing Spiderwick unintentionally spend all his life consumed by his mythical world while his daughter grew old without him around for eighty-something years. I know all families have their dysfunction but the film didn't seem to show any men in a good light. But that's really my only problem with a film that delivers some solid fantasy entertainment.

    Veteran designer Phil Tippett and ILM do an amazing job on all the CGI and creature effects. None of it really felt like the actors were working with effects and that's kinda rare nowadays. I was kinda surprised at the PG rating of the film. Parents might wanna gauge whether or not their child can handle some of these scares but then again if they are already reading these books then they might be prepared for what's creeping around the corner.

    Although I knew he was a talented actor, I was still surprised by Highmore's work here. I didn't even know till the end credits that he played both brothers. Both brothers personalities were evidently different which must of made it more attractive for Highmore. In fact, the entire cast did an excellent job with the material they were given, adding enough subtle characterization to come through. It's easy to expect some overacting in this kind of story but I really didn't see any here.

    It seems director Mark Waters ("Freaky Friday" & "Mean Girls") has made a fun movie that doesn't condescend the viewer or over-complicate the story. There are so many series of children's books currently being adapted that it might as well become it's own film genre. I didn't plan on seeing this one at all but I'm glad I landed some screening passes and was able to experience a movie that served a mixture of humor, slimy thrills and excitement. It'd be great if this film would serve as a warning for children not to open books that have notes warning not to do so but I doubt they will glean that. They will likely leave the theatre satisfied with a thrilling fantasy that made them jump, laugh and maybe even shed a tear. In fact, kids of all ages can kick back and enjoy a rare experience at the movies....fun!

  • Amazing work on a Touchy Subject

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

    NOTES ON A SCANDAL (2006)
    ****
    written by: Patrick Marber (screenplay) & Zoe Heller (novel "What Was She Thinking?: Notes on a Scandal)
    produced by: Robert Fox & Scott Rudin
    directed by: Richard Eyre
    Here's a movie that I knew would be great because of the pedigree it carries and sure enough it is impressive -- so impressive, in fact, that it's tempting to imbue this sensational potboiler with more importance than it might deserves. Much of the credit has to go to Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett (both of whom earned Oscar nominations for their performances here), who save this from being a Lifetime movie special. The pair's oversized talents provide the weight for this psychological thriller; they tear into their respective roles with quite an intensity. The movie is adapted from the novel by Zoë Heller, detailing the ripped-from-the-headlines story of two British schoolteachers who harbor unhealthy obsessions. Due to the amazing performances of the two central leads, the story spends more time on need and betrayal and less on the actual scandal. I was fine with that because it seems that with every scandal there was at first a secret and finding who were the keepers of that secret is always most intriguing.
    Judi Dench in Fox Searchlight's Notes on a Scandal 
    As we're introduced to each of the characters via the journal entries of Barbara Covett (Dench), an elderly spinster and school marm who leads a solitary existence with her cat and the volumes of diaries in which she records contemptuous observations about her colleagues and pupils. As she becomes taken with the school's new art teacher Sheba Hart (Blanchett), the film almost comes across more like a dark comedy than a thriller due to Barbara's observations and acerbic delivery by Dench with a dry and biting wit that cuts her fellow co-workers to the core. When Barbara comes to Sheba's aid during a classroom scuffle, they become quick friends. In her narration, Barbara sizes up Sheba as this "wispy novice," as she derisively calls the new teacher: beautiful, idealistic and lovably disheveled. Barbara is initially wary -- particularly since the rest of the faculty is so charmed by Sheba -- but the older woman's reservations melt once the two actually meet.
    Sheba is warm, open-hearted and knows she's not the greatest teacher, and one day she invites Barbara to her home for dinner. There Sheba introduces Barbara to her much older husband Richard (the wonderful Bill Nighy) and their two children from his previous marriage, one of whom has Down syndrome. Barbara sits there at her guests house and cruelly breaks them down in her mind. It is in this scene where I became well aware of all the different facets Dench was conveying so excellently. Barbara, all dressed-up and polished for her lunch invite complete with flowers for her host exudes a graciousness and etiquette but with her narration we hear her insecurities, bitterness, and audacity. Both actresses are utterly captivating but you truly cannot stop watching Dench. Barbara is a surprisingly  unglamorous role (albeit welcome) for Dench, dressed down as a sad and lonely woman looking for love or affection, but going about it all wrong. 
    Bill Nighy and Cate Blanchett in Fox Searchlight's Notes on a Scandal 
    Barbara senses Sheba's despair and loneliness, and she is deeply smitten. Still, she cannot admit, least of all to herself, that her desires for Sheba are anything but platonic.  The relationship between these two women makes up the crux of the film, but Barbara's interest in Sheba goes far beyond friendship, and it's obvious from early on that her deeper feelings are unrequited. Clearly Barbara isn't the only dishonest one though....at an after-hours Guy Fawkes Night school function, she discovers Sheba's dirty little secret: She is having sex with one of her students, a arrogant 15-year-old boy named Steven Connolly (Andrew Simpson). Newcomer Simpson does a fine job as her student, holding his ground against the more experienced actress in their scenes together. Barbara is outraged, but not for the usual reasons, reacting to Sheba's gross indiscretion as if it's a personal betrayal. But then Barbara calms herself. To her, this knowledge means power, she realizes, and suddenly the mean-spirited old woman understands she has the upper hand in this increasingly creepy friendship.
    Both actresses are absolutely fantastic when on-screen alone, but when they're together, it's amazing, as they deliver a quick-fire repartee that elevates the film beyond its sometimes predictable plot twists. There's also something deeply amusing about watching respected actresses like Blanchett and Dench getting into a catfight, even though its more about the way they deliver their words than the conflict itself. That's due to the film's brilliant script, (which from what I've read) expands the distinctive tone of Heller's novel into a sharp and witty piece that maintains its inherent humor even when it starts to get dark and eerie in the last act.

