OBITUARY

R.I.P.
JOHN MICHAEL HAYES
1919 - 2008



FILMOGRAPHY:

1954...Rear Window
1955...To Catch A Thief
1955...The Trouble with Harry
1956...The Man Who Knew Too Much
1957...Peyton Place
1958...The Matchmaker
1959...But Not for Me
1960...Butterfield 8
1961...The Children's Hour
1964...The Carpetbaggers
1964...The Chalk Garden
1964...Where Love Has Gone
1965...Harlow
1966...Judith
1966...Nevada Smith
1973...Walking Tall
1994...Iron Will

John Michael Hayes was a screenwriter. In fact, just by reviewing his resume, you get the sense he was very likely a great screenwriter. He worked with Hitchcock on some of his most celebrated films and continued to work well into old age. Think about the plot turns of "To Catch A Thief" of the skillfully designed story of "Rear Window" -- you have Mr. Hayes to thank for that. And though he has left us now, we will always have his impressive body of work with which to remember him.

TWILIGHT Film Critique

Sometimes, just let the boy bite you.



There really wasn’t any reason for me to want to see “Twilight”. I have never read a single word of the series by Stephenie Meyer, the trailer didn’t appeal to me at all and I recently saw what I consider to be the pentacle of the modern vampire films, “Let the Right One In”. But, I relented and gave the film a shot. After all, Catherine Hardwicke is a fine director and I thought “Thirteen” was a really special picture. It also helps that Robert Pattinson is insanely attractive and that’s always a plus when I’m debating whether or not to see a film. “Twilight” is somewhat of an enigma. It has all the trappings of a blockbuster franchise, but it actually takes time for its characters and the development of their relationships. You find yourself caring about these characters and rooting for them, an odd thought when you consider most of them are vampires. Nevertheless, “Twilight” hooked me from the beginning and didn’t let go. Part of it probably has to do with the fact that the film takes place in Washington – and most of the film is covered in rain and fog. I relate more to films like that. Any time I see a deck in the rain, I think of the Northwest and I think of “The Goonies”. “Twilight” was far more interesting that I ever gave it credit for, and I can’t wait for the next one.

The film centers around Bella (Kristen Stewart), who moves to the small town of Forks, Washington, to live with her father (Billy Burke), the chief of police. Her mother and stepfather have decided to do some traveling and Bella wants her mother to have fun. When she arrives she meets a host of new friends, but is immediately attracted to a kid named Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), who seems to be nothing but repulsed by her at first. Slowly, Bella and Edward begin getting to know one another and we eventually find out that Edward was never repulsed by Bella, but just couldn’t control himself around her. You see – Edward is a vampire and lives with a family of vampires in town, a group dedicated to only drinking the blood of animals. When locals start dying in what most believe to be animal attacks, the Cullens seem to know different. As Bella and Edward get closer and closer, Edward’s family wonders if what they’re doing might be too dangerous. The film ends with a showdown between Edward and a fellow vampire who has been responsible for the killings in and around Forks. But, throughout the film, director Catherine Hardwicke spends her entire focus on developing the relationship between Bella and Edward – paying intricate detail to the quirks therein.

There was something very genuine about this picture. I bought the relationship between Bella and Edward hook, line and sinker. We don’t normally get to see this kind of angst associated with a vampire, and it was a nice twist to see a vampire who was in love with a human but was afraid to kiss her because he didn’t want to lose control. Stewart and Pattinson have great chemistry together and really do carry the film. We want them to succeed and we want everything to work out in the end. Director Catherine Hardwicke started her career really tapping into the teen subconscious and she brings that same skill to this film which could have been just another angst driven bore best with cheesy special effects and a showdown that doesn’t pay-off. The showdown is not the point of this film. In fact, it’s quite secondary. “Twilight” is a film about a relationship that just happens to have some action here and there. Having never read the novels, I am excited to see where the series goes from here. There are so many directions in which this franchise could go – and the ending definitely sets up a sequel to follow.

As mentioned earlier, Stewart and Pattinson are great in their roles. This really is a breakout picture for Pattinson, whose good lucks and charisma will likely lead to far more challenging roles in the future. Billy Burke provides a great supporting performance as Bella’s police officer father, and he really was a surprise here. Peter Facinelli is quite capable as Pattinson’s pseudo-father and Cam Gigandet actually didn’t annoy me here as the antagonist of the picture. Hardwicke did a fine job casting this film and I have spoken with fans of the book series who saw the film who say the casting was nearly perfect throughout. In fact, the fans of the series seem to be rather pleased with this film and, from what I’ve heard, it stays very true to the text. “Twilight” is most certainly going to become another “Harry Potter” franchise. It might not sell as many books as the former, but it will definitely rake in the money at the box office.

