Movies Made Easy

PIRANHA 3-D Film Critique

2010-08-20T13:47:00.000-07:00

Ray Brower is back...and he is pissed.

So this is my first film critique in a long while; please excuse me if I am a little rusty. When I started critiquing films back in 2000 it was something I was doing for fun – to pass the time. Over the next few years it started consuming more and more of my time. My blog grew. I started contributing to various websites. Before I knew it, film criticism was defining me, to some extent. My personal and social life eventually became too hectic to support blogging and writing criticism anymore, which has been difficult for me ever since. So I am pleased to announce that this review will mark my return into that arena and I hope to keep it up for many more years to come.

There is something about watching someone’s titties getting eaten off by a fish that looks like a dinosaur that always makes me smile. Alexandre Aja must have realized this when he was conceptualizing “Piranha 3D”, a remake of the classic ‘fish eats man’ scenario where a school of blood-thirsty piranhas are unleashed on the human race after an earthquake opens up a cave that has been untouched for thousands, maybe millions of years. And these are not your average piranha – they look wicked as hell, tear through flesh like a fat man tears through ribs and seem to have endless appetites. For such small fish, you’d think they might eventually explode with all that human flesh. You’d think one human would satiate them for a while, let alone one hundred.

The plot is fairly simple. The Spring Break resort town of Lake Victoria is under siege from these blood-thirsty carnivores and it’s up to the local sheriff (Elisabeth Shue), her gnarly deputy (Ving Rhames), a siesmologist (Adam Scott) and an overly-knowledgable pet store owner (Christopher Lloyd) to stop it! Elsewhere, the sheriff’s son (Steven R. McQueen) is living it up on a yacht with a “Girls Gone Wild” type baron (Jerry O’Connell) when the boat becomes stranded and the piranhas start attacking. Everything else is just oh so much blood and carnage. Richard Dreyfuss has a small appearance as a local fisherman and Eli Roth pops up as the host of a wet T-shirt contest.

These is a lot to admire about this film, from a horror standpoint. Alexandre Aja, as he has demonstrated with previous films, has no problem with sex and violence. “Piranha 3D” is all about sex and violence. The film exists to show us graceful underwater shots of naked women dancing followed by pseudo-erotic scenes of naked women being devoured by the piranha. The ‘attack sequence’ at the dock is more than a little impressive and showcases some of the best uses of practical make-up effects I have ever seen, brought to us by Nicotero and Berger with KNB who just know what they’re doing. That sequence alone makes this film worth watching and I really can’t remember a mainstream horror film that throws so much carnage at us in such an entertaining way.

My biggest problem with the film was the use of the 3D. A film needs to either be shot in 3D (i.e. My Bloody Valentine) or have enough 3D elements thrown in to make it worthwhile. Piranha 3D did neither. It felt like a film that had no business being 3D – I think there might have been two times the technique was used effectively. I have a problem paying such an elevated ticket price when the product I am watching is really being misrepresented. What made My Bloody Valentine so enjoyable was that it was shot in 3D and it always had this rich depth to it, something that elevated the film about others I have seen. Had it been tackled in the same way, Piranha 3D would have become an instantly more successful film. Right now, it stands as an entertaining and creative use of modern-day make-up effects and a testament to the insane awesomeness that is Christopher Lloyd.

Speaking of performances, let’s dish. No problems here really for this type of film. Elisabeth Shue does a good job with the material, as do Rhames and Scott. They basically told Christopher Lloyd – “Remember that character you played in Back to the Futurei? Do that!” And he does. And it is amazing. They basically told Richard Dreyfuss – “Remember that character you played in Jaws? Do that!” And he does. And it is amazing. The highlight of the film, however, is Mr. Jerry O’Connell who has more fun with this role than I’ve seen any actor have with any role in recent memory. He gets to go wild for two hours and it’s pure magic.

So, my recommendation of this film is restricted to horror fans and people who just want to have a good, blood soaked time at the movies. I would have recommended it more but the 3D really gets to me in a big way.

The Worst of 2009 (The Worst Year on Record for Bad Films)

2010-01-05T14:43:00.001-08:00

01. I LOVE YOU BETH COOPER

Summation: Since John Hughes passed away after this film was released, he wasn't rolling over in his grave so much as sent to it.

02. THE BOX

Summation: Uwe Boll might have been de-throned. Give this man his crown!

03. THE UNBORN

Summation: Talk about a movie that should have been 'unmade'. Gary Oldman deserves an Oscar just for being in here and not walking off set.

04. KILLSHOT

Summation: When it takes three years to bring a film to distribution, you can bet there's usually something critically wrong with it.

05. THE FINAL DESTINATION

Summation: The only thing 3-D about this film is how Dumb Dumb Dumb it is. The worst use of 3-D in the history of film.

06. BRUNO

Summation: A series of regular people confronted with the most ridiculous homosexuality imaginable with Bruno acting shocked they would react that way. I would have knocked his fucking head off.

07. TERMINATOR: SALVATION

Summation: McG does not a good "Terminator" film make. Ugly, bad and feeble attempt that should finally kill the franchise.

08. WHAT GOES UP

Summation: A comedy about the Challenger explosion. Need I say more?

09. CIRQUE DU FREAK: THE VAMPIRE’S ASSISTANT

Summation: A case of "Harry Potter" meets "Twilight". Audience loses.

10. THE PRIVATES LIVES OF PIPPA LEE

Summation: The most feminist film of the year showing that men are always wrong and assholes and that women have vaginas of power!

The Best of 2009 (We Don't Need No Stinking Lists)

2010-01-05T13:52:00.000-08:00

Like the endless stream of other film critics, I have decided to do away with an official numerical top ten list. I honestly just couldn't make up my mind. Each film on this list is my favorite for a different reason and all deserve to be seen.

BEST FILMS OF 2009 (in alphabetical order):

A SERIOUS MAN
ANTICHRIST
THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX
INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS
OBSERVE AND REPORT
PRECIOUS: BASED ON THE NOVEL 'PUSH' BY SAPPHIRE
UP
UP IN THE AIR
WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE
WORLD'S GREATEST DAD

THE 2009 RUNNERS-UP (in alphabetical order):

(500) DAYS OF SUMMER
ADORATION
ADVENTURELAND
BAD LIEUTENANT: PORT OF CALL NEW ORLEANS
BLACK DYNAMITE
THE DAMNED UNITED
THE INFORMANT!
THE MESSENGER
PONTYPOOL
THE ROAD

THE RETURN

2009-11-19T12:13:00.000-08:00

After months and months of piddling around, sitting on my ass and not contributing to the world of cinema anymore than Uwe Boll, I am pleased to announce that the month of December will herald the return of Movies Made Easy, but with a slightly different format. I will be engaging in point/counterpoint critiques with guest critics on as many new releases as I can muster the time to see.

I will also attempt to backtrack and cover some of the more notable films that I have neglected (in review form) over the past few months.

Keep checking back for updates beginning early December!

PLAYING CATCH UP

2009-07-14T09:49:00.000-07:00

As you are probably already aware, 2009 has been a little hectic. You haven't seen many reviews posted though I assure you I have been doing just as much of that thing we call movie watching. So, let me play catch up with the releases I have seen thus far and expect fresh reviews to start flowing again, like always:

The Unborn
0 REELS
One of the worst horror films I have EVER seen; a lame attempt at something with Gary Oldman delivering his worst career choice yet as a Rabbi.

My Bloody Valentine 3-D
3 REELS
A fun and festive little blood-romp that was far more entertaining that it should have been thanks to slick direction and appreciation for the genre.

Killshot
0 REELS
The long delayed John Madden film that turned out to be just plain awful, featuring pitiful performances and even more pitiful direction.

Taken
4 REELS
Leave it to Liam Neeson to kick massive amounts of ass. This was one of those balls to the wall action films I love, similar to "Unleashed".

Medicine for Melancholy
4 REELS
A slow and sleepy little dreamer about love in the city that showcases a fine new directing talent hitting the scene.

Friday the 13TH
0 REELS
There was absolutely no reason for this film to be made.

The Last House on the Left
3.5 REELS
Not awful. Not awful at all. Some fine performances and some genuine tension help elevate this above your average remake. Go Tony Goldwyn, Go!

Knowing
4 REELS
This film received mixed reviews, but I thought it was one of the more compelling science fiction films I have seen in recent years.

The Great Buck Howard
4 REELS
Oscar nomination worthy performances from Malkovich and Hanks and a tight and entertaining script made this one of the years best surprises.

The New Twenty
3 REELS
Not much happens here, but what doesn't happen is still pretty interesting. Won't find mass appeal, but I thought it was thought-provoking.

The Haunting in Connecticut
2 REELS
This could have been so much better than it was. Kyle Gallner is adorable, but Virginia Madsen is just bad and the ending is cheap and ridiculous.

The Education of Charlie Banks
4 REELS
Damned fine directorial debut for Durst with some great performances and one of the most intriguing plotlines I have seen unfold all year long.

Goodbye Solo
5 REELS
Easily one of the best films of the year, the acting and direction are spotless and the filmmaker delivers yet another masterpiece in drama.

Adventureland
4.5 REELS
One hell of a fun time and all the nostalgia you could ask for and then some. This is why I love going to the movies.

The Escapist
5 REELS
Brian Cox delivers an Oscar worthy performance in one of the best prison films I have ever seen. Leaves you guessing until the very end.

Observe and Report
5 REELS
Absolutely hysterical. Funniest film of the year and one of the best comedies I have ever seen. Never stopped laughing. Flawless comedy.

17 Again
3.5 REELS
Give a forgettable comedy to a fine director like Burr Steers and this is the result. Efron has great charisma on screen and I laughed out loud quite a bit.

Obsessed
3 REELS
Pretty generic thriller and more of a guilty pleasure than anything else but I will say that it is always nice to see Christine Lahti get work.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine
1 REEL
Too much money and not enough everything else.

Star Trek
5 REELS
I can't think of having ever been more satisfied with a Summer blockbuster than I was with this film. I cannot stop watching it.

The Brothers Bloom
4.5 REELS
Clever little caper film from Riann Johnson that satisfies on so many levels. Gives an indie edge to a more mainstream indie film.

Terminator: Salvation
1 REEL
If shit could reproduce, this would be its only child.

Drag Me to Hell
3.5 REELS
Strong return to form for Sam Raimi and one of the scariest little horror films to come around in a long time. Thank God for old masters.

Up
4.5 REELS
The best Pixar film to date and one of the sweetest and most thoughtful films of the year, hands down. I am still quoting the damned thing.

The Hangover
2 REELS
A whole lot of hype for nothing. Laughed a few times but this was just a lame little comedy no better than "Old School" or "Road Trip".

Land of the Lost
3 REELS
The most batshit insane movie of the year, but Danny McBride made me laugh and I have to applaud the decision to just throw everything out there.

Away We Go
4 REELS
Thoughtful romantic comedy for adults pondering children and a strong testament to Mendes, Krasinski and especially Maya Rudolph who is just luminous.

Moon
4.5 REELS
Tight and frigid little sci-fi thriller that is just about perfect in execution. Sam Rockwell delivers a sure to be Oscar nominated performance.

Dead Snow
3.5 REELS
Nazi Zombies! Pretty much a re-hash of 100 other films, this one still kept me laughing and smiling throughout. I love gore.

My Sister’s Keeper
3.5 REELS
Nick Cassavetes saves this from becoming just another Lifetime movie of the week. Strong performances and a very interest plotline abound.

Public Enemies
2 REELS
Mediocre film from a great director. Is there anything more sad?

Bruno
3 REELS
This one ain't no "Borat". Just didn't work for me that much, but I did laugh my ass off, though most of it was from just being uncomfortable.

I Love You, Beth Cooper
1 REEL
A career low for Columbus and one of the worst attempts to re-capture the John Hughes feeling I have ever seen. Bad, bad, bad.

TERMINATOR: SALVATION Film Critique

2009-05-22T08:10:00.000-07:00

What better way to kill a franchise than throat cancer?

Here’s my question – the humans and machines have been fighting for quite a while – a constant barrage of gunfire, hand-to-hand combat and explosions that has raged for years and years. From the looks of “Terminator: Salvation”, you’d think the human race would have long ago been wiped out by tetanus. These machines are super-smart, super-strong and evidently – judging by the fact that one wears a jaunty bandanna – super-fashionable. Who says you can’t herd humans and still express your love of Marc Jacobs? “Terminator: Salvation” has been getting handed some serious negative publicity ever since Christian Bale went on his bizarre profanity-ridden attack against the cinematographer. It didn’t help that Harry Knowles of Ain’t It Cools News, i.e. the worst film ‘blogger’ on the planet – basically chastised the filmmakers for even being born. So, I went into the theatre hoping to prove everyone wrong, as I typically do. What resulted was over two-hours of the worst Summer-excrement I can imagine, a film so poorly directed that it propels me to this declaration – McG can not be beaten for the Golden Raspberry for Worst Director. The award has already been given.

Follow this -- the date is 2019 and the war between humans and the machines rages on (and oh God how it rages). John Connor (Christian Bale) doesn’t really lead the humans, power wise, but more in an emotionally comforting kind of way, kind of like Miss Cleo did. The humans have stumbled across a hidden signal that will shut down all of the machines. Really? A signal? That’s it. If only the characters caught on to the obvious like the audience did. Enter Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), a half-man/half-machine who was constructed by some crazy scientist played by Helena Bonham Carter. He’s been dormant for a few years and wakes to find his world gone. He meets Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) who will later grow up to inseminate Linda Hamilton. Most of the film involves Marcus and Kyle trying to find John and John trying to find Kyle and Bryce Dallas Howard trying to find her agent to strangle him for one of the worst-written female roles in Summer blockbuster history. Even Meagan Fox gets more to work with all she gets cast for is her stupendous ass. At the end, the machines win because the machines always win and one of the characters does something for another character that you can see coming a mile and a half away.

Let’s talk tech, bitches. McG directs this film like a Lifetime movie. He has no clue how to compose a shot, no clue how to make an audience invest in his characters and no clue that calling himself McG does, without a doubt, make him an incredible douche. The score by Danny Elfman is overbearing, unnecessary and sounds like something by way of GarageBand. The cinematography is tepid and uninspired, so I am glad Christian Bale went on that rant and ripped the D.O.P. a new one – he deserved it. While he was at it – Bale should have shat all over the several screenwriters, Jonathon Nolan included, and the producers and co-producers and executive-producers who don’t understand how to let a once successful franchise die. “Terminator: Salvation” is the embarrassment the franchise has been waiting for. Even “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” at least had Arnold going for it. The Arnold we get here is a pitifully tracked digital face that looks more like Josh Brolin at angles than Arnold Schwarzenegger. And one more thing – if the terminators are composed of nuclear material, how come when they got blown up in previous films (or earlier in this film), it didn’t wipe out every single thing in the area? That seems to only apply to serve the needs of a script that might be the worst of its kind…ever.

Performance time, or lack thereof. Listening to Christian Bale and Michael Ironside go at it is like listening to Clint Eastwood and Harrison Ford share a heated conversation on a kidnapping:

FORD: Give me back my family.
EASTWOOD: Grrrrrrrrrrr.
FORD: I’m the President of the United States.
EASTWOOD: Grrrrrrrrrrr.

Except this one goes a little something like this:

IRONSIDE: I need you to send your men in.
BALE: Grrrr. I won’t send my men in.
IRONSIDE: Do it!
BALE: Grrrr. No!
IRONSIDE: Then you are relieved of your command!
BALE: Grrrrr. You can’t relieve me of my command!

And who can we get that is super intimidating to be the face of Skynet, one of the most evil entities in film history? Why not Helena Bonham Carter? I know it’s that whole ‘face of a woman’ thing but wouldn’t someone like Forest Whitaker or John Hurt been a better choice? Helena Bonham Carter is just awful when she tries to be interesting. Why? Because she’s not. Bryce Dallas Howard just prances around, pregnant as hell, and serves no purpose in the film. She does nothing, hardly says a word and gets one good Christian Bale kiss to write home about for her efforts. Sam Worthington does an okay job, but he keeps switching accents from American to British to Australian. He’s rather inconsistent and he has too much screams in the film. The best performance in the film comes from Anton Yelchin simply because he was the most believable and he does something I have never seen him do before. The second best performance comes from Linda Hamilton who visits us via vocals on a tape player. Everything else is not worth mentioning because everything else sucks.

This is the perfect example of a trailer that is far better than the film. McG is easily one of the worst directors working in Hollywood and he really should stick to the small screen since he obviously wants to try and make the big screen as small as possible. I want to sit down with him and watch “Terminator: Salvation” with him to get an idea of what he was thinking when he made these decisions. You have to think even someone like Renny Harlin might have given us a couple more cool sequences that weren’t so digital. When I am saying Renny Harlin would have done a better job with something, it means trouble. “Terminator: Salvation” is the worst film of 2009, the worst for the franchise and an absolute waste given the talent involved. And if Christian Bale doesn’t stop with the damned Batman voice, I am going to write him off for good. Take some acting lessons for the love of God. Someone needs to teach him he doesn’t have to sound like he has throat cancer to sound emotional. By the time this film was over, I was rooting for the machines to win. Destroy all humans!

Christian Bale (John Connor)
Sam Worthington (Marcus Wright)
Anton Yelchin (Kyle Reese)
Moon Bloodgood (Blair Williams)
Helena Bonham Carter (Dr. Serena Kogan)
Bryce Dallas Howard (Kate Connor)
Michael Ironside (General Ashdown)

Director: McG

Rated PG-13

OBITUARY

2009-03-16T08:05:00.000-07:00

R.I.P.
RON SILVER
1946 - 2009

FILMOGRAPHY:

1981...The Entity
1982...Silent Rage
1982...Best Friends
1983...Silkwood
1984...Romancing the Stone
1984...The Goodbye People
1985...Oh God! You Devil
1989...Blue Steel
1989...Enemies: A Love Story
1990...Reversal of Fortune
1991...The Good Policeman
1991...Married to It
1992...Live Wire
1992...Mr. Saturday Night
1994...Timecop
1996...Girl 6
1996...The Arrival
1999...Black and White
2001...Ali
2001..."The West Wing"
2006...Find Me Guilty
2007...The Ten

Until I read about Ron Silver's death from cancer, I had forgotten the actor even existed, which is very sad indeed. I remember growing up with his performance as the villainous antagonist in the underrated sci-fi masterpiece "The Arrival". I remember marveling at his 2001 performance in "Ali", which I had hoped would place him back in the thick of the acting world. But, that was right around the time when he first got sick. Ron Silver was a fine actor, a Tony Award winner for his role in the original production of David Mamet's "Speed the Plow"; he was also nominated for two Emmy Awards, one for his role on "The West Wing". Silver was also an outspoken political activist, a former Democrat turned G.O.P. spokesperson. He was a fine talent and he will be missed. I encourage you to check out "The Arrival".

REPO! THE GENETIC OPERA Apology

2009-02-26T07:50:00.000-08:00

So, you guys got me thinking – maybe I'm an asshole. Maybe I watched “Repo! The Genetic Opera” in the wrong frame of mind and maybe I didn't give it the credit that it deserved. I have had so many responses to my review of the film – more than I've ever had before; some I have posted, and some I have not. If I have read one defense 3 or 4 times already, you're review probably didn't get posted because I did not want to read the 5th. But it did get me thinking about how maybe I was the only one with this particular mindset. But then, I happened upon some of these little goodies:

PETER TRAVERS of ROLLING STONE says:
“Talented actors are involved, and I will spare them by not citing their names.”
NATHAN LEE of THE NEW YORK TIMES says:
“Darren Lynn Bousman, the director of several “Saw” sequels, has devised an excruciating new torture with “Repo!”
CLAUDIA PUIG of USA TODAY says:
“Repo! might have been an SNL or MADtv skit, but as a movie, it should be repossessed by its financiers.”
MARK OLSEN of THE LOS ANGELES TIMES says:
“The film is bad -- not good-bad, tacky-bad or fun-bad, just plain awful and nearly unwatchable.”
KURT LODER of MTV says:
“A movie in search of a cult. Good luck.”
KYLE SMITH of THE NEW YORK POST says:
“The smudgy pall cast over everything by director Darren Lynn Bousman might work for a five-minute music video, but it quickly becomes as tiresome as the general air of bombastitude.”
ED GONZALEZ of SLANT MAGAZINE says:
“Give me torture porn any day.”
J. HOBERMAN of THE VILLAGE VOICE says:
“So embarrassing that, for the first time, I wanted to avert my eyes from the screen, although that might have also been because Repo! appears to have been shot with a cell phone.”

So then I thought – “Wow. These are the crème de la crème in terms of film criticism in American today. And these critics seemed to have just as vicious things to say about the film as I did.” I even went and read the full reviews of Mark Olsen and Ed Gonzalez and found them to be far more savage than mine.

So what did I miss? What evaded me that so many of these 'fans' of the film got? What made this film so enjoyable to them and such a waste of time and money to me? THEN IT HIT ME! All of a sudden, it snuck up on me and struck me in the back of the head. It was something I had thought of before but had temporarily forgotten all about. And it came back at just the right time – just when I was about to watch the film AGAIN:

“Repo! The Genetic Opera” is FUCKING AWFUL. There's a reason it's sitting at 33% on Rotten Tomatoes and has received comments like the ones above. There's a reason the film only made $180,000 worldwide and played in a maximum of 11 theatres. If it looks, smells and feels like a piece of shit – guess what, it's a piece of shit. Maybe the problem is that I choose to use profanity in my review of the film. So what? I save the clean stuff for films that deserve it, not complete and distasteful bombs like “Repo!” It deserves every 'fuck' and 'shit' and 'motherfucker' that it receives and then some. Some films are beyond awful. Some films are worthless.

So, this is my APOLOGY to all of you out there who wrote in, shared your thoughts and opinions with me and tried to explain why I was full of shit. I sincerely apologize for not ending this ridiculous diatribe earlier and for allowing it to go on as long as I did. “Repo! The Genetic Opera”, which you poor, pathetic cine-tards have latched onto as your Jesus Christ of modern cinema, is one of the worst films ever made.

OBITUARY

2009-02-24T07:02:00.001-08:00

R.I.P.
HOWARD ZIEFF
1927 - 2009

FILMOGRAPHY:

1973...Slither
1975...Hearts of the West
1978...House Calls
1979...The Main Event
1980...Private Benjamin
1984...Unfaithfully Yours
1989...The Dream Team
1991...My Girl
1994...My Girl 2

Howard Zieff was one of those directors from the 1980's whose work has kind of been forgotten over the years. "Private Benjamin" was probably his most notable film and it led Goldie Hawn to her second Oscar nomination. My favorite Howard Zieff would have to be either "The Dream Team", a ridiculous comedy about escaped patients from a mental facility; or "My Girl", one of the sweetest films from the early-1990's and one of my favorite films as a child. Howard Zieff gave up directing in 1994 and now leaves us today at 81-years of age. He will be missed.

OBITUARY

2009-01-14T15:44:00.000-08:00

R.I.P.
RICARDO MONTALBAN
1920 - 2009

FILMOGRAPHY:

1957...Sayonara
1962...Hemingway's Adventures of A Young Man
1964...Cheyenne Autumn
1965...The Money Trap
1966...Madame X
1966...The Singing Nun
1968...Sol Madrid
1968...Blue
1969...Sweet Charity
1971...Escape from the Planet of the Apes
1972...Conquest of the Planet of the Apes
1973...The Train Robbers
1978..."Fantasy Island"
1982...Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan
1985..."The Colbys"
1988...The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!
2002...Spy Kids 2: Island of Lost Dreams
2003...Spy Kid 3-D: Game Over

The name Ricardo Montalban is synonymous with a long and illustrious career. His name has been the brunt of many jokes and his roles have been odd and memorable, ranging from his most notable role in the popular television series "Fantasy Island" to his role as the evil Khan in "Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan". I will best remember him as the seedy villain in one of the greatest comedies of all time, "The Naked Gun". His voice became one of the most recognizable in any medium. You know the face. You know the career. He was a legend and will be missed terribly.

OBITUARY

2009-01-14T12:34:00.000-08:00

R.I.P.
PATRICK MCGOOHAN
1928 - 2009

FILMOGRAPHY:

1955...Passage Home
1956...Zarak
1957...High Tide at Noon
1957...Hell Drivers
1958...The Gypsy and the Gentleman
1961...Two Living, One Dead
1962...All Night Long
1967..."The Prisoner"
1968...Journey Into Darkness
1970...The Moonshine War
1971...Mary, Queen of Scots
1974...Columbo: By Dawn's Early Light
1975...Columbo: Identity Crisis
1976...Silver Streak
1978...Brass Target
1979...Escape from Alcatraz
1981...Scanners
1985...Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend
1990...Columbo: Agenda for Murder
1995...Braveheart
1996...The Phantom
1996...A Time to Kill
1998...Columbo: Ashes to Ashes

There is no doubt that most film fans know Patrick McGoohan as the villainous Longshanks from "Braveheart", one of the most sinister and riveting performances of the 1990's. A lot of people will remember him as the lead actor in the 1960's cult series "The Prisoner". Along with "Braveheart", I remember him as the warden from "Escape from Alcatraz" and his repeated role in the popular "Columbo" franchise. McGoohan had a long and successful career playing a wide assortment of characters -- he was never pigeon holed into a particular genre or character type, just one of his many accomplishments.

COOK COUNTY Film Critique

2009-01-13T07:11:00.001-08:00

Who knew Tylenol could be this destructive?

This is a late review for me but an early review for most of you. One of the standouts of the 2008 Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival, which was held in September, was a picture about a family of crystal meth addicts called “Cook County”. It was one of the most disturbing and profoundly exhilarating films I have seen in ages and I expect it will be getting more attention once it finds a distributor. I mean – how do you sell a film that is mired down in misery and pain? How do you attract audiences to a picture that will absolutely leave you depressed and disoriented? It’s a chore. But, however it finds its release to the world, I implore you to check it out. It’s one of the most honest and convincing stories of addiction I have ever seen played out on screen and it features some truly miraculous performances that should really put these three actors on the map, some for the first time and some again. Director David Pomes has created a front runner for my favorite film of 2009 and one of the best films I have seen in a very long time.

The film centers around a family of crystal meth addicts in the rural countryside. Bump (Anson Mount) is the mastermind – he cooks it, sells it and uses most of it. He is an absolute addict and his addiction has caused him to go somewhat psychotic. His nephew Abe (Ryan Donowho) lives with him and raises Bump’s young daughter but doesn’t do drugs himself and is desperate to get out of the situation but has no place to go because he doesn’t want to leave the little girl alone. One day, Sonny (Xander Berkeley) comes back around – he’s Abe’s father and Bump’s brother and he’s been in prison for a long while but has been released as long as he cooperates with authorities and helps bring down some of the higher-ups in the meth trade. As we learn, Sonny was the one who brought meth around in the beginning, but now he’s clean and wants to re-connect with his son and start a new life out of prison. Most of the film deals with Sonny’s attempts to pull his son and niece out of the mire, while always holding out hope that his brother might be able to come out with them. However, the film doesn’t skirt the tough issues and the ending of this film is just exceptional, and something for you to look forward to.

This film is gritty and raw and wonderful. We believe every second of this picture and we believe everything that these characters are going through. The rural landscape and the overall sense of dirt and dismay add a whole new level to the picture that makes what’s going on even more disturbing. These are desperate characters who will do whatever it takes. For example – when Bump’s father dies of a meth overdose, he drops a bag in his grave with him. Later, when some friends come over and want a bump, he goes out, digs up the bag with his bare hands and they all partake. This might seem like something out of fictional film, but this is what a lot of meth addicts do without any thought whatsoever. It’s just another day and another fix. The most sympathetic character is definitely Abe and Bump’s daughter and you’ll be wide eyed and riled up with anger when you see what happens in the final few minutes. Even though the film has an arc and people do get what they deserve, to call the ending satisfying is just not right. At least you get a little sense of hope at the end. My favorite scene in the film comes when the filmmaker compares and contrasts living conditions at the meth house and at the home of relatives – we switch from a full fridge to an empty one and so on.