     
    Cate Blanchett and Judi Dench in Fox Searchlight's Notes on a Scandal 

    While the two women and Simpson drive the film, one must take note of Bill Nighy who knocks it out of the park every time he's on screen. At first, Richard seems like the only benevolent character, but when he explodes at Barbara with a string of expletives, you know that he's not going to take her inexcusable behavior lying down. Even after that, he's one of the few characters that a viewer can feel sorry for, as he delivers a powerfully emotional performance after learning the truth. On that note, you can almost feel sorry for the two women despite their behavior and once again that's just a testament to their actresses abilities.


    Despite the subject of a thirty-something, former Goth girl having relations with a cheeky teen boy being quite unsettling, there's something else that is equally disturbing. The
    relationship between Sheba and her 15-year-old student isn't nearly quite fathomable, since Sheba seems far too intelligent and mature to get a schoolgirl crush on a mere boy, let alone allow herself to be seduced. Then again, it's hard to ignore the similarities between their story and that of Marie Kate LeTourneau, a real-life incident that makes us aware that something like this can indeed happen. Despite her unwise indiscretion, one can't help but empathize with Sheba's feelings of feeling trapped and even entitled, which may not have been the case in the hands of a different actress.

    Richard Eyre directs with a precise, unflinching eye that matches the coldly devastating yet clever script by Patrick Marber. The film is certainly the antithesis of a warm and fuzzy. It really digs into the human mind, probes the darkest recesses of loneliness and sexual obsession – and guts it. There is much to admire here, including Philip Glass' alluring music score. The movie's only slight quibble is the Hannibal Lector-esque ending, which seemed almost silly but still within character. Ultimately, Dench and Blanchett carry the film, making it a deliciously tasty melodrama. Both are simply terrific as characters who are certainly unsympathetic, but consistently interesting.

  • A Gilted Family Tree

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

    CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER (2006)
    ****
    R for violence.
    1 hr. 54 min.
    written by: Zhang Yimou, Wu Nan & Bian Zhihong (screenplay) and Cao Yu II (from the play "Thunderstorm")
    produced by: Bill Kong & Zhang Weiping
    directed by: Zhang Yimou
    Qin Junjie , Liu Ye , Gong Li and Jay Chou in Sony Pictures Classics' Curse of the Golden Flower 
    My interest in ancient samurai, ninjas and Eastern folklore came from reading comic books as a kid. I was pretty floored when I read about how tied into Japan and the way of the samurai Logan aka Wolverine was in Uncanny X-Men. Then I came across Frank Miller's cover to First Comics' Lone Wolf & Cub #1, a lone samurai protecting his cub, or baby. so anytime anything samurai or something similar popped up in the comics I was reading, I was pretty excited. So, this review comes with a lil bias due to my affinity for especially historical epics, all things Eastern, samurai, feudal times, and any kind of Dynasty....no, not the Carrington/Colby kind.
     
     
    Now, I can't say I know much about the Tang Dynasty but I can attest to a knowledge of dysfunctional families. And that's pretty much what this film is all about in a very Shakespearean way. In Zhang Yimou's latest historical epic, Emperor Ping (Chow Yun Fat), is pleased to be bringing his family together for the annual Chrysanthemum Festival. The event is meant to symbolize and celebrate family unity, and since this is the first time in three years his middle son, Prince Jai (Jay Chou), is back from gaining valuable life lessons on the battlefield, this particular Festival holds a special significance. Unfortunately, this is all for show and daddy's a lil clueless.The bond of this royal family is no more natural than the fields of golden flowers that have been strewn across the courtyard of the Forbidden City. With it's cultural traditions and strict family customs, it's obvious there wasn't a whole lotta family bonding to be had. This was a time when women were submissive and men had the final word. There is a most ostentatious regime present....it takes four servants to serve one cup of medicine--and the Emperor will show off his family, whether they like him or not.
     
     
     
     
     
    Chow Yun-Fat in Sony Pictures Classics' Curse of the Golden Flower 
     
     
    This dysfunctional family dynamic is especially complicated. The Emperor has been married once before, and the union bore him his first son, Crown Prince Wan (Liu Ye). That fate of that first wife is clouded in mystery, something the second wife, Empress Phoenix (Gong Li), remembers well. She has given her Emperor two sons, Jai and Yu (Qin Junjie). While Yu is still young and somewhat inconsequential to the Royal life (much to his consternation), Jai is really the favored child, more suited to the throne than his older brother. The love Jai is shown is also laced with suspicion, however, as the Emperor fears he might make a grab for power too early. When they are reunited, the Emperor makes a show of this, as well, engaging his middle son in a duel to remind the young prince that the old man still has some moves left. A spectacularly choreographed scene that this samurai fan enjoyed very much. 
     
     
    Part of the Emperor's mistrust of his son comes from his strained relationship with the boy's mother. A sickly woman, the Empress is barely on speaking terms with her husband. Even if there is no love in the royal bedchamber, that doesn't mean the palace is absent of passion. For some time now, the Empress has been having an affair with her stepson. Hello! Meanwhile, Crown Prince Wan is also canoodling behind closed doors with Chan (Li Man), the daughter of the king's physician (Ni Dashong). While the Empress suspects that Chan is drawing Wan's affections from her, little does she know that Chan is also an agent of death. Emperor Ping has instructed his doctor to slowly poison Empress Phoenix, and the physician has given the task to his daughter, the servant who delivers the queen her medicine (which will slowly drain her of all mental faculties), every other hour on the hour. There is some question whether Phoenix is even sick at all, or if the years of being forced to take this bitter potion has just been Ping's way of sedating her. Either way, the mixture that is supposed to be saving her is now slowly killing her.
     
     
    With her loving son finally returned to her, Empress Phoenix is now fed up with such treatment and is going to make her move. She is embroidering thousands of crests featuring the golden chrysanthemum to adorn her revolutionary army, and she and Jai will stage a coup when the festival is in full swing. Naturally, along the way, a few more betrayals come into play, and a few mysteries will be revealed, as several sins of the past come back to haunt all the members of Emperor Ping's corrupted bloodline. This is the typical way of the tragedy, whether it be Tan Dynasty, Greek Mythology or Shakespeare
     
     
     
     
     
    Jay Chou in Sony Pictures Classics' Curse of the Golden Flower 
     
     
     
    Upon viewing this film for the first time I was captivated by everything. From the drama of the story to the beautiful costume and art direction, this movie is takes hold of the senses. It demands your attention because you are so intrigued by the characters and what makes them who they are. None of these characters are one-sided, neither are all good nor all bad. Even the Emperor, with his precise, controlling manner and compulsive need to present a strong façade, only does so out of interest for the greater good. He wants to preserve the law and order of his kingdom, and he believes the best ruler leads by example. Irregardless, he is still a man, and the revelation that he is aware of the relationship between his son and wife also exposes the bitter sting he's been living with. None of this excuses his cruelty, but it does make some sense of his actions understandable. It's almost as if he is upset with himself for not showing his emotions to his alienated family sooner.
     
     
    Likewise, Empress Phoenix is no mere Lady Macbeth with a simplistic will to power. Knowing that rebellion is the only way to survive her husband's murder plot, she begins by seeking to live up to her own name and rise from the ashes of her disastrous marriage. In some ways, she is also crusading for female pride, her revenge on Emperor Ping avenging his first wife by proxy. Even when she is playing pale and sickly, Gong Li is still resplendent. There is no question as to why she is the center of male attention in the royal palace. Even those who aren't let in on her plot fall on their sword out of jealousy at not being included.
     
     
    Yimou's more popular films, "Hero" and "House of Flying Daggers", are filled with astounding feats of action and there is plenty here, though it's not nearly the focus it was in those two films. There are several battles involving the Emperor's ninjas trying to put one of his skeletons back into its closet. Also, the coup itself, as Jai leads his small army into the Forbidden City, is both awe-inspiring as grand spectacle and gut wrenching as the blood flows in very personal ways. There is an balletic elegance to the action here as in his other films and the emotion involved in these scenes is something that is remiss in the popular action films out there.
    Gong Li in Sony Pictures Classics' Curse of the Golden Flower 
    Back to the art direction provided by Oscar-nominated costume designer Yee Chung Man and production designer Huo Tingxiao--is just as much a star as any of the actors. The imperial palace is recreated in exacting detail. Every inch of the frame is packed with ornate decoration and color. As Empress Phoenix walks down the gaudy hallways of her royal prison, it looks like she is surrounded by great tidal waves of paint that flow in and out as she moves forward. Similarly, her gowns tightly confine her, pushing up her bosom while constraining her waist, in service to the double-edge of beauty--the dresses make her look fabulous while also standing as a symbol of female repression. The movements of the clothes are choreographed with as much care as the clashing of swords in the fight scenes. Sleeves ripple, buttons pop, and hairpins go flying as Ping unleashes his fury, and blood stains Phoenix's embroidered emblems as if those waves had finally fallen, drowning the royal court.
     
     
    This film is the current apex of the most recent cycle of Zhang Yimou's career. He began exploring the art-house martial arts genre back with "Hero", and ever since he's been slowly working his way back to the historical costume dramas that first earned him his reputation. "Golden Flower" is a tragedy of epic grandeur, transferring the personal calamities of his films like "Raise the Red Lantern" to a more mythic context. The result, is nothing short of Shakespearean, but with touches of beauty that are pure Yimou. He is a director whose film's can easily be revisited and often a viewer must be just that in order to take in all that his film's have to offer. Casting