As far as first films go, “Twilight” is a strong example of how to kick off a franchise. I found myself enthralled throughout and excited about what might happen next. Those who warned me it was going to be a ‘chick flick’ obviously didn’t know what they were talking about. Sure, there is romance. Sure, there is a love story. But, it’s a love story we haven’t seen before, especially with these strings attached. I want to know more about Edward’s family and their history. I want to know more about the Native America tribe in the town who end the film with a warning for Bella. I hope the next film is able to answer some of these questions and I hope I don’t have to wait two years to see it. I guess I could break down and purchase the books, but I don’t want to spoil the film. I am one of those people who sees the film and then reads the book. “Twilight” was a solid and entertaining jaunt and far better than I thought it would be. Robert Pattinson might be the sexiest vampire committed to screen – and that is reason enough.

Kristen Stewart (Bella Swan)
Robert Pattinson (Edward Cullen)
Billy Burke (Charlie Swan)
Ashley Greene (Alice Cullen)
Nikki Reed (Rosalie Hale)
Jackson Rathbone (Jasper Hale)
Peter Facinelli (Carlisle Cullen)
Cam Gigandet (James)
Anna Kendrick (Jessica Stanley)

Director: Catherine Hardwicke

RATED PG-13

THE BOY IN THE STRIPED PAJAMAS Film Critique

Heartless bastards need not apply.

There was a feeling that came over me shortly after leaving the theatre after watching “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas”. It was a feeling I’ve had many times before. It was a feeling that shaped my decision to write film critiques in the first place. It’s the feeling that I was right and everyone else was wrong. I saw the film with three friends, none of whom really enjoyed it. This was a shock to my system because I absolutely fell in love with the film. I can’t think of another instance where I’ve loved a film so much and everyone else I was with disliked it so thoroughly. I originally thought it might have been me. Maybe I wasn’t looking deep enough? Maybe I was missing the big picture? The more I thought about it, the more I realized it wasn’t me. It had to be them. Why? Because I am always right, that’s why. Deep down, every film critic knows their inability to be wrong. You can respect other peoples opinions, but it doesn’t mean you have to respect that they’re right. So, that’s where we stand. “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas” was a moving, beautiful and inspiring motion picture that left a lasting impression on me. I went to bed thinking about it. I woke up this morning thinking about. It sticks with you. If it doesn’t, you just don’t have a heart.

Set in Nazi Germany in the 1930's, the film is told from the perspective of Bruno (Asa Butterfield), an imaginative eight-year-old whose father (David Thewlis) is a high ranking Nazi officer, and whose mother (Vera Farmiga) is a beautiful woman who doesn’t fully understand what her husband is doing and why. The film begins as the family moves from their home in Berlin to the country, where their home is only a mile or so away from a concentration camp that is used to house and eventually dispose of Jewish people. Bruno is not allowed to venture away from the house, but finds a way to sneak out. He thinks the people over in the camp are actually on a farm and are playing a game with the numbers on their uniforms, which he thinks are pajamas. Bruno doesn’t understand why anyone would want to treat other people that way, and neither does his mother, who has no idea what is going on until she sees the smoke coming from the stacks and quickly distinguishes what the smell is that accompanies it. Bruno meets Shmuel (Jack Scanlon), a Jewish boy who is on the other side of the electric fence guarding the camp. With Schmuel on the inside and Bruno on the outside, they develop a friendship that translates to Bruno bringing Shmuel food and playing checkers with him from the other side, all without the knowledge of his parents. I don’t really want to delve any further because it would require my giving away too much of the films endings.

So, what were the problems with the film, according to my friends? (01) The accents. Director Mark Herman chose to have the actors speak with a fixed English accent, not German. This is a technique that has been used for years and years, on stage and on screen. It’s the idea that – at the end of the day, it shouldn’t matter what accent they used if they were able to convey the character effectively. If the story is strong, why do accents matter? (02) The lighting. The film was accused of being over lit, but that was the whole point. The film is basically being viewed through the eyes of Bruno, a child. Everything is sunny and bright for him. It’s only after a while that we start seeing the darkness below the surface. I think the brightness was indicative of what a child sees when he looks at the world – it only looks dark when its forced to look that way. (03) The ending. It was evidently ‘not powerful’ and ‘not enough’. Wow. I can’t think of a single more effective ending in recent memory. I haven’t been that floored by the ending of a film in years. I just sat there, tears streaming down my face, stunned and wrecked. (04) Looked like a television movie. This is the one that boggles my mind the most. A television movie? This film looked nothing like that. From the sturdy cinematography, the steadfast direction and the incredible score from James Horner, this film had the polish of a Miramax film from the early 1990's. If this film looked like a television movie, then so must have “The English Patient” because the films were all too similar in the way there were presented visually. This felt like a classic Miramax film and I liked that.

There are also some incredible performances here. Asa Butterfield is just fantastic as Bruno. You really do grow to care for the boy and you understand the conflicts that he’s having and you wonder how you would react under those circumstances. He is played with such innocence. The film very much reminded me of “Pan’s Labyrinth”. In that film, the child sees the world with a vivid imagination that takes a more fantastical form. Here, his imagination is portrayed by the way in which he perceives the world. A child wouldn’t know how to distinguish good from evil if he had never been exposed to evil. Also strong here is David Thewlis, the underrated character actor who does such a good job with his role here. He is menacing and not sympathetic at all, but you have to take into consideration his circumstances – not justifying it, but understanding it. Vera Farmiga, whom I normally don’t necessarily enjoy, was also fantastic here as the mother who suddenly has the rug pulled out from under her. All of these performances are playing in a very low key way. You don’t see a lot of serious conflict between the characters because, as I mentioned, everything is in the perception of Bruno, an eight-year-old boy. We see a lot of things the way he sees them, and everyone reacts to him in a way that simplifies matters to the point of shock and awe, as when one tutor explains to him why he should hate the Jews and how there are no good ones.

So – what’s left to say? I can’t really understand why someone wouldn’t like this film. I can understand someone not loving it. I can even understand someone not liking it a lot. But to dislike the film is just beyond words for me. It is a masterful film. It moved me more than a lot of other films to deal with the Holocaust and it kind of has the same spirit as “Life Is Beautiful”. I don’t know what awards chances it has – I assume strong – but here are my recommendations: James Horner for Best Original Score, David Thewlis for Best Supporting Actor and Mark Herman for Best Adapted Screenplay. Is it my favorite film of the year? Maybe. It certainly moved me and left a lasting impression that has not gone away. Is there a better judgment for a best film? I remember the first time I saw “Schindler’s List” and the way it made me feel, as a human being and as a lover of film. “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas” made me feel the same way. I cannot recommend the film enough. If someone you know saw it and didn’t like – ignore them. They’re wrong.

Asa Butterfield (Bruno)
David Thewlis (Father)
Vera Farmiga (Mother)
Jack Scanlon (Shmuel)

Director: Mark Herman

RATED PG-13

RACHEL GETTING MARRIED Film Critique

I've always hated weddings. I still do, just not this movie about one.



Most people had given up on Jonathan Demme. For a while, he was one of the hottest directors on the planet – churning out hit after hit after hit. How’s this for a string of successes – “Stop Making Sense” followed by “Married to the Mob” followed by “The Silence of the Lambs” followed by “Philadelphia”. Then his career took a nosedive. There was much to admire about “Beloved”, but the film underperformed both critically and commercially. “The Truth About Charlie” was just a poorly conceived remake starring Mark Wahlberg that sank. “The Manchurian Candidate” brought the man back to the mainstream and “Jimmy Carter Man from Plains” cemented his status once more, but it’s “Rachel Getting Married” that will re-introduce many movie-goers to one of the finest directors working in the business today – the ‘great’ Jonathan Demme. Throughout his career, Demme has tackled numerous documentaries – most of them dealing with his idols, like Neil Young and Bruce Springsteen. So, it would figure that Demme might one day tackle a feature film in a very documentary-esque style. “Rachel Getting Married” is that film. Just watching it, you can find no traces of Demme’s trademark style. It seems like it might have been the latest Noah Baumbach film. This style of narrative direction is new for Demme, but he handles it brilliantly. Before I saw this film I watched “Synecdoche, New York”. I didn’t think I could possibly enjoy “Rachel Getting Married” as much as the latest Charlie Kaufman. I was wrong. Best movie of the year.

When we first meet Kym (Anne Hathaway), she’s sitting outside her rehab facility waiting on her ride. Where is she going? Her sister Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt) is getting married and Kym has secured a weekend pass to attend the ceremony. Her father Paul (Bill Irwin) picks her up with her stepmother Carol (Anna Deavere Smith). From the get-go Kym is treated differently. She’s been a way for a while and the whole family interaction has been changed. We learn, soon enough, that Kym was a former alcoholic and drug addict – violently so. We also learn she was a former model and that she accidentally killed someone in a car accident. The film follows the wedding from the rehearsal dinner to ceremony, and we follow the family the entire way. Debra Winger stars as Abby, Kym’s emotionally distant mother who doesn’t seem to keen on the wedding at all. We also meet a host of other family members, friends and acquaintances throughout the course of Kym’s weekend visit home. Slowly, old wounds start to open up, with a struggle developing between the two sisters as each seems to be determined to keep all of the focus from the other one. By the end of the film, there is minor comfort and minor solace, but we know things are as complicated as ever.

Let’s start with the narrative style. Demme chose to pursue a documentary-style approach to this film, giving us the sense that someone is following the family around with a camera the whole time. He deviates from this occasionally, but it’s rather consistent. This was the same technique used by Noah Baumbach in “The Squid and the Whale”. It worked there and it works here. Normal scenes of interaction between the family are heightened due to this technique and we really get the sense that we’re eavesdropping on private family conversations. The script by Jenny Lumet – the daughter of the great Sidney Lumet – is tight and efficient, making sure that we see how all of Kym’s former relationships have been altered due to her actions before her trip to rehab. The script allows us to feel sorry for Kym but also to hold her in contempt as she consistently uses her illness as an excuse to take the spotlight from others and promote her own dysfunctional tendencies. When she makes the insinuation that she might start using drugs again if her family doesn’t lighten up – we don’t feel sympathy for her – we are angry at her for wielding her sickness like a weapon. When she goes back to rehab at the end of the film, it seems like the right thing. She has not been healed.

The performances here are what Academy Awards are made for. Anne Hathaway provides her most effective performance yet in a role that will surely transform her into one of the most dependable and unlikely dramatic actresses around. She proves herself here. Rosemarie DeWitt is equally strong and illuminant as Rachel, her sister. DeWitt and Hathaway have great chemistry and theirs is the relationship that drives the film home. You can almost certainly expect a nomination for the underrated Bill Irwin as Kym’s do-gooder father who just wants to be as happy as possible for as long as possible. He has a breathtaking scene in the kitchen as he and Rachel’s fiancé are having a dish-off – he stumbles across something and the result is shattering. You can also expect a much deserved nomination for Debra Winger, the incredible Oscar-winning actress who is returning to the screen after an extended absence. She has been sorely missed and her role here is pitch perfect. She commands the screen when she’s present, and we don’t see her very much at all. The family has such a strong connection that we really do feel what they’re going through. They seem so much more authentic than your average family. Though I consider “The Squid and the Whale” to be a superior film, the family therein is not as realistic as the family here. We can see their struggles and understand what they’re going through. It shows family is not a cut and dry thing.

This film makes me very excited because I am happy to see Jonathan Demme returning to the kinds of great films that made his career in the first place. He has been slumming for a while and it’s nice to see him try something innovative and different. Just as this is a return to form for Demme, it’s very much a ‘coming out’ for Anne Hathaway, who shows her dramatic skills for the first time in full force. And it’s a comeback for Debra Winger, far too long removed from the scene. “Rachel Getting Married” is the best film of 2009 for multiple reasons, the least of which being that I just haven’t been able to stop thinking about it. It stays with you. My suggestions are Anne Hathaway for Best Actress, Bill Irwin for Best Supporting Actor, both Debra Winger and Rosemarie DeWitt for Best Supporting Actress, Jenny Lumet for Best Original Screenplay, Jonathan Demme for Best Director and “Rachel Getting Married” for Best Picture. You can expect it to find nominations in some of those categories, but I will be satisfied if Debra Winger gets the only one. I had forgotten how much I truly enjoy her on screen. This is a wonderful, wonderful film.

Anne Hathaway (Kym)
Rosemarie DeWitt (Rachel)
Bill Irwin (Paul)
Debra Winger (Abby)
Anna Deavere Smith (Carol)
Anisa George (Emma)
Mather Zickel (Kieran)
Tunde Adebimpe (Sidney)

Director: Jonathan Demme

RATED R

SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK Film Critique

You figure it out, people. You'll be better off for it.



This might be the toughest review I will ever have to write. Not because I was expecting a great film and was somehow disappointed. Not because I don’t have the adequate words to explain how much I loved the film. This is a tough review to write because – how do you explain a film that you just don’t understand? Roger Ebert’s recent review was glowing but made certain to point out that it took him multiple visits to the film to truly understand it, and he’s not sure he really does. But it’s not one of those David Lynch films where the whole point of the film is that you’re not supposed to know what’s going on; “Synecdoche, New York” is much smarter than that. This is a film that is definitely going for something and I get the feeling that it achieved it, but I just can’t wrap my head around what it was. Does that mean I disliked the film? Absolutely not. In fact, it might be the most imaginative and awe-inspiring film of the year. But I can’t say it is my favorite film of the year because I don’t know what writer/director Charlie Kaufman was trying to say. I assume it had something to do with the human condition and our pre-occupation with life and death. I assume it had something to do with the power of the human imagination. I assume it had something to do with both of those things. But, I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. It needs further inspection.

Describing the plot to the film is futile, but I will give a brief assessment. Philip Seymour Hoffman stars as Caden Cotard, a theatre director who is just miserable. His wife, Adele (Catherine Keener) is an artist who leaves him early on and takes their daughter Olive with her. We are introduced to the girl who runs the box office, Hazel (Samantha Morton), who has a crush on Caden and probably vice versa. Towards the middle of the film, Caden receives something called a MacArthur Grant, which is a grant with a neverending supply of money. Caden embarks on a journey to create the most amazing theatrical project ever – by replicating his community inside of a warehouse and basically creating his entire world over again. We never know whether we’re in the now, or in a flashback or a flash forward, or if we’re inside Caden’s imagination. For all we know, the whole thing could be a dream. We just never know. The film ends with the same ambiguity. The film might seem like one man’s search for true love, but it’s so much more than that. Tom Noonan stars as a man who followed Caden around for 20-years before auditioning for the role of Caden in Caden’s production of his own life. Now – try and wrap your head around that? Caden ends the film portraying Ellen, a house cleaner who worked for his ex-wife? Like I said – I cannot begin to explain what “Synecdoche, New York” is about – you need to see it for yourself.

In my personal opinion, Charlie Kaufman is the most creative screenwriter to ever life. Period. He is writing in a world all his own and at a talent level shared by no one. I dare you to find me one single writer who can create the kinds of visionary worlds as Kaufman. For years he has been testing our limits and toying with our imaginations, and here he pushes the boundaries further than he ever has before. I suspect “Synecdoche, New York” is his proudest achievement. And, as odd and as indecipherable as the film is, it maintains this confidence that it knows exactly what it is doing and exactly where it is going and exactly how it is going to end. It’s not a mess. It’s an educated mess. It’s not confusing. It’s inspiring. It’s not bad. It’s amazing. There have been many critics out there who just haven’t known what to make of it. They want to say Kaufman just didn’t handle the material well and its message was lost on the audience. I truly think this is a case where the message wasn’t lost at all – the audience just wasn’t sophisticated enough to understand it. And why punish an artist for being too smart for his audience? Beethoven was. Picasso was. People can attempt to analyze their works and explain them, but no one truly knows, other than the artist.

And imagine how difficult a film like this must be on the actors? You can’t really have any kind of emotional stability. Philip Seymour Hoffman takes that uncertainty and turns it into one of the best performances of the year. This man cannot make a bad film. As Caden, he is everything the role requires and then some. As he grows older, so does Caden. Hoffman is an expert at playing this type of character and “Synecdoche, New York” is his grandest attempt yet. In turn, all of the female performances are staggeringly strong. Michelle Williams is wonderful as Caden’s second wife, Catherine Keener is Oscar-worthy as Caden’s first wife, Samantha Morton is marvelous as Caden’s later love interest and Dianne Wiest pops up at the end for a breathtaking supporting performance. My favorite performance in the film, however, would have to be from the elusive character actor Tom Noonan who deserves a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this brilliant turn in a role that will hopefully continue to land him these kinds of plum acting roles. There is just not a weak link in the film and not a single role without relevance. Kaufman has assembled a masterful ensemble cast here, one of the best of the year, and they all seem to know exactly what he wants.

So, as I mentioned before, I cannot say this is my favorite film of the year. It’s certainly the best. But I didn’t enjoy it on a visceral level as much as “In Bruges” and I didn’t enjoy it as much on an emotional level as “Nick and Norah”. This film defies explanation so I guess the best thing I can say about it is – you will never see another film like it and you will never forget it. I am anxious to see where this picture ends up on my list at the end of the year. I wouldn’t be surpsised if it made it to the top and I wouldn’t be surprised if it missed the list altogether. Like Roger Ebert, it’s going to take multiple visits to the film for me to truly understand it on a deeper level. “Syndecdoche, New York”, if nothing else, is a testament to Charlie Kaufman’s immense brilliance and his ability to work on a level all his own. He might be the best director working today and this is his first film. He is certainly the best screenwriter working today, hands down. I want to encourage each and every one of you to experience this film for yourself. Let it envelope you.

Philip Seymour Hoffman (Caden Cotard)
Catherine Keener (Adele Lack)
Samantha Morton (Hazel)
Tom Noonan (Sammy Barnathan)
Michelle Williams (Claire Keen)
Hope Davis (Madeleine Gravis)
Jennifer Jason Leigh (Maria)
Emily Watson (Tammy)
Dianne Wiest (Millicent Weems)

Director: Charlie Kaufman

RATED R

ROLE MODELS Film Critique

Stifler keeps getting hotter and hotter.



Director David Wain has been hit-or-miss with me. When I first saw "Wet Hot American Summer", I hated it. By the fifth or sixth time I saw it, I loved it. I was quoting it to people and watching it anytime I needed a good laugh. What happened was that my tastes in humor changed over the years from the first time I saw it to the second time I saw it and I slowly started growing fond of the film. When "The Ten" rolled around I was beyond excited. However, it proved to be a big disappointment and I just can't enjoy it anymore than I did the first time I saw it. I love that kind of humor, which is also why I loved "The State" and "Stella"; however, there has just been something about David Wain that always threw me on the first go. "Role Models" is an exception. It's his most mainstream film to date and it's also easily his funniest. If 2008 is the Year of the Comedy, "Role Models" is the cream of the crop.

Danny (Paul Rudd) and Wheeler (Seann William Scott) are two 30-somethings who work for Minotaur Energy Drinks, visiting local schools and preaching on the benefits of the delicious green liquid. After Danny's girlfriend (Elizabeth Banks) refuses his marriage proposal and breaks up with him, Danny becomes even more destructive than usual, eventually landing both Danny and Wheeler with 150-hours of community service, which is to be spent at a facility called Sturdy Wings, which partners 'bigs' with 'littles' in the hopes of forming lasting friendships. The owner of this facility is Gayle Sweeny (Jane Lynch), a former drug addict turned straight. Danny's 'little' turns out to be a magic-freak named Augie Farks (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), who loves role playing games and hates his mother and step-father. Wheeler's 'little' is Ronnie (Bobb'e J. Thompson), an insanely energetic kid who spits out profanity left and right and doesn't want to do anything but talk about adult themed ideology.

Most of this film deals with Rudd and Scott dealing with their respective kids and forming bonds with them. There is actually a sweetness to the film that is hiding underneath the language and the nudity and the various other items that should keep children from viewing this picture. The plotline is pretty formulaic in the grand scheme of things and a lot of it is pretty predictable, but the actors have a lot of fun with the material, the kid actors are just fantastic and supporting turns from Jane Lynch and Joe Lo Truglio are scene stealers. There is also an awful lot of respect paid to the band KISS, referenced many times throughout the film. Wain, as always, has a fondness for injecting 1980's pop culture into his films and he does so again here, and it works quite well. Any time I heard a KISS member referenced, I was rolling in the floor like the rest of the audience.

What surprised me most was how well Rudd and Scott worked together. I have never been a huge Paul Rudd fan and I have never been a huge Seann William Scott fan, so I was expecting disaster. Rudd does basically the same thing he always does, but his writing is superior and he has a nice foil in Scott to work with. Seann William Scott is coming into his own these days and I am glad he seems to be sticking with comedy and staying away from the action and thriller genre. He has a youthful energy about him, which is not what Rudd has at all, which is why they work so well together. And, as mentioned before, Jane Lynch steals the entire movie in her role as the former cocaine addict who doesn't like bullshitters because she's the queen bullshitter. Also keep an eye out for the insanely underrated Ken Jeong as the King. He's hysterical.

The writing is the best thing about this film and it's enough to make it one of the funniest films of the year. David Wain's humor has always been 'different' and he finally manages to keep that unique spirit, but make it more accessible to the rest of audiences out there. "Wet Hot American Summer" is great, but it alienates a lot of people. "Role Models" might alienate a few with its language and graphic lampoons, but screw them. The film is over-the-top, laugh out loud funny and actually very sensitive to the kids therein. It's a sweet film about two kids finding acceptance and friendship where they couldn't find it before, and it's about two grown men learning that there's more to this life than themselves. Oh, and it's about titties and drinking too.

Seann William Scott (Wheeler)
Paul Rudd (Danny)
Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Augie Farks)
Bobb'e J. Thompson (Ronnie Shields)
Elizabeth Banks (Beth)
Jane Lynch (Gayle Sweeny)
Ken Jeong (King Argotron)

Director: David Wain

RATED R

RED Film Critique

Honesty is definitely the best policy.



There are a lot of Lucky McKee fans out there. As a director, he's been very elusive. "May" was pure genius and featured an astonishing performance from Angela Bettis. "The Woods" was his much anticipated follow-up that just couldn't live up to the hype. His Masters of Horror entry, "Sick Girl", showed much promise, but it's his latest film, "Red", that should have thrust him into the spotlight for good. I have no idea why it didn't. "Red" is an amazing piece of filmmaking and the kind of slow-paced thriller that Kubrick would have loved. "Red" is co-directed by the ever evolving McKee and it comes to us from a story by popular author Jack Ketchum.

The film opens with Avery Ludlow (Brian Cox) and his dog, Red, sitting by a river fishing. A group of three young boys come up on them and attempt to rob the aging man. When the boys realize the man doesn't have much for them to take, they shoot his dog in the head, make jokes about it and then leave. So begins "Red", one of the most haunting character studies in recent memory. Ludlow makes it his personal missions to get something, anything from the boys. The father of two of the boys, Michael McCormack (Tom Sizemore) doesn't believe Ludlow, or he does and just doesn't care. Either way, he does nothing. Ludlow consults an attorney and even brings the event to the attention of the local press, but nothing comes of it. Ludlow, determined to exact some justice on what happened to his beloved dog, sets on a course that will change many live forever.

This is a film about principles and a film about justice. The character of Avery Ludlow is not simply someone who takes the law into his own hands. He doesn't want money. He doesn't want attention. As he tells another person in the film, he just wants 'honesty'. All he wants is for the boys to admit what they did, apologize and maybe have some minor punishment thrown their way. But it's not punishment he wants, it's honesty. By the time the end of the film rolls around and we've been slammed with brutal force, you have to wonder who's to blame? Is it the father of the boys for letting his sons literally get away with murder? Is it Ludlow, who just won't let up, even when the consequences of his actions might outweigh the initial offense? Is it the local reporter (Kim Dickens) who initially comes to Ludlow as a way of acquiring ratings and improving her career?

This is an impeccable performance from Brian Cox. He won't receive any Oscar attention whatsoever, but I don't see how another actor could deliver a performance this year with this much depth and emotion. Cox has one scene where he's explaining what happened to his wife and two children and the directors make the choice to stay on Cox the entire time. It's a wise move that pays off because you just can't turn away. I can't think of the last time I was that transfixed on a single shot for so long without blinking. Tom Sizemore turns in a nasty little turn as the father, and Robert Englund proves he's not just a one-note horror actor in a role as an abusive white trash husband. Horror vets Ashley Laurence and Richard Riehle pop up also. Overall, it's a fine ensemble, but it's Brian Cox who steals the show and carries the film.

What makes "Red" work is the idea that people should be responsible for their actions. Ludlow doesn't set out to cause what he eventually causes. But he won't stop until justice is served. His scene at the end of the film suggests at his disappointment over how things went down, but you see very little in the way of remorse. People must suffer the consequences of their actions at whatever cost. "Red" is one of the best films of the year and it might end up being my favorite. I plan on watching it several more times in the very near future and I encourage you to do so as well. Lucky McKee has given us a film of real depth and power. I can't wait to see what he gives us next and I hope it's at least half as incredible as "Red" was.

Brian Cox (Avery Ludlow)
Noel Fisher (Danny)
Tom Sizemore (Michael McCormack)
Kyle Gallner (Harold)
Kim Dickens (Carrie Donnel)
Robert Englund (Willie Doust)
Amanda Plummer (Mrs. Doust)
Ashley Laurence (Mrs. McCormack)

Director: Trygve Allister Diesen & Lucky McKee

RATED R

OBITUARY

R.I.P.
MICHAEL HIGGINS
1921 - 2008

FILMOGRAPHY:

1958...Edge of Fury
1964...Terror in the City
1969...The Arrangement
1970...Wanda
1974...The Conversation
1975...The Stepford Wives
1976...Death Play
1978...An Enemy of the People
1978...King of the Gypsies
1979...The Black Stallion
1981...Fort Apache the Bronx
1982...A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy
1983...Staying Alive
1983...Rumble Fish
1985...Girls Just Want to Have Fun
1985...1918
1985...Seven Minutes in Heaven
1986...On Valentine's Day
1987...Angel Heart
1988...Crusoe
1989...New York Stories
1989...Dead Bang
1990...The Local Stigmatic
1992...Death Becomes Her
1992...Wind
1992...School Ties
1998...The Impostors
1999...Just the Ticket
2000...State and Main
2001...Buddy & Grace
2002...Mean People Suck
2002...Swimfan
2004...Messengers
2006...Off the Black
2007...The Savages
2007...The Favor
2008...An American Carol
2008...Synecdoche, New York

Michael Higgins is best known for his role in the hit Broadway production of "Equus" but he also had a long and respected film career, working with everyone from Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese to Woody Allen Robert Zemeckis. I remember him as the fair-minded teacher in "School Ties" more than anything else. He will next be seen in his final role in Charlie Kaufman's "Synecdoche, New York", a proper farewell for a true master of his craft.

ZACK & MIRI MAKE A PORNO Film Critique

Kevin Smith should be tarred and feathered.



The title of a film needs to somehow relate to the film itself. In fact, the title of the film does not need to mislead the audience into thinking something that doesn’t, in fact, happen. “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” – guess what, Mr. Smith went to Washington. “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle” – guess what, Harold & Kumar went to White Castle. No confusion there. So, when all the fuss was made about “Zack & Miri Make A Porno”, I just assumed they would be making a porno in the film. They definitely shoot scenes for a porno. They definitely talk about making a porno. They hire actors for a porno and shoot those actors having sex for the porno. But the film ends and guess what – they didn’t make a porno. Kevin Smith is one of those directors you either love or you hate. I have disliked most of his films, with “Dogma” serving as the screaming exception. I don’t like a director who has to rely on fecal matter and vulgarity for all of his humor and that seems to be what Kevin Smith relies upon solely. He doesn’t know how to make something naturally funny and he doesn’t have the directorial savvy to let his actors roll with the material. “Zack & Miri Make A Porno” was bad. It wasn’t just bad – it was ridiculous, and utterly, utterly forgettable.

The premise here is simple – Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) live together and are broke, broke, broke. First their water gets shut off, then their electricity. They decide that they’re going to make a porno, sell it and make lots and lots of cash. They enlist their friend Delaney (Craig Robinson) to help and then audition a group of people for the various roles. Their actors include Jason Mewes as a man who can generate an erection immediately, Traci Lords as a woman who can fart and blow bubbles out of her vagina and Katie Morgan as Stacey, who is the only girl on the planet who seems to want to do anal. The group assemble and embark on “Star Whores”, only to have their pornographic dreams shut down by a wrecking ball. After some inspirational thinking, they change their idea and start shooting in the local coffee shop, where Zack works, shooting on the company camcorder and using a hockey stick for a boom mic. Of course, Zack and Miri have to have sex and soon start to realize they have feelings for one another than transcend their usual friendship. Things happen, Zack leaves, Zack comes back, Zack and Miri get together.

What a horrible fucking disappointment. “Zack and Miri Make A Porno” pissed me off because it seems like it was ramshackled together with popsicle sticks and Elmer’s Glue. Kevin Smith does not need to keep making movies if this is all he has up his sleeve. I can’t think of a single thing he did right here. The closest scene to ‘perfection’ was when Zack and Miri have sex for the first time, though I don’t know if I agree with the choice of a Live song to be playing in the background. And then – in the middle of his best sequence – he cuts over to the rest of the actors just standing there and watching, engaged in some benign conversation that has no relevance whatsoever. The man doesn’t know a good thing when it’s staring him in the face. The whole film takes these derails to allow supporting characters a chance to speak for a few seconds, as when a man stumbles into the coffee shop during filming and asks for a coffee. Instead of sending him away, they stop what they are doing, make him a coffee and give him a solid two minutes to talk about random bullshit that does nothing for the advancement of this picture. What was the purpose of that?

This film felt like Kevin Smith trying to emulate Judd Apatow. Guess what – Kevin Smith is not Judd Apatow. I don’t care how hard he tries, his dialog just doesn’t work as well. And I know what you’re thinking – “Clerks”, dude, “Clerks”. Sure, that film had its moments and it was a seminal piece of 1990's cinema, but it was basically just Smith and his friends hanging out and having fun. He has gotten far too pretentious to do that anymore, evident by the atrocious “Clerks II”. Even Seth Rogen isn’t very funny here, doing the same thing he always does and not changing it up at all. The highlight of the film was the always entertaining Craig Robinson. He has been a favorite of mine since I first saw him in “The Office” and he’s great here as the producer with the nagging wife and the affinity for titties. And Traci Lords was enjoyable in her role also, a nice comeback for her. But any appreciation for this film I might have had was eradicated when we learn that one of the female characters is constipated. As another character is having anal sex with her and another character lies on the ground beneath filming – the unthinkable happens. The man removes his penis from her ass and a gallon of fecal matters splatters onto the guy on the floor. Can anyone really justify this as entertainment? Why on Earth would someone put that in a feature film?

Now on to my being offended. Justin Long and Brandon Routh play two homosexual characters in the film. No biggie, right? Well, listen to Justin Long throw on his horrible fake-gay accent. He is a walking stereotype. Brandon Routh basically does the same thing, but at least he is gay and makes it look more natural. All these characters do is reference how much they love having butt sex with one another. There is no depth to either of them and they’re not funny in the slightest. Is this what passes for humor in Kevin Smith’s world? If so, he needs a new career path. The more I think about this film, the more I absolutely hate it. “Zack & Miri Make A Porno” might be the worst film of the year. It was definitely the most offensive to me and I don’t get offended easily at the movies. There was no reason for this film to be made. And, at the end of the day, you want a film to live up to its title. Zack and Miri never make a porno. They make a disaster.

Seth Rogen (Zack)
Elizabeth Banks (Miri)
Craig Robinson (Delaney)
Traci Lords (Bubbles)
Brandon Routh (Bobby Long)
Justin Long (Brandon St. Randy)
Jason Mewes (Lester)
Katie Morgan (Stacey)

Director: Kevin Smith

RATED R

OBITUARY

R.I.P.
MICHAEL CRICHTON
1942 - 2008



FILMOGRAPHY:

DIRECTOR:
1973...Westworld
1978...Coma
1979...The First Great Train Robbery
1981...Looker
1984...Runaway
1989...Physical Evidence

WRITER:
1971...The Andromeda Strain
1973...Extreme Close-Up
1973...Westworld
1974...The Terminal Man
1978...Coma
1979...The First Great Train Robbery
1981...Looker
1984...Runaway
1993...Jurassic Park
1993...Rising Sun
1994...Disclosure
1995...Congo
1996...Twister
1997...The Lost World: Jurassic Park
1998...Sphere
1999...The 13th Warrior
2003...Timeline

One of the most popular and successful writers in history, Michael Crichton not only changed the way many people looked at literature, but the way some scientists went about their jobs. Crichton did everything from create "E.R.", one of the most popular shows in television history, to pen some of the most beloved thrillers of our time, including "Jurassic Park" and "The Andromeda Strain". His fingerprints are all over the film industry as writer, director, producer -- the list goes on and on. He was an incredible talent who will be sorely missed.

10 Greatest Presidential Performances

NUMBER TEN
Actor: Nick Nolte
President: Thomas Jefferson
Film: Jefferson in Paris



NUMBER NINE
Actor: Gary Sinise
President: Harry S Truman
Film: Truman



NUMBER EIGHT
Actor: David Morse
President: George Washington
Film: John Adams



NUMBER SEVEN
Actor: Alexander Knox
President: Woodrow Wilson
Film: Wilson



NUMBER SIX
Actor: Sir Anthony Hopkins
President: John Quincy Adams
Film: Amistad



NUMBER FIVE
Actor: Philip Baker Hall
President: Richard M. Nixon
Film: Secret Honor



NUMBER FOUR
Actor: Charlton Heston
President: Andrew Jackson
Film: The President's Lady



NUMBER THREE
Actor: Paul Giamatti
President: John Adams
Film: John Adams



NUMBER TWO
Actor: Henry Fonda
President: Abraham Lincoln
Film: Young Mr. Lincoln



NUMBER ONE
Actor: Sir Anthony Hopkins
President: Richard M. Nixon
Film: Nixon