JARHEAD

Director: Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition)
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, Jamie Foxx

I have read that Universal Studios is pushing this film as its Oscar contender this year. I feel for Universal if that’s true. I simply don’t understand much of the praise this film has received. Rather than seeing the horrors of a modern war on modern man, the fractalyzed nature of our modern ethos, I saw only some stupid kids doing stupid things, but mostly just being bored. I could certainly feel empathy for their apathy. That’s probably pretty close to how I’d behave if I were there. I could certainly understand the stress of their situation. I just don’t understand what that stress tells me about anything in my life. Maybe I missed it, but I’ll give even odds that there simply wasn’t anything in this film to miss. One serious complaint I have about the film is that there are lines and situations almost directly stolen from Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket. I think the director tried to correct this by creating an aura of past films in the story. That is he tried to show how the recruits only knew war through the movies of Vietnam, but it just didn’t work. It felt like a rip off. It was a rip off. It’s certainly a worthwhile notion (that most of us can only express ourselves in others ideas), but it just didn’t work.

Standouts: Jake Gyllenhaal was good, but nowhere near excellent.
Blowouts: It didn’t come together as a whole. Not a single great scene in the entire movie.

Grade: B-

11/13/2005

CAPOTE

Director: Bennett Miller (No major film work)
Starring: Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener, Clifton Collins Jr

After five minutes of watching Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s uncanny portrayal of Truman Capote, I had hopes that I was about to see a masterpiece. Alas, I was wrong. It took a lazy, meandering path along the border of masterpiece, but never a single firm step into the nation of genius. Nope, this was no masterpiece. It was, however, a good solid movie with some fine acting and about a subject that could have been gripping and important. Unfortunately, the script about Capote’s penning the non fiction In Cold Blood and his relationship with the murderers in that book was a bit drab and, frankly, boring. I never felt like I knew anything about Capote. The story in many ways did this on purpose. It tried to show the conflicts of Capote without giving anything away as to how he really felt. He may have been in love with a murderer. He may have simply been in love with himself. He may have just wanted to write a good book. Unfortunately, the mystery surrounding his conflicted emotions simply didn't interest me. I don’t care whether Capote was a self-involved jerk. (Okay, I’m pretty positive that he was.) I want to know about his relationship with the murderer. That’s where the meat lay in this story. Unfortunately, the film only served me tofu, and I was hungry leaving the theater. As I said, this is a good movie, but not a great one. Hoffman may get award consideration, but I doubt he’ll win anything. Of course the rest of the field will have to present itself before we’ll know that for sure.

Standouts: Phillip Hoffman’s portrayal of the affected and distant Capote.
Blowouts: The “could have been awesome” script didn’t quite measure up.

Grade: B+

11/6/2005

CRASH (DVD)

Director: Paul Haggis ( writer/producer Million Dollar Baby, long list of TV work)
Starring: Ensemble incl. Matt Dillon, Don Cheadle, Thandie Newton, more

I think that this broad, vaguely cheesy movie about racism showed some worthwhile ideas on screen. The film portrayed a dozen characters each confronting and practicing racism (like we all do in some way or another). It showed these characters lashing out at others because they have so many other struggles to deal with, and how it’s just easier to lash out. Well, the screenplay has this right in some ways - maybe not without fault, and it’s definitely not a comprehensive study of racism, but it got its little part right. For that I applaud the film. Detractors of the movie will rush to shout down the awful score, the absolutely, unbelievably, unabashedly simple characters, and the absurd coincidences that bring the dozen or so characters of this film together, and they may be right to do so. These were not particularly effective aspects to this film. It’s a pet peeve of mine, however, how critics will particularly ravage an idea that dares to reaches high and may fail in some way. If you dare to attempt to write a screenplay on racism, you damn well better not give us any broad strokes. Well, screw you Mr. or Ms. Cowardly Low Self Esteemed Reviewer. If you can’t handle someone having the balls to tackle a difficult subject and fail then you’d be best to quietly go work in your garden and shut up about art because you don’t have the slightest idea how it works. So yeah, this movie missed in a lot of ways, succeeded in some others, but was pretty much watchable throughout. So, to concisely sum up: Uneven but with some to recommend.

Standouts: Effective acting by Matt Dillon, Thandie Newton, Don Cheadle and others.
Blowouts: Horrible score, silly plot coincidences, and ridiculously broad characters.

Grade: B-

10/24/2005

HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE

Director: Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Donnie Brasco, Pushing Tin)
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, many more

As my favorite of the Harry Potter books I had high hopes for this release. As the book weighed in at a chunky 750 pages, however, I knew it would be a difficult story to adapt to the screen. Both my hopes and fears were fully recognized in this fine, but hardly exceptional film. The story was about Harry testing his wits and knowledge of magic in the Tri-Wizard Tournament against competitors of other wizarding schools. It was also about a dastardly, and successful, plot by the evil Voldemort to return to power. In the film nearly all of the joy, and childlike fantasy, and battles of wits that filled the book were removed in favor of pure action. This … is disappointing to me. However, the action worked and I’m willing to accept it for what it was. After a first viewing this is probably my least favorite of the films, but only by a slight margin. This is still a thoroughly enjoyable and notable movie. (November 21)


Standouts: The Potter kids acting. They tackled their first forays into adult emotion very well.
Blowouts: The script. Left out the Winnie the Pooh delight in favor of the Rambo physicality.

Grade: B+

11/22/2005

WEDDING CRASHERS

Director: David Dobkin (Shanghai Knights, Clay Pigeons)
Starring: Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Isla Fisher

It’s the rare comedy that really strikes me as funny. That’s why I was particularly surprised that 3 excellent comedies would come out in such quick succession. The Aristocrats was funny. 40-Year-Old Virgin was hilarious. Wedding Crashers was somewhere in between. Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn have made a number of comedies, and are quite good at it. I personally think this is the best work for either of them to date. There were moments of this film that I couldn’t stop laughing, and there are a host of lines to remember. My only regret is that the film finished on a bit of a whimper. Will Ferrell (who I normally enjoy in a cheesy sort of way) made a late appearance, but unfortunately didn’t fit into the story very well. For the first 60 to 80 minutes, though, this was an extraordinarily funny flick.

Standouts: Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, two funny guys.
Blowouts: Will Ferrell’s late insertion into the film just didn’t work.

Grade: A-

9/3/2005

40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN

Director: Judd Apatow (Producer The Cable Guy, Anchorman: Ron Burgundy ...)
Starring: Steve Carell, Catherine Keener, Paul Rudd, Seth Rogan


Steve Carell, of The Daily Show ‘fame’, moved into the role of leading man with this comic vehicle of his own construction. It works. It works well. In fact, this was one of the funniest films in recent memory. Oh, it’s not as quotable as Office Space, and not as laugh out loud crowd pleasing as Something About Mary, but it’s certainly a hilarious piece of work. I laughed throughout. I felt good leaving the theater. The script is smart enough to not treat its characters like assholes. Despite being a sex comedy with a nerd for a main character, it’s still a sweet, reaffirming (and funny) story.

Standouts: Steve Carell & Company are simply hilarious.
Blowouts: I can’t think of a single major “failure” in the film.

Grade: A-

8/26/2005

BROKEN FLOWERS

Director: Jim Jarmusch (Stranger than Paradise, Mystery Train, Coffee & Cigarettes)
Starring: Bill Murray, Jeffrey Wright, Julie Delpy, Sharon Stone

Jim Jarmusch has a reputation as the lone rebel director, shooting and splicing his art films under the menacing shadow of corporate Hollywood. Note that Jarmusch loves that reputation and does everything he can to promote it. Like any other director, though, I’ll bet he’d rather make a film with more money and the freedom that brings. With that aside however, let’s talk Broken Flowers. I liked this film. I did not love this film. It’s a pleasant, enjoyable little tale about an aging lothario finding old flames in search of the son he never knew he had. He doesn’t find anything, and that’s supposed to be informative. Bill Murray is getting quite a bit of good press for his performance in this film. I’m in the opposition on this one, however. Most of my dislike of his character comes down to the screenplay. I simply didn’t believe that the sad sack shown to me on screen was a ladies man. Nothing rang true to me about his character. He simply seemed false to me. Despite this rather significant flaw (seeing as how Murray is the story), it was still pleasant to watch and entertaining. For positives, I have to note Sharon Stone who gives a fine performance in a small role as an ex-flame, and Jeffrey Wright who provides much of the comedy as Murray’s buddy.

Standouts: Quirky direction, and some of the supporting actors.
Blowouts: Bill Murray and the main character. I did not believe this story, although I still enjoyed it.

Grade: B

8/19/2005

MURDERBALL

Director: Henry Rubin & Dana Shapiro (no major film work)
Starring: Documentary

This surprising little documentary about quadriplegics was a very good movie. Nominally, the film is about Murderball, or wheelchair rugby, but as with any good movie it goes well beyond the central premise. When I say that the film is surprising, I mean it’s surprising in a number of different ways, not just that I was surprised by how good it was. I was surprised that the film showed quadriplegics not as targets of sympathy, but as full-blown assholes. I was surprised that the film devoted time to showing a father becoming a better father and that he just happened to be paralyzed. I was surprised that it showed (fairly graphically) the sex activities of the paralyzed. At times this movie wanted me to laugh at the paralyzed. At times this movie wanted me to dislike the paralyzed. And in the end this movie wanted me to understand the paralyzed. This was a very good film.

Standouts: The directors. They put together a very good film.
Blowouts: A scene where Para-Olympians make fun of the Special Olympics. Just sad.

Grade: A-

8/18/2005

THE ARISTOCRATS

Director: Paul Provenza (Long time stand up comedian)
Starring: Documentary (Penn Jillette does much of the interviewing)

A documentary by stand-up comics, nominally about stand-up comics. The hook on this film is the joke “The Aristocrats”. A family comes into a talent agent’s office and says, “Have we got an act for you!” They proceed to shit, fuck, piss, vomit and revel in obscenity for a while. The agent says, “That’s quite an act. What’s it called?” The answer: The Aristocrats! It’s a so-so joke. Really, I’m sure that Paul Provenza and Penn Jillette just thought that comedians being truly profane for 90 minutes would sell tickets. He’s probably right. I’ve heard that this film is a compelling deconstruction of stand-up comedy, and perhaps that’s true to a degree. We see a hundred different takes on the same material. I don’t know. In the end, I think it’s just a funny movie. I laughed throughout. I found it slightly less funny than a good stand-up routine, but being a stand-up fan, that’s praise on my part. The standout routines include Kevin Pollack telling the joke while doing a Christopher Walken impersonation, Bob Sagat in perhaps the dirtiest telling of the routine, and a hilarious mime routine of the joke. I didn’t find this to be an amazingly enlightening film, but I did find it to be a damn funny one.

Standouts: Kevin Pollack, Bob Sagat, Gilbert Godfried, Billy the Mime.
Blowouts: Although a lot of comedians were flat, I found Jon Stewart to be annoying.

Grade: B+

8/10/2005

CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY

Director: Tim Burton (Edward Scissorhands, Batman, Ed Wood, Sleepy Hollow)
Starring: Johnny Depp, Freddie Highmoor, David Kelly

Tim Burton and Johnny Depp have “re-imagined” the almost classic children’s tale of Willy Wonka into a more psychologically grounded, albeit less fantastic voyage. Oh yes, there are bigger sights, and louder sounds, but much less whimsy in this version of the magical chocolate factory. Nonetheless, it is a fine little film taken in its own right – although it is difficult to take remakes “in their own right”, and perhaps rather pointless to do so. Johnny Depp got a lot of bad press for his Michael Jackson-esque portrayal of the childlike, yet creepy, Willy Wonka. I thought his role, while not a standout, was perfectly legitimate given the tone of this film. I will admit, however, that he was at the heart of the lack-of-heart in this film. Depp was creepy and weird as Wonka, but he was also entirely unlovable. Gene Wilder beat him by leaps and bounds on that score. A solid movie, but if you’re going to buy a Wonka DVD for your kids, you damn well better be buying the Gene Wilder original.

Standouts: Tim Burton’s unique direction. Freddie Highmoor as Charlie Bucket.
Blowouts: Johnny Depp – not necessarily bad, just weird.

Grade: B

7/23/2005

MARCH OF THE PENGUINS

Director: Luc Jacquet (no major film work)
Starring: Documentary (narrated by Morgan Freeman, US version)

While certainly a delightful little nature documentary, this small film narrated by Morgan Freeman has been rather oversold. The amount of press given to this tiny little release has far exceeded what it deserves. That does not imply that this is a bad film. It’s an interesting and enjoyable 90 minutes - although perhaps no more so than most top quality nature documentaries. Most unfortunately it’s also somewhat inaccurate. It spends those 90 minutes anthropomorphizing a group of emperor penguins living on the fringes of the livable earth, deep down in Antarctica. As a description of life, it’s exceptionally interesting. We see how life will struggle to fill every available gap in an ecosystem. Unfortunately, the filmmakers chose to present these penguins as brave, charismatic, heroes struggling through all odds. I don’t really believe that’s entirely plausible. Not many of these penguins rationally chose the life they lead any more than my cat chooses to be a persnickety clean freak. It’s called free will, my good filmmakers - free will. Nonetheless, I’m willing to pretend and enjoy the story of the dutiful penguins marching deep into Antarctica each year to breed. An enjoyable, if over advertised little film.

Standouts: The film crew. Amazing footage in horrible physical conditions.
Blowouts: The writers. Joyful chronicle of life? Nope. Anthropomorphic cliché.

Grade: B

7/17/2005

WAR OF THE WORLDS

Director: Steven Spielberg ( no major film work)
Starring: Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, Justin Chatwin

The latest Stephen Spielberg summer blockbuster is a moderately entertaining, moderately successful film. While it touches on large issues like our current fears of terrorism, and how society deals with them, it does no more than touch. It doesn’t quite overcome the limits of a standard sci-fi adventure flick, despite seeming to try. Again and again in Spielberg’s films we see what a master he’s become at the visual medium. This is perhaps surprising given his early work, but there are few directors out there with such a beautiful body of moving pictures. The evil machines destroying America quite effectively evoke early sci-fi design, but still create a palpable sense of fear in the viewer. They’re creepy, creepy things. Still they serve little artistic purpose beyond eye candy. It’s unfortunate that the director isn’t quite willing or able to create works of art rather than these standard movie spectacles. It certainly seems like he’s trying to turn this film into a commentary on society after 9/11, with some of the basest human emotions bubbling to the surface in the face of trauma. Unfortunately, just when the film seems like it’s going to work on this level, the plot turns into nothing more than hero Tom Cruise saving his kids from the bad guys. Similar to The Terminal, a recent Spielberg film, this movie attempts to be something more than entertainment, but just misses. Good solid entertainment, but I still think Steve-O can do better. He needs some more Schindler’s Lists thrown in amongst his Jurassic Park 2s.

Standouts: Adventure, evil baddies, and nice design and production.
Blowouts: Uneven script. In parts it’s smart and interesting, in others, somewhat banal.

Grade: B

7/10/2005

BATMAN BEGINS

Director: Christopher Nolan (Memento, Insomnia)
Starring: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Katie Holmes, Liam Neeson

This film opened to wonderful reviews, many of which cited this as the best super-hero movie to date. I disagree with this sentiment, although I still think it was a fine little summer movie. Christopher Nolan’s Batman (the director of Memento and Insomnia) is much darker and grittier and more “real” than the comic-book characters of films past. This story does not primarily clash heroes versus villains. It rather spends most of its time depicting the transformation of Bruce Wayne into Batman. This works on some levels, although I still find it difficult to take a man dressed up like a bat particularly seriously. The flaws in the film are large enough to really detract. First, the film sped along too quickly. I never felt like I got to know any of the characters except Batman himself. Secondly, there were some plot holes. Notably, the bad guys put mind-altering hallucinogens in the water supply and then used a magic microwave machine to vaporize all of the city’s water, thereby creating a vaporous cloud that everybody would inhale. Why didn’t they just drop the stuff from a Goodyear blimp, or the top of a skyscraper? Even more to the point, why didn’t the high-tech water-vaporizer turn people into little puffs of steam? Got me. I’m willing to suspend my disbelief, but geesh, work with me here Mr. Nolan… In the end this is still an entertaining and enjoyable summer flick.

Standouts: Christian Bale and the screenplay’s “gritty” characters.
Blowouts: Overwrought plot holes.

Grade: B+

6/12/2005

ENRON, THE SMARTEST GUYS IN THE ROOM

Director: Alex Gibney (notable minor TV, documentary work)
Starring: Documentary

This is not a particularly insightful documentary, nor is it an in-depth treatise of the Enron Scandal. It is, nonetheless a good primer, and a maddening discussion of the subject. Similar in vein to the Michael Moore films or Super Size Me (although not nearly as entertaining or as well done), this film is entirely an editorial on the topic. It focuses on the character of the individuals involved rather than the particulars of how they got away with it. The film is annoyed that this huge disaster took place, but it doesn’t seem to be nearly as interested in the fact that we let it take place. The film really should have been disturbed that the American people seem to have simply accepted this corruption as a cost of doing business. Why the people don’t really care about this problem is, I think, the subject of an even better film than this one. Personally, I find this affair to be an evil only a couple of notches below the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but apparently most people don't agree with me. This film treats it as a bad deal, and by simply documenting it, asserts that it is something we need to worry about. It doesn’t even touch on the great indifference of the people to the subject, however. In terms of the craft of making a movie, this film is very average across the board. As a topic, however, this story is enraging and astounding. I'll give a grade somewhere in the middle.

Standouts: The real story of the fraud at Enron.
Blowouts: The very, very average production and direction.

Grade: B

6/12/2005

STAR WARS, REVENGE OF THE SITH

Director: George Lucas (A little bit of film work)
Starring: Ewen McGregor, Hayden Christianson, Natalie Portman, Ian McDiarmid

This was an entertaining and enjoyable spectacle. Despite that, I'm going to say that this film suffers from completely unbelievable characters, bad dialogue, and a mishmash of locales, none of which get fleshed out. How can I still be positive on this film? Well, there are a thousand other ingredients in the recipe for a good movie, and the Star Wars franchise has always succeeded on only a few of them. Star Wars works because of its imagination, and excitement, and thrilling operatic productions. It has never cared about subtle characters, situations, or story. This movie is no exception. It succeeds on the former, but fails on the latter. Even after all of these years a light saber duel remains one of the visual splendors of the movies. It was a genius creation in the 1970s, and that won't change. Particular to this film, the positives are Ewen Macgregor (as Obi Wan Kenobi), some exciting light saber battles, and the always good production design. I'll admit that the latter films don't hold a candle to the absolutely exceptional design of the original movies, but they're still head and shoulders above most other contemporary films. The specific negatives are that the transformation of the Anakin Skywalker character into Darth Vader was unbelievable, some of the dialogue was quite bad, and the film jumped around from spot to spot without any real reason to do so - the script could have been much tighter. All in all, a fun, enjoyable movie that will always be regarded as a lesser child of the wonderful originals.

Standouts: Visuals, production and art design, Ewen Macgregor.
Blowouts: Broadly speaking: the script. Precisely speaking: the dialog.

Grade: B

CINDERELLA MAN

Director: Ron Howard (Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13, Backdraft)
Starring: Russell Crowe, Renee Zellwegger, Paul Giamatti

Yet another in the long string of absolutely fabulous Russell Crowe releases, this is very likely to be a best picture Oscar nominee. Few actors have had such a string of successes. I think it very likely that Russell Crowe will eventually join the pantheon of the greatest actors ever. In this film he plays a good man who happens to be a boxer. It's not a complicated or astounding story. It's simply the tale of the struggles (both professional and familial and personal) of this man during the depression. He overcomes obstacles and survives to fight another day. This simple story feels like an homage to a simpler kind of storytelling from days gone past, and it works well as such. The highlights of this excellent film include both acting and directing. I see an Oscar nod for Paul Giamatti as the trainer/promoter, Russell Crowe as Jim Braddock, the Cinderella boxer himself, and possibly (although less certain) for Renee Zellwegger as his devoted wife. The direction is top notch. Ron Howard will probably get a nod as well for his contributions to the film. There are beautiful boxing sequences and better visuals than in any other Howard movie. In the story itself there are very few bad men. Mostly there are only good men struggling through bad times. Essentially (according to this film) it wasn't the greed of evil men that caused the depression, but rather just bad luck. Probably true, but rather boring from a thematic stance. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with all this film has to say, but I love the way it was said. This is the first excellent movie of the year.

Standouts: Superb acting (Paul Giamatti, Russell Crowe) and excellent direction.
Blowouts: The story and characters are straightforward, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Grade: A

MADAGASCAR

Director: Eric Darnell & Tom McGrath (Darnell:Antz)
Starring: voices of Ben Stiller, David Schwimmer, Chris Rock, Jada Pinkett Smith

Ah, mundanity. More and more very mediocre animated/computer-animated films are being shown at your local cineplex as the ease (and cost) of creating them is lowered and lowered. All of these films hope to replicate some the success that Disney and Pixar and others have had over the last 15 years. Has there been any other genre with a string of hits as impressive as: Little Mermaid, Beauty & the Beast, Aladdin, Hercules, Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Finding Nemo, Shrek, Shrek 2, and the many other less successful, but still profitable, animated films. With that box office track record we've seen more and more failed attempts such as Sinbad, Shark Tale and, oh yeah, Madagascar. This is not a bad movie. It's just not a success. The problem lies in three areas: 1) Fairly boring characters. 2) Fairly boring situations. 3) Absolutely no theme. Ben Stiller, Jada Pinkett Smith, Chris Rock and David Schwimmer - every one of them is just plain boring in this movie, and that's despite the extreme hyperactivity they display. They play animals in Central Park Zoo that comically end up struggling to survive in the real wild on the island of Madagascar. That sounds like it ought to be fun, but it's not. Even worse, there's no point to the movie. There’s no point to the characters. There's no point to the situations. It's all just vaguely fun babbling and carrying on. There's nothing wrong with that, but there doesn't seem to be too much that's right either. Oh well, I'm running on and on here without really saying anything - kinda like this movie did.

Standouts: Not much stood out for me. Perhaps the unique visuals were notable. Blowouts: The script didn’t go anywhere. The actors were only average.

Grade: C+

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

Director: Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Thelma and Louise)
Starring: Orlando Bloom, Liam Neeson, Jeremy Irons, more

When a director comes up with an epic about the crusades in today's political climate, and when that director is following such successful movies as Gladiator, Hannibal, and Matchstick Men, I wonder if that director is not making a pitch for greatness. After seeing the film itself, I think that that director might indeed have been firing one in there. Unfortunately, he missed just outside of the strike zone. Don't get me wrong; this was a fine film - quite good in some ways. There were operatic visuals and epic sieges, and honor and oaths and respected enemies. The problem was that none of it quite worked. Not one bit of it really failed, but not one bit of it truly succeeded, either. This film was enjoyable, and I liked it, but it will win no awards. The most significant problem was the star himself, Orlando Bloom. He tried to be stoic and honorable, but it came across as brooding and boring. After seeing this young man in a few blockbusters so far, I'm more and more convinced that he just doesn't have what it takes to be a leading man.

Standouts: Epic visuals, and epic themes, and epic battles.
Blowouts: Orlando Bloom.

Grade: B+

THE HITCHHIKERS GUIDE TO THE GALAXY

Director: Garth Jennings (no major film work)
Starring: Martin Freeman, Zooey Deschanel, Mos Def, Sam Rockwell

Hmmm. Let's talk about artistic mediums why don't we? I think that it should be obvious that certain stories work better in one medium than in another. Stories written for a sitcom probably won't work for a Broadway musical. Similarly, a story written as a radio series may have some problems morphing into a major motion picture. And yes, now I'm talking about this particular major motion picture. This story seemed to strain as it tried to fit on the big screen. As far as I can tell, The Hitchhiker's Guide is beloved by its many fans due to its playful and irreverent wit and not because of its strong story arc, riveting action, or well-wrought characters. At least, I've come to this conclusion after seeing the film. We get gobs of Monty Python silliness, as silly characters zig and zag their way across a silly universe. That seems custom-made for serialized humor - each week a new adventure. It turns out to be a bit lacking for this particular 100 minutes of film, however. Now don't get me wrong, I like Monty Python silliness - and much of it works in this film. It's entirely 'conceptual' humor, rather than laugh-out-loud but-gusting silliness, but it's still good stuff. (That is, there are jokes about Earth secretly being ruled by hyper-intelligent mice. Ironic? Yes. But I'm not going to spit out popcorn when I see that one on screen.) In the end, we have a story of some great creativity struggling to find a strong plot and strong characters. Perhaps the most egregious failure is in the central love story. After the earth gets blown up (to make way for an interstellar highway) the 2 remaining humans must fall in love. That's just what we get, two actors really forcing themselves to look like they're in love. So, this film: funny, creative and clever, but also a bit forced and awkward. Good, but not too good.

Standouts: A fun, quirky and creative story.
Blowouts: The script and characters weren’t well suited to the big screen.

Grade: B-

FEVER PITCH

Director: Farelly Bros. (There's Something About Mary, Dumb and Dumber)
Starring: Jimmy Fallon, Drew Barrymore

A moderately cute and enjoyable romantic comedy, this film will win no awards, but neither did it offend. Jimmy Fallon plays a baseball-addicted everyman to Drew Barrymore's high-falutin', too-busy-for-men corporate exec. You probably don't need to be told that he sweeps her off of her feet, and she eventually comes to respect his obsession with the Boston Red Sox. It's an interesting story, following the real season of the Red Sox in 2004 (in which they won the World Series for the first time in nearly 90 years) as a metaphor for their own relationship. I especially like the feel of the production. There is a real life aspect to the camera work, direction and story. It's hurky-jerky in a way that comes across as true (rather than incompetent). Unfortunately, there were a few absurd moments that truly disappointed me. The two lovers first meeting comes to mind. I won't go into the description, except to say that I found it utterly false from a character standpoint. It was so false that it actually creeped me out. Luckily, there's enough good in this film to compensate for the bad.

Standouts: The quirky storyline and direction.
Blowouts: When the script went bad.

Grade: B-

VERA DRAKE

Director: Mike Leigh (long UK film + TV career, Topsy Turvey)
Starring: Imelda Staunton, Richard Graham, more

A sweet, touching, and maddeningly true story about a plump little cleaning woman/abortionist. She finds out in the end that society will do very bad things to good people without really thinking about it. Society always has. It's very easy for me to comdemn someone to jailtime when I'm free to walk the streets. It's very easy for me to not think about people who are struggling, if I am not. It's easy for me to wail to the rafters that abortion is a sin, when I am not a young pregnant girl. Society likes "easy", and sometimes good people suffer for it.

Standouts: Theme and plot, well done.
Blowouts: Not really all that entertaining. Won't warrant much repeat viewing.

Grade: A-

SIN CITY

Director: Robert Rodriguez (El Mariachi series, Spy Kids series, From Dusk Til Dawn)
Starring: ensemble incl. Bruce Willis, Jessica Alba, Rosario Dawson, Mickey Rourke

Misogynistic, adolescent, and downright absurd in many ways, this film is also gorgeous, engrossing, creative - wonderfully absurd in many other ways. Most unfortunately, it's just a comic book. There have just been too many comic book films of late, and of every type - from the "classic" superheroes (Spider Man), to their darker modern day counterparts (X-Men), to underground comics nominally more artistic (American Splendour). All of these have some worth and are good movies in their own right (or even excellent as with Splendour). All also succumb to the limitations of a childish medium. You just can't really say very much worth saying in an inch square dialog bubble. At least you can't say as much worth saying as you can in a novel. This film has some of the best and some of the worst of the comic book genre. Here we have steamy visuals and unreal dreamscapes (which are very similar in look, albeit darker, to Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow). Here we have an intensity of character and mood and setting that's rarely been matched in film. Here we also have the silly desires of adolescent boys. There's nothing to learn from this movie. It's just well crafted and interesting. It owes everything to Pulp Fiction, although that film was better. Here there is little redemption, just (hardcore) childhood dreams brought to life in the world of adults. This is escapism. So if you think escapism has real worth, this movie is probably for you. If you think escapism has real dangers, then you might hate this film. I think that the best that this movie has to offer require that it been seen. I also think that the worst this film has to offer must be recognized. A tough distinction for me, I'll admit.

Standouts: Visuals, artistry, style, and direction really stood out.
Blowouts: The characters, the script.

Grade: A-

FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS

Director: Peter Berg (Very Bad Things, acting and TV credits as well)
Starring: Billy Bob Thornton, Lucas Black, Garrett Hedlund

I had read much that was very positive about this film; that it was gritty and true. After seeing the film, it definitely had the aura of gritty truth, but I think that perhaps that was really nothing more than the style. It had that documentary (or NYPD Blue) camera motion to it. It had that washed out color seen in real life rather than on sets. In the end I'm not sure that there really was any gritty truth to this film. There were people sort of behaving like they do in real life. Young kids were going to be stars of the gridiron, and all that mattered was that you won. However, is that truth? Wouldn't it have been more truthful to question whether that's really what matters? Or maybe it would have been more truthful to show that there is benefit to big time high school sports. I don't know since neither of those movies were made. Here we just have a movie showing big time high school sports. Perhaps it's interesting if you don't know anything about the subject, which as a sports fan, I did. Hmmm. So in the end I've said little. This was not a bad film, nor was it exceptional.

Standouts: Quality tone and design of the film by director.
Blowouts: I could never figure out if this film told me anything worth telling. Boring too.

Grade: B-

ROBOTS

Director: Chris Wedge & Carlos Saldanha (Co-directors Ice Age)
Starring: voices of Robin Willliams, Ewen McGregor, every other famous person in Hollywood at one point or another.

A digitally animated kid's movie with Robin Williams and Ewen – don’t call me Obi Wan - Macgregor? Sounds like a winner, right? Well, this ain't no winner, but it's not entirely a loser, either. This film is about machines; machines you are supposed to love. Personally, I happen to find machines very, very difficult to love. You may feel the same. Have you ever loved a riding lawnmower? If you have, I’m sorry. The film never overcame this hurdle for me. And if I can’t love the main characters in a children’s story, it’s hard to love the story itself. Much was done well enough in this film, but I always found this separation from the characters to be palpable. In terms of craft, the film also suffered from far too many characters. In Aladdin, the fantastic animated Disney film, and a Robin Williams classic, there were 5 major characters, plus 2 comic sidekicks that couldn't speak. There was something along the lines of 12 main characters in this film, although I've forgotten a couple already (and I just saw the movie). With that many characters, it divides out to only a few lines of dialog each. Bad script. Otherwise this was a vaguely funny, thematically so-so, and visually unspectacular motion picture. A very, very average bit of cinema.

Standouts: The animation, although by degree.
Blowouts: The script – including the original concept.

Grade: C

SHARK TALE

Director: Bibo Bergeron & Vicky Jenson & Rob Letterman (Animators)
Starring: voices of Will Smith, Robert DeNiro, Rene Zellwegger, Jack Black, more

The worst major animated film I've seen in many years, Will Smith is a hip hop fish who gets in trouble with a gangster shark. The film is simply not very interesting, and spends way too much time trying to be "down" with the kids. It's just stupid. Of course "stupid" can still be vaguely entertaining (a la the Beverly Hillbillies, or The Waterboy). Alas, this film was no Waterboy ...

Standouts: Vague entertainment value.
Blowouts: No one in this production hit the ball out of the park. Not even any hard singles, really.

Grade: C

THE VILLAGE

Director: M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense, Signs, Unbreakable)
Starring: Bryce Dallas Howard, Joaquin Phoenix, William Hurt, Adrien Brody, more

Dreary and plodding, here is a film that could have been terrifying. Instead we only get a moment or two of dread, surrounded by 2 hours of … not dread. There is also the big twist so expected in M. Night Shyamalan flicks. This movie would have been much better without the twist. It's well advertised and kind of silly. Instead of a nice creepy tale about the power of lies, or our leaders scaring the population for their own ends, we get a silly tale where modern people decided to live like it was the 19th century for no good reason I can discern. This twist was unnecessary. A decent film that should have been much more.

Standouts: Creepy pacing and script. Solid direction for a thriller.
Blowouts: The script tried much too hard to have the big twist Shymalan is known for.

Grade: B-

METALLICA, SOME KIND OF MONSTER

Director: Joe Berlinger (Blair Witch 2) & Bruce Sinofsky
Starring: Documentary

A surprisingly interesting documentary about pointedly untalented heavy metal musicians going through therapy and rehab and stuff. These people are not great musucians, although everybody in the film tells them they are. They walk around behaving like they are. It's kind of cute seeing this. It's also kind of cute watching these 40-year-old, overindulged adolescents striving to become functioning adults. Yeah, it's even cute watching them fail. Then you realize that we're all just like these guys - grown up adolescents making an effort to really grow up. Metallica doesn't quite make it, but they're trying. Just like the rest of us.

Standouts: The concept of the film: Death-metal pyschoanalysis.
Blowouts: The band. These guys really are idiots ... but so are we all.

Grade: B-

MILLION DOLLAR BABY

Director: Clint Eastwood (Unforgiven, Mystic River, Bronco Billy, a bit more)
Starring: Hilary Swank, Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman

An incredibly engaging film with a strong arc from character struggle, to triumph, to sickening loss. It's surprising, and idiosyncratic. It doesn't follow a standard plot line, but it still seems highly professional and refined. Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman are crotchetly old men, one a fight trainer/manager, the other an ex-fighter. A girl (Hilary Swank) literally fights her way from the bottom to the top, but no matter what she does she still can't escape her lowly roots. Then everything she's found is taken away in a heartbeat, and she's left with less than she had when she started. Is this enough to excuse assisted suicide? Or is it still a horror that can never be forgiven. This film does a darn good job of asking those questions and throwing around some potential answers. This film will result in some definite Oscar nominations. One for Hilary Swank as an actress, one for Clint Eastwood as a director, and a likely nom for Morgan Freeman as a supporting actor.

Standouts: Great acting, good story. Interesting and emotionally painful.
Blowouts: I'm not convinced this one will hold up to repeat viewings.

Grade: A

SHAUN OF THE DEAD

Director: Edgar Wright (Primarily UK TV work)
Starring: Simon Pegg, Kate Ashfield, Nick Frost, Lucy Davis

A vaguely clever British comedy where silly immature Shaun learns to overcome his emotional stasis by killing Zombies, both real and metaphorical. Yes, this is actually what happens in the movie. Maturity through Armageddon. Fairly funny, only occasionally boring. A solid, if unspectacular comic turn aimed at the masses of unmotivated 20-something youths out there.

Standouts: More thematic material than you usually get in stupid comedies.
Blowouts: Not as funny as many stupid comedies.

Grade: B-

HAROLD AND KUMAR GO TO WHTECASTLE

Director: Danny Leiner (TV work)
Starring: John Cho, Kal Penn

A surprisingly funny dope flick. Two soon-to-be-rich kids (one Indian, one Korean) toke up and have wacky adventures on their way to satiate their munchies. Obvious and inane, and pretty damn funny in places. Neil Patrick Harris has never been used more effectively. Well, at least since the Doogie Howser days.

Standouts: Funny in spots.
Blowouts: Not funny in others. What else can I say?

Grade: B

I, ROBOT

Director: Alex Proyas (Dark City, The Crow)
Starring: Will Smith, Bridget Moynahan

A fairly interesting Hollywood spectacle, Will Smith here tracks down a robot killer only to find a much bigger problem. Blah, blah, blah. This is summer Hollywood all the way with fairly obvious plot lines and straightforward characters. Will Smith saves the world. You've seen it before, and you'll see it again. But ... the reason you'll see it again is because it ain't horrible. I like Will Smith, and I like to see people shoot stuff. There you go.

Standouts: An entertaining-enough Hollywood summer release. I like Will Smith too.
Blowouts: It was always entertaining, but never really entertaining, if you get me.

Grade: B-

ANCHORMAN: THE LEGEND OF RON BURGUNDY

Director: Adam McKay (no major film work)
Starring: Will Ferrell, Christina Applegate, Paul Rudd, Steve Carrell

A silly, silly, silly comedy with lines like: "The name 'San Diego' comes from the German, meaning a whale's vagina". That's just not funny. Some of the extreme silliness in this film appealed to me, however. Whether that means it's good, or not, I have no idea. Will Ferrell's Ron Burgundy is, as expected, a broad absurdity of a character with some funny lines, rather than a funny character. This is a problem of most of Ferrell's work. Rather than the best of Dan Akroyd's, or Bill Murray's, or Chevey Chase's characters from the 80s and 90s, Ferrell gives us characatures more akin to Adam Sandler's WaterBoy for instance. These people he plays aren't even vaguely human. Once Ferrell learns to make that distinction (if he makes it), I expect big things from him. There's no doubt he's a funny guy.

Standouts: Moderately funny in places. Steve Carrell was a hoot.
Blowouts: Entirely unfunny in other spots.

Grade: C+

HOTEL RWANDA

Director: Terry George (writing In the Name of the Father, Hart's War)
Starring: Don Cheadle, Sophie Okenado, Nick Nolte

I will admit that this film may not be quite so subtle and intriguing as is Sideways. I must admit that this film is discussing a subject 1000 times more important and doing it well. Here is Rwanda, that little African country where 1 million people died because of an arbitrary hatred. I learned in this film that there are Tutsis and there are Hutus, and that there is absolutely no differenence between them. The Belgian colonists arbitrarily picked the most white-like blacks (taller, narrow nosed, fairer), called them Tutsis, and put them in power. Now these two are butchering each other because of this meanlingless separation. Don Cheadle is astounding as a hotel manager who helps save 1000 lives out of a million, but the story is not his, the story is the west's hypocrisy and the Rwandans' genocide. Horrible and enlightening in many ways. For instance, I have a new found respect for the simple soldiers of the UN after this. Facing a mob with a gun in your hand and a battalion at your back and shooting them is one kind of bravery. Facing a mob with a pistol, alone, and trying to diffuse the situation is something much more impressive. Easily one of the best movies of the year, despite some moments that bordered on sappy.

Standouts: An important, yet entertaining story. Don Cheadle is good.
Blowouts: The script went for mass appeal, as such it was dumbed down a little.

Grade: A

NORTH COUNTRY

Director: Niki Caro (Whale Rider)
Starring: Chalize Theron, Frances McDormand, Sean Bean, Woody Harrelson