The performances are award worthy. The most exceptional is Anson Mount playing one of the most unlikable characters in film history. He is mean, nasty and just plain psychotic and it never lets up. You get the sense he would do anything or hurt anyone to keep his fix going. His performance is truly frightening and he deserves an Academy Award nomination, for certain. Ryan Donowho is always great at playing very young and very innocent and he does so here. It’s a wonder he didn’t develop lung cancer with as many cigarettes as he smokes in this film. And I have to love the comeback of Xander Berkeley he turns in his best performance to date as Sonny. These three actors chug this film along and make it the remarkable picture it is. Mount’s performance drives the uneasiness of the picture and Berkeley’s drives the hope. Donowho’s performance is there to show you what you can get with either side winning.

I wish I could tell you when this film is going to hit theatres but I can’t. I can’t even be sure that it will hit theatres at all, given the current economic situation and the difficulty in selling a film like this. My one hope is that some brave distributor out there will latch on to this picture and give it the chance is very much deserves. I dare you to watch this film and not marvel at the achievement of Anson Mount’s performance. “Cook County” deals with a subject matter that is very relevant for our times and although the setting is the rural South, it applies to cities all over this country. The crystal meth problem is just enormous and this film definitely shows you the dangers of such a lifestyle. “Cook County” has already solidified a slot on my Best Films of 2009 list. And I cannot see a performance coming along any better than Anson Mount’s performance. It’s the stuff Oscars are made of, though the film is a little too small to get the recognition.

Anson Mount (Bump)
Ryan Donowho (Abe)
Xander Berkeley (Sonny)
Makenna Fitzsimmons (Deandra)
Polly Cole (Lucy)
Rutherford Cravens (Fat Earl)

Director: David Pomes

RATED R

DEFIANCE Film Critique

2009-01-12T12:59:00.003-08:00

The only thing they're 'defying' is acceptable fashion.

Let’s forget the fact that “Defiance” is just another in a long line of Holocaust films. Let’s forget the fact that “Defiance” attempts to tell a story that has never really been told before. Let’s concentrate on Edward Zwick, the director. Every film he makes is pretty much the same as the one before. His films are always about ‘a band of brave men and women who do battle with an evil force’. Take “Blood Diamond” or “The Last Samurai” or “The Siege” or “Glory” – the same films – just insert new antagonists and protagonists and an overwhelming dramatic score. Edward Zwick films are supposed to be rousing and supposed to be both solid popcorn flicks as well as cultural lessons. “Defiance” is one of his most disappointing films. I wanted to like it – I really did. I can’t fault the cast and I can’t fault the technical aspects of the production. I think, on the whole, it was reasonably well directed and put together. It just didn’t engage me. I understand that the story told in “Defiance” has never been told before, but that doesn’t make it interesting. How many times have we heard about a brave group of Jewish heroes banning together to stand up against the Nazis? Compared to a film like “Schindler’s List”, what does a film like “Defiance” hope to accomplish, other that mindless amusement. And in that mindless amusement, the film almost feels a little insulting to me.

This particular Holocaust story takes place after the Nazi occupation of Poland. A group of survivors scatter to the surrounding woods, where there meet up with others who have managed to evade the Nazis. Tuvia (Daniel Craig), Zus (Live Schrieber) and Asael (Jamie Bell) are the Bielski Brothers, who wind up becoming leaders of the Jewish resistance in the woods, hiding from the Nazis and doing whatever they can to assist the local Russian resistance also hiding out in the woods. The film follows this group of refugees over the course of years as they hide out in the woods, build new lives for themselves and take in anyone who comes along. There is also some sibling rivalry between Tuvia and Zus – Tuvia is looked at as the leader of the Otriad, while Zus is envious and eventually leaves the camp to join the Russian resistance. Of course the Nazis find them out in the end and there is a battle between the Jewish refugees and the Nazi soldiers. Of course some of the most beloved characters in the film perish. And of course there is some unexpected ‘save the day’ moment at the end. I don’t think that is giving anything away – this is an Edward Zwick film and that’s what happens. He always has a way of giving a happy ending to a very tragic circumstance and maybe that is what bothers me. Life is messy. The Holocaust was horrible. No sugar needed.

What bothered me the most about this film was how conventional the story was and how straight-forward the approach turned out to be. To be an original and untold story, it was filled with cliché and syrupy sentimentality that was unnecessary. No one denies how awful the Holocaust was, so portray it as such. Spielberg did it with “Schindler’s List” and it worked. Ultimately, Benigni did it with “Life Is Beautiful”. I don’t want to see the Holocaust portrayed like some movie of the week. I guess I just have a hard time seeing a bunch of Jewish refugees, basically waiting in the woods to die, could be so jovial and so warmhearted and be worried about ‘forest wives’ and things of that matter. I understand they were trying to rebuild their lives and communities, but you have to think most of that was exaggerated or just fabricated. The best moment in the film comes when the Rabbi is praying to god to choose another people and to leave them alone. That seemed more in keeping with what I would expect from a situation like that. And there is this ‘ridiculous’ logic that they can keep traveling through the woods and everything will be all right. Of course they were up against the Nazis, who weren’t exactly the brightest bulbs in the chandeliers. At the end of the day, “Defiance” was just another run of the mill drama/thriller. I didn’t really identify with anyone in the film and I really didn’t grow much affection for any of these characters. I thought they were all ruthless and all a little short-sighted in what they were doing. I am sure they are heroes for doing it and I’m not denying the bravery, but there was also a little selfishness therein.

At least they gave the accents a shot, unlike “Valkyrie”. And they succeeded. Daniel Craig is not an actor I love on screen, but he does a decent enough job here as the leader of the resistance. Jamie Bell, who is always just adorable, does a nice job also in his role, though he’s kind of stiff and wooden throughout. Liev Schrieber is easily the most accomplished in this film and he does a lot with his role. We actually see some depth and development with Zus that we don’t see with the others. I thought his relationship with his brother was interesting and his attitude towards the whole situation was more representative of how I thought it should be. I didn’t, however, really feel enough chemistry between any of the three of them to believe they were brothers. It just seemed like they were family out of convenience, not blood. But I do applaud the decision to go with accents. I think they add so much, especially to a film like this and ditching the accents for a neutral British or English just doesn’t work for me. And I will say that I got a little annoyed that it seemed to take forever for this group of people to make the decision to go wading through the water. You’ve got Nazi soldiers coming up behind you waiting to kill you. Jump in the damned water. I mean – seriously?

I do not recommend “Defiance”. It’s nothing special. It’s run-of-the-mill and just like every other Holocaust film that also wants to serve as a popcorn experience. Just go out and rent “Schindler’s List” again. Or, if you want a better Holocaust film from this year, check out “The Reader” or “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas”. This one just doesn’t measure up to those. I am sure there were many acts of ‘defiance’ during the Holocaust and I’m sure many of them make fascinating stories, but I think they need to be handled with more levity and more attention than “Defiance”. I blame Edward Zwick somewhat because he needs to start doing more to separate his films. Just because they’re about different subject matters doesn’t mean they aren’t the same. And now, the worst moment in the film: It comes when Daniel Craig’s character confronts a refugee who has been asking for more food – he thinks soldiers deserve more food. What Craig’s character does makes you lose all respect and sympathy for him. The man makes sense. A soldier might need more food. I don’t think it’s too ‘out there’ a request. To enjoy “Defiance” requires an immense understanding of the whole ‘eye for an eye’ mentality and the idea that anything goes as long as it comes from the person in charge.

Daniel Craig (Tuvia Bielske)
Liev Schrieber (Zus Bielske)
Jamie Bell (Asael Bielske)

Director: Edward Zwick

RATED R

THE READER Film Critique

2009-01-12T09:21:00.003-08:00

I didn't know Ann B. Davis was in this picture.

If you could call 2008 anything it might be “The Year of the Holocaust Film”. We have had more films on that particular subject in 2008 than any other in recent memory. For example: “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas”, “Valkyrie”, “Adam Resurrected”, “Good”, “Defiance” – and the film I about to critique, “The Reader”. Phew. That’s a lot of misery. And I know I will offend some people by saying this, but – enough. We get it. We understand how tragic and terrible the Holocaust was. We understand how lives were destroyed and how an entire population was wiped out. It is impossible not to feel terrible for it, but must we continue to be beaten over the head with film after film after film about the subject? The biggest problem is that none of these films are bringing anything new to the table. “Defiance” is the same old boring re-telling of one of those single personal stories from the Holocaust, trivialised for entertainment value. Now, I will admit that I gave some of these films favorable reviews, but now it feels like we are being submerged by these films, over and over again. At least “The Reader” dared to be different. The film isn’t so much about the Holocaust, but rather the affect that the Holocaust has on one woman and the boy that loves her. It’s about secrets coming back to find us out and decisions we make that change our lives forever.

The film is set in Germany after World War II, where young Michael Berg (David Kross) meets a beautiful woman named Hanna (Kate Winslet). Hanna helps him out when he is ill and an interesting relationship begins. David is 15-years-old, but fascinated with Hanna. He comes around for visits and they eventually begin a romantic relationship. Despite the large age difference, the two seem to get along extraordinarily well, until Hanna panics and flees, leaving Michael to himself. Flash forward a few years and Michael is at the university studying law. His professor (Bruno Ganz) takes him to watch a trial, which just happens to be a group of women being accused of murdering 300 Jews during the Holocaust, acting as SS guards. When Michael hears that one of the women on trial is Hanna, he is thrown for a loop, unable to believe the woman he knew and loves could do something so monstrous. All the while, we flash forward to present day where an older Michael (Ralph Fiennes) is still coming to terms with the situation, with Hanna and what she meant to his life. The film, as a whole, is about the relationship between Hanna and Michael, especially as to how it changes Michael’s life for the good and for the bad. The film is entitled “The Reader” because their relationship initially begins with Michael coming to Hanna’s every day and reading her a new book. Later, it continues as Michael starts recording books and sending them to Hanna in prison.

As I mentioned earlier, this film isn’t about the Holocaust so much as it is about how the Holocaust affects Hanna and Michael. Hanna does not deny that she locked the doors and allowed 300 Jews to burn to death in a church. She doesn’t deny and she really does make no excuses. Her response is, “What would you have done?” She saw her work as an SS guard as excuse enough to do such a thing. She was tasked with a particular item and she made sure it was carried out. As monstrous as that is, there is a troubling logic behind it that makes you more curious than enraged. Just the idea of the mindset of someone to think like that is engaging. What could cause someone to think that murder was acceptable, especially on such a large scale? That seems to be what a lot of the characters in the film are trying to figure out. The students and the professor are trying to understand what could drive these people to do what they did. It’s the insatiable desire to know and to understand that drives them. But sometimes you have to accept that there is no rational explanation. There are leaders and there are followers. In this case, the followers did so blindly with no remorse for their actions and no second thoughts. They were taught to do their jobs and they did just that. And keep in mind that a lot of these people could have been killed if they didn’t do what they were told. That is not attempting to justify anything, but there are circumstances that a lot of people don’t take into consideration when laying blame on certain people. “The Reader” doesn’t ever try and justify these actions, but it does attempt to paint them in different lights.

The performances are riveting, especially Kate Winslet’s brilliant turn as Hanna. What she does with this role is incredible. When we first meet her, we don’t quite know what to think. She seems loving enough, but she has this cold and calculated way about her. She seems to genuinely love Michael, but she has no problem reminding him that she could drop him any time she wanted. Later, we see Hanna as a monster – a cold and calculated monster who has no regrets for what she did – on the surface. What brings things into perspective is a secret that Hanna has been harboring – a secret that she thinks is even worse than these horrible acts she has committed. These days, it seems rather bizarre to think of something so small as such a terrible thing, but to Hanna it was embarrassing and could never be revealed. Winslet gives her second stellar performance of the year in this role and deserves accolades for it. David Kross is also exceptional as Michael, matching Winslet step for step and baring himself just like she does in a very open and very honest way. The both of them spend most of their time together nude and we never feel like they are being exploited or that they are being taken advantage of by the director. That’s probably because the director is Stephen Daldry, the brilliant filmmaker responsible for “Billy Elliot” and “The Hours”.

In a year with so many films about the Holocaust, it was nice to see one tackle the subject matter in a more intellectual way, a film that tries to get to the bottom of what caused the Holocaust rather than focus on the aftermath. If we can get to the bottom of what made those people do what they did, we might be better able to prevent it from happening again. “The Reader” dares to ask those questions and it dares to explore new territory with a subject matter that most thought could go no further cinematically. I watched with delight last night as Kate Winslet took home the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress for her role in “The Reader” and genuinely hope the Academy Awards smile on her as well. It really is a remarkable role. Other suggestions would be David Hare for Best Adapted Screenplay and possibly Stephen Daldry for Best Director. I wouldn’t say this was one of the best films of 2008, but it was very well done indeed. I can’t think of any glaring problems with it, but it just didn’t have the same impact on me, emotionally, as other films of the year did. Regardless, it’s a fine achievement.

Kate Winslet (Hanna Schmitz)
David Kross (Young Michael Berg)
Ralph Fiennes (Older Michael Berg)
Bruno Ganz (Professor Rohl)
Lena Olin (Rose Mather/Ilana Mather)

Director:

Stephen Daldry

RATED R

THE UNBORN Film Critique

2009-01-10T23:43:00.001-08:00

I didn't know they made exorcisms for bad acting.

What is it about that first film of the new year that produces such dread in me? Maybe it’s because the first real film I saw in 2008 was “One Missed Call” and the first real film I saw in 2007 was “Primeval”. Both of those films ended up making my Worst Films of the Year list. I had higher hopes for “The Unborn”. Was it because of David S. Goyer? Of course not. He directed “Blade: Trinity” and “The Invisible”. It was because it had an inviting trailer and featured one of the greatest actors on the planet, Gary Oldman. And it succeeded. I laughed all the way through the film. It made me giggle in such unexpected ways – surpassing both “Tropic Thunder” and “Pineapple Express”. It was one of the best comedies I have ever seen. And all of this would be great except for one thing – it was supposed to be a horror film. “The Unborn” should have been just that. It is one of the most inept attempts at horror I have seen in a very long while and it features quite possibly one of the worst female performances in horror history. This film proves, beyond the show of a doubt, that David S. Goyer cannot direct, Odette Yustman cannot act, Michael Bay cannot produce and Gary Oldman needs a new agent. Once again, ladies and gentlemen, I give you one of the worst films of the year.

Guess what – Casey (Odette Yustman) was a twin. How do we know? Because she’s got some dead little boy chasing her around and her eyes are starting to look like scrambled eggs. That means she was a twin. Alas, her little bro died in the womb when he got himself choked on her cord. As that dead little boy keeps popping up, old Casey keeps on digging and digging, eventually leading her to an old Holocaust survivor (Jane Alexander) who explains that the dead little boy is really a Dibbuk, some kind of demon that’s been after their family for years and years. Casey’s best friend in the world is Romy (Meagan Good) and dies because she is black. Casey’s boyfriend is Mark (Cam Gigandet) and dies because he’s too hot to live. And Casey’s exorcising zealot is Rabbi Sendak (Gary Oldman) who doesn’t die because he’s Gary Oldman. Casey decides the best course of action is an exorcism and Rabbi Sendak agrees to do it because, if Casey believes she is possessed, she must be. One problem – Casey isn’t possessed. There are people around her who are, but she’s just fine, so I don’t really know what in the hell good an exorcism does to someone who isn’t possessed. But, if that’s the only plot hole you find here, you’re just not paying attention. They are rampant.

I have heard David S. Goyer write some decent dialog before. He must have taken all the bad dialog from all his previous films and thrown them in here. This is one of the worst horror scripts I have ever encountered. Supporting characters spend the entire film asking: “What is going on?”, “How do we stop it?”, “What’s the matter?” They do this to give Odette Yustman 1,001 ways to say, “He’s after me. He won’t stop until I’m dead. I’m so scared. He’s trying to kill me!” You always know when it’s coming because she drops her voice kind of low and looks like she’s trying to read an eye chart from half a block away. And how about the idea to work the Holocaust into this film. The best scene in the film, when I was rolling in the aisles, came when Casey was reading a letter from the Holocaust survivor. We cut to scenes of the old woman smiling like she just let out a secret fart and then we cut back to images of Casey crying as she’s reading it. “You must finish what we started back in Auschwitz…” – are you kidding me? Are you seriously serious with this shit? “The Unborn” is plagued with this kind of dialog. It’s choking in it. Gary Oldman does the best he can with his, but you can’t do much with simple sentences and Hebrew – it just doesn’t happen. And did I mention that Casey's twin was called 'Jumby'. Yeah - seriously.

Now let’s talk about Odette Yustman. Wow. She makes Jessica Alba look like Glenn Close. She doesn’t seem to know her lines, she doesn’t seem to know her role in the film and she doesn’t seem to know what in the hell she’s doing. She walks around with this puppy dog expression on her face and all I want to do is stick her damned head in a toilet and flush out all of her misconceived notions of what acting should be. Gary Oldman is basically wasted in a role that does nothing but give him a paycheck and lessen his street cred to a staggering degree – the man is a legend and he’s playing a Rabbi in a piss poor horror film? Give that role to Yahoo Serious. Cam Giganet is always just wonderful to look at, but the guy’s got about as much talent as a hand full of sand. He walks around, takes his shirt off a few times and occasionally says something. Meagan Good is black and dies, which is basically what she always does. There really isn’t anything else to mention. I could mention the creepy little dead kid, but he’s not nearly as dead as this script or Odette Yustman’s performance. This film was like watching…well…it was like placing a dog turd out in the sun and watching it dry for two hours.

Films like this depress me. I root for the horror genre. I want to see it succeed. How can a film like this find a wide theatrical release while a film like “The Midnight Meat Train” or “Inside” get shafted? This film ruined 2009 for me and it has barely started. I just kept laughing and laughing and looking at the people around me who had the same bewildered expression on their faces. The film ended and there were a myriad of ‘boos’ that struck up immediately. Even a fickle Friday night audience ready for cheap scares couldn’t get behind this picture. And I would be remiss if I didn’t add that this whole PG-13 horror film trend is ridiculous. Horror is horror for a reason. Give me blood or give me nothing. I am sick of getting dogs in masks and creepy little kids with too much eye make-up – I want some blood and some language and some fright. This film would have been much more successful if it didn’t take the “Prom Night” way out. This was the worst film of 2009 and the worst horror film of the past two years.

Odette Yustman (Casey Beldon)
Gary Oldman (Rabbi Sendak)
Meagan Good (Romy)
Cam Gigandet (Mark Hardigan)
Idris Elba (Arthur Wyndham)
Jane Alexander (Sofi Kozma)
James Remar (Gordon Beldon)

Director: David S. Goyer

RATED PG-13

The Worst of 2008 (The Year of Bloodless Horror )

2009-01-09T12:25:00.000-08:00

Straight out of the gate, 2008 distinguished itself as another ridiculously bad year for films. No genre suffered as grisly a fate as the horror genre and the first film I saw in 2008 sucked bad enough to still make the list. But there is also some pedigree on this list, like David Mamet and Kevin Smith. As great as they have been in the past, they were just awful this year. And the number one pick for 2008 might be the worst film I have seen in the last decade. Enjoy:

___________________________________

01. Repo! The Genetic Opera

A foul, disgusting, turd of a film that features some truly awful music and some truly awful performances by everyone from the talentless Paris Hilton to the painfully bad Bill Moseley. This film was created to become the next cult sensation, which defeats the whole point of becoming a legit cult sensation. The production quality is poor and the only redeeming quality of the entire film was that it made so little money, we know there won’t be a sequel.

02. Zack & Miri Make A Porno

This one almost topped the list. The more I dwell on this film, the more I hate it. Kevin Smith’s humor is outdated and just not funny. His juvenile gags and jokes fall flat, especially a scene where a man literally has diarrhea splashed all over his face. The two gay characters go beyond to stereotype to just ignorantly offensive and the title of the film is misleading – they never make a porno, just scenes for a porno. The film is ignorant and bad.

03. Prom Night

How can you have a horror film without blood? I knew “Prom Night” would be bad based on the premise and the whole PG-13 rating thing, but this film didn’t even attempt quality. The death scenes were generic and blood-less, the acting was pitiful all the way around and the scene where the woman drops the plate is one of the worst scenes of the year, only because you see it coming a mile away but don’t think their dumb enough to make it happen.

04. One Missed Call

This was the film new film I saw in 2008 and it really kicked the year off with a bang! You have everything from the hysterically awful ‘salad’ scene to the exorcism of a cellular telephone. You’ve got a film with a plotline that is so full of holes – the plotline itself is not possible in the way it plays out. You can ask an audience to believe a lot of things, but no one can ever explain to me why you can’t just turn your damned cell phone off and put it in a drawer!

05. Redbelt

It really does pain me to include a David Mamet film on this list, but “Redbelt” had to be punished. This was a film with a great premise, a great cast and a great director at the helm that just crash landed. When the film ended, we really thought a reel had been missed. I can’t even begin to describe the final few minutes of the film because they are so poorly chopped together. Good intentions but just a bad, bad, bad execution. Bad David Mamet.

06. Pride and Glory

This film is the definition of ‘nothing special’ – a run-of-the-mill cop thriller that follows in the footsteps of every other insepid cop thriller of recent memory. And, even if you tolerate most of the film, the final fight scene between Colin Farrell and Edward Nortion is beyond ridiculous and turns this film into a first class joke. And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the over-the-top performance of the year by Mr. Over-the-Top, Jon Voight.

07. Postal

You can always count on Uwe Boll to make this list, but he’s usually higher. Does that mean he’s getting better? No, it just means his competition is getting worse. “Postal” was a hodgepodge of everything wrong with cinema and Boll’s lame attempt to direct a political satire. It’s like casting Leslie Nielsen as Nelson Mandela. The film tried to be the most offensive film of the year and couldn’t even accomplish that. How hard is it to be offensive?

08. Righteous Kill

The reuniting of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino should have been a momentous occasion, a reason for film fans to celebrate. Instead, we get “Righteous Kill”. Really? After this long, “Righteous Kill” is the best you can do? It’s just another formulaic buddy-cop thriller with one of them playing a bad guy and the other one not. But wait! This one has a twist! How original! This just proves that two wrongs definitely do not make a right.

09. The Eye

In these times of despair and confusion, only one thing is for certain – Jessica Alba could not act her way out of a paper sack, especially in a movie where she plays a blind woman. “The Eye” doesn’t want to make people re-think eye transplants. “The Eye” wants to make people pluck out there eyes to keep from seeing this film. Watching Jessica Alba up there trying her best to ‘act’ was precious in itself, but not worth watching this crapola.

10. Meet the Spartans

Yet another in a long line of wretched slapstick comedies from the guys who brought you the previous line of wretched slapstick comedies, minus Leslie Nielsen. This film has nothing. It’s about nothing. It’s for no one. The good thing that came from this film is that it’s the first in this franchise to bomb, which means they might actually think before they rush to greenlight the next one. In a year of amazing comedies, this film merely existed.

The Best of 2008 (Meryl, Milk & Men on Wires)

2009-01-09T11:43:00.000-08:00

The Top 10 Films of 2008:

01. Doubt
02. Milk
03. The Wrestler
04. Rachel Getting Married
05. In Bruges
06. Synecdoche, New York
07. Frost/Nixon
08. The Signal
09. Gran Torino
10. Let the Right One In

The 20:

11. Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
12. Australia
13. Red
14. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
15. Transsiberian
16. The Fall
17. Son of Rambow
18. Lakeview Terrace
19. Good Dick
20. The Boy in the Striped Pajamas

Honorable Mentions:

21. Pineapple Express
22. Snow Angels
23. Frozen River
24. The Reader
25. Shotgun Stories

Top 10 Performances of 2008:

01. Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler
02. Meryl Streep - Doubt
03. Clint Eastwood - Gran Torino
04. Sean Penn - Milk
05. Robert Downey, Jr. - Tropic Thunder
06. Debra Winger - Rachel Getting Married
07. Viola Davis - Doubt
08. Emile Hirsch - Milk
09. Frank Langella - Frost/Nixon
10. Michael Sheen - Frost/Nixon

Top 5 Documentaries of 2008:

01. Dear Zachary: Letters to A Son About His Father
02. Encounters at the End of the World
03. Man on Wire
04. Standard Operating Procedure
05. Stranded: I've Come from A Plane That Crashed in the Mountains

Top 5 Animated Films of 2008:

01. Wall-E
02. Waltz with Bashir
03. $9.99
04. Kung Fu Panda
05. Fear(s) of the Dark

Overlooked Films of the Year:

01. The Signal
02. In Bruges
03. Dear Zachary: A Letter to A Son About His Father
04. Shotgun Stories
05. Fear(s) of the Dark

Horror Films of the Year:

01. The Signal
02. Rec
03. Frontiere(s)
04. Splinter
05. Dance of the Dead

Comedy Films of the Year:

01. Pineapple Express
02. Role Models
03. Tropic Thunder
04. Hamlet 2
05. Burn After Reading

Will Be Remembered Fondly in 10-Years:

01. Speed Racer
02. Dark Streets
03. Synecdoche, New York

MOVIES MADE EASY AWARDS Winners!

2009-01-09T11:39:00.000-08:00

Best Original Score

Jon Brion – Synecdoche, New York
Alexandre Desplat – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
David Hirschfelder - Australia
R.A. Rahman – Slumdog Millionaire
Howard Shore – Doubt
Hans Zimmer – Frost/Nixon

WINNER: Hans Zimmer, “Frost/Nixon”
RUNNER-UP: David Hirschfelder, “Australia”

Best Cinematography

Roger Deakins – Doubt
Frederick Elmes – Synecdoche, New York
Claudio Miranda – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Declan Quinn – Rachel Getting Married
Mandy Walker - Australia
Colin Watkinson – The Fall

WINNER: Colin Watkinson, “The Fall”
RUNNER-UP: Mandy Walker, “Australia”

Best Breakthrough Performance

Rosemarie DeWitt – Rachel Getting Married
Rebecca Hall – Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Taraji P. Henson – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Dev Patel – Slumdog Millionaire
Robert Pattinson – Twilight
Brandon Walters – Australia

WINNER: Rosemarie DeWitt, “Rachel Getting Married”
RUNNER-UP: Brandon Walters, “Australia”

Best Comedic Performance

Thomas Haden Church – Smart People
Robert Downey, Jr. – Tropic Thunder
James Franco – Pineapple Express
Richard Jenkins – Step Brothers
Jane Lynch – Role Models
Frances McDormand – Burn After Reading

WINNER: Robert Downey, Jr, “Tropic Thunder”
RUNNER-UP: Jane Lynch, “Role Models”

Best Actress In A Supporting Role

Viola Davis – Doubt
Rosemarie DeWitt – Rachel Getting Married
Taraji P. Henson – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Marisa Tomei – The Wrestler
Debra Winger – Rachel Getting Married
Kate Winslet - The Reader

WINNER: Debra Winger, “Rachel Getting Married”
RUNNER-UP: Viola Davis, “Doubt"

Best Actor In A Supporting Role

Emile Hirsch - Milk
Philip Seymour Hoffman – Doubt
Heath Ledger – The Dark Knight
Tom Noonan – Synecdoche, New York
Michael Sheen – Frost/Nixon
David Thewlis – The Boy in the Striped Pajamas

WINNER: Michael Sheen, “Frost/Nixon”
RUNNER-UP: Philip Seymour Hoffman, “Doubt”

Best Actress In A Leading Role

Cate Blanchett – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Anne Hathaway – Rachel Getting Married
Nicole Kidman – Australia
Emily Mortimer - Transsiberian
Meryl Streep – Doubt
Kate Winslet – Revolutionary Road

WINNER: Meryl Streep, “Doubt”
RUNNER-UP: Emily Mortimer, “Transsiberian”

Best Actor In A Leading Role

Brian Cox – Red
Clint Eastwood – Gran Torino
Philip Seymour Hoffman – Synecdoche, New York
Frank Langella – Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn – Milk
Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler

WINNER: Mickey Rourke, “The Wrestler”
RUNNER-UP: Clint Eastwood, “Gran Torino”

Best Adapted Screenplay

Simon Beaufoy – Slumdog Millionaire
David Hare – The Reader
Peter Morgan – Frost/Nixon
Eric Roth – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
John Patrick Shanley – Doubt
Stephen Susco – Red

WINNER: Peter Morgan, “Frost/Nixon”
RUNNER-UP: John Patrick Shanley, “Doubt”

Best Original Screenplay

Joel & Ethan Coen – Burn After Reading
Dustin Lance Black – Milk
Charlie Kaufman – Synecdoche, New York
Jenny Lumet – Rachel Getting Married
Martin McDonagh - In Bruges
Robert Seigel – The Wrestler

WINNER: Charlie Kaufman, “Synecdoche, New York”
RUNNER-UP: Martin McDonagh, "In Bruges"

Best Director

Darren Aronofsky – The Wrestler
Jonathan Demme – Rachel Getting Married
David Fincher – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Charlie Kaufman – Synecdoche, New York
John Patrick Shanley – Doubt
Gus Van Sant – Milk

WINNER: Charlie Kaufman, “Synecdoche, New York”
RUNNER-UP: Darren Aronofsky, “The Wrestler”

Best Documentary Feature

Dear Zachary: Letters to A Son About His Father
Encounters at the End of the World
Glass: A Portrait of Philip in Twelve Parts
Man on Wire
The Order of Myths
Standard Operating Procedure

WINNER: Dear Zachary: Letters to A Son About His Father
RUNNER-UP: Encounters at the End of the World

Best Foreign Language Film

The Class (France)
Gomorrah (Italy)
Let the Right One In (Sweden)
The Song of Sparrows (Iran)
Waltz with Bashir (Israel)
Worlds Apart (Denmark)

WINNER: Let the Right One In (Sweden)
RUNNER-UP: Waltz with Bashir (Israel)

Best Animated Feature

$9.99
Bolt
Fear(s) of the Dark
Kung Fu Panda
Wall-E
Waltz with Bashir

WINNER: $9.99
RUNNER-UP: Waltz with Bashir

Best Film

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Doubt
Frost/Nixon
Milk
Synecdoche, New York
The Wrestler

WINNER: The Wrestler
RUNNER-UP: Synecdoche, New York

THE WRESTLER Film Critique

2009-01-08T21:31:00.001-08:00

Talk about a face only a mother could love.

No one has wrecked themselves quite as seriously as Mickey Rourke. He was once the golden boy – handsome, talented and rising to the top. Then his own self-destructive tendencies took over and ran his career off the rails. He’s a 52-year-old man who most often looks like a 72-year-old man; face and body worn down, voice weathered from years of self-abusive and the hardcore lifestyle. Lately, however, it would seem that he has been on somewhat of a comeback, which seemed to really kick into high gear after his role as Marv in the successful “Sin City”. But, unlike Robert Downey, Jr. who came back and hit the ground running, Rourke has still been waiting in the shadows for just the right role to come along. Enter “The Wrestler”. Never has a film so closely mirrored the rise and fall of its star. Never has one man personified a role so clearly. “The Wrestler” comes to us from director Darren Aronofsky, the visionary filmmaker who brought us the emotional nightmare of “Requiem of A Dream” and then waited six years to bring us the futuristic mind-meld “The Fountain”. This film seems an add choice for the director, but he makes it his own and fits right in with the picture. “The Wrestler” affected me more than I had expected it too. It has an emotional core, carried solely by Mickey Rourke, that resonates. I can’t imagine it not having an affect on an audience.

In the role of his lifetime, Mickey Rourke stars as Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson, formerly the professional wrestling golden boy – akin to Hulk Hogan or Ric Flair. He was at the top of his profession for many years, but now finds himself playing the weekend circuit, battered down and destroyed by years of physical abuse. He works at a grocery store during the week scraping together whatever hours he can. He spends his nights at the local strip bar, where a stripper named Cassidy (Marisa Tomei) listens like no other. He has special feelings for her. And, on the weekends, he wrestles. When Randy suffers a heart attack and is told he cannot wrestle again, he’s thrown into an abyss of uncertainty and confusion. He finds himself alone dealing with a terrifying issue. He eventually decides to reconnect with his daughter, Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood), who doesn’t like him, and start up a new relationship. He retires from wrestling and tries to turn his life around, but his old ways come creeping up and threaten to derail everything. The film ends with one of the greatest 10-minute stretches of recent memory, the final shot saying what Rourke has been expressing the entire film. Some people cannot change, as hard as they try, and it doesn’t mean they’re bad people – it just means they don’t know any better. I can’t imagine an ending summing up a film any better.

Let’s start with the incredible screenplay from Robert Siegel. You start with a simple premise and expand from there, and that’s what he did here. The film never strays from what the title would imply. It is all about Mickey Rourke and I expect Rourke did most of the heavy lifting himself. The soundtrack, composed of 1980’s hair bands and hard rock groups, says so much about the mentality and the past of this character – a man who is stuck in the 1980’s both mentally and physically. He doesn’t fit in and he doesn’t seem to function in mainstream society. The cinematography is nothing fancy – very basic and affective – a far cry from Aronofsky’s previous work. This is just a very simple film with a very simple premise that breaks your heart wide open. You know you shouldn’t feel sorry for the character because he does everything to himself, but you can’t help it. Rourke is that sympathetic and that brutally innocent that you want to protect him before he breaks. And let me just say that the wrestling sequences are the most authentic I have ever seen captured on film. You really get a sense of how these guys prepare for what they do and you even get some special tricks that wrestlers use that aren’t available to the general public. But we also see wrestling portrayed as a serious and dangerous sport. These men are actors and they are brutes – it is a lot of staging, put people hurt themselvesl; blood is shed, bones are broken and damage is done. You always hear that it’s just pretend, but for these men – it gets very serious and very real sometimes.

I could spend a whole paragraph on Mickey Rourke’s performance – I have already devoted a significant amount of time to it. He is phenomenal, the performance of the year and a true revelation. Mickey Rourke is Randy ‘The Ram’ Robinson. It’s like they are one in the same. The scene between Mickey Rourke and Evan Rachel Wood in the abandoned building is one of the most tender moments of his career, and then watching their final scene together just breaks you in two. We’re feeling that pain right along with him and feeling just as devastated as he is. He’s a man with one thing going for him – the sport he loves. When he loses that, he reaches out to his daughter. When he loses her, he has nothing left, which makes the ending so incredible. Marisa Tomei is also just wonderful as the stripper who eventually warms up to ‘The Ram’. She has this quiet sincerity to her on screen that works with each role she takes on. I suspect she’ll get another Oscar nomination for her work here and it’s much deserved. Very few actresses are this comfortable with themselves to do what she does in this film, and adds a nice levity to Mickey Rourke’s character also. Evan Rachel Wood is really only in three scenes in the film, but she is very effective, especially her final scene with Rourke.

I love, love, loved this film. Unlike “Revolutionary Road”, this film did not disappoint in the slightest. It lived up to my high expectations and then some. Mickey Rourke is the most deserving Best Actor contender we’ve had in a long while and it will thrill me if he takes home the gold. What a great year 2008 was, if only to usher the return of two of cinema’s greats – Robert Downey, Jr. and Mickey Rourke. I recommend “The Wrestler” for the following awards: Mickey Rourke for Best Actor, Marisa Tomei for Best Supporting Actress, Robert Siegel for Best Original Screenplay, Darren Aronofsky for Best Director and “The Wrestler” for Best Picture of the year. I have read some negative reviews of this film and I honestly don’t know where in the hell they could come from. I can’t imagine anyone not responding to this material in an honest way. I sincerely hope you all get a chance to see it in theatres and enjoy it with an audience. It’s rare when we get the chance to root for a character like this surrounding my our peers.

Mickey Rourke (Ricky ‘The Ram’ Robinson)
Marisa Tomei (Cassidy)
Evan Rachel Wood (Stephanie Robinson)

Director: Darren Aronofsky

RATED R

REVOLUTIONARY ROAD Film Critique

2009-01-08T14:39:00.001-08:00

The ship couldn't kill her but the suburbs will!

There was something about that “Revolutionary Road” trailer that just made me all excited – something about the use
of music and the intricately woven scenes that made it seem like it was going to be nothing short of phenomenal. I mean, director Sam Mendes is not one for making inadequate films – his resume speaks for itself. And the film is based on a popular book that was equally impressive in its text and dissection of suburban life, something Mendes already tackled once with “American Beauty”. And say what you want to about “Titanic”, but there are lots of people out there who wanted to see Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet reunite on screen, especially now since they’ve both become so powerful and so sought after as actors. But there is something missing from “Revolutionary Road” – there is something ‘off’. I sat through the film, which is difficult at times, and kept waiting for this one moment that would transform this into the powerful piece of cinema I had hoped it would be. It almost gets there. It reaches for and just misses. There’s a lot to admire about this picture, and I’m
sure it will win its fair share of awards, but I couldn’t help but thing it really went nowhere.

The film is, essentially, about a young suburban couple trying to make their way in the world and how the suburbs and that idyllic life destroys them. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet star as Frank and April Wheeler. Frank works a nothing office job at a corporation in the city, just like his father, and resents every day of it. April stays at home and raises the kids and keeps the house. She wanted to be an actress. He wanted to be anything. They both find themselves living a life they never wanted with people who are not who they thought. One day their next door neighbor and realtor, Helen (Kathy Bates) brings her son, John (Michael Shannon) over for a visit to mean the ‘nice, normal’ young couple. John has recently been released from an insane asylum where we was given electro -shock treatment, causing some chaotic behavior. John ends up taking his aggression out on the Wheelers, attempting to bring out their innermost fears. At the same time, Frank is screwing around in April with a secretary and April is screwing around on Frank with their next door neighbor (David Harbour). When April has the idea to move the family to Paris, everything becomes exciting and new again. When Frank is offered a promotion, it throws that dream into question and their entire worlds become turned upside down. By the end, the suburbs win and idealism is destroyed.

There is nothing really technically wrong with the film, per se. My problem was that we never came to care about either Frank or April because, when you get down to it, they are both miserable and hurtful human beings. And, with that, it is no surprise to us what happens to them. In that, the film was utterly predictable. I felt like the characters of Helen Givings and John Givings were unnecessary and held no significance on the film. You could have taken their scenes out and this story would have played out the exact same way. Michael Shannon has been getting a lot of buzz for his two-scene role here, but I thought his character was useless and the performance was too much. His character basically did nothing but explain to us what we already knew. We see Frank and April have this huge argument. Somehow, because he’s had electro -shock, John knows exactly what is going on and basically screams at them both telling them exactly what they just did and said – exactly what we just saw. We don’t need to be told the same thing over and over again and we certainly don’t need any more screaming in addition to what we’re already being given. Plus, I need to mention – it bothered me that the kids kept popping up and then disappearing. How do they have such miserable lives when they obviously don’t have to take any responsibility for their own children?

All of that said, DiCaprio and Winslet are quite good here. Their scenes together sizzle with chemistry and they are both very strong with these roles. I just felt like I was being given scene after scene after scene of the same old thing. I was left with the feeling that DiCaprio was so insecure and so paranoid that he would destroy himself and that Winslet was so insane and so demented that she should be locked up. It’s weird to say, but I thought they gave amazing performances in terrible roles. My favorite scene between them comes immediately after John and his family have left for the last time and their argument blows up like never before, ending with a ‘chase scene’ through the woods. This brings about an ending, however, that is predictable and benign. I was expecting the film to end that way and I wanted to be surprised. The whole film seemed to be about how young love can’t survive the traditional family dynamic. The whole film seemed to be about how attempting to buck the system will lead to misery. I wanted to see more about why these two individuals hated each other, or didn’t, or whatever. I didn ’t want to see scene after scene of this poor pitiful young people being driven to madness by shrubbery and day jobs and cooking scrambled eggs. Neither of them seemed bad off and I never really understood what they had to be so miserable about.

This was definitely one of my bigger disappointments of the year. Sam Mendes is usually always a hit with me, but I think he missed the mark here. I noticed several of those trademark “American Beauty” moments that popped up here and there, but those definitely belonged in “American Beauty” and not here. I read one review of the film that called it ‘difficult to watch’ and ‘impossible to sit through’, and I would almost tend to agree. There is so much screaming and so much fist shaking and misery that you eventually become immune to it and just want silence. When Kate Winslet was pleading with Leonardo DiCaprio to leave her alone, we were hoping he would. And maybe the whole ploy with this film was to make the audience uncomfortable and really make us hate these characters, but you cannot have us dislike characters so thoroughly and then expect an ending like that to mean anything. “Revolutionary Road” is a real waste of ideas that could have gone somewhere. It’s like all the ingredients were there for this elaborate cake, except someone forgot to add flour. It’s like I kept waiting and waiting on this ‘something’ to happen and it never did. I don’t feel cheated so much as I feel like its trailer wrote a check that its content couldn’t cash. It’s a real shame.

Leonardo DiCaprio (Frank Wheeler)
Kate Winslet (April Wheeler)
Kathy Bates (Helen Givings)
Michael Shannon (John Givings)
Kathryn Hahn (Milly Campbell)
David Harbour (Shep Campbell)
Jay O. Sanders (Bart Pollack)

Director: Sam Mendes

RATED R

AND A HALF

FROST/NIXON Film Critique

2009-01-07T12:27:00.001-08:00

Can you connect yourself to me in six degrees?

Two of the biggest plays to hit Broadway stages in recent years were turned into feature films in 2008. “Doubt” was the first and it was my favorite film of the year. The other was “Frost/Nixon”, directed by the underestimated Ron Howard and starring the two men who made the play such a success, Frank Langella and Michael Sheen. The film has all the pedigree you could hope for in a motion picture: directed by Ron Howard, written by Peter Morgan who penned “The Queen” and featuring an incredible ensemble cast that would leave any casting director envious. There has also been a lot of buzz about this film being one of the frontrunners at the Academy Awards this year. I could see that. The film is simply fantastic. As a fan of the play, I was wondering how Howard was going to translate that to screen, but he’s done a commanding job of making us feel every bit of drama and every bit of comedy that the play produced so brilliantly. The result is a film that paints two intricate portraits of two very different men who, oddly enough, seem to have quite a bit in common. “Frost/Nixon” is one of the best films of 2008.

The film begins not very long after President Richard Nixon (Frank Langella) resigns the Presidency of the United States. He has just been pardoned by Gerald Ford and the American people are angry. A continent away, David Frost (Michael Sheen) is interviewing the Bee-Gees one day and then deciding he wants to be the first reporter to get an exclusive interview with Nixon. What happens next is astonishing. Using his own money, Frost finances the interview with Nixon, a man who seems determined to get these dark and terrible secrets off his chest and on the record. Frost hires a crack team of investigators to assist, including James Reston (Sam Rockwell) and Bob Zelnick (Oliver Platt), who work to criminalize Nixon once and for all. Once the tapes start rolling, nothing goes as planned and Frost must come to the realization that he might not have given the former President enough credit. What we see is Richard Nixon, a brilliant and crafty veteran of politics who makes questions his own and never gives the answers the other side wants. In Nixon’s corner, watching out for his safety, is Jack Brennan (Kevin Bacon), his friend and associate. By the end, as you already known, Nixon confesses some wrong-doing in the Watergate ordeal, changing his perception forever and giving Frost the career boost he needed. No spoilers – it’s all on public record.

What a fine crafted film this is. The film cuts back from live action scenes to documentary-style interviews with the main characters in the film, which is exactly what they do in the stage play. I just assumed Howard would try and find some way around this but instead he embraced it and it helps the film tremendously. We get the sense that we’re watching a re-cap of some epic battle between two icons. The cinematography by Salvatore Totino might be easy to dismiss, but he does some nice things here, especially in the way he photographs Nixon, especially in the shadows. Nixon is built up to be this giant of a man – this titan of politics. The music from Hans Zimmer is some of the best of the year and the art direction and production design fantastic. But the real credit here goes to Ron Howard who continues to show that he has far more up his sleeve that some of his lesser fare would indicate. “Frost/Nixon” is the best film he’s done since “Apollo 13” and it’s a different kind of film for him, which was nice. Luckily, for Howard, he had a terrific play from Peter Morgan that Morgan was able to translate effortlessly to the screen. Credit both Howard and Morgan for this achievement.

But, in regards to this film, there is one man receiving more attention than anyone else and that man is Frank Langella as Richard Nixon. He took home the Tony Award for this role on Broadway and there is heavy talk of his taking home the Oscar as well. Langella is electric here in one of his best roles to date. Langella is not so much doing a Nixon imitation as taking what we know about Nixon’s voice and mannerisms and making them his own. You can’t watch this performance and call it an imitation and the trailers really don’t do his performance justice as they rarely do. Michael Sheen will probably be close to overlooked for his role as David Frost, just as he was overlooked for his role as Tony Blair in “The Queen”. There, Helen Mirren stole the show. Here, it’s Frank Langella. His performance here is astonishing and he is slowly setting up his reputation as one of the superior leading dramatic actors working today. Sam Rockwell is convincing here in his role as James Reston, Oliver Platt provides some limited comedy relief as Bob Zelnick and Kevin Bacon is fine as Jack Brennan. And it was very nice to see the great Toby Jones at it again, this time as super agent Swifty Lazar.

What a fun and entertaining film this was, from start to finish. You know what the outcome is going to be, but you are still on the edge of your seat. Langella and Frost have a nice chemistry that really helps their scenes together, especially Nixon’s late night call to Frost that has become pure speculation and here say over the years. “Frost/Nixon” might wind up the big winner at the Academy Awards. I cannot say it’s the best film of the year, but it’s certainly one of the best. And, in this day and age when we’re receiving film after mediocre film about politics and power struggles, it’s nice to see a film that simply hopes to recreate a moment in time and let the audience enjoy. “Frost/Nixon” has that rare quality where you feel like you’re watching history – not some grand cinematic achievement, but real history. My recommendations would be Frank Langella for Best Actor, Michael Sheen for Best Supporting Actor, Peter Morgan for Best Adapted Screenplay, Ron Howard for Best Director and “Frost/Nixon” for Best Picture. It should be opening in much wider release, so I suggest you check it out.

Frank Langella (Richard Nixon)
Michael Sheen (David Frost)
Sam Rockwell (James Reston, Jr.)
Kevin Bacon (Jack Brennan)
Oliver Platt (Bob Zelnick)
Matthew Macfadyen (John Birt)
Toby Jones (Swifty Lazar)
Rebecca Hall (Caroline Cushing)

Director: Ron Howard

RATED R

AND A HALF

OBITUARY

2009-01-05T12:20:00.000-08:00

R.I.P.
PAT HINGLE
1924 - 2009

FILMOGRAPHY:

1963...The Ugly American
1968...Sol Madrid
1968...Jigsaw
1968...Hang'Em High
1970...Bloody Mama
1970...WUSA
1970...Norwood
1973...Nightmare Honeymoon
1973...One Little Indian
1976...Independence
1977...The Gauntlet
1979...Elvis
1979...When You Comin' Back, Red Ryder?
1979...Norma Rae
1980...Running Scared
1983...Sudden Impact
1985...The Falcon and the Snowman
1985...Brewster's Millions
1986...Maximum Overdrive
1987...Baby Boom
1988...The Land Before Time
1989...Batman
1990...The Grifters
1992...Batman Returns
1994...Lightning Jack
1995...The Quick and the Dead
1995...Batman Forever
1995...Truman
1997...Larger Than Life
1997...Bastard Out of Carolina
1997...Batman & Robin
1997...A Thousand Acres
1999...Muppets from Space
2000...Shaft
2006...Talladega Nights
2006...Waltzing Anna
2008...Doing Time

Pat Hingle was a character actor, one of the best kind. He appeared in numerous films and television shows, but is most remembered as Commissioner Gordon in the first four of the "Batman" films. He was also John Adams in "Independence", a bartender in "The Quick and the Dead" and the narrator of "The Land Before Time". He was not as visible in films of late, his most notable role being in "Talladega Nights" in 2006. He will be missed and is a fond memory of my childhood.

DOUBT Film Critique

2008-12-29T06:36:00.001-08:00

Oh my God -- the dingo ate my rosary!

When it comes to a cinematic ‘permanent record’, John Patrick Shanley probably doesn’t instill tons of confidence on the first perusal of his track record. This is the same guy who wrote and directed “Joe Versus the Volcano”, one of the most confusing and critically loathed films of the 1990’s – the same man who also penned the screenplay for two Frank Marshall films, “Alive” and “Congo”. So, you see, his name is not normally attached to films that would ever be considered for awards potential…until now. The play version of “Doubt” took Broadway by storm in 2005 and won Shanley the Pulitzer Prize for Drama, bringing about this film adaptation. It might wind up being his greatest achievement, but even if he turns out to be a one-hit wonder, he has left up with a riveting piece of drama, translated wonderfully to screen by the man himself. “Doubt” is one of those films you have to see to understand because I cannot adequately describe to you what the film is about; the picture is more about a feeling than an idea. I can’t explain how amazing the performances are – you have to see them and appreciate them yourself. This motion picture was easily the greatest cinematic achievement of the year.

The action here takes place at St. Nicholas School in New York City, a parochial school headed by Sister Aloysius (Meryl Streep), a traditional hard-nosed nun who hates ball point pens and loves exercising her authority over everyone. Amy Adams co-stars as Sister James, an idealistic young nun who exercises compassion and love over hardness and cruelty. One day, Sister James becomes suspicious when Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) calls the schools first African-American student to the rectory for a private talk. She explains what happened to Sister Aloysius, also noting that she smelled alcohol on the boys breath when he returned. Though nothing is expressly spoken, we can see by Sister Aloysius’ reaction that she suspects something improper. When she and Sister James confront Father Flynn, he denies everything and comes up with an excuse that would work on a normal person. But Sister Aloysius never relents and makes it her personal mission to see Father Flynn removed from the school. Sister James can’t seem to make up her mind as to whether or not she believes Father Flynn could be capable of something like that. The film is basically a power play between Streep and Hoffman as they do battle with the perceptions they have offered to the other.

What makes this film work so well is that nothing is black and white. You only once here Meryl Streep refer to Father Flynn’s relationship with the boy as ‘inappropriate’ and she only goes so far as to suggest he might have ‘made advances’. The worst ‘molest’ is never brought up, nor is the word ‘pedophile’. In the Catholic Church, there is a protocol and there is a vernacular that exist inside themselves and to cross outside those lines can be very tricky indeed. But there is also some ‘doubt’ as to whether Sister Aloysius really believes in Father Flynn’s corruption with such certainty. Is she simply taking out her dislike for the man in other areas? Is she seeking his ruin because of the way he takes his tea and the way he keeps his fingernails long? The character of Sister Aloysius is certainly not above these kinds of actions, as we find out. The ending of the film can be interpreted in a number of different ways, but I found the meaning rather straightforward. It becomes pretty obvious, by that point, that one character is right and the other is wrong and that justice has been served. When Meryl Streep utters that last line to Sister James, it isn’t so much a confession as a declaration. It shouldn’t make us second guess or question anything else that has happened, because it is oddly unrelated to those matters and more in relation to the approach she had to take to arrive at the truth.

The film is also helped by the most incredible ensemble cast of the year. I can’t imagine these words being delivered any better than they are here. Meryl Streep is insanely good here, her best performance in years, as Sister Aloysius. Her mannerisms – a grunt here and a pause here and an eyebrow raises there – are tailored for maximum potency and you can really appreciate her talents on full display throughout. The audience was literally cheering for her through most of the film. And it was very nice to see her go toe-to-toe with Philip Seymour Hoffman who is just fantastic as Father Flynn. The two of them create more than their share of fireworks, especially in that powerful final scene. Amy Adams is perfectly cast as the naive young nun who wants to see the good in people but gets a crash course in the dark side of human nature. And, Viola Davis will surely find a much deserved Academy Award nomination for her one-scene as the mother of the boy in question. It’s definitely written to be a scene stealer and Davis is breathtaking in a role that people will remember for years to come – it’s just that good. These four actors make up one of the best casts of the year and they all deliver Shanley’s words with such perfection and such finesse. Awards season will likely shine on each of them.

All of that said, I have had very little time to devote to the technical merits of the film. The cinematography of Roger Deakins is pitch-perfect, using sharp angles to exploit the mood of the picture, simple and elegant shots that don’t take attention away from the story. I just loved the opening sequence and how plainly it was shot. The original score from Howard Shore is dark and building and adds so much throughout the picture, kind of like a storm building. “Doubt” just has so much going for it, it’s difficult to mention it all in one review. It was like watching a master class on acting and that was probably because the playwright was allowed to direct the film incarnation. John Patrick Shanley has surely redeemed himself in the eyes of most for “Joe Versus the Volcano”. He has taken his Pulitzer Prize winning play and turned it into what I hope will become an Oscar winning motion picture. Meryl Streep should easily win for Best Actress, Philip Seymour Hoffman a nomination for Best Supporting Actor, Amy Adams a possible nod for Best Supporting Actress and Viola Davis a definite win for Best Supporting Actress. Throw in an original score, cinematography, adapted screenplay, Best Director and Best Picture nomination and you easily have the best film of 2008, without a ‘doubt’.

Meryl Streep (Sister Aloysius Beauvier)
Philip Seymour Hoffman (Father Brendan Flynn)
Amy Adams (Sister James)
Viola Davis (Mrs. Miller)
Alice Drummond (Sister Veronica)

Director: John Patrick Shanley

RATED PG-13

MOVIES MADE EASY AWARDS Nominees!!!

2008-12-28T20:59:00.000-08:00

Best Original Score

Jon Brion – Synecdoche, New York
Alexandre Desplat – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
David Hirschfelder - Australia
R.A. Rahman – Slumdog Millionaire
Howard Shore – Doubt
Hans Zimmer – Frost/Nixon

Best Cinematography

Roger Deakins – Doubt
Frederick Elmes – Synecdoche, New York
Claudio Miranda – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Declan Quinn – Rachel Getting Married
Mandy Walker - Australia
Colin Watkinson – The Fall

Best Breakthrough Performance

Rosemarie DeWitt – Rachel Getting Married
Rebecca Hall – Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Taraji P. Henson – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Dev Patel – Slumdog Millionaire
Robert Pattinson – Twilight
Brandon Walters – Australia

Best Comedic Performance

Thomas Haden Church – Smart People
Robert Downey, Jr. – Tropic Thunder
James Franco – Pineapple Express
Richard Jenkins – Step Brothers
Jane Lynch – Role Models
Frances McDormand – Burn After Reading

Best Actress In A Supporting Role

Viola Davis – Doubt
Rosemarie DeWitt – Rachel Getting Married
Taraji P. Henson – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Samantha Morton – Synecdoche, New York
Marisa Tomei – The Wrestler
Debra Winger – Rachel Getting Married

Best Actor In A Supporting Role

Emile Hirsch - Milk
Philip Seymour Hoffman – Doubt
Heath Ledger – The Dark Knight
Tom Noonan – Synecdoche, New York
Michael Sheen – Frost/Nixon
David Thewlis – The Boy in the Striped Pajamas

Best Actress In A Leading Role

Cate Blanchett – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Anne Hathaway – Rachel Getting Married
Nicole Kidman – Australia
Emily Mortimer - Transsiberian
Meryl Streep – Doubt
Kate Winslet – Revolutionary Road

Best Actor In A Leading Role

Brian Cox – Red
Clint Eastwood – Gran Torino
Philip Seymour Hoffman – Synecdoche, New York
Frank Langella – Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn – Milk
Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler

Best Adapted Screenplay

Simon Beaufoy – Slumdog Millionaire
David Hare – The Reader
Peter Morgan – Frost/Nixon
Eric Roth – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
John Patrick Shanley – Doubt
Stephen Susco – Red

Best Original Screenplay

Joel & Ethan Coen – Burn After Reading
Dustin Lance Black – Milk
Garth Jennings – Son of Rambow
Charlie Kaufman – Synecdoche, New York
Jenny Lumet – Rachel Getting Married
Robert Seigel - The Wrestler

Best Director

Darren Aronofsky - The Wrestler
Jonathan Demme – Rachel Getting Married
David Fincher – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Charlie Kaufman – Synecdoche, New York
John Patrick Shanley – Doubt
Gus Van Sant – Milk

Best Documentary Feature

Dear Zachary: Letters to A Son About His Father
Encounters at the End of the World
Glass: A Portrait of Philip in Twelve Parts
Man on Wire
The Order of Myths
Standard Operating Procedure

Best Foreign Language Film

The Class (France)
Gomorrah (Italy)
Let the Right One In (Sweden)
The Song of Sparrows (Iran)
Waltz with Bashir (Israel)
Worlds Apart (Denmark)

Best Animated Feature

$9.99
Bolt
Fear(s) of the Dark
Kung Fu Panda
Wall-E
Waltz with Bashir

Best Film

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Doubt
Frost/Nixon
Milk
Synecdoche, New York
The Wrestler

GRAN TORINO Film Critique

2008-12-28T20:30:00.001-08:00

The Preparation-H is on Aisle 13, next to the Metamucil.

In the past six years Clint Eastwood has distinguished himself as one of the finest directors working today and one of the greatest filmmakers of all-time. He seems to be in his prime at such a late stage in life and he keeps churning out hit after hit after hit. I mean, just look at this track record since 2003: “Mystic River”, “Million Dollar Baby”, “Flags of Our Fathers”, “Letters from Iwo Jima”, “Changeling” – and now his latest motion picture, “Gran Torino”. Eastwood hasn’t starred in a film he’s directed since the underrated 2002 thriller “Blood Work”. He has stated this will be his final screen performance. The film has been receiving mixed reviews, with some people calling it one of the best films of the year and others calling it a colossal disappointment. I think I fall somewhere in the middle. “Gran Torino” is not Eastwood’s best directorial achievement of late, that’s for sure – but what the film manages to do is paint a portrait of a real character – a man who finds redemption in the most unlikeliest of places. With this performance, Eastwood demonstrates just how powerful he can be on screen and just how he can dominate a scene with a grunt or the raise of an eyebrow. Eastwood should very much receive an Academy Award nomination for this role, though the film is weak in a few areas. “Gran Torino” is a film I liked more than I think I should have.

We meet Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) after the death of his wife. We immediately see that Walt is a rather unhappy man – old, bitter and more than a little racist. His local priest (Christopher Carley) drops by from time to time to try and get him to go to confessional, though Walk outright refuses. Walt lives in a slum neighborhood and is surrounded by Mung immigrants, a fact that he loathes on a daily basis. After the boy who lives next door, Thao (Bee Vang) attempts to steal Walt’s 1972 Gran Torino, the story really kicks into action. Walt winds up saving Thao from a local gang and becomes the hero of the neighborhood, eventually striking up a friendship with Thao and his sister Sue. Walt doesn’t seem to like anyone, but somehow becomes endeared to the family next door, protecting them as best he can and connecting with a different generation and a different culture. When the conflict between Walt’s neighbors and the gang starts getting more intense, Walt must take a stand and do what he does best – defend others. The ending of the film comes at us in classic Eastwood style, though not in the way we really expect. “Gran Torino” is all about Walt Kowalski and his change of heart. It’s one of Eastwood’s richest and fullest performances to date and a real delight.

What drives this film is Eastwood. No other actor could create this character and no other actor could pull it off. He gruffs and grumbles his way into our hearts, even though he never lets up his racist mentality. Walt doesn’t like people and he doesn’t like that he is losing his street to Asians and Hispanics and African-Americans. We get the sense the only thing keeping him from a rampage was his wife. We see the relationship between he and his grown kids, who don’t understand him and only seem to call when they want something from him. His grandkids can’t relate to him at all. Watching his relationship develop with Thao and Sue is quite enjoyable, as he becomes a surrogate father to Thao and a friend to Sue, with their welcoming him into their lives and he doing the same. I just can’t stress enough how fine Eastwood’s performance is here. He works well with everyone in the film and manages to make us love a very crude character. I can’t think of a film that treats racism so flippantly as this one, yet making us endear to the individual at the helm of that particular ship. That is a credit to Eastwood’s direction and performance. A particularly enjoyable scene comes when Walt and his friend, played by John Carroll Lynch, attempt to show Thao how to talk and act like a man. It’s one of the best scenes in the film and it also showcases Eastwood’s knack for comedy.

The film slips up in the supporting performances. Eastwood has a tendency to cast unknown actors in all of his films, but he did it a little too much here. Bee Vang and Ahney Her, the two Asian kids Walt befriends, are just not strong actors and they can’t handle the emotional levels required for their roles, especially Vang. Eastwood and Vang have several scenes together where Vang’s inexperience really shows. I also had a real problem with the performance from Christopher Carley as the determined priest. I didn’t buy him for a second and it seemed like a second rate performance. Other than Eastwood, the best performance came from John Carroll Lynch as Walt’s barber and he is only in three scenes in the entire film. If the supporting performances had been as strong as Eastwood’s, this could have easily been the best film of the year. That said, I also think Eastwood directs better when he’s not in front of the camera. I would like to see this film starring Eastwood but directed by someone else. “Blood Work” is another example of a film Eastwood directed and starred in that could have been so much better than it was. I think Eastwood does both well, but not necessarily together. He could do it when he was younger, but if age has done anything, it’s limited that skill.

Even with all the problems I had with the film – even with all the flaws and all of the amateur performances, “Gran Torino” is one of my favorite films of the year. Clint Eastwood alone makes this an amazing motion picture. It is one of the best performances of the year and one of the best of his career and if it’s true that this is his final screen performance, he certainly decided to go out with a bang. “Gran Torino” isn’t going to receive the awards consideration as Eastwood’s more recent films but it will definitely be a fine addition to an ever expanding resume. And if you listen real close you can hear Eastwood singing in a song that plays over the end credits. It was a nice treat and it sounded as if the song was entitled “Gran Torino”. Kudos to Eastwood for such a stellar performance and kudos to him for getting better and better and going out on top. My recommendations are Clint Eastwood for Best Actor only, but that performance is enough to put this on my top ten list and make it a must-see for everyone out there.

Clint Eastwood (Walt Kowalski)
Christopher Carley (Father Janovich)
Bee Vang (Thao Vang Lor)
Ahney Her (Sue Lor)
Brian Haley (Mitch Kowalski)
Geraldine Hughes (Karen Kowalski)
John Carroll Lynch (Barber Martin)

Director: Clint Eastwood

RATED R

AND A HALF

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON Film Critique

2008-12-28T19:10:00.000-08:00

He looks like a mixture of Russell Crowe and Robert Redford.

Movies come and go; people grow old and die; the seasons change and the tides rise and fall – these are all certainties
of life. Now, you can add one more certainty to that list – Brad Pitt will never look bad. In “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”, Pitt has to play both an 80-year-old and a teenager. With the help of groundbreaking special effects, he is able to pull both off. It’s something that has never before been required of an actor on this particular level. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” lives and dies by your ability to accept the idea of a man who ages in reverse, being born as an old man and getting younger and younger. Director DavidFincher might not seem like the first choice for a film of this nature, especially when you look at his previous films, but Fincher does have a knack for handling odd material, or turning mainstream product into an odd result. Many people are calling “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” one of the best films of the year and touting it as a possible Best Picture winner. I can see where the high praise is coming from, but I can’t quite agree on all those points. I enjoyed the film, very much so, but had some problems with some of the execution therein. I think the film might have been handled better if more attention had been paid to the inside of Benjamin Button and not the outside. It’s great that we can see this character age, but it would have been nice to have seen a little more of what made the character tick.

In an unusual performance that deserves applause, Brad Pitt stars as Benjamin, who is born as an elderly man, barely alive. His father (JasonFlemyng) thinks he’s a monster and leaves him on the doorstep of an old age home ran by Queenie (Taraji P. Henson). She takes the child and raises him as her own, surrounded by elderly men and women who don’t see anything wrong with Benjamin. The film follows Benjamin as he gets older (though looking younger). He meets Daisy (CateBlanchett ) as a little girl and their relationship spans the length of the film. We follow Benjamin as he leaves home, joins a tugboat crew , fights in the war and sees the world, taking time to have a brief affair with the wife of a politician (TildaSwinton) and learn the ropes of women and drink from the adventurous Captain Mike (Jared Harris). As Benjamin gets older, he watches those around him age and die, finally reconnecting with Daisy when they’ve both reached, basically, the same age. The last part of the film is the strength of the picture, as we see Benjamin and Daisy share a very real love that is torn apart by the reality of what they have always known would happen. The film is the extraordinary story of a very ordinary man, and his condition is notdwelled upon very much at all. The final 30-minutes of the film are absolutely heartbreaking and make this a real treasure to watch.

There is so much to appreciate here. David Fincher knows how to craft an epic and this certainly qualifies. The special effects are nothing short of groundbreaking. We watch Brad Pitt as an old man and as a young man and know it’s not him, but the technology is just so impressive. This will really revolutionize what actors can do with a role and the way in which directors might go about casting, age wise. The cinematography from ClaudioMirando and the original score from Alexandre Desplat are both sure fire Oscar nominees and deservedly so. It was so nice to see the way in which Fincher wrapped the story together, taking time out for humorous bits and bobbles, as with the man who keeps explaining how he has been struck by lightning seven times. His last film, “Zodiac”, also had close to a three-hour run time.Fincher is great at producing lengthy films without
causing his audience to lost interest. This is a great feat these days, believe me. But the technical aspects of the film are not up for debate. It’s pretty obvious that the film is technically proficient in almost every way. I also want to single out two performers in the film. Taraji P. Benson will be nominated for an Academy Award for her role as Queenie and she sure does deserve it. She steals many of the scenes in the film and it was nice to see such a warm performance. Cate Blanchett should also be rewarded with a nomination for the most difficult role in the film. She actually has to play old with the make-up and
prosthetics, unlike Brad Pitt who gets theCGI-aid. Blanchett continues to prove she is one of the greatest actresses of her generation, hands down.

The problem I had with the film was the character of Benjamin Button. I didn’t find much depth in the performance from Pitt and I didn’t get enough information on him. I wanted to know more about the ramifications of his condition internally – how does this affect a human being to know they are aging in reverse? I don’t accept that Pitt’s character was solassez faire about the condition as he was in the film. I also thought Pitt was a little too subdued at times. The character never reaches any emotional heights and is really just a heartthrob for most of the film. Brad Pitt is the perfect choice for a role like that and he handles the early material well too – but, I just didn’t see enough range to be blow away by his performance. Pitt does a good job, just not a great job. His looks alone are nearly enough to carry him solely through the last part of the film. I will also make mention that there is a chunk of about 30-minutes that does drag. It comes almost immediately after the TildaSwinton sequence. It doesn’t bore, per se, and the audience is still interested – it just lacks the charisma of the other material. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to direct a film on the scale of this one, and I’m not slighting DavidFincher at all – I think he just attached to some material more than the other. I also had a huge problem with the number of times they kept cutting
back to the hospital with the elderly CateBlanchett and Hurricane Katrina approaching outside. All of that was just unnecessary and took away from what was the heart of the film.

Doing research I discovered that “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” currently rests at #100 on the IMDB Greatest Films list. This is ‘curious’ to me. I can understand how many people enjoy this film, but to call it one of the greatest films ever made? That is more than a stretch, that is an absurdity. The film really is “ForrestGump ”, with a few alterations. Benjamin Button might not have a mental condition, but he has a physical condition and they both have a plain-spoken simplicity about them. And, at first, the relationship between Benjamin and Daisy is very similar to the relationship between Forrest and Jenny. But, the real power in this film rests in the final act where we see just what this condition is doing to Benjamin as he gets younger and younger. I can’t think of a more heartbreaking ending in recent memory. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” was a fine film, an entertaining romance and a true achievement in special effects. It was not as incredible as I had hoped and the flaws I mentioned were enough to keep me from placing it on my top ten list, though it might make the bottom ten. And my suggestions for the film are: Best Actress (Blanchett), Best Supporting Actress (Henson), Best Original Score, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Adapted Screenplay and maybe even Best Director forFincher, depending. He deserves it.

Brad Pitt (Benjamin Button)
Cate Blanchett (Daisy)
Tilda Swinton (Elizabeth Abbott)
Taraji P. Henson (Queenie)
Julia Ormond (Caroline)
Jared Harris (Captain Mike)
Phyllis Somerville (Grandma Fuller)
Jason Flemyng (Thomas Button)

Director: David Fincher

RATED PG-13

VALKYRIE Film Critique

2008-12-28T01:35:00.001-08:00

Guess which one has the least acting experience?

There is something fascinating about the Holocaust. Cinema has always used the tragedy of this unimaginable event to create some of its most prolific benchmarks. In 2008, we have already been given several films dealing with that particular subject matter, from the recent “The Reader” to the emotional “The Boy in the Striped Pajamas”. That said, the film “Valkyrie” doesn’t necessarily revolve around the Holocaust, but a plot to kill the man most responsible for it, Adolf Hitler. Had Hitler been stopped even halfway through his genocidal rampage, who knows how many lives could have been saved? In most films dealing with the Holocaust and Hitler’s Germany, we are only given your traditional Nazis and Nazi loyalists, with very few dissenters. “Valkyrie” is all about dissenters – and German dissenters as that; a group of men who love their country so much that they are willing to risk their lives to see it returned to its former glory. The film comes to us from Bryan Singer, whose last film “Superman Returns” was a colossal piece of comic book garbage. Singer, however, has made some exceptional films and does have a way with a story. Love him or hate him, you have to respect his ability to move the plot along in whatever way it so chooses to do so. “Valkyrie” is easily one of his better films – his best since “Apt Pupil” and a top-notch thriller.

Very few people know this story which is probably what makes it so captivating. Tom Cruise stars as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, a German soldier who is injured on the front lines, having been sent there in the first place due to his concerns over Hitler and his elimination of the Jewish population. Colonel Stauffenberg is recruited by a group of German loyalists who want to assassinate Hitler and end war with the Allies. This group is comprised of businessmen, heads of state and noted politicians and military. Kenneth Branagh co-stars as Major Tresckow, Terence Stamp as General Beck and Bill Nighy as General Olbricht – the three men leading the military side of the operation. The goal is simple enough – assassinate Hitler and move the country to Operation Valkyrie, which would place control of the government into anti-Nazi hands and see the SS and Nazi chain of command decimated. After much preparation and covert happenings, the plan is carried out, the consequences of which control the last chunk of the film. “Valkyrie” is haunting in that it shows us just how close these men came to changing the course of history as we know it. We all know our world history so we know Hitler’s assassination attempt failed, but the events surrounding it are truly remarkable.

On the positive side of things, the film is a real technical achievement. Director Bryan Singer has crafted an intricate thriller with all the trimmings. The art direction and production design are top notch and the cinematography from Newton Thomas Sigel is aimed and spot-on. It felt like we were seeing one of the most realistic visual portraits of Hitler’s Germany ever captured. The pacing of the film was tight and well-etched out, carrying never a dull moment and keeping us centered on the storyline, which was the real star of the entire picture. Tom Wilkinson turns in a fantastic performance as General Fromm, an on-again/off-again ally to the cause who eventually saves his own skin. He doesn’t get a lot of screen time, but he is so powerful when he’s there. Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh also provided excellent support in two very key roles, as do Terence Sramp and a very solid Eddie Izzard. The one performance I want to really single out comes from David Bamber as Adolf Hitler. The man is flawless. He has this cadence to his performance – to his speech and his walk – that just add a whole new dimension of power to the role. You really feel his presence when he’s on screen. I was wondering how much of Hitler would make it into the film since very few films on this subject matter feature Hitler predominantly – but he made it on screen just enough to leave a lasting impression. It was one of the best embodiments of Hitler I have seen.

On the negative side of things, we have Tom Cruise. He seems so out of place here. We learn during the opening narration that Cruise can effectively pull off the German dialect, so it boggles my mind that Singer decided to go with neutral accents. With the exception of Thomas Kretschmann, all principles speak with neutral accents. It is most noticeable with Cruise, who doesn’t even attempt anything other than his American tone. This does not work. Cruise also doesn’t seem to play any level other than determined here. We see no emotional development in the character, no concern for the safety of himself or others and no real exploration of what made that character tick. And, since he’s the one we are supposed to be rooting for, we need something tangible. I don’t think Cruise single handidly ruined the film because I am recommending it, but he definitely turned what could have been a great film into an all right film. Imagine someone like Sean Penn in this role or someone like Philip Seymour Hoffman – just a little acting would have gone a long way. I am normally a Tom Cruise supporter and think he’s underrated as an actor, but he brings absolutely nothing to the table here, other than name power. It was akin to watching a wind-up doll in the role, going through the motions.

But what you want to know is – should I spend my hard earned money on “Valkyrie”, the latest in a long line of films on Nazi Germany? The answer is yes. This storyline is one you’ve likely never heard before and that storyline is carried out effectively in the film. We do get a sense of just how big this missed opportunity was and we can feel the effects of that on the characters in the picture. I wish this would have been treated with kid gloves as an independent project, maybe given a low profile lead actor and ushered out with the same kind of excitement as another awards season indie contender. Tom Cruise might just be too big for this role. It just bewilders me that Singer would choose to go with the neutral accents when he has a cast full of individuals who could easily pull that accent off. If you have the talent, use it. Don’t dumb it down for us art-less American audiences. We can handle a lot more than that. “Valkyrie” is an engaging thriller with a polished productions and a fantastic actor as Adolf Hitler. It’s definitely a must-see for the thriller fans out there and a sturdy recommendation to everyone else. Tom Cruise is the one downside but the story is strong enough to cover his short comings. Had the events in this film succeeded, who knows if I’d even be writing this right now?

Tom Cruise (Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg)
Kenneth Branagh (Major-General Henning von Tresckow)
Bill Nighy (General Friedrich Olbricht)
Tom Wilkinson (General Friedrich Fromm)
Thomas Kretschmann (Major Otto Ernst Remer)
Terence Stamp (General Ludwig Beck)
Eddie Izzard (General Erich Fellgiebel)
David Bamber (Adolf Hitler)
Tom Hollander (Colonel Heinz Brandt)

Director: Bryan Singer

RATED PG-13

SEVEN POUNDS Film Critique

2008-12-27T22:51:00.001-08:00

If only they could transplant my two left feet.

What do you do when you’re the biggest movie star on the planet? If your name is Will Smith – whatever the hell you want. And, up until now, it’s a move that has worked for the actor time and time again. The man can do no wrong. Just when you think he’s attached himself to a dud – i.e. “Hancock” or “Hitch” – he knocks another one out of the park and increases his profile even more. Alas, with “Seven Pounds”, Smith might finally have found a way to alienate audiences. Because if you’re the number one movie star on the planet, the last thing audiences want to see is a film dedicated to your causing damage to yourself. “Seven Pounds” is that film, a dark and somewhat depressing look at a man seeking redemption with an act that causes much confusion throughout. The film is directed by Gabriele Muccino, who directed Smith in his Oscar nominated performance last year in “The Pursuit of Happyness”. Muccino seems at home with heavy handed material and he treats this material very loosely, not really searching for any grounded basis on which to plant a foundation. “Seven Pounds” is a little hamfisted but ultimately succeeds thanks to a fine performance from Will Smith.

As mentioned, Will Smith stars as Ben Thomas, an I.R.S. agent on a mission. You see, Ben did something bad, some people died and now he is wanting to give seven people a gift they will never forget. But what is that gift? It’s pretty obvious from the trailer what it is – his organs, for one. Woody Harrelson plays a blind piano player who might be getting Ben’s eyes. Bill Smitrovich plays a hockey coach who is getting Ben’s kidney. And Rosario Dawson co-stars as Emily Posa, a young printer who is in desperate need of a heart or she faces certain death. Most of the film deals with the relationship that develops between Ben and Emily. She doesn’t know what Ben is trying to do – she just knows he is way too accomplished and intelligent to be an I.R.S. agent by choice. We piece together more of the puzzle as Ben and Emily get closer and closer, with Ben’s brother chasing him down every step of the way. When the end of the film comes, we are not surprised and there is no twist because the trailer gives everything away. The final ten minutes of the film are a disaster, churning sap into butter and spreading it all over the film negative. “Seven Pounds” was a solid film until the final seven minutes.

I would be lying if I didn’t say the story was compelling. Despite seeing all of the plot lines coming from a mile away, the story was interesting. The problem is the film didn’t know what position to take tonally. At first, it seems dark and depressing and then it shifts to quirky and upbeat. Is it a love story? A poignant drama? A moody indie? It didn’t know. You can’t have a character like Ben Thomas do everything he does in the first half of the film as a set up for a romantic comedy – you just can’t. And the ending of the film was just bad…plain bad. The whole means by which Smith carries out what he does is ludicrous. The final meeting between Dawson and Harrelson was so steeped in cheese that it might be want a fondue. I have to think this film would have been a much better film with a different ending – maybe one of the better films of the year. The first scene, with Smith talking to Harrelson on the phone, is so promising and really sets the picture up nicely. Unfortunately, it cannot deliver on that terrific set-up.

But don’t blame Will Smith. The man turns in the best performance of his career in this film, which is what redeems it ultimately. Smith is utterly believable in an unbelievable role. He carries the emotional weight of the role well and he acts in the way his character would act 100% of the time – very consistent and loyal to the material. Rosario Dawson also delivers a fine supporting performance – one of the best performances of her career also. Smith and Dawson have nice chemistry together and their story was the highlight of the entire picture. I wanted to see a film about them and nothing else. The rest of the performances are average, especially Woody Harrelson, who does nothing with a role that was written to do nothing; still, that is no excuse. Barry Pepper does a decent enough job, but his role is not given nearly enough attention and is therefore lacking. We know there is a back story, but we’re not given much more information.

On the whole, I guess I shouldn’t be recommending “Seven Pounds”. It’s cheese of the highest form and it piles it on mighty thick at the end. However, Will Smith continues to show his acting strength and that alone is reason enough to see the film. He has this strange charisma about him and it shines through in a dark and moody movie. If I’ve spoiled the film for you, I apologize, but the trailer does that well enough without me. The whole ‘mystery’ behind this film was really no mystery at all, but a failed attempt at releasing a mainstream motion picture without plot spills. I guess they thought we would never assume the obvious. “Seven Pounds” can wait until it hits your local dollar theatre or DVD – don’t worry about catching it before awards season. If it deserves any nomination, it’s Will Smith for Best Actor, but it’s still a stretch.

Will Smith (Ben Thomas)
Rosario Dawson (Emily Posa)
Woody Harrelson (Ezra Turner)
Michael Ealy (Ben’s Brother)
Barry Pepper (Dan)
Elpidia Carrillo (Connie Tepos)

Director: Gabriele Muccino

RATED PG-13

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE Film Critique

2008-12-22T14:00:00.001-08:00

Maybe Regis would have made the difference.

Pick a genre, any genre – chances are, Danny Boyle has mastered it. Since he burst onto the scene with “Trainspotting”, Danny Boyle has been one of the most innovative and groundbreaking filmmakers working in the business. He has found success in virtually every genre and is universally loved by critics and fans alike. In 2002, he re-invented the zombie genre with “28 Days Later”, one of the most visually sound horror films ever made. In 2004, he directed his most exceptional film to date, the wonderful “Millions”, which proved he could also craft an intimate story that was family appropriate. His most recent film, “Sunshine”, was the most creative science fiction film to come around in years and benefitted from Boyle’s incredible sense of low-budget imagery. His latest film is his most hyped film yet, “Slumdog Millionaire”, a direct departure from anything the filmmaker has done in the past and a likely Best Picture nominees at the 2009 Academy Awards – it already has a Golden Globe nomination in the bag. For me, the problem with Danny Boyle is that he has set his own bar too high. We expect amazing things from him and are disappointed when they are not delivered. I enjoyed “Slumdog Millionaire” quite a bit and would go so far as to say it is one of the better films of the year, but it wasn’t the best and I do think it has been overhyped. I enjoyed Danny Boyle’s previous three films far more than this one. “Slumdog Millionaire” has all of the primary triggers for success – it was just missing that little something extra.

The film centers around Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), a young man who has been accepted as a contestant on India’s “Who Wants to Be A Millionaire?” The film opens with Jamal being beaten and interrogated in a police station. We learn he has one millions of rupees and the police and the game show host (Anil Kapoor) think he cheated. As the police inspector (Irrfan Khan) tries to get the truth out of Jamal, we learn that the young man did not cheat, but knew each of the answers for a different reason. Through flashbacks to his youth, we learn how he knew these answers and how his entire life has revolved around his love and fascination with a girl named Latika (Freida Pinto), which whom he believes he is destined to spend the rest of his life. We watch as Jamal and his brother Salim grow up in the slums of Mumbai and then we follow them as the travel around trying to make ends meat, eventually leading them to a seemingly wonderful orphanage, until they realize the sinister goings on underneath the surface. Salim grows up to work for one of the local gangsters in the city, while Jamal serves tea in a call center, always on the look out for a way to get back in touch with the love he left behind. I won’t give away the ending of the film, but don’t expect any Shyamalan twists or anything. In terms of the story, everything is rather cookie-cutter. Don’t expect to be grieving.

A Danny Boyle film lives and dies by its visuals. Luckily, “Slumdog Millionaire” is served in all of those areas. The cinematography by Anthony Dod Mantle is likely to take home gold this year – “Slumdog Millionaire” vividly and energetically captures the look and feel of India, from the slums to the mansions, and the colors and the vibrancy of the location only add to the overall affect of the film. The original score by A.R. Rahman is one of the musical highlights of the year, and Boyle finally managed to find a way to properly use the song “Paper Planes” by M.I.A. But Danny Boyle is the man who deserves most, if not all, of the credit for the technical quality of this film. He has always had a way with younger actors and he proves that once again here, especially when you consider most of the film is revolving around these younger actors. Boyle also inserts some of his signatures into the film, from the fast-shudder techniques that he has always been so fond of to the man’s obvious fascination with men in the rain. “Slumdog Millionaire” deserves all the praise it has been receiving on the technical end and I will be anxious to see how well it does stacked up against others at the Oscars.

Now, to the problems I had with the film. The film lacked an emotional punch. In a film like this, you need something to really grip you – to tug at you. In “Millions”, we were given just that – you were really connected to the characters and you really were rooting for them and the ending leaves you just warmhearted and tear-struck. “Slumdog Millionaire” was missing that component for me. I was rooting for Jamal, of course. But I didn’t feel that tug of urgency. There is something that happens between Jamal and Latika at the end of the film that should have left my heart soaring. Instead, I felt like I had been given all the ingredients for satisfaction, but just not the directions on how to make it. Maybe it had something to do with what I felt was an underdeveloped passion and relationship between Jamal and Latika. We never really understand why their bond is so strong and why they can’t forget one another. Maybe the reasoning for that is in all the scenes we don’t see in the film. I just felt like we could have been given something that would make us fully understand why these two people are destined to be together.

But, those gripes aside, “Slumdog Millionaire” was a good film. Not a great film, but a good one. I think the film is being overhyped and I think that can only serve to harm it in the end. Don’t get me wrong – I’d love to see Danny Boyle win an Academy Award, but I cannot say he deserves it for this film. For “Millions”, yes. For “Sunshine”, yes. Not for “Slumdog Millionaire”. I will recommend, however, that everyone stick around for the credit sequence at the end of the film, which is a real delight. That sequence almost made me forget about the problems I had with the picture. Almost. My suggestions for the film would be Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Costume Design and Simon Beaufoy for best Adapted Screenplay. I would love to be able to give it more, but I just don’t think I can. Danny Boyle is just such an astonishingly good filmmaker that even a good film seems disappointing because you know he typically dabbles in greatness. But, see for yourself – see if it makes a better connection.

Dev Patel (Jamal Malik)
Freida Pinto (Latika)
Anil Kapoor (Prem Kumar)
Madhur Mittal (Salim Malik)
Irrfan Khan (Police Inspector)
Ankur Vikal (Maman)
Saurabh Shukla (Sergeant Srinivas)

Director: Danny Boyle

RATED R

OBITUARY

2008-12-22T08:28:00.000-08:00

R.I.P.
ROBERT MULLIGAN
1925 - 2008

FILMOGRAPHY:

1957...Fear Strikes Out
1960...The Rat Race
1961...The Great Impostor
1961...Come September
1962...The Spiral Road
1962...To Kill A Mockingbird
1963...Love with the Proper Stranger
1965...Baby the Rain Must Fall
1965...Inside Daisy Clover
1967...Up the Down Staircase
1968...The Stalking Moon
1971...The Pursuit of Happiness
1971...Summer of '42
1972...The Other
1974...The Nickel Ride
1978...Bloodbrothers
1978...Same Time, Next Year
1982...Kiss Me Goodbye
1988...Clara's Heart
1991...The Man in the Moon

It would not be an exaggeration to call Robert Mulligan a one-hit-wonder with "To Kill A Mockingbird". However, his one-hit happens to be one of the greatest cinematic accomplishments of all-time. Mulligan, however, also directed a couple of films for which I have much affection, especially his final film, "The Man in the Moon", which starred a young Reese Witherspoon in one of the most touching coming-of-age films I have ever seen. Mulligan's career was long and successful in both film and television and he was nominated for an Academy Award. His brother, actor Richard Mulligan, was also prolific in film and television.

OBITUARY

2008-12-10T06:53:00.000-08:00

R.I.P.
ROBERT PROSKY
1930 - 2008

FILMOGRAPHY:

1981...Thief
1982...Hanky Panky
1983...Christine
1984...The Natural
1987...Outrageous Fortune
1987...Broadcast News
1988...The Great Outdoors
1990...Loose Cannons
1990...Gremlins 2: The New Batch
1990...Funny About Love
1990...Green Card
1992...Far and Away
1992...Hoffa
1993...Last Action Hero
1993...Rudy
1993...Mrs. Doubtfire
1994...Miracle on 34th Street
1995...The Scarlet Letter
1995...Dead Man Walking
1996...The Chamber
1997...Mad City
1999...Dudley Do-Right
2005...Suits on the Loose

This is a sad day. Robert Prosky was one of the most recognizable character actors of the past three decades -- a kind-hearted, talented and appealing figure who made characters memorable and sympathetic. I will always remember him as Nick, the owner of the magical movie theatre in "Last Action Hero"; as the television mogul who helps Robin Williams win back his kids in "Mrs. Doubtfire"; as the priest who helps Rudy figure out a way to make it to Notre Dame. Prosky was a big part of my childhood and when I read the news this morning, I was deeply saddened. He's one of those actors a lot of people won't know, but definitely should remember.

PUNISHER: WAR ZONE Film Critique

2008-12-09T08:05:00.001-08:00

Ray Stevenson? Didn't he sing "Everything Is Beautiful"?

There really hasn’t been a true guilty pleasure for me in 2008. There have been some fantastic films and there have been some terrible films, but there haven’t been any films that were so bad they were good. Until now. “Punisher: War Zone” is a remake of a remake of a comic book adaptation – the whole ‘third times the charm’ scenario for Marvel Comics, with Lionsgate once again on board. The film is directed by former martial arts champion Lexi Alexander whose last film, “Green Street Hooligans”, is one of the most underrated macho films ever made. She was nominated for an Academy Award for her short film, “Johnny Flynton”, a film about boxing. So, the girl knows how to direct action and lots of people are calling her the new Kathryn Bigelow. What she does with “Punisher: War Zone” is admirable. She takes a franchise that has been such a disappointment to comic book fans and injects a little life into it. She threw caution to the wind and decided to make the craziest, bloodiest, most honest-to-god “Punisher” film ever made, and one of the most violent comic book adaptations ever. Alexander knows what this film is and she plays it up, but what helps her is the fact that she has some great actors, some lush set design and art direction and one hell of an eye for action. This is, without a doubt, my guiltiest of guilty pleasures for this year.

Forget the previous “Punisher” films. This picture opens with Frank Castle aka Punisher (Ray Stevenson) unleashing a can of unholy hell on a group of gangsters, including the egomaniacal Billy Russoti (Dominic West), hideously disfiguring him. In the process, The Punisher accidentally kills an FBI agent, which attracts the attention of that agents partner, Budiansky (Colin Salmon). Budiansky joins forces with Detective Soap (Dash Mihok), the head of the Punisher Task Force, to help bring Frank Castle to justice. Castle is ripped apart by guilt over the agent’s death, having killed one of the good guys, and he even contemplates leaving the world of The Punisher behind. Meanwhile, Billy is now referring to himself as Jigsaw, has sprung his batshit insane brother Loony Bin Jim (Doug Hutchison) from the nuthouse and is planning to find his money and do whatever it takes to get his revenge on Frank Castle. The film ends with a showdown between Castle and Jigsaw in an old abandoned hotel, complete with more bullets than a gun supply store and more blood than most Troma films. Wayne Knight co-stars as Micro, The Punisher’s tech guy and arms dealer. You’d think Knight would be serving as the comic relief, but you’d be incorrect – those honors belong to the films two villains.

Let me start off my saying that this film looks like a “Punisher” film should look. The problem with the previous two films was that they both approached the material from the wrong angle. The Dolph Lungren “Punisher” was too over-the-top Stallone-esque and lacked any and all credibility with the comic book legion. The Thomas Jane “Punisher” tried too much for realism and lost all comic book mentality in the translation, except for an insanely Jack Nicholson-esque performance from John Travolta. This “Punisher” meets in the middle. Ray Stevenson is the perfect choice for this role because he has such a mute expression and such subtle displays of emotion. He doesn’t underplay the role and he doesn’t overplay the role. He looks menacing, he feels menacing, but yet you can sympathize with the man for what he’s been through. The landscape and the world Alexander creates is just fantastic – with bright, vivid colors enhancing dark and dreary structures – making a church look more like a Vegas showplace. This is the way a film like this should look. All of the structures look far older than they should and the New York City created is one that rivals Gotham City in terms of Dario Argento-esque collision of color and chrome. The city takes on a life of its own.

The other exciting thing about this “Punisher” film is the choice of villains. Dominic West is fantastic here as Jigsaw and just chews up the scenery throughout. He has so much fun with this role and really creates a multi-dimensional character. This is one of the most complete performances from a villain in a comic book adaptation that I’ve seen. Doug Hutchison is also tons of fun as West’s sadistic brother. Hutchison overdoes the accent, but I think that’s the point. They are both overdoing the accent, but there really are people who talk like that, as ridiculous as it sometimes sounds. These two villains also serve as the comic relief for the film, especially in a sequence when they’re walking around to various neighborhoods, recruiting gangsters and criminals. West has a nice speech in front of a projected American flag that is quite nice. And I should mention that it was nice to see Dash Mihok in an unusual role for him, and Wayne Knight in a role that doesn’t do a whole lot, but shows Wayne Knight might have a career revival ahead. The rest of the performances are solid also – “Punisher: War Zone” benefits from a host of strong performances because everyone understands that is going on and everyone seems to be on the same page as director Lexi Alexander with the material.

What a surprise this was for me. I was expecting “Punisher: War Zone” to be just another lame comic book adaptation, especially considering it is a remake of a remale of a comic book adaptation. “Punisher: War Zone” blew me away with how tongue-in-cheek it handled so much of the material. My favorite scene in the film comes with three rooftop jumpers and the Punisher giving them a little surprise. You’ll know what I’m talking about when you see the film. “Punisher: War Zone” proves that there is hope for this franchise, even though the film made such little money its opening weekend that I doubt we will be seeing a sequel, unless it heads straight to DVD. That is a real shame. Director Lexi Alexander finally gave me a Frank Castle to root for. She finally gave me a villain that didn’t seem like a complete and utter vanity project. She finally have me the Wayne Knight comeback I’ve been waiting for. “Punisher: War Zone” is not a great film. By many standards it’s not even a good film. It’s a guilty pleasure. But I will recommend the hell out of it to each and every one of you.

Ray Stevenson (Frank Castle/The Punisher)
Dominic West (Billy Russoti/Jigsaw)
Doug Hutchison (Loony Bin Jim)
Colin Salmon (Paul Budiansky)
Dash Mihok (Martin Soap)
Wayne Knight (Micro)
Julie Benz (Angela Donatelli)

Director: Lexi Alexander

RATED R

AND A HALF

OBITUARY

2008-12-05T08:39:00.000-08:00

R.I.P.
PAUL BENEDICT
1938 - 2009

FILMOGRAPHY:

1972...Jeremiah Johnson
1974...The Front Page
1975..."The Jeffersons"
1977...The Goodbye Girl
1983...The Man with Two Brains
1984...This Is Spinal Tap
1988...Arthur 2: On the Rocks
1989...Cocktail
1990...The Freshman
1991...The Addams Family
1996...Waiting for Guffman
2000...Isn't She Great
2003...A Mighty Wind
2004...After the Sunset
2008...Side By Each

The name likely isn't familiar, but the face is. Paul Benedict was a character actor who helped create some of the most memorable scenes in film history. He is probably best known as Harry Bentley, a role he originated on "All in the Family" and played for several years on "The Jeffersons". He is memorable to younger audiences as the assumed Mr. Guffman in "Waiting for Guffman". I will always remember his brief but memorable role as the judge in "The Addams Family". Benedict was that rare breed of character actor -- and they don't make them like him anymore.

AUSTRALIA Film Critique

2008-12-01T15:09:00.001-08:00

Notice how neither one of them is getting wet?

Ever wonder what would happen if “Gone with the Wind” met “Crocodile Dundee”? Besides Mammy getting eaten by a crocodile, the result would be “Australia”, the adventurous and ballsy new epic from director Baz Luhrmann, who last dazzled our senses with his 2001 musical “Moulin Rouge” which did rather well come awards time. He has been slaving over this film for what seems like an eternity, with Russell Crowe originally attached to star before bowing out. There have been so many rumors and delays and production reports about this film, I was starting to wonder if it was ever going to find completion. “Australia” is in the tradition of the best of David Lean epics, with the wide-eyed wonder of the open landscape and the true sense of a film that knows what it wants to be and what it needs to do to get there. Baz Luhrmann did, with this film, what James Cameron wanted to do with “Titanic”. Both succeeded in their own ways. “Australia” is a better film.

The film is set in – you guessed it – Australia. Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) arrives to find her husband, who traveled to Australia to run a cattle farm and make loads of cash. When she arrives, she is shocked to find her husband recently killed in what seems like an accident. A man known as Drover (Hugh Jackman) becomes her love/hate relationship of choice and a small half breed named Nullah (Brandon Walters) her surrogate child. Lady Ashley decides to assist Drover in moving 1500 heads of cattle across Australia and to the city, where they would be collecting a nice sum of money and socking one to the wealthiest man around, King Carney (Bryan Brown). That is the first half of the film. The second half deals with Lady Ashley, Drover and Nullah going back to the ranch and settling down before unforeseen circumstances take over and send them all back to the city for more adventure and intrigue. David Wenham co-stars as Fletcher, the villain of the piece who was very similar to Luhrmann’s villain from “Moulin Rouge”.

The scope of this film is impressive. Luhrmann’s pulled out all the stops for this picture and was determined to craft a film in the grande tradition of “Gone with the Wind” or “Lawrence of Arabia” – and the funny thing is that he succeeds. “Australia” works on all those levels. It has romance, it has drama, it has adventure and it has a satisfying resolution. I guess you could say his approach was more homage than anything else but the film really does stand on its own. I was especially impressed with his attention to details in the film. He didn’t skimp in any area. The art direction is fantastic and maintains Luhrmann’s signature styles. The cinematography is expansive and really captures the beauty of the Australian landscape. And the original score from David Hirschfelder is very likely going to find an Academy Award nomination because it’s that kind of score that really does make an epic adventure film like this. Kudos to Luhrmann and his talented group of artists who brought the beauty and the rambunctious spirit of this film to life.

And let me express how happy I am that Russell Crowe did not do this film. I cannot imagine him in the role of Drover. Hugh Jackman brings a handsome charm and a mischief to the role that Crowe does not possess. Drover would have been brooding all the time. Jackman strikes the right balance between performance and homage and it really works. Nicole Kidman also turns in yet another fantastic performance in a role that requires a wide range of emotions. Say what you will about her but she really is one of the finest actresses working today. The most remarkable performance came from Brandon Walters as Nullah, who really is the star of the film. I have a hard time recalling a better child performance in a film. David Wenham is menacing enough as the villain and Bryan Brown is quite nice in his memorable, but brief role. What Luhrmann did was instill in his cast exactly what he wanted, which is something taken for granted about a lot of other directors working today. They just assume their actors know. They don’t.

What a treat this was. The film runs at 2 hours and 45 minutes, but it felt like it was a two-hour picture. It keeps your undivided attention and it manages not to fall flat in its second act. A film like this could have been an epic disaster for Luhrmann, and I don’t know that it will live up to all financial expectations, but it certainly does deliver the goods. It just had that feeling of a classic and that needs to count for something – recreation is not simple. Baz Luhrmann for Best Director? Maybe. We’ll see how things shape up. David Hirschfelder for Best Original Score? A lock. I would also even consider Nicole Kidman for a Best Actress nomination based on her work here. I think this film will dominate the technical categories but struggle in the others. Regardless, it is a fantastic film, a fine accomplishment and a rousing entertainment.

Hugh Jackman (Drover)
Nicole Kidman (Sarah Ashley)
Brandon Walters (Nullah)
David Wenham (Fletcher)
Bryan Brown (Carney)

Director: Baz Luhrmann

RATED PG-13

MILK Film Critique

2008-12-01T14:34:00.001-08:00

Milk -- it does the senses good.

In November, while most of the civilized world was embracing change and the start of a new era in American politics and the eradication of prejudices that have plagued our society for years, one specific community – the homosexual community – was being targeted by the Conservative Force in the United States. Proposition 8 passed in California and various other anti-gay measures around the country passed, signaling that – while many different groups had reason to celebrate – the gay movement was being pushed further and further back. A man named Harvey Milk dealt with this same kind of prejudice in his day. He was the first openly gay man elected to public office, which was a member of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco. In his short span as a Supervisor in the city, he helped pass the Gay Rights Amendment and defeat the Briggs Initiative, Proposition 6, which prevented homosexuals from working in public schools and could even cause friends of homosexuals to be fired from their jobs. Harvey Milk was one of the most outspoken leaders of the gay rights movement and in 1978 he was assassinated alongside San Francisco Mayor George Moscone by a fellow Supervisor, Dan White. “Milk”, directed by Gus Van Sant, chronicles Milks rise to power, his political career, his legacy and – ultimately – his departure.

We meet Harvey Milk (Sean Penn) in New York City in the early 1970's picking up a trick, Scott Smith (James Franco). It’s Harvey’s birthday and he doesn’t want to spend it alone. Harvey and Scott move to San Francisco where Harvey almost immediately gets involved in public office, even coining his own nickname, The Mayor of Castro Street. He runs for the Board of Supervisors on numerous occasions and is defeated each time, though garnering more and more votes with each subsequent election. When the district lines are redrawn, he takes advantage of it and is elected to the Board of Supervisors. Emile Hirsch co-stars as Cleve Jones, Harvey’s friend and campaign force; Alison Pill co-stars as Anne Kronenberg, his campaign manager. While serving on the Board of Supervisors, Harvey meets Dan White (Josh Brolin), a Conservative family man who doesn’t approve of Harvey’s lifestyle. The two develop an odd relationship that ranges from extreme distrust to a mutual acceptance of one another. Dan invites Harvey to his son’s christening, for example. The film ends with Dan White shooting Harvey Milk and George Moscone multiple times for Moscone’s refusal to reinstate Dan White to the Board of Supervisors after his resignation. These aren’t spoilers – everyone knows the story. It’s just the way things happened.

What director Gus Van Sant has done here is nothing short of miraculous. He has skillfully and perfectly re-captured a time in American politics and society. He has taken the Castro and given it a new life based on an old life. “Milk” is one of the most authentic portraits of a civil rights leader ever made and its especially important in these troubled times of intolerance. Van Sant uses old snapshots of the Castro and merges them with modern day footage that is seamless and really leaves a lasting impression. He takes archival footage – most featured in the Academy Award winning documentary “The Times of Harvey Milk” – and re-creates it. The look and feel of the film is just fantastic – very uplifting and not depressing at all. A tragedy occurs but we are left with this feeling that, though Harvey Milk is dead, his legacy will never die. The score by Danny Elfman is destined for an Academy Award nomination and I would be hard pressed to think of a more deserving director this year than Gus Van Sant who continues to push the boundaries of cinema from film to film. “Milk” is really his most mainstream film in a long while, but it still maintains that indie flourish that was present in films like “Elephant” and “Paranoid Park”. Van Sant is one of the best directors working today and this might be his year to make some cinematic noise.

As for the performances, I was left speechless. You never once think it’s Sean Penn you’re watching in this film. It is total immersion in a character. Watch “Milk” and then watch his performance in “I Am Sam” or “Mystic River”. It’s astonishing. He has the Academy Award all but officially won. James Franco also provides the best performance of his career, meaning this has been his most solid year to date with “Pineapple Express”. Josh Brolin continues his string of flawless performance as Dan White, probably the most complicated character in the story. I also want to single out Emile Hirsch who does what Sean Penn does here, but to a lesser extent. It is so refreshing to see heterosexual actors attack this material with such abandon. My problem with “Brokeback Mountain” was always that I didn’t feel like Ledger and Gyllenhaal just dove in to the content and the material – they did it, but with reservations. Penn, Franco and Hirsch have none of that feel to their performances – they seem real and very likable. If you want proof of how well they did, check out “The Times of Harvey Milk”. Or, stick around for the end of “Milk” where they show photos of the actors in character and the real individuals they played. Some of it, especially Sean Penn and Emile Hirsch, is just uncanny. Perfecting casting all around here.

This is getting to be the time of year where I give so many four and five star reviews, but they do typically save the best for last. “Milk” is my new favorite film of 2008 and I assure you it’s not just because I am a homosexual. I found numerous flaws with “Brokeback Mountain” and I am more critical of gay themed films than any others. “Milk” was a modern day masterpiece from a director who deserves all the accolades he is going to be receiving and more. It’s proof positive than Sean Penn is neck and neck with Philip Seymour Hoffman for being the best actor in modern times. I want to watch “Milk” with friends and I want to watch it once again after that. I want to see it nominated for Best Picture, Van Sant for Best Director, Dustin Lance Black for Best Original Screenplay, Sean Penn for Best Actor and Emile Hirsch for Best Supporting Actor. I want to see this film win everything it deserves and more. It’s a fantastic film – a real delight.

Sean Penn (Harvey Milk)
James Franco (Scott Smith)
Josh Brolin (Dan White)
Emile Hirsch (Cleve Jones)
Diego Luna (Jack Lira)
Alison Pill (Anne Kronenberg)
Victor Garber (George Moscone)
Denis O’Hare (John Briggs)

Director: Gus Van Sant

RATED R

REPO! THE GENETIC OPERA Film Critique

2008-12-01T09:56:00.001-08:00

Forget the nurses -- this bitch is DOA.

If you’ve ever wanted to sit through a 98 minute Meatloaf music video, “Repo! The Genetic Opera” might be just what the doctor ordered! Let me confess that I had no desire to see this film. I was literally dragged, kicking and screaming, by friends because they wanted to revel in the awfulness of the film rather than choose a film with more rewarding gifts to offer. The trailer alone looked like “High School Musical” directed by Alex Proyas – “Dark City” for the tweens. Darren Lynn Bousman, the director, doesn’t have a creative bone in his body. If he ever did, it was ripped out in some stunt gone haywire from one of his “Saw” films. “Repo! The Genetic Opera” is the modern day equivalent of “Stayin’ Alive”, minus John Travolta and Spandex. It tries to hard to be the next cult phenomenon – the next “Rocky Horror Picture Show”. However, in order to become a cult classic you have to have one thing – the desire to be great. The best cult films were films that tried to hard to be a masterpiece that they turned into a parody of themselves. “Repo!” doesn’t have the wherewithal to know what the hell it is. It’s not a cult film because it doesn’t strive for greatness. If it is striving for greatness, it becomes even more pathetic and sad. This was not only the worst film of the year but, indeed, the most painful and dreadful musical ever created.

Describing the plot to this film is like sympathizing with a rapist – you might understand where it’s coming from, but it will still fuck you up the ass. Basically, Shilo (Alexa Vega) is being held captive by her doctor father, Nathan (Anthony Stewart Head), who doubles as a Repo Man by night. You see – in this world, organ failures are rampant and a company called GeneCo. (headed by the villainous Paul Sorvino and his “Deliverance” kids) is offering them on credit. But, if you don’t pay, the Repo Man comes and collects. There’s something about Sorvino stealing Head’s woman and wanting revenge. There’s something about Head wanting to keep his daughter safe because she has a blood condition. There’s something about Sorvino dying and not wanting to leave his empire to his three mentally retarded children (Ogre, Bill Moseley, Paris Hilton). And then there some dead bitch named Marni who ties it all together somehow. The story is told through the many, many, many, many songs that litter this barren creative landscape. It’s basically a rock opera, though light on the rock and heavy on the opera. There are so many organs ripped out of bodies that you really start paying attention – “Hey! When did a spine become an organ?” The film ends with a “Rocky Horror Picture Show” performance with Sarah Brightman and a shit load of spine blood.

Shall we start with the music? Wow. What else is there to say? Wow. I could bend over and ass fart out a better tune than anything in this heap o’turds. Alexa Vega sounds like she’s channeling that really bad Britney Spears record – take your pick. Bill Moseley and Ogre are so bad that it’s not even laughable – it’s pathetic and wrong. I felt violated by their vocals. Paul Sorvino has a great, booming operatic voice. How did they land him for this film? Did Darren Lynn Bousman give him a ring and say, “Hey, Paul – remember that time I saved your kid from drowning in the river? Well – time to collect!” Despite his strong vocals, Sorvino takes this material so seriously that he becomes laughable himself. Doesn’t he know how bad this is? Anthony Stewart Head also has some impressive vocals and I have to admit it’s nice to see Giles from “Buffy” find some work, but I have to think a career on Broadway would better suit him. I honestly can’t remember a single song from the production. They are just so dreadful. The choruses feel like punchlines to jokes that Bousman ineptly strung together like a necklace of broken pearls. The relevance of the songs to the story is like bucktoothed, hair-lipped son of “Les Miserables”. I felt bad for each and every person involved with this waste of time. I felt sorry for the audience watching it.

Despite all of this, there seems to be a cult following developing around the picture. They tried midnight screenings with “Showgirls” a few years back and it didn’t work. You can’t become a cult film when that’s what you’re trying to be because that defeats the whole point of being a cult film. Do you think “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” set out to become such a phenomenon and have midnight screenings all across the globe on a weekly basis? No. It just sort of fell into it. “Mommie Dearest” was tackled with all the intensity and earnestness that could be mustered and now we quote lines from that film as if it were the Fabulous Plague. “Repo!” is not a cult film. It’s not a good film. It’s a cinematic abortion. Darren Lynn Bousman and his piss poor production staff should be shot if for no other reason that their decision to dress the Repo Man like the Orkin Man, put chicks in welder masks with red lighting gels and cover virtually every other room in plastic. If this is what the future really looks like, give me “2012". And I won’t even go into the numerous “Blade Runner” rip-offs that are abound. Evidently this show was a stage musical long before it made its way onto cinema screens. Maybe it works better on stage. I can’t imagine this working if you resurrected Jimmy Stewart and cast him as the Repo Man.

So, if you can’t tell – I do not recommend this picture. In fact, I might pay you not to see it. The good thing is that it’s not playing anywhere close to most of you, but you might still want to seek it out on DVD. Don’t! E-Mail me with your mailing address and I will send you $1.00 not to see this film. You can use that dollar however you see fit. Want to purchase that special edition copy of “Ishtar”? You’ve got $1.00 towards it! Want a pack of Goobers before you head into the cineplex! I’ve got $1.00 of that covered! I will do anything it takes to keep you from wasting your time on this monumental, colossal, ridiculous, pathetic and turdolicious piece of cinematic dung. Go ahead and cast your Razzie votes now – “Repo! The Genetic Opera” is the winner. A man and a woman walk into a bar. The bartender says, “What can I get for you?” The woman says, “Whiskey and soda”. The bartender mixes the drink. The man says, “Repo! The Genetic Opera”. The woman throws the drink in the man’s face and the bartender pulls out a shotfun and blasts his brains all over the woman. Some films are lethal. “Repo!” might just kill you.

Alexa Vega (Shilo Thomas)
Anthony Stewart Head (Nathan Thomas)
Paul Sorvino (Rotti Largo)
Sarah Brightman (Blind Mag)
Paris Hilton (Amber Sweet)
Bill Moseley (Luigi Largo)
Nivek Ogre (Pavi Largo)

Director: Darren Lynn Bousman

RATED R

OBITUARY

2008-11-24T06:55:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-22T15:06:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-21T09:18:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-17T13:10:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-16T15:11:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-14T07:53:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-14T07:49:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-11T12:01:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-07T09:54:00.001-08:00

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

2008-11-06T07:46:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-05T08:56:00.001-08:00

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

50 Greatest Horror Films of All-Time

2008-10-29T11:47:00.000-07:00

Not much detail here yet. I've been working on this list since last Halloween and this is what I've come up with -- my list of the 50 Greatest Horror Films of All-Time, starting with "Halloween" and ending with "Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer". Please comment with positives and negatives...

_____________________________________________________________

50. Henry: Portrait of A Serial Killer
49. Christine
48. Near Dark
47. Hellbound: Hellraiser II
46. Re-Animator
45. Dawn of the Dead
44. The Omen
43. Saw
42. The Company of Wolves
41. Carrie
40. Evil Dead II: Dead By Dawn
39. Prince of Darkness
38. Creepshow
37. Scream
36. Pumpkinhead
35. Dead Alive
34. Rec
33. Cannibal Holocaust
32. Candyman
31. Freaks
30. The Sixth Sense
29. Audition
28. The Wicker Man
27. Phantasm
26. The Shining
25. Demons
24. Friday the 13TH
23. Poltergeist
22. 28 Days Later
21. Peeping Tom
20. The Descent
19. The Howling
18. Rosemary’s Baby
17. Black Sunday
16. The Evil Dead
15. The Thing
14. The Birds
13. An American Werewolf in London
12. A Nightmare on Elm Street
11. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
10. Village of the Damned
09. Nosferatu (1922)
08. Night of the Living Dead
07. The Blair Witch Project
06. Suspiria
05. Invasion of the Body Snatchers
04. Jaws
03. The Exorcist
02. Alien
01. Halloween

TRANSSIBERIAN Film Critique

2008-10-28T13:50:00.001-07:00

Siberia -- where everybody knows your name.

Brad Anderson is a genius. He is one of the so-called ‘new breed’ of horror directors, alongside other notable names such as Neil Marshall and Larry Fessenden. Personally, I think Brad Anderson has them all crushed. “Session 9" was one of the most atmospheric and genuinely creepy horror films to come around in decades, gathering a cult following over the years. “The Machinist” was another masterwork, featuring the performance of a lifetime from a skeletal Christian Bale. Whereas Neil Marshall seems to be following the John Carpenter path and Larry Fessenden seems to be following the Wes Craven path – Brad Anderson is taking his cues from one of the greatest directors of all-time – Mr. Alfred Hitchcock. “Transsiberian” is Anderson’s latest film, a thriller reminiscent of Hitchcock classics like “Strangers On A Train” and “The Man Who Knew Too Much”. It’s the closest to modern day Hitchcock that we’ve had in a long, long time. That said, to go for the whole Hitchcock feel is nothing short of pale imitation. Luckily, Anderson is also one hell of a fine screen writer and “Transsiberian” is one of the best written thrillers of recent memory. It has its flaws, and it does leave far too many questions unanswered, but “Transsiberian” is a damned good flick.

The story follows a young American couple, Roy (Woody Harrelson) and Jessie (Emily Mortimer), who are traveling from China to Russia, after doing some mission work with their church. On the train they meet Carlos (Eduardo Noriega) and Abby (Kate Mara), who claim to be traveling from Japan, having done some educational work there. Through a curious turn of events, Roy is left stranded at a train station, Jessie is forced to deal with an unexpected tragedy and the emergence of a Russian narcotics investigator, Grinko (Ben Kingsley) turns everything upside down. That really is an over-simplification of the plot, but I don’t want to give too much away. Whereas the first part of the film seems more like a character study – and it is – the second half of the film turns into the real Hitchcock-influenced roller coaster ride. The film culminates with one of the most engaging and terrifying realizations, made by Harrelson and his wife when they realize that the doors in the train aren’t necessarily leading to where they should be leading. “Transsiberian” is a mental mind jolt that forces the audience to be one step ahead of the characters. We don’t know what’s going on most of the time, but we have an idea, and that’s just as much as the characters have.

The build-up in this film is tangible. There is this overwhelming sense of dread that sweeps through the entire film and never lets up. You don’t know where the story is going to go, you don’t know what is going to happen and you don’t know who is going to survive. Anderson achieved this same sense of bewilderment with both “Session 9" and “The Machinist”. He seems to be an expert at giving the audience exactly what will drive them insane – uncertainty. “Transsiberian” features some fantastic camerawork from the great Xavi Gimenez, who also shot “The Machinist” and the horror film “The Abandoned”. The original score by Alfonso Vilallonga is just gorgeous and it brings back memories of those old Bernard Hermann scores from Alfred Hitchcock films. It almost seems as if “Transsiberian” was set up to be a Hitchcock tribute, from the opening scene of the Ben Kingsley character investigating a murder scene to the closing shot of the strong female character getting her just rewards. The first half of the film works because of the character development and the sense of uncertainty and the second half works because of the ambiguity towards the situation and the ability of the characters to work some expertly under such tense situations.

The problems with the film are there, however. For starters, I didn’t really understanding why the Ben Kingsley character seemed to turn on a dime so routinely. One minute he seems understanding and the next minute he seems maniacal. There was no continuity to what he was doing and what he does at the end of the film loses a little power because we just don’t buy it. Kingsley is amazing at playing these types of characters and he turns in a very understated and effective performance here, but I wish his character had been given more motivation for what he was doing. I also had a big problem with what the Emily Mortimer character does to the Eduardo Noriega character. I guess I can kind of see where they were coming from, but I don’t know that the Mortimer character would have done that – I just didn’t completely buy it. It reminded me of “Unfaithful” and what the Richard Gere character does to the Olivier Martinez character, just reversed. And if there was a weak performance in the film, it came from Woody Harrelson as Roy. I can’t blame Harrelson for turning in a bad performance – it was just the wrong performance for that character in a film that strikes such a delicate balance. I wanted the Harrelson character to feel as real as the Mortimer and the Kingsley character. At times, he comes off as more of a cartoon character.

The highlight of this film is Emily Mortimer in yet another fantastic performance. Mortimer takes risks with this character and we never know where she’s coming from. By the end of the film, we have started to wonder what her character has done in the past that we don’t know about. We leave the film not knowing if she’s a good guy or a bad guy based simply on how she conducts herself and the types of things we know she’s capable of doing. “Transsiberian” lives in that world of the unknown and the unexpected. It asks a great deal of the audience and it delivers on most of what it offers. Brad Anderson is a fine director who continues to churn out solid efforts, even if they do seem a little close to homage at times. “Transsiberian” is a tense, edge-of-your-seat thriller with a depth of character and an attention to story that separates it from the rest of the pack. It features a stellar performance from Emily Mortimer and a vicious supporting turn from Ben Kingsley. It’s not one of the best films of the year, but it’s definitely worth checking out as soon as possible.

Woody Harrelson(Roy)
Emily Mortimer (Jessie)
Ben Kingsley (Grinko)
Eduardo Noriega (Carlos)
Kate Mara (Abby)
Thomas Kretschmann (Kolzak)

Director: Brad Anderson

RATED R

PRIDE & GLORY Film Critique

2008-10-27T13:38:00.001-07:00

Thank God you have "In Bruges" and "The Incredible Hulk" to fall back on.

There’s a moment in “Pride and Glory” when an Irish fight song starts playing on the jukebox at the local bar called Irish Eyes and the two lead characters put down their guns, raise their fists and engage in a balls-to-the-wall brawl with fists and pool balls and glasses of lager. It’s your typical European custom rearing its ugly head in the American mainstream. The only problem – I had no idea the characters were Irish. Sure, their last names were Tiernan and that might have been a clue, but they sure don’t act Irish. They don’t seen to have any sort of Irish traditions and the most Irish thing about them is Colin Farrell’s unibrow. “Pride and Glory”, the film, is forgettable. It’s very melodramatic, very hamfisted and very ‘on the page’. There’s no real tension or suspense because we know who the bad guy is right out of the gate. And not long after we find out who is, so does one of the other main characters so the suspense is gone of ‘will they find out’. “Pride and Glory” wants to be this hard-hitting cop drama about police corruption, family values and social unrest. It wants to be so much more than its rudimentary script would allow it. “Pride and Glory” feels like each and every cop drama we’ve seen in the past decade, and feels inferior to most of them. Because it does not care enough about its audience, it might be one of the worst films of the year.

Set in New York City, “Pride and Glory” follows the Tiernans, a family of cops who have been doing good and fighting the bad guys for years. Ray (Edward Norton) now works in missing persons after a tragic mistake sent him before the Grand Jury; Francis (Noah Emmerich) runs his unit and takes pride in his men and the work they do; Jimmy (Colin Farrell), a brother through marriage, is a sergeant with a hot temper; and Francis Sr. (Jon Voight), is a high ranking officer who loves his sons more than life itself. The film opens with four police officers being gunned down during a drug bust. Ray is appointed to the task force to discover who was responsible for tipping the dealers off to the cops showing up. It is soon discover that Jimmy was to blame because he has been involved in shady dealings for a while and one of his men tipped off the dealer. Francis discovers this and has to decide what to do with Jimmy and his men, even as Jimmy has threatened to frame Ray for what could be considered torture and homicide. All the while, Jon Voight’s character is pleading for his sons to do the right thing, even though taking advice from a logical alcoholic seems a little bizarre. There is also a side plot with Francis’s wife (Jennifer Ehle), who is dying of cancer. Oh, did I mention that there is a suicide, a gang riot and a baby nearly burned with an iron?

What is this film trying to accomplish? At first we think it’s going to be about family values, but it’s pretty clear that this family doesn’t have any values. They all seem so self-righteous and try to come across like they’re doing the right thing, but none of them are. They are only looking out for themselves. The film even tries to come across as a murder mystery. Guess what – there is no mystery. Director Gavin O’Connor decided it would be best for us to discover this mystery before the foundations are even set up completely. “Pride and Glory” made me remember “The Departed” and how fantastic that film was. That was a real cop drama. Maybe it was the fact that it came from one of the greatest directors of all-time, Martin Scorsese. I like to think it also had something to do with a fantastic script. “Pride and Glory” isn’t given that. We’re given the same approach as we’ve seen to every other cop drama of late, including the dreadful “Righteous Kill”. We just don’t care about these characters because the whole idea is that cops are better than we are and more loyal than we are and more worthy of life and connections and favors than we are. It’s a job. Yes, it’s a more difficult job than others, but it’s a job. You do your job and you go home and you get your check. I understand the whole life and death thing, but when you have characters this ugly, who cares?

As for performances, I am just not sure what in the hell Edward Norton was doing here. He was once notorious for being so selective with his scripts and now it seems like he has abandoned that selection process for the Jon Voight ‘anything goes’ rule of thumb. Norton just sleepwalks through this role, and when he tries to muster some emotion at the end, it comes off as laughable. And it pains me to say that about an amazing actor like Edward Norton. Colin Farrell plays the same damned role he always plays, and his scene in the apartment with the baby is just sick. And there is nothing about his portrayal of that character that would lead me to believe that he would do something like that. It felt like the director thought it would simply be one of those water cooler scenes for the office gossip. Jon Voight is so bad here is the father of the group. When Jon Voight acts drunk, the whole world knows it. Has the man ever gotten skunked before? Does he not know what it feels like? As old as he is, one would think so. The highlight from all the performances is the always underrated Noah Emmerich in what should have been the lead role. His character is given some attention and some back story and some home fire. We want to know more about his dying wife. We want to know more about his involvement. We get none of that.

That was the biggest problem with “Pride and Glory” – it didn’t answer any questions. We never find out Francis’s full involvement with the corruption. We never find out all the details to the case that sent Edward Norton to missing persons. We never find out what started Colin Farrell down the road of greed and corruption. We never find out what part the reporter had in anything. I hate films that treat the audience like they don’t deserve any better – we’re just going to slop something out there for you and hope you enjoy it. If you don’t, so what? “Pride and Glory” is disrespectful to the audience. When those two characters brought up their fists and started brawling, everyone in the audience seemed just as stunned as I was. Why were they doing that? When did they become such hardcore Irish fighters? Hell, when did they become Irish? “Pride and Glory” is bad. It’s a shame on all accounts. It just goes to show that you can have all the pedigree in the world, but if you don’t have a script and you don’t have a clue, you just wind up being utterly forgettable.

Edward Norton (Ray Tierney)
Colin Farrell (Jimmy Egan)
Noah Emmerich (Francis Tierney, Jr.)
Jon Voight (Francis Tierney, Sr.)
Jennifer Ehle (Abby Tierney)
John Ortiz (Sandy)
Manny Perez(Coco Dominguez)

Director: Gavin O’Connor

RATED R

SAW V Film Critique

2008-10-27T08:15:00.000-07:00

I know what you did last Halloween...and I'm going the exact same thing this Halloween and every Halloween after that.

So, here’s the deal – I hate the “Saw” franchise and what it’s become. I get sick and tired of having to listen to people defend this crap year after year, attempting to justify why films like this have any purpose whatsoever. Some will say ‘to entertain the fans’. Well, if this is the quality if cinema that fans want, it’s no wonder why cinema is in such a sad state these days. Some will say ‘it’s to finish out the storyline’. When the original “Saw” was released, do you think they had sequels in mind? They didn’t even know if the film would make a dime, much less warrant a sequel. I don’t see how any film with an automatic turnaround time of one-year could ever amount to much. I saw the first of the “Saw” films in 2004, on opening night. I enjoyed the film – that is until Mr. Cary Elwes went on one of the worst acting rants in cinematic history. That scene alone pretty much destroyed the film for me. The next year, I caught “Saw II” in theatres. It was the same old tired story and had a very generic approach to it. I made the decision to skip “Saw III” and “Saw IV” altogether in theatres. Don’t ask me why I decided to see “Saw V”, having no back story from the previous two films. I was just in the mood for some blood and some horror and some graphic images, which this Halloween season has been sorely lacking. I didn’t go in expecting to understand everything I was seeing. I went in expecting to see another lame retread of the original film. And, although I am not going to recommend the film, it did change my opinion of the franchise somewhat.

The film opens in an unfortunate situation for one man. It seems he has been strapped down to a table, with a large pendulum blade hanging above. Jigsaw pops on the television screen and explains that those boxes next to him are for his hands. You see – the man was a murderer who was released on a technicality. Jigsaw tells the man he can either stick his hands in the boxes and have his bones bounded to dust or get cut in half by the pendulum getting ever-so closer to his torso. This grisly murder scene is the opening for “Saw V”. The rest of the film deals with Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) trying to stay hidden as the new Jigsaw killer and Agent Strahm (Scott Patterson) trying to get to the bottom of the Jigsaw mystery. Tobin Bell pops up in flashbacks as the infamous Jigsaw killer, and we do feel the finality that this might be the original Jigsaw’s last dance. A side plot exists involving a group of five people trapped together in a room and given certain rules, culminating in a series of horrific deaths and lots and lots of the corn syrup and red food coloring. By the end of the film, “Saw V” wants to have tricked you into thinking lots of different things. It wants to sweep the rug out from underneath you and leave you excited about “Saw VI” next year. And, in the grand scheme of things, I suppose it does just that. It doesn’t seek finality. It runs from it.

My initial reaction to this franchise was negative. It just didn’t seem to have the same steam and the same longevity as a “Nightmare on Elm Street” or “Friday the 13th” franchise. I still don’t put it in the same league as those. The “Saw” films – no matter what you want to say – will always be that same breed of torture porn that has plagued cinema for a few years now. The “Saw” films cater to the worst aspects of the human psyche and they demonstrate just how depraved mass audiences can be when starved for traditional quality horror. If Vincent Price were still making horror films, I don’t know that we’d have any need for watching women getting electrocuted before nail bombed into a thousand sloppy pieces. I sincerely want someone to sit me down and explain to me how watching a man struggle for his life in a maze of razor wire could serve as entertainment? Is this really what audiences want to be doing with their time? Maybe it’s that old psychology – everyone has the potential to kill, it’s just that some of us act on it and some of us do not. Maybe those of us who don’t act on it need films like “Saw V” to keep the demons at bay. Maybe those of us who don’t act on it need to watch the most graphic and disturbing images possible to maintain a certain level of blood lust to prevent us from going on a rampage in a clock tower. If someone can sit me down and explain that to me, maybe I will have even more tolerance for this new sub-genre.

But, for the fans – “Saw V” serves its purpose. There is a storyline in this film, which is something I cannot say for the second picture in the series. I found myself actually wrapped up in the mystery, even with Scott Patterson’s character talking to himself way too much and Costas Mandylor’s constant mugging for the camera. Tobin Bell was the highlight of the picture, and he’s become a far better actor since 2005, turning into the poor mans Hannibal Lecter. “Saw V” takes all of the same elements that made the first four films so successful and just manipulates them a little. It doesn’t want to mess with a good thing. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I suspect “Saw VI” will follow the exact same formula – it will open with a gruesome murder and close with a revelation that lets the audience know there will definitely be another film in the series. “Saw V” made $30 million this weekend and would have been #1 at the box office if not for the “High School Musical” film. As long as these films keep making lots of money on shoestring budgets, you bet your ass Lionsgate is going to keep churning them out. “Saw” has become their cash-cow. “Saw” allows them to spend so much more money on their more independent efforts. I guess that makes it okay.

In summation, I do not recommend “Saw V”. But, I don’t dislike it as much as the other films in the series. Maybe I have just settled down a little and started to appreciate the franchise for what it really is – a second rate “Hellraiser” – basically, “Home Alone” for the sadistic. What I can say is that I would love to see this franchise stray a little from the original formula. Show me something new. Give me some insight into the talents that made the original “Saw” so original and so unexpected. Right now, all we’re getting is the same tired old stories with different twists. “Saw V” is one of the better installments in the franchise and it kept me entertained, so I won’t bash it as badly as I have bashed the other films. That should make you “Saw”-heads rather jubilant.

Tobin Bell (Jigsaw/John Tuck)
Costas Mandylor (Mark Hoffman)
Scott Patterson (Agent Strahm)
Betsy Russell (Jill Tuck)
Mark Rolston (Dan Erickson)

Director: David Hackl

RATED R

AND A HALF

W. Film Critique

2008-10-20T10:09:00.001-07:00

Some quality time on Pennsylvania Avenue...

There are few directors out there as reckless with their careers as Oliver Stone. This is the man who has supplemented his talent as a filmmaker with countless controversies, thus turning him into more of a ‘showman’ than a ‘director’. His achievements include the Academy Award winning war drama “Platoon”, the dark and ruthless “Wall Street”, the controversial “JFK” and “Natural Born Killers” and the Jim Morrison biopic, “The Doors” – to name a few. However, his previous four feature films have been nothing short of disasters – “U-Turn”, “Any Given Sunday”, “Alexander” and “World Trade Center”. It seems that Oliver Stone has lost his way as a filmmaker. Maybe it’s that he has stopped taking risks with his filmmaking. His previous couple of films were safe and offered very little in the form of consistent and coherent narrative storytelling. It’s almost as if he just ran out of steam. “W.” marks his most ambitious film of recent memory, primarily because Stone prepped, shot and edited the film in 2008 to have it ready before the election. He basically did a ‘rush-job’ on the picture to get it out there for audience and potential voters. Michael Moore employed the same strategy in 2004 with “Fahrenheit 9/11", and we see what that did for the race. But, the rushing of completion aside, “W.” is definitely an Oliver Stone film. And, while it’s not even close to perfect, it did turn out to be better than I had imagined. I was expecting the same Oliver Stone I’d been given the past few years. This felt more like the Stone of old.

As you already know, “W.” is a biopic of current president George W. Bush (Josh Brolin). The film chronicles his life from his early-20's through the present, introducing us to all the characters in the man’s life, most of which we already know. We see how his tumultuous relationship with his father, George H.W. Bush (James Cromwell) shaped his determination and stubbornness. We see how his relationship with his wife, Laura (Elizabeth Banks) because a comforting presence in his life. We also see how the men in his cabinet basically shaped the way his Presidency would be remembered, from the gung-ho Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) and Donald Rumsfeld (Scott Glenn), to the more thoughtful Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright) and George Tenant (Bruce McGill). We see the people who sit in the dark and pull the strings, like Karl Rove (Toby Jones) and Condaleeza Rice (Thandie Newton). All of these individuals have shaped George W. Bush and they do so in the film. The narrative style of the film resembles “Nixon” in that Stone mixes present day encounters with flashbacks showing Bush coming into his own, going from a jobless alcoholic and disgrace to his family to a politically minded businessman with all the charm and charisma it takes to win an election, as we now fully understand. The film stays away from hot topics like 9/11 and the Florida re-count, and there are large gaps of the Presidency unaccounted for, but we do get to see a lot of what caused Bush to take us into Iraq, and we find a little bit about how his childhood and his run ins with trouble shaped the man he is today, for better or for worse.

What worried me most about this film was Stone’s approach. I didn’t want to sit through two and a half hours of Bush-isms. If I want that, I can turn on just about any news channel. I didn’t want scene after scene of Bush saying idiotic things. I understand that the man slips up, but he’s not an idiot. “W.” manages to show that, though he does let his tongue get the better of him, Bush is still an intelligent man and a far craftier politician than anyone gives him credit for. We see early on, at a fraternity initiation, just how clever and quick-witted Bush really is. True, he did have far more experienced men behind him calling the shots, but Bush’s ego gets the better of him from time to time in the film, calling down those who might want to exert their authority on him. His most interesting relationships are with Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, the two men who shaped the first term more than any others. Bush warns Cheney about seeming to ‘commanding’ in meetings and he reminds Rove numerous times that ‘he’ is the President and has the final say. “W.” is not what I would call an ‘even handed’ approach to Bush, but it doesn’t spend two and a half hours bashing the man. It tries to look at things from his perspective and it tries to evoke some sympathy, even if just a little. In the end, George W. Bush comes across as sad. He comes off as a man who is constantly trying to step out of the shadow cast by his father; a man who always second guesses himself and lets others take the lead; a man who is terrified of failure, period.

In terms of performances, they are universally fantastic. Josh Brolin could easily find himself an Academy Award nomination as George W. Bush. One part spot-on imitation and one part total embodiment, his performance here is phenomenal. He finds the right balance between ‘good old boy’ and ‘tyrant’ and he plays it to the hilt. Also exceptional in their roles are Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney, the real villain of the film, and Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell, the moral fiber of most of the meetings with the Cabinet. Scott Glenn revives his career with a great turn as Rumsfeld, and Toby Jones turns in another fantastic performance as Rove. Stacy Keach even has an interesting turn as a pastor and friend of George. If I was disappointed with anyone, it was Elizabeth Banks. Banks doesn’t really bring anything to the role and she never ages throughout the film. George is seen getting older and older and she still looks in her early-20's. But, I saved the best for last and the best is James Cromwell as Bush Sr. I would almost guarantee a Best Supporting Actor nod for his turn here, which is just astonishing. Cromwell embodies the man and brings so much depth and so much complexity to a role that could have been taken as mere imitation.

So my final verdict is this – “W.” is pretty damned good. It’s nowhere close to the level of Stone’s earlier Presidential work, “JFK” and “Nixon”, but the film stands on its own. I wish Stone had maybe taken a little more time to develop the project and I wish that he had spent a little more attention to those periods of the Presidency that he left out, but for such a quick production, he did a fine job. Imagine what he could have done with another year. The one thing I didn’t want was a film that painted the man like a moron for two and a half hours. I hate the man more than anyone else on the planet, but I’ve seen the Bush-isms thing one time too many. I found myself not feeling sympathy for the man, personally, but understanding how others could. It at least sheds a little more light on his motives and reasons for doing what he did. “W.” is being hailed by some and beaten up by others and I found myself in the middle, leaning more towards ‘hailing’. It’s not a perfect film. It’s not an even handed film, per se. But it’s an entertaining film. And it’s leaps and bounds better than the last couple of Oliver Stone films. He’s not officially back, but well on his way.

Josh Brolin (George W. Bush)
Elizabeth Banks (Laura Bush)
James Cromwell (George H.W. Bush)
Ellen Burstyn (Barbara Bush)
Toby Jones (Karl Rove)
Richard Dreyfuss (Dick Cheney)
Jeffrey Wright (Colin Powell)
Scott Glenn (Donald Rumsfeld)
Thandie Newton (Condaleeza Rice)
Dennis Boutsikaris (Paul Wolfowitz)
Bruce McGill (George Tenant)
Rob Corddry (Ari Fleischer)
Ioan Gruffudd (Tony Blair)
Stacy Keach (Earle Hudd)
Noah Wyle (Don Evans)

Director: Oliver Stone

RATED PG-13

CITY OF EMBER Film Critique

2008-10-14T07:40:00.000-07:00

I bet Macaulay Culkin could have figured it out sooner.

Whatever happened to the ‘event’ directors? Filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis and Ivan Reitman spent years making large-scale adventure pictures that would always start out as must-see entertainment for the year. You could always count on plenty of special effects, plenty of sight gags and plenty of chases and tumbles and explosions and death-defying acts. This style of filmmaking was at its peak in the 1980's, with Spielberg using his name recognition to value-up just about every memorable picture to come about, from “The Goonies” to “Back to the Future”. We don’t see films like that anymore. These days, indie cinema is where it’s at. Films that cost less than a Toyota to produce are automatically given more credibility than a film that costs 10,000 Toyotas to produce. Why? It’s the public perception of what makes a film great. Personally, it doesn’t matter to me whether a film costs $100,000 or $100,000,000 – it’s the quality of the story and the execution of that story that matters. Spielberg has been defying those odds for years and years, and I miss his brand of ‘event’ filmmaking. “City of Ember” is a throwback to those days when popcorn value meant just as much as ‘indie street cred’. It’s a film that strives to be larger than it can be, and it suffers for that – but it still manages to pack in some adventure.

Based on the popular book by Jeanne Duprau, “City of Ember” starts off at the end of the world as we know it – we assume from nuclear devastation. A group of people known as ‘The Builders’ have constructed an elaborate underground city that they have programmed to sustain life for 200 years, hoping that the fallout will have ended by then. Then place a secret set of instructions in a metal case and pass it down from mayor to mayor, over the years. Along the way, however, the citizens of Ember – the city they created – lose touch with their past and the case gets misplaced. Flash forward 200 years and the large generator that powers Ember is slowly starting to fail, causing serious blackouts all over the city. Doon (Harry Treadaway) thinks he knows how to fix it, but is afraid he would be given anything close to the generator on Assignment Day, which is when the town’s mayor (Bill Murray) draws jobs out of a hat for the kids. Doon’s dad (Tim Robbins) wants his son to be happy, but doesn’t like it when he starts talking about leaving Ember. Lina (Saoirse Ronan) has found the misplaced metal case and is trying to solve its mystery, with the help of Doon, hoping it will unlock the secrets of Ember’s past and allow them to have a future. Toby Jones stars as the mayor’s assistant and Marianne Jean-Baptiste as a greenhouse owner who tries to help Doon and Lina as best she can. The last chunk of this film deals with Doon and Lina discovering the secrets of Ember and finding their way out. Other notable supporting characters include the great Martin Landau as Sul, a Pipeworks worker and Mary Kay Place as a religious nut.

There is so much story here, the film really needed to be longer. Some of the cuts seem a little forced and you have to think that director Gil Kenan wasn’t able to elaborate on a lot of what he wanted to because of time constrictions. “City of Ember” could have easily been either a three hour film or a two or three part series of films. I think it deserved that kind of consideration because the story is there and it works and it’s very entertaining. There is nothing wrong on that end. What damages the film is the last third of the picture, which turns from compelling science fiction film to a ride at DisneyWorld. The opening half-hour of this film was flawless and it really sucked me into the story and into the lives of these characters. Slowly, along the way, it loses us, through one CGI-induced chase sequence after another. We were given such a gorgeous set design and such a colorful set of characters – it’s a shame they weren’t put to better use. Bill Murray is hysterical as the seedy mayor of Ember; Martin Landau is wonderful as Sul, the crusty old worker who does his job and nothing more; and Tim Robbins as the curious yet cautious father. And there were so many neat little tidbits here and there that helped jazz up the visuals. I love how the messengers are used in the film and I loved how Lina plays the answering machine tape for comfort. Maybe if Kenan had made the film a little darker and played up the science fiction elements more, it might have been a more solid effort and not shifted into a rollercoaster at the end of the picture. Or, maybe there is a better cut of this film out there and the studios just hacked and shredded it to pieces.

It would seem that this story deserves a darker adaptation. The themes themselves are somewhat frightening. We can only assume Ember’s existence is the result of nuclear devastation and we can only assume that, apart from the people in Ember – everyone else is dead. These are dark themes for a children’s film and book and maybe it would have served the material better to push towards a PG-13 rating instead and just go for it. I wanted to see more attention paid to the toll of the blackouts on the citizens. I wanted to see more dissension once Doon and Lina tried to escape – more with the townspeople disbelieving them and trying to keep them from leaving. I wanted that set of instructions to be a little more difficult to figure out. Everything just fell together a little too easily at the end of the film and we’re left wondering what has kept someone from figuring any of this out before. I know there was a lack of curiosity in the city while everything was working right, but you have to think that some of these citizens had to be pretty intelligent. Why couldn’t Lina’s father figure out what the stuff inside the box meant? There are a lot of these questions that could have been answered with a more mature tackling of the subject matter. If the rest of the film had matched the first half-hour of the film, it would easily be one of the best of the year.

So, there we have it – an entertaining film that could have been so much more. It disappoints me because I think Gil Kenan is one of those ‘event’ filmmakers I mentioned earlier. He has the same eye for that stuff as Spielberg and Zemeckis did. “Monster House” was a fine example of that and I was hoping for big things from “City of Ember”. And I still think Kenan has some tricks up his sleeves. Maybe the studio hacked his original vision to death? This film was in limbo for a while and its release has been delayed a little, so maybe that’s the explanation. I would rather blame a studio editor than a competent director any day of the week. “City of Ember” was thrilling and the first half-hour alone is enough for me to recommend the film, but I wanted more from this picture and was not satisfied with how everything just kind of fell together at the end. The film bombed at the box office this past weekend, but it didn’t deserve that. I think younger kids would definitely enjoy this picture and I think it’s better than a lot of junk you probably let them see. “City of Ember” started off bright, but burned out by the end. It needed more gasoline.

Harry Treadaway (Doon Harrow)
Saoirse Ronan (Lina Mayfleet)
Tim Robbins (Loris Harrow)
Bill Murray (Mayor Cole)
Toby Jones (Barton Snode)
Martin Landau (Sul)
Mary Kay Place (Mrs. Murdo)

Director: Gil Kenan

RATED PG

NICK AND NORAH'S INFINITE PLAYLIST Film Critique

2008-10-13T08:40:00.001-07:00

I've said it once and I'll say it again -- Adorkable.

As a film critic, I look for magic. I think every film critic and movie goer does – it’s just that the magic differs from person to person. You look for that one film that does something to you that no other film can do – that one film that stirs emotions and feelings that no other film can. This magic is what characterizes a persons taste in films. It decides what they see and dictates what they like and what they don’t. I remember seeing “Pleasantville” for the first time and getting that feeling, that rare and special feeling that I was watching something truly remarkable – something that made me laugh and cry and smile throughout – something that moved me. I remember seeing “Magnolia” for the first time and acquiring those same emotional attachments. It has been a while since I’ve had one of those feelings and one of those connections. Last year was a fantastic year, on the whole, for cinema – but it didn’t produce a film like that. As good as “There Will Be Blood” was, and as fantastic as “Juno” turned out to be – neither made me feel that special feeling. And, it looked as if 2008 was going to be another disappointing year, in that regard. Then, however, I stumbled into a quaint little picture called “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist”. I knew very little about the film other than (01) it was adapted from a popular book by Rachel Cohn; and (02) it featured music from some of my absolute favorite indie rock bands. That was enough to get me into the theatre. By the end of the film, I was a junkie. I had been given my fix and I wanted more. It’s difficult to explain how much I enjoyed the film, and the best adjective I could use would be ‘magical’.

We meet Nick (Michael Cera) as he is leaving a voicemail message to Tris (Alexis Dziena), his ex-girlfriend and one of the hottest girls around. They dated for six months and when she broke up with him, it basically sapped his will to live. Nick is persuaded by his friends and band mates, Thom (Aaron Yoo) and Dev (Rafi Gavron), to go with them into New York City to try and catch the band Where’s Fluffy?, an underground indie band that thrives on making it difficult for their fans to find them. Once there, Nick bumps into Norah (Kat Dennings), who has secretly been in love with he and his mix tapes for a while, but just never had a face to put with a mix. The two meet in a very awkward fashion and then end up scouring the city looking for Caroline (Ari Graynor), Norah’s best friend – a drunk girl walking the city with her gum and her haunts. Most of the film deals with Nick and Norah wandering the city, looking for Caroline, with the help of the boys in the van. Nick is forced to deal with his continued feelings for Tris and Norah is forced to deal with a long time boyfriend who only seems to want her for what her father can do for him. The two connect on a deeper level as the night wears on, and we already know what the outcome’should’ be long before the two characters know what the outcome ‘will’ be. “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” is just a quiet and sophisticated little movie about two people who just need a little help getting together. It’s a film about relationships, friendship and all those other ‘ships’ we take for granted.

This film reminded me of several other films, but in spirit only. “Before Sunrise” is the first that comes to mind. Both films deal with a man and a woman wandering the city, trying to get to know one another, not knowing whether the connection they share will last any longer than a few hours. It also reminded me of “The Science of Sleep” a little – this whimsical and almost dreamlike look at a budding relationship. “Nick and Norah” has that same kind of quirky bravado and there is this tenderness in the relationship in both films that really comes across. Credit director Peter Sollett for crafting an intimate and fragile portrait in the midst of the indie comedy and indie rock music. He really does take these two characters and make the audience root for them. When you like so many of the characters in a film, you know the writer and director have done something right. Such was the case with “Nick and Norah”, the most likable assortment of characters 2008 has seen. And I also want to comment on the cinematography, courtesy of Tom Richmond. There are some shots in this film that really capture the magic of New York City at night. The whole film captures what it’s like for young people growing up in and around New York City and how the city itself really becomes a character in their own lives. These lives are almost entirely soundtracked by some of the best indie rock bands around, including Band of Horses, Modest Mouse and countless others. There are very few scenes in the film where you don’t have a song playing in the background and that helps weave together this tapestry of charm and tenderness that is so rampant.

At the heart of “Nick and Norah” are the two lead performances from Michael Cera and Kat Dennings. Michael Cera has become the master of playing these quiet, shy and quirky little guys you just want to hug for an hour. His delivery is impeccable and there is definitely no other actor out there right now doing what he is doing. He can take the most random line ever and turn it into something so sweet and so meaningful. I don’t know that he gets all the credit he deserves. And, Kat Dennings is a nice counter for Cera, proving herself in every scene. She has that same kind of awkward charm and she has some real chops when the scenes demand. The colorful supporting cast includes two very entertaining performances from Aaron Yoo and Rafi Gavron as Nick’s two gay band mates looking for the perfect names for their musical assault. And Ari Graynor is hysterical as Norah’s alcoholic best friend, Caroline, on whom most of the action revolves. Also look out for cameos from Seth Meyers, Andy Samberg and Jay Baruchel, in various roles. You get the feeling during this picture that all of these talented people were brought together by what had to be either their love for the novel or their appreciation of how well the novel was adapted to script. I went straight to Barnes and Noble after the film and picked up the book and plan to start reading it very soon. Typically, the book is better than the film. I don’t see how that could be possible.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist” is my favorite film of this year, and it’s the first film in a long, long while to leave me with that ‘magic’ that I always look for in a motion picture. It left me smiling – and what better compliment is there? There are so many films you see in the year – so many films that simply do their jobs and service the audience and don’t try for anything other than keeping our attentions for a couple of hours. It takes a special film to attempt to keep our attentions and inject a little life into what the audience is seeing. “Nick and Norah” might not have been trying for all of that, but it definitely succeeded. I plan on seeing this one in theatres a couple more times and I am certain it will not fall off my top ten list by the end of the year, and it very well may still find itself sitting at the top. If you loved the honesty and the tenderness of “Before Sunrise”; if you loved the quirkiness and randomness of “Juno”; if you loved the feeling of whimsy and chaos of “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” – you should absolutely fall in love with “Nick and Norah”. It’s the best film of the year – day and night.

Michael Cera (Nick)
Kat Dennings (Norah)
Aaron Yoo (Thom)
Rafi Gavron (Dev)
Ari Graynor (Caroline)
Alexis Dziena (Tris)
Jonathan B. Wright (Lathario)
Jay Baruchel (Tal)

Director: Peter Sollett

RATED PG-13

QUARANTINE Film Critique

2008-10-11T14:15:00.001-07:00

Please don't -- he's too cute to die!

Americans just don’t seem to understand horror anymore. Most of the quality and substantive work in the horror genre, these days, is coming from France, Sweden, Spain and England. Directors like Neil Marshall, Guillermo del Toro and Alexandre Aja have made big splashes, but their brands of horror are not rooted in the mythos of American horror. Americans always want to take something new and hot from overseas and give it the bastardized ‘States treatment’. The phenomenal vampire film from Sweden, “Let the Right One In”, was recently announced to be remade by Matt Reeves, the jackass who directed “Cloverfield”, an utter disappointment. And, now, the recent Spanish horror film, “Rec”, has been turned into “Quarantine”, the latest horror picture from Screen Gems that has been trailering for months and months. Well, the joke’s on me. “Quarantine” was good. In fact, it was damned good. I won’t say it was as good as “Rec” because it wasn’t, but it was far better than any other remake I have seen and it was one of the better horror films of the year. And, believe me – I was not expecting to feel this way. I was expected to be disappointed. Why? It might have something to do with the fact that the trailer shows the final shot from the film. How in God’s name can you show audiences the final shot from the film in a trailer? This aside, the film was a damned good entertainment features plenty of jumps and some nice visuals.

This picture is shot in the documentary style format, like “Cloverfield” and “The Blair Witch Project” among others. Angela (Jennifer Carpenter) is a reporter who, along with her best friend and cameraman, Scott (Steve Harris), is assigned to shadow a group of firemen for the night, the most prevalent being Jake (Jay Hernandez) and Fletcher (Jonathon Schaech). After a few minutes of soaking up what they do at the station, they are sent out on a call to an old apartment building where a woman was heard screaming. Once inside, the firemen, the reporter and cameraman, and a group of tenants from the building find themselves trapped inside with injured people who seem to be getting sicker and sicker and angrier and angrier. When they try to leave, they are told they cannot do so, as they have been locked down until the CDC can come in and investigate. As they attempt to deal with their injured parties, people start disappearing and their fates look grim as the surrounding authorities refuse to let anyone leave the premises.

I know what you’re thinking – haven’t I seen this before? You probably have. While the film is not a total copy of another film, it borrows bits and pieces from other horror films like “28 Days Later”, “The Blair Witch Project”, “The Descent” and even “Diary of the Dead”. But – that said – so did the original film on which “Quarantine” was based. But what horror film is totally original these days, huh? What makes “Quarantine” work is the sense of claustrophobia that ensues the picture. We are introduced to this group of characters and we watch them interact with one another, handle stressful situations and deal with impending death all around. The death scenes are graphic, just bloody enough and jump-tastic. The audience with which I saw the film was jumping and covering their eyes and screaming at the right moments. That’s what a horror film is supposed to do. And, the visual style of the film was quite enjoyable. Usually, the handheld format can get a little so-so, but they managed to sustain it for a while, complete with the camera being used as a weapon and seeing random things out of the corner of your eyes that add more hysteria to the picture.

It also helps that the performances in the film are better than your normal horror film. Jennifer Carpenter does a fine job as Angela – you might remember her as Emily Rose from “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” or from her role on “Dexter”. Steve Harris, though rarely seen, is the voice behind the camera. Jay Hernandez – officially one of the hottest men on the planet – does another fine job as a fireman – he always seems to play firemen or policemen. Jonathon Schaech was underused in his role, but did a fine job with what we saw. And we get a host of colorful and well cast actors in supporting roles, including Greg Germann and Denis O’Hare.

Not much else to say about “Quarantine”. It was a damned entertaining horror film and one of the best I have seen this year. I would encourage you to see “Rec” first and then “Quarantine” so you can see that the latter isn’t as bad as you would expect it to be, judging from the original. October is the month for horror films and it’s off to a fine start with this one.

Jennifer Carpenter (Angela)
Steve Harris (Scott)
Jay Hernandez (Jake)
Jonathon Schaech (Fletcher)
Greg Germann (Lawrence)
Columbus Short (Danny)
Denis O’Hare (Randy)

Director: John Erick Dowdle

RATED R

HUMBOLDT COUNTY Film Critique

2008-10-11T13:52:00.001-07:00

Since when did "Indy Jones" goes "Indie Cinema"?

Aren’t you tired of those damned quirky independent comedies? Films like “Little Miss Sunshine” and “Napoleon Dynamite” brought attention to a whole new class of slightly offbeat, entertaining little pictures, continued by the likes of “Juno”, “Lars and the Real Girl” and “Hamlet 2" as a recent example. The latest in this long line of low-budget hush-hush comedy is “Humboldt County”, one of the most straight-forward quirky comedies I have seen in a while, and one of the best. I saw this film during the 2008 Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival, but it’s currently in limited release and can be absorbed by the masses – if those masses happen to live near one of the few theatres carrying it. The title, “Humboldt County”, refers to the county in California where the crux of the action in the film occurs. It’s one of those films that takes a colorful assortment of eccentric and unbelievable characters and somehow injects some real warmth and humor into their lives, and our perceptions of their lives. Halfway through the film I remember thinking to myself – “Isn’t it nice to see a film that isn’t making any statements or taking any risks?” – the film just “is”. I don’t know if the film will make it on my end of the year list, but it has a good shot of an honorable mention.

The film opens with Peter (Jeremy Strong) being told by his father/professor (Peter Bogdanovich) that he is not going to pass him, thus preventing him from getting a prestigious residency. Peter then hooks up with Bogart (Fairuza Balk), a young singer and actress who convinces Peter to go with her to her home in Humboldt County. When Peter arrives, he is introduced to her strange and eccentric family of pot growers and pot dealers. You see – Humboldt County is made out to be the marijuana capital of the West Coast. Brad Dourif stars as Jack and Frances Conroy as Rosie, the two heads of the family, with Chris Messina as Max (their son) and Madison Davenport as Charity (their young granddaughter). What Peter thinks is an overnight trip turns into an extended stay as he always seems to miss the bus and kept over for another night. He eventually warms up to the family and they take him in as a surrogate, with Peter helping to harvest the crop. Towards the end of the film, the Feds become involves as they search for large pot fields and Peter must decide whether to return to his life of normalcy or stay in this new world that he loves so much.

There is nothing flashy or over-zealous about this picture. Everything in “Humboldt County” is quiet and meaningful. The film moves along at a deliberate peace, but never becomes boring. It’s interesting to see a film that takes place almost entirely within the confines of the lives of dealers of growers of marijuana. Knowing that the Feds could come knocking any moment makes the tension very subtle and very internalized. We don’t think anything is going to happen, but we are always aware that it could. The script by Darren Grodsky and Danny Jacobs is just fantastic and really illuminates this world that is unknown to so many. We have intellectual characters who are partaking in illegal activities, knowing the risks and benefits associated with those activities. There are no morons in this film. There are no dullards. Just real people living real lives and trying to keep their real families together. And, there is also an element of acceptance in the film. Peter is longing to be accepted in the mainstream, since his father doesn’t seem to want to. He’s a person who has been living his entire life in a bubble, with everything being plotted out for him. When he finally gets a chance to see the world, he sees what he’s been missing and loves it.

And, like “Little Miss Sunshine” and “Juno”, this film lives and dies by its performances. Jeremy Strong is fantastic here as Peter, a role that requires such abrupt characters juxtapositions that you wonder where this guy’s been on the Hollywood radar? Hopefully, this film will expose him to some wider audiences and some continued success. Frances Conroy is brilliant in her role as the kooky matriarch of the household. Conroy has one scene where she explains what happened to her first husband that is just heartbreaking and the choice to keep the camera on her the entire time was inspired and works brilliantly. Chris Messina delivers a strong performance as Max and really gets some chances to demonstrate his acting chops. Peter Bogdanovich is great, as always, in a role that allows him to relax and just have fun. But, the real standout performance comes from Brad Dourif, a character actor who has been ignored and cast aside for a long time now. Dourif turns in his best work since “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and deserves Academy Award consideration for his turn here. I think people have forgotten how amazing he is. Hopefully this film will remind movie-goers and casting agents that Dourif is so well liked for a reason.

So – aren’t you tired of those damned quirky independent comedies? If your answer is no, then I firmly suggest you check out “Humboldt County” as soon as possible. If your answer is yes, then I still encourage you to see the film because it’s better than most and different than the rest. There is just always this soft spot in my heart for honest films that tackle subtle subject matter and this film did that. I applaud films that aren’t flashy or gimmicky or full of conceit. I applaud films that take risks that audiences can’t even see on the surface, because they’re emotional ones. “Humboldt County” is that rare breed of independent cinema that pushes the audience towards a place of pure enjoyment that comes from both the quality of the story and the quality of the execution. It’s a sweet, beautiful, original piece of cinema that made me smile. And, in case you missed it, Brad Dourif for Best Supporting Actor, though I doubt the Academy will dig that deep and look that long for a performance this amazing. It will get overlooked. The best ones always do.

Jeremy Strong (Peter)
Brad Dourif (Jack)
Frances Conroy (Rosie)
Chris Messina (Max)
Fairuza Balk (Bogart)
Madison Davenport (Charity)
Peter Bogdanovich (Professor)

Director: Darren Grodsky & Danny Jacobs

RATED R

AND A HALF

SIDEWALK 08: SHORTS BLOCK: FUNNY HA-HA Film Critique

2008-09-30T10:15:00.001-07:00

DONKEY FOUNTAIN

This is a short film, shot like a silent film, that tells the story of a new way of ‘getting off’. The dialog stills are hysterical and the scene at the grocery store are nice, but the rest of the film falls flat, including a brief scene involving a son performing some type of sex on his father. I do not understand, for the life of me, what makes anyone think that is appropriate for a comedy. There are some places that just don’t evoke any sort of laughter. “Donkey Fountatin” was a well executed version of a bad idea. It could have been much better. Too bad it just wasn’t.

PALSTER

This short probably received the most positive response from the audience during this block, and a lot of it was well deserved. The film tells the story of a man in a chipmunk costume who stalks another ordinary guy after he adds him on the website, Palster. The film pokes fun at MySpace and Facebook and even features man on chipmunk sex. The chipmunk suit, surprisingly, never ran out of steam and the comedic performances helped to drive the short home. If I had one complaint it was that I wanted more background on the characters and their relationships.

ONE BAD BASTARD

This film is not a mess, but it definitely has some flaws. Sonny Backus stars as Owen Bastard, a character in the new series, “One Bad Bastard”. This character’s catch phrase is “No Shit” and this film basically shows him meeting an onslaught of other characters and spitting out more phrases at them. Gabrielle Metz co-stars as Bastard’s fiancé, Debbie Smith as a criminal and Jim Brucke as some sort of old man with a problem. This film won an ACE Award at the festival, and though it’s not well put together for the most part, it has a heart and that’s what matters.

IRONING BOARD CONFESSIONS

What a disappointment. When I saw this was a mumblecore parody, I got very excited because I hate most mumblecore films. Instead, what I got was a film directed by people who had not seen enough mumblecore to know how to properly parody it. What we get, instead, is a six minute exercise in mundanity. The audience hated this one, myself included.

SPYKE’S SUPER AWESOME LINEUP!

A mess, from beginning to end. You never really understand what’s going on and the sound quality is so low you can barely keep up. Something about a cop show. Someone about Spyke.

SIDEWALK 08: LET THE RIGHT ONE IN Film Critique

2008-09-30T10:04:00.001-07:00

One of the best vampire films ever made.

When was the last time you saw a truly amazing vampire film? It’s been a while, hasn’t it? Most people say that “Nosferatu” is the masterpiece to end all masterpieces, but you have to give some credit to Christopher Lee’s interpretation as well as Coppola’s version, as well. However, you just don’t find truly solid vampire films anymore. “Let the Right One In” comes to us from Sweden, and it’s one of the best vampire films ever made. However, it’s not just a film about vampires. It’s also a film about young love and fitting in. I had heard great things about this film prior to the festival, and it was just announced it was getting a Hollywood remake, God help us. Not only was this film the best motion picture I saw at the festival this year, it was also one of the best films of the year and the best film I have ever seen at the Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival.

The film tells the story of Oskar (Kare Hedebrant), a 12-year-old Swedish boy. Oskar is picked on and bullied at school, is shy and introverted and just doesn’t seem to fit in. One night he meets Eli (Lina Leandersson), a young girl who lives in his building. At first, the two are stand-offish, but they soon start getting to know one another. Here’s the problem – Lina is a vampire. She lives with an older man who goes out at night and hunts for blood for the girl. As Lina says, she’s twelve-years-old, she doesn’t know how long she’s been that age. Oskar and Lina develop a strong relationship in the film, as people start disappearing around the two. Oskar finds, in Lina, someone who will listen to him and someone who will love him. Lina finds, in Oskar, someone who does not judge her for who she is or what she has to do to survive. More than anything, this film is about young romance and about how one person can change your life forever, for good and bad.

This film is immaculately shot and conceived from the first frame. Based on a novel by John Ajvide Lindqvist, it is directed by Tomas Alfredson, who deserves an Academy Award nomination for his incredible work. It took over two years to cast the two young leads, and it was well worth the wait as they tackle material far advanced to their years. The cinematography is gorgeous and some of the shots are just so brilliantly composed, it brings tears to the eyes. The score is haunting and the pacing of the film is absolutely in keeping with what it needs to be. It felt like John Hughes had made a film about vampires. It’s a horror film...a comedy...a romance...a drama. How many films can work so many genres into a picture with this kind of ease? I want to go ahead and throw in my Academy Award suggestions: Best Foreign Language Film, Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score and Best Editing. That should do it.

Keep an eye out for “Let the Right One In” – it’s a very special film. It’s a horror film with heart and those are a rare occurrence these days. The film is receiving a limited theatrical release very soon and then will probably find a DVD release soon thereafter. The American remake is slated for next year, though I am sure they will just fuck it up. “Let the Right One In” is one of the best films of the year, hands down, and might be one of the best films I have ever seen. I need to think more on it and see it a couple more times before I can officially make that distinction.

Kåre Hedebrant (Oskar)
Lina Leandersson (Eli)
Per Ragnar (Håkan)
Henrik Dahl (Erik)
Karin Bergquist (Yvonne)
Peter Carlberg (Lacke)
Ika Nord (Virginia)

Director: Tomas Alfredson

RATED R

SIDEWALK 08: I THINK WE'RE ALONE NOW Film Critique

2008-09-30T09:49:00.001-07:00

Is that a samurai sword or are you just happy to see me?

Remember back in the 1980's when you’d see those videos of young girls fainting when they got within feet of Michael Jackson? Remember when you’d see footage of fans crying and wailing every time Bruce Springsteen stomped his foot or Madonna fell to the ground? For some reasons, the 1980's brought an incredible level of fanaticism with it – and this decade also came with some of the most notorious stalkers and fan-crazed obsessees the music industry has known. “I Think We’re Alone Now” chronicles two of these crazed fans, both obsessed with the singer Tiffany, whose title track to the film was her rocket to success. Her flame burned out quickly though, and within two years of emerging on the scene, she was reduced to playing at malls and state fairs. She still continues to tour the country, but she has yet to reclaim her once thriving success.

The first fan we meet is Jeff Turner, who suffers from Asperger Syndrome, a mild form of autism that damages social functions. Jeff seems nice enough, until you realize he’s the man who brought a samurai sword to a Tiffany meet and greet. He’s not dangerous, we’re told – he just loves Tiffany so much. And the problem is – he thinks she loves him too. Jeff continually talks about how the singer and he are best friends – how she loves him but can’t be with him because of her husband. He also talks about how they are both connected through their minds. Jeff has even purchased a device that he believes allows he and Tiffany to communicate through their brains. He has every Tiffany album and article and magazine. He attends every Tiffany function that comes around. The singer even had a restraining order taken out against him in the late-1980's. Currently, however, that ban has been lifted and Tiffany continues to meet him at public events, humoring the man and even taking time to listen to him, sign autographs and accept kisses on the cheek.

The next fan we meet is Kelly McCormick, a hermaphrodite who spends her days jogging around her city and her nights listening to Tiffany music and drinking. Kelly has been subjected to lots of persecution over the years and now she finds herself riddled with despair, loneliness and quite a bit of depression. She does not seem like a bad person at all. She loves Tiffany and believes that the singer helped her survive a near fatal car accident. Kelly, however, has never been able to see Tiffany live in concert. She thinks the two of them are destined to be together and has developed this fantasy world where she and Tiffany have a future together. She lives on a fixed income in a small apartment and survives off disability. We meet a couple of her friends; one seems to be her friend because of how bizarre she is and the other one seems to be her friend because he feels sorry for her. She doesn’t have any shot at romance in this film because of her attitude and because of the way she seems to blur reality and fiction. She’s close to being just like Jeff Turner.

The films paints two portraits of lonely individuals who suffer from physical or mental afflictions who have developed this bizarre obsession with Tiffany. I believe people when they say Jeff is not a dangerous person, and it looks like Tiffany knows that also, but it’s just difficult to watch a grown man talk about how he and Tiffany are going to life happily ever after when you know he is just absolutely deluding himself, even though he seems to firmly believe it. Kelly seems far more unhinged and unbalanced than Jeff, but she seems to possess enough common sense to not ever do anything dangerous in regards to the singer. The most difficult aspect of the film is knowing that these two individuals have little hope of changing. At the end of the film, Jeff has switched his attention to another celebrity and Kelly still seems as depressed and as longing as before. There is a nice moment though when Jeff and Kelly meet at a Tiffany concert and we see the absolute joy in Kelly’s eyes at getting to see her idol live and getting to meet her afterwards. She and Jeff have an interesting exchange afterwards in the hotel room that borderlines on scary.

There is something riveting about “I Think We’re Alone Now” that is going to turn it into a cult classic like “Dancing Outlaw” or “Grey Gardens”. It really does have that potential. It paints a disturbing and sympathetic portrait of Jeff Turner and Kelly McCormick that shows us the pain and languish of mental and physical illnesses and what they can cause an otherwise seemingly normal person to do. Does Jeff’s Asperger’s Syndrome cause his fanaticism? Does Kelly’s condition cause hers? I think the answer is yes and no. Don’t go into the film, however, looking for easy answers or for a solution that is going to make you smile. It won’t. The film will entertain you, but you can’t help leaving the picture feeling bad for these two people. And, you have to credit Tiffany for sticking by her fans. For her to even consider keeping a fan relationship with a man who brought her a samurai sword is beyond words. And you have to know it means the world to these two people that she is so sweet and kind to her fans. So, big props to filmmaker Sean Donnelly for this incredible new documentary and kudos to Tiffany for making it happen!

Jeff Turner (Himself)
Kelly McCormick (Herself)
Tiffany (Herself)

Director: Sean Donnelly

AND A HALF

SIDEWALK 08: MISC. SHORTS Film Critiques

2008-09-30T08:51:00.001-07:00

PROMBIES

AND A HALF

What an opener for “Dance of the Dead”. This black and white short comes to us from the well trained cinematic young’uns at Florida State, and it’s just about everything you want from a film of this nature, which basically likens teenage sex to becoming a flesh-starved zombie. Directed by Frederick Snyder, the film shows us what it’s like to be a fragile young woman in the 1950's, surrounded by others who want to do nothing but engage in sexual relations. The production value was high, the performances were solid and the eight-minute running time was perfect.

MERRILY, MERRILY

Thank God for original filmmaking. “Merrily, Merrily” is about a young girl have problems with her parents. The real problem is that her father has just informed her that she doesn’t exist. He explains that they couldn’t have children and they both kept pretending they had a child, and that she eventually became a real child. Imagine “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” but with a more existential twist to it. “Merrily, Merrily” is well acted and well shot, but most importantly, it is well written, and that is something rare these days in the existential short film world. My one problem with the film was the decision to have the filmmaker turn up in the film. I thought that was a little much – as a strict narrative, the film would have worked far better.

HIRSUTE

Easily one of the best short films I have ever seen, “Hirsute” is about a young man who time travels to the past to tell himself that his time travel device has worked. The two meet and engage in some very humorous diatribe before revealing their true feelings to one another. This film is just an exercise in how to create a sharp and intelligent short film. It ended up winning an award at the festival which was very much deserved. The ending has so many different meanings to it. So I encourage you all to find this wonderful short film and check it out while you can.

20TH CENTURY RELIANCE

I just couldn’t get into this short documentary about Glenn House, an artist living in Alabama who collects old type and wants to start an artist collective. The pacing of the film was too slow and the subject matter was just not interesting enough to keep my attention for even ten minutes. This might have worked better as a feature length documentary with more colorful characters inserted. As it stands, it just doesn’t have enough to make enough and it needs a lot more.

SIDEWALK 08: MAKE-OUT WITH VIOLENCE Film Critique

2008-09-30T08:31:00.001-07:00

These brothers have some 'splainin' to do.

From scenic Hendersonville, Tennessee comes "Make-Out With Violence", one of the most unusual films I have seen this, or any other year. Describing it is difficult. Watching it might prove even more difficult for some. Personally, I was captivated from beginning to end.

The film is set in the Summer of...well...it could be the 1980's or it could be present day. We learn that a local girl, Wendy Hearst (Shellie Marie Shartzer) has gone missing and we immediately see how this affects her friends and loved ones. Patrick (Eric Lee Lehning) is beside himself. He was always in love with Wendy and now he will never see that love fully explored. Carol (Cody Devos) has more on his mind than his missing friend -- like the re-emergence of Addy (Leah High), Wendy's best friend and the girl he loves. After Wendy's funeral, Carol is out in the fields with his little brother, Beetle (Brett Miller), when they find Wendy's corpse hanging from a tree. The kick is, that though Wendy is dead, she's still kicking around and moving. Carol and Beetle take Wendy back to their house, and so the entertainment ensues.

You can't really lump this film into a single genre. It's a comedy, definitely. Some of the dialog exchanges are just downright hilarious and I thought the directors were shooting for this blend of John Hughes meets George Romero and I think it worked quite nicely. It's also a horror. We have a re-animated corpse kicking around in this whole Japanese horror manner that sometimes comes off as more than a little unnerving. And it's a drama. There is a lot of teen angst going on in this film -- love triangles and games of the heart. Most of the focus of the film is actually the relationships, with the re-animated corpse in the house getting less and less attention as the film goes on.

The film was obviously shot on digital, and the filmmakers make it work to their advantage. There are some beautiful shots in this picture, especially the underwater sequences and just about every scene involving Wendy. The directors also manage to keep us in suspense, never knowing where the film is ultimately going. It casts this spell over you -- it almost seems dreamlike in the way the story is woven together. I want to compare it to something...but I can't put my finger on it...I guess the closest thing would be that episode of "The Adventures of Pete and Pete", where Michael Stipe played Sludge -- it had the kind of feeling for me.

The only downside to the film, as far as I am concerned, is some uneven acting from some of the leads. But, I found myself forgetting about the couple of lackluster performances just because I was so captivated by the rest of the picture. If a film can make me do that, it has accomplished something. "Make-Out With Violence" is now on the festival circuit (which is how I stumbled across it) and I don't know what will happen with it. I would love to see it shown some love on the indie circuit, and I am definitely curious to see what these two directors have in store for us down the road. They certainly have creativity to spare.

Eric Lehning (Patrick Darling)
Cody DeVos (Carol Darling)
Amanda Bailey (Donna Carrigan)
Josh Duensing (Brian)
Chris Edgerton (Gator)
Leah High (Addy)
Shellie Marie Shartzer (Wendy Hearst)

Director: The Deagol Brothers

RATED R

AND A HALF

SIDEWALK 08: DANCE OF THE DEAD Film Critique

2008-09-30T08:27:00.001-07:00

These teens have worse things to worry about than acne.

Just when you thought the zombie well had been tapped, along comes "Dance of the Dead". Sure, there's not really anything utterly original about this film. It deals with the same zombie stereotypes as every other zombie film made in the last decade. It has the same kinds of characters as every other zombie film. What "Dance of the Dead" does, skillfully and masterfully, is make the genre more accessible to the teen set. Imagine "Night of the Creeps" meets "Return of the Living Dead", seasoned and flavored with a little John Hughes. Imagine scenes of bad ass zombie battles interrupted for cheesy dialog and "The Breakfast Club" life musings. That's what you get with "Dance of the Dead", which was recently picked up by Sam Raimi's Ghosthouse Pictures and will either see a theatrical release at some point, or a DVD release, much like "Dead & Breakfast" a few years back.

The film begins in...well...the graveyard. I won't give away the opening scene except to say it's definitely a new one for a zombie film. After that promising opening scene, we are almost immediately introduced to the colorful assortment of characters who will take us through this undead tale. First, we have Jimmy (Jared Kusnitz), the class clown who is constantly in detention for something. His girlfriend, Lindsey (Greyson Chadwick) has been planning and preparing the Hula Prom and is excited about it finally all coming together. Unfortunately, Jimmy is not the most romantic type and doesn't even have a corsage for her. Then, there's Steven (Chandler Darby), Jimmy's best friend and member of the Sci-Fi Club. He's in love with Gwen (Carissa Capobianco), but she wants to take rocker Nash (Blair Redford) to the prom instead. Eventually, the zombies bust out of their crypts and start eating as much of the town as possible, with the kids banding together to try and stop the attack. They are joined by the local bully, Kyle (Justin Welborn), as well as their phys-ed coach, Coach Keel (Mark Oliver).

The most astonishing thing about this low budget horror film is probably the sequence where the dead are quite literally flying out of their coffins, through the ground and into the open. All this takes place during one of the best chase sequences I have ever seen in a zombie film. "Dance of the Dead" quite easily features the best scenes of zombies leaving their underground homes of any zombie film ever made. Another equally impressive scene has Jimmy and Kyle doing battle with the undead with nothing but a pistol and a baseball bat. This is the type of well made gore that makes me proud to consider the horror genre my favorite. "Dance of the Dead" goes out of its way to show us one cool scene after another of body parts ripping off and zombies getting their heads blown off, and even gives us a kind of zombie sex scene towards the end which was quite humorous. I can't express just how impressive this film was for such a modest budget. It's the best zombie film I've seen in years.

The performances are also equally impressive. Our two lead couples all perform quite well together, especially Chandler Darby and Carissa Capobianco. Justin Welborn has more fun than anyone playing Kyle, the bully, and he probably gets most of the best lines in the film. Mark Oliver is hysterical as Coach Keel, and I even liked some of the smaller roles, like Randy McDowell as Jules and Blair Redford as Nash. The ensemble here is just really gifted at bringing out the humor and the horror of the picture. Just everything -- from the zombies being oddly transfixed by rock and roll music to the idea that the funeral home has a secret passageway that leads directly to the sewer -- so much humor and cheese and so much of what makes zombie films so great. You will definitely get a "Return of the Living Dead' feel from this picture.

Currently, you can't catch "Dance of the Dead" unless you happen to find it at a local film festival. If you want to drive to Birmingham, Alabama, in September, you might find it at the Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival. If you can't do that, you might just have to wait until it finds a limited theatrical release or until it hits DVD. Either way, it's definitely worth the wait. "Dance of the Dead" is a fantastic zombie film and gives me hope that there might be uncharted ground left to explore in that particular sub-genre. There's still hope for the undead.

Jared Kusnitz (Jimmy)
Greyson Chadwick (Lindsey)
Chandler Darby (Steven)
Carissa Capobianco (Gwen)
Randy McDowell (Jules)
Justin Welborn (Kyle Grubbin)
Mark Oliver (Coach Keel)

Director: Gregg Bishop

RATED R

SIDEWALK 08: DEAR ZACHARY Film Critique

2008-09-30T08:23:00.001-07:00

The closest thing to perfection you're likely to see...

Whenever you attend a film festival, there is always one film that stands out of the crowd – one film that sticks with you and really does have an impact, positive or negative. At this year’s Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival, that film was “Dear Zachary: A Letter to A Son About His Father”. You might be slightly familiar with the story, or you might not. I will give you some of the details without telling everything because I want each and every one of you to see it for yourselves. The film is going to be playing on MSNBC very soon and will be available on DVD at the first of next year, so you don’t have very long to wait. “Dear Zachary” ended up winning the Audience Choice Award for Best Documentary at the festival and that’s because every single person in the audience was completely blown away by what I consider to be one of the best documentaries ever made. With all of that said, let me give you a few details about the picture.

The film chronicles director Kurt Kuenne’s attempts to celebrate the life of his friend, Dr. Andrew Bagby. Bagby was murdered by his former girlfriend, Shirley Turner. Turner fled to Newfoundland to escape arrest. Soon thereafter, it was discovered that Shirley was pregnant with Andrew’s child. This is when Kuenne decided to drive cross country to interview the friends and family whom Andrew touched, as a tribute to Andrew and as a gift to Andrew’s unborn child. At the same time, Andrew’s parents, Kate and David, relocated to Newfoundland to attempt to have Shirley brought back to the U.S. for justice and to seek custody of Zachary, Andrew’s son. The film follows Kurt as he travels and interviews those closest to Andrew; and it follows Kate and David as they do everything they can to win custody of Zachary from Shirley. That’s all I am going to reveal, because I don’t want to spoil the emotional impact of this truly amazing piece of cinema.

What works so well in this film is that Kuenne really makes you care about the people involved. By the end of the film, we feel like we know Andrew. He feels like one of our friends, or even a member of our family. We see this man who touched so many people – someone who truly was an inspiration to all around him. We see his life cut tragically cut short by an act of premeditated malice and we hate the person who did it. None of this changes throughout the picture. We also see the strength and determination of Andrew’s parents, who really are the centerpieces of this film. Both are so incredible in the way they handle the most hideous of circumstances. For example, in order to spend time with their grandson, they have to keep in communication and even have a relationship with Shirley, the woman who killed their son. Anyone who could do something like that has to be commended. In addition, they have to endure constant separation from Zachary, who is in the hands of a murderer. It’s something no one should ever have to experience.

The film goes into some places that have rarely been explored on film before. It goes into some emotionally devastating places that leave you absolutely breathless. Every one in the audience was wide eyed and completely floored by the end of this film. I haven’t cried this much in years and really doubt I have ever cried this much in a theatrical setting. I was moved, inspired and absolutely enraged that something like this could happen in this day and age. “Dear Zachary” is, if nothing else, a call to arms. I won’t tell you about what. What I will say is this – “Dear Zachary” is the best documentary of the year, one of the best films of the year, and one of the best documentaries I have ever had the pleasure of seeing. I cannot recommend this film enough. Just know going in that it will absolutely wreck you. But, sometimes, that’s just what we need to make change.

Director: Kurt Kuenne

SIDEWALK 08: GOOD DICK Film Critique

2008-09-30T08:05:00.000-07:00

Don't let the title fool you...okay...go ahead and let it...

Don't let the title fool you -- there is nothing pornographic about "Good Dick". Well...nothing obscene that we see as an audience. The characters in the film watch a lot of porn and do a lot of things while watching that porn, but we don't really see any of that ourselves. This makes me wonder why the title "Good Dick" at all? It's going to make it a 'catch' on the festival circuit, but no distributor is going to release it with that title. It's just a matter of time before it's picked up and its name changed to something more accessible to the theatrical circuit. But, "Good Dick" is a real winner. It played at Sundance and is currently still hitting various film festivals. It's one of the quirkiest and more enjoyable films I've seen this year and I hope it catches on to the mainstream very soon.

Let me start off with saying that our two lead characters don't have names. We never hear them referred to by anything other than nicknames for one another or as 'you' or 'him' of 'her'. Jason Ritter stars as Man, who works at a video store by day and sleeps in his car, at night. Through various subtle references, we learn that he use to be a junkie and has reformed his life. He now makes very little money and quickly becomes obsessed with a young girl who keeps coming into the video store and renting low-rate porn. She is Woman (Marianna Palka), who seems to hate all people. She is extremely weirded out when he starts showing up on her doorstep, claiming to have an aunt who lives in the same building. The two eventually develop an odd and downright sinister sort of non-sexual relationship, where they both depend on one another for bizarre things. The film shows how they grow in that relationship and eventually come to realize things about themselves.

This film doesn't give you anything for free. You're given these two awkward, infuriating characters and asked to care about them while they commit atrocious acts and say horrible and sickening things to one another. We want to feel sorry for the Jason Ritter character, but he is really is one step above a stalker and he brings a lot of it on himself. We want to sympathize with the Marianna Palka character, but she is just too damned evil and too damned confusing most of the time. Then, slowly, the films starts to reveal its secrets and we learn things about these characters that give us some clue as to why they are as fucked up as they are. The best scene in the film comes when the two of them about to commit their first sexual act, when something unexpected happens to Jason Ritter, ruining the moment and sending Marianna Palka's character into hysterics. There are several scenes where you just watched, mouth agape, as these people do these horrible things to one another.

The performances here are universally excellent. This is a star turn for Jason Ritter, who has been regulated to supporting character roles until now. He really shows his comedic and dramatic range here. He has the same comic sensibilities that his father had and he knows how to be quirky in just about every way. Marianna Palka is also a real discovery. She wrote and directed this film, as well as starring in it, and she just blows you away with her performance. It's not a likable performance, but it's not supposed to be. Martin Starr, Mark Webber and Josh Holt provide nice comedic support as Jason Ritter's co-workers, Charles Durning has an odd, but affecting cameo and Tom Arnold is just plain awesome as Marianna Palka's father, who comes in for just about five minutes at the end and brings everything in perspective. Tom Arnold has been doing a lot of very credible indie work the last few years and he once again proves why he deserves more attention in film.

So, "Good Dick" was fantastic. It will definitely make my end of the year list and I hope it finds distribution sooner rather than later. It deserves it. It's not an easy film to love and I can see why some people would downright hate it, but I fell in love with the nastiness of the characters and how mired in misery everything was. It made it all the more delightful that this was all done with such lightheartedness, until the end. "Good Dick" is an exceptional piece of filmmaking and a must-see for everyone.

Jason Ritter
Marianna Palka
Josh Holt (Jared)
Martin Starr (Simon)
Mark Webber (Derek)
Charles Durning (Charlie)
Tom Arnold (Dad)

Director: Marianna Palka

RATED R

SIDEWALK 08: ADVENTURES OF POWER Film Critique

2008-09-30T08:03:00.001-07:00

The Opening Night Film of the 2008 Sidewalk Film Festival.

Opening night at the Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival is always a special occasion, as hundreds of thirsty movie-goers pile into the historic Alabama Theatre and get ready for an evening of cinema, and the kick-off to one of the best film festivals in the nation. However, there always seems to be this stigma attached to the opening night film – this idea that the opening night film is always going to be inferior to the rest of the weekend. Why? Well – the opening night film does need to be a guaranteed crowd pleaser – a film that gets people jazzed about the rest of the festival. Typically, this means the genre is going to be comedy. Last year the opening night film was “The Ten” and the year before that was “The Sasquatch Dumpling Gang”. For 2008, Sidewalk picked up a bizarre little indie number entitled “Adventures of Power”. The film comes from writer/director/musician Ari Gold, who introduced his film on a green bicycle and seemed as if he likely stepped out of the sci-fi club. Appearance aside, “Adventures of Power” is all gold and boasts his unique brand of humor that is both quirky, cute and a little borrowed. I can’t say that a lot of the audience was really blown away with “Adventures of Power”, but it did make a lot of people laugh. And, considering this was the best festival yet, I’d say it kicked it off to a pretty good start.

The film takes place in the small mining town of Lode, New Mexico. Power (Ari Gold) spends his days working at the local copper mine and his night honing his air drumming skills. That’s right – air drumming. That’s what this entire film is about. His father, Harlan (Michael McKean) has just organized a strike at the mine and doesn’t like what his son is doing. One day, after getting fired from his job, Power decides to head to Mexico for an air drumming competition, where he is told to go to Newark and get trained for the air drumming finals in New York. The man who wants to train him is Carlos (Steven Williams), who lost both his hands and now leads a band of air drummers with dreams of world domination. He also meets Annie (Shoshannah Stern), the deaf daughter of a religious fanatic who loves that Power can help her ‘feel’ the music. Meanwhile, throughout all of this, we have a subplot involving a successful musician (Adrian Grenier), who wants to abandon his movie star lifestyle for a return to air drumming, his true love. His father is also the owner of the mine where the strikers are taking their stand. Now, that’s a lot of plot lines for a comedy like this, and they do tend to get a little muffled from time to time.

There have been a lot of films that have attempted to duplicate that “Napoleon Dynamite” type of execution, but most have failed miserably. Even the creators of “Napoleon Dynamite” tried and failed miserably. As someone who thought “Napoleon Dynamite” was a waste of time, I really wish people would just let it die. “Adventures of Power” suffers from wanting to be that film and coming a few years too late. It feels like everything in this film has been done before. It feels like the jokes are retreads and the performances are imitations. You can’t have a film like this, relying on this kind of quirky comedy, and expect it to carry for ninety minutes. Sure, air drumming is funny the first couple of times you see, but when the film hits the hour mark, you are so sick and tired of listening to the same damned Rush song over and over again. I understand getting the rights to music can be difficult, but could we really get no AC/DC or Quiet Riot or Spinal Tap? I refuse to believe that “Tom Sawyer” would be the greatest air drumming song imaginable.

As for the performances, they are hit and miss. I can’t say I enjoyed Ari Gold as Power, which is a shame considering he carries most of the film. His acting skills are not impressive, and though he does possess a certain quirky charm, it becomes annoying before it becomes accessible. Jane Lynch is horribly underused in the film, and when you’ve got an actress of her talents, you need to use her as much as possible. Michael McKean does nicely with his role, and Adrian Grenier did make me laugh a few times. But, the strongest performance comes from Steven Williams as Carlos, the equivalent of ‘Chubbs’ from “Happy Gilmore”. Williams is having more fun than anyone else in the picture and his character really does seem to be the most developed in the film. I guess my biggest question would be – if they can land Lynch and McKean and Williams – and Grenier, one of the hottest actors on television right now – could they not land someone else for the role of Power? I understand Gold wrote the film and has an attachment to it, but he really was one of the weakest links in the film. You can only play that schtick for so long in a film.

So, this year’s Sidewalk Moving Picture Festival kicked off with a slight bang. “Adventures of Power” was not a bad film – it was much better than “The Ten” from last year. I wish it had done more with the premise and I wish it had been better executed in terms of originality, but it did make me laugh on numerous occasions, primarily thanks to a hysterical supporting performance from the always enjoyable Steven Williams and an interesting performance from Michael McKean. I don’t see how the film will enjoy much mainstream success. The subject matter is not strong enough to keep a full audience interested for ninety minutes. This would have worked far better as a fifteen or twenty minute short film. “Adventures of Power” is another comedy to try too hard to be another film, and though it succeeds at times, it never really accomplishes its goal. Instead of trying to be like “Napoleon Dynamite”, I wish it would have tried to be better. That might have worked.

Ari Gold (Power)
Michael McKean (Harlan)
Jane Lynch (Joni)
Adrian Grenier (Dallas Houston)
Richard Fancy (Dick Houston)
Steven Williams (Carlos)
Shoshannah Stern (Annie)

Director: Ari Gold

RATED PG-13

OBITUARY

2008-09-29T09:38:00.000-07:00

R.I.P.
PAUL NEWMAN
1925 - 2008

FILMOGRAPHY:

1956...Somebody Up There Likes Me
1958...The Long, Hot Summer
1958...The Left Handed Gun
1958...Cat On A Hot Tin Roof
1959...The Young Philadelphians
1960...From the Terrace
1960...Exodus
1961...The Hustler
1961...Paris Blues
1962...Sweet Bird of Youth
1962...Adventures of A Young Man
1963...Hud
1963...A New Kind of Love
1963...The Prize
1964...What A Way to Go
1964...The Outrage
1965...Lady L
1966...Harper
1966...Torn Curtain
1967...Hombre
1967...Cool Hand Luke
1968...The Secret War of Harry Frigg
1969...Winning
1969...Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
1970...WUSA
1971...Sometimes A Great Notion
1972...Pocket Money
1972...The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
1973...The Sting
1974...The Towering Inferno
1975...The Drowning Pool
1977...Slapshot
1979...Quintet
1980...When Time Ran Out
1981...Fort Apache the Bronx
1981...Absence of Malice
1982...The Verdict
1984...Harry & Son
1986...The Color of Money
1989...Fat Man and Little Boy
1989...Blaze
1990...Mr. & Mrs. Bridge
1994...The Hudsucker Proxy
1994...Nobody’s Fool
1998...Twilight
1999...Message in A Bottle
2000...Where the Money Is
2002...Road to Perdition
2006...Cars

To call Paul Newman a legend would be the understatement of a lifetime. He was, in truth, one of cinema’s greatest actors. He was a gentleman, a scholar – just an overall great human being. My favorite performance of his will always be from “Cool Hand Luke”, one of my favorite films ever made. But he was prolific in almost every genre and was most recently heard as one of the voices in the animated film, “Cars”. There’s not a lot left to say about a man whose career meant so much to so many for so long. Paul Newman was a legend. He will be missed.

LAKEVIEW TERRACE Film Critique

2008-09-23T14:47:00.001-07:00

What you gonna do when he comes for you?

Have you ever seen a film so awful, so wretched, so worthless that it made you doubt both the quality of cinema, as a whole, and the talents of the director involved? “The Wicker Man” was that film for me, a disaster of epic proportions and one of the most laughably pathetic motion pictures to come around in recent memory. The sad thing about that is that the film was written and directed by Neil LaBute, one of the finest playwrights of our time and a successful independent director with a crisp and impressive resume. To see such an artist fall victim to the Hollywood machine was nothing short of devastating. I mean – this was the filmmaker who had given us “In the Company of Men”, “The Shape of Things” and the fantastic “Nurse Betty”. This was the playwright who had riveted audiences with “Fat Pig”, “Autobahn” and “Some Girls”. Alas, despite his former glory, his film “The Wicker Man” stripped me of my faith and turned me into both a skeptic and a pissed off former fan. Now comes “Lakeview Terrace”, another mainstream effort from LaBute with the perpetually angry black man Samuel L. Jackson playing...well...an angry black man. But, there was something about the trailer for this film that made me think it was going to be more than another one of those run-of-the-mill thrillers. It had that old Neil LaBute feel to it – with the social themes and the anger and bitterness bubbling just below the surface of the pristine outer layer. So, I am going to pretend “The Wicker Man” never happened. I am going to pretend LaBute was skipping his anti-psychotics or something. Why? Because “Lakeview Terrace” was one of the strongest films I have seen this year. It’s a return to form for LaBute and a damned fine picture.

It’s a rare occurrence when the star of a film is also the films villain, but such is the case here. We are immediately introduced to Abel Turner (Samuel L. Jackson), a Los Angeles police officer who lives in the suburbs, on Lakeview Terrace. His wife is dead and he is raising two young children by himself, controlling their every move as any over-possessive father might. One day, a newly married couple – Chris (Patrick Wilson) and Lisa (Kerry Washington) – move next door, which shouldn’t be a problem except for one thing – Chris is white and Lisa is black. Abel is almost immediately uncomfortable with their living next door to he and his kids, and he goes out of his way to make them feel unwelcome. When Abel’s kids spy on Chris and Lisa ‘getting busy’ in their pool next door, things really start to heat up. Most of the film deals with Abel expressing his views on the lifestyle next door and Chris and Lisa going out of their way to fit in. All the while, a large wildfire is inching closer and closer to their scenic suburban worlds. When Abel is out on leave from the police department for an incident involving alleged abuse, his world really start to come unraveled, forcing Abel to take his frustrations out on his new neighbors. And, though I know that plot summation sounds typical and done-to-death, believe me when I tell you – it’s not. “Lakeview Terrace” is not quite what you think it’s going to be. It’s a multi-layered examination.

You have to understand so much of what makes this film tick. As we learn early on, Lakeview Terrace is not far from where Rodney King was beaten, and there are still criminals dropping in the neighborhood all the time, according to Abel, who keeps security lights on at night and is always seeming concerned about the safety of his children. There is a subtle and very vicious undertone throughout the film dealing with racism from both sides. Abel makes no secret that he doesn’t approve of a bi-racial relationship and he also seems to display an acute racism towards Caucasians and Hispanics. But, the same is said for his new neighbor, Chris. You can see the expression on his face whenever he confronts Abel, and there is one moment where I literally thought Chris was about to call Abel something that would have really amped things overboard. He did not. But he made us think that he was considering it, and that was enough. Abel is tired of raising his children alone in a world with no boundaries. Chris is tired of being constantly judged for the color of his skin and Abel is just one more black man in his life who disapproves of his marriage. The two would never get along in any setting, with things becoming more and more complicated because of their being neighbors who just don’t understand one another. The ending of the film is not nearly as tacked on as it might seem, but the impending wildfires and the quick escalation of violence only goes to demonstrate how out of hand hatred can become, especially when so chaotic.

The first thing I said when I walked out of the theatre was – This is the best thing I have seen Samuel L. Jackson do since “Pulp Fiction”. I meant it. Jackson has turned in some quality work since then, but he really does carry this film on so many levels. And, yes – I know – he’s playing the angry black man role again. Why not? He does it so well, and he manages to take that and add humor and humility and pain and loss, and so many other emotions. This isn’t the Samuel L. Jackson who made us cringe in “Jumper”. This is the Samuel L. Jackson that stretched his acting muscles in “187" and “Changing Lanes”. We haven’t seen him in a while. Patrick Wilson serves as a nice balance with Jackson and turns in a fine performance also. Wilson usually doesn’t bring too much to the table other than nice abs, but he really does great here. It’s also probably the best thing he’s done since “Angels in America”. I was probably more impressed with Kerry Washington than Wilson – she really brings some depth and some raw emotion to the role. I believed every single thing she was going through, and I loved the whole side-play between she and Wilson about whether or not to have a child. That added an extra dimension to the overall dynamic. Basically, what I’m suggesting is that Neil LaBute has done one hell of a fantastic job with so many of these emotional layers. He has taken what seemed like an ordinary thriller and turned it into a very absorbing and very revealing drama about race and acceptance and the risks of hate.

The most shocking thing I have noticed is that most critics seem to be disagreeing with my grand assessment of the film. I cannot believe this film has received more negative criticism than positive criticism. Were they watching the same film? Part of me feels like Neil LaBute’s reputation has now been forever tarnished by “The Wicker Man” and no critics are ever going to attempt to take him seriously again. If this film had been made on a shoestring budget and starred Don Cheadle, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Viola Davis – they’d be talking Oscars right now. Because LaBute is now going mainstream with his pictures, it seems like it’s okay to take unfair shots at him. I personally consider “Lakeview Terrace” to be his third best film, right behind “Nurse Betty” and “In the Company of Men”. It made a definite impact on me. And, at the very least, go for the brilliant writing, the sterling performance from Samuel L. Jackson, and one of the most intriguing, edge-of-your-seat ride of the year. Whenever Jackson is on screen, there is this impending sense of doom and dread. You keep waiting for something to happen. Not many actors can command that kind of precognition. “Lakeview Terrace” is easily one of the best films of the year.

Samuel L. Jackson (Abel Turner)
Patrick Wilson (Chris Mattson)
Kerry Washington (Lisa Mattson)
Jay Hernandez (Javier Villareal)

Director: Neil LaBute

RATED PG-13

AND A HALF

RIGHTEOUS KILL Film Critique

2008-09-19T23:06:00.001-07:00

That's not a corpse, gentlemen -- it's your careers.

For the past few years, both Robert De Niro and Al Pacino have been trading acclaim for paychecks with a string of films that have done little to enhance their already legendary resumes. Now, it’s no unusual for high profile stars to take projects for big paychecks to feed their craving to do strings of independent films – Morgan Freeman has taken that kind of an approach, as have Bill Murray and Michael Caine. De Niro and Pacino, however, seem to have decided that paychecks come first in almost every situation, for the past few years anyways. De Niro has added these films to his resume: “Analyze This”, “15 Minutes”, “Showtime”, “City By the Sea”, “Godsend”, “Meet the Fockers” and “Hide and Seek”. In turn, Pacino has starred in “Simone”, “People I Know”, “The Recruit”, “Gigli”, “Two for the Money” and “88 Minutes”. These were all nothing short of disasters for the two stars, and although some were successful, none have really done anything to advance their careers in a meaningful way. “Righteous Kill” was supposed to be their return to form – and also a chance to reunite the two stars, their having only appeared together once before for a brief scene in the film “Heat”. Alas, “Righteous Kill” is yet another film to add to both of their struggling resumes, a film so riddled with cliches and lame attempts to be ‘trendy and hip’ that it drowns in its own delusion. I was highly disappointed with this film, and the two legends floundering therein.

So, there are these two cops, right? Turk (Robert De Niro) and Rooster (Al Pacino) have been partners for many years and they are also best friends. Early on, we learn that there is a serial killer on the loose, targeting criminals who have slipped through the justice system. The killer is some sort of vigilante and Rooster suggests it might be a cop. This sets off two young detectives (John Leguizamo & Donnie Wahlberg) on the trail of the person responsible and all eyes seem to point to Turk. Turk’s S&M loving lover, and fellow police officer (Carla Gugino), seems to believe him, as does his superior (Brian Dennehy), but most of the film deals with everyone trying to prove Turk is innocent. There are some twists and turns along the way as we start to learn that people might not be who they say they are. 50 Cent pops up as…you guessed it…a street thug the always great Melissa Leo in a throw away role as a drug addict. Pay close attention to the film because, if you miss something, you might not catch up. By the end of the film, the goal is that you’re amazed because everything you’ve been thinking is turned on its end. The problem is that you can see the end coming several miles away, and you keep hoping it won’t because it’s so damned cliched and unworthy of such acting talent.

One of the biggest problems with “Righteous Kill” is that it wants to be cool and trendy and doesn’t know how to make that happen. The editing is fast and flashy and feels like it’s way overdone at times. Director Michael Apted seems more comfortable directing a fast paced action flick, but “Righteous Kill” tries to be more than that, which makes the editing and the pacing off throughout. Apted seems to think that all De Niro and Pacino are good for is tossing out tired old buddy cop cliches and screaming obscenities at the top of their lungs. Has he never seen “The Departed”? He should have taken notes on how well Scorsese used Jack Nicholson in that picture. That said, Apted is no Scorsese, and neither De Niro or Pacino are Jack Nicholson. “Righteous Kill” doesn’t know what it wants to be. A buddy cop drama? A serial killer film? A thriller? A mystery? It tries to be all of those things simultaneously and fails at all of them. It felt like I was watching two great actors sitting around and reading lines from a 1980’s cop movie, as a joke. It felt like – “How would Robert De Niro and Al Pacino deliver these lines?” And, though this is being billed as a return to form, neither De Niro nor Pacino look as if they are having any fun together whatsoever. They look lost, and a little trapped.

Now, to the performances. You can never really say that De Niro and Pacino are bad, but they are weakened by lesser material. You can see slight glimpses of how kinetic they could be together in the right roles, but they we drift into the stock dialog that makes you want to cringe. Leguizamo and Wahlberg do well with their roles, but this is sort of their territory. Brian Dennehy was nice in his few scenes, but was underused. I wanted to see more of him. The best performance in the film comes from Carla Gugino, probably because her character seems the most developed and fully realized of them all. And, I don’t know what 50 Cent is doing here, but he can’t act and this film proves it. He’s just there as eye candy for a few scenes and then he gets shot, as you know will happen. But, aren’t we supposed to care more about De Niro and Pacino in this film? Yes, we are. But their characters are so bland and uninspired that we’re reaching for any performance in the entire picture to connect with. There is one moment when the two of them are sitting in a restaurant and literally exchanging line after line of recylced garbage from a thousand other films just like this one – line after line – “I’ll never let you down, partner”, “I’ll take the fall”, “Partners till we die” – blah blah blah blah.

If you haven’t guessed it, “Righteous Kill” should have been put out of its misery long before it saw a single day of shooting. Robert De Niro and Al Pacino deserve better, but so do we – from them. There are people out there who truly admire them as actors and want to see them succeed, but how can they when they keep accepting the same worthless roles from the same clumsy directors. Al Pacino is more at fault because he just got through working with Michael Apted on “88 Minutes”, the worst film of Pacino’s career. Did these two sign a deal with the devil or something? “Righteous Kill” is not the worst film of the year, and there are probably those out there who will love it and say that both De Niro and Pacino are ‘awesome’ and ‘kick ass’. Those same people – the ones who use those particular descriptives – obviously haven’t see enough of their quality work to appreciate just how awful this kind of work is. In closing, let me recommend that you go out and purchase both “Taxi Driver” and “Dog Day Afternoon”. Watch them, and then check out “City By the Sea” and “Simone”. Then take a Valium and grieve.

Robert De Niro (Turk)
Al Pacino (Rooster)
50 Cent (Spider)
Carla Gugino (Karen Corelli)
John Leguizamo (Perez)
Donnie Wahlberg (Riley)
Brian Dennehy (Hingis)

Director: Michael Apted

RATED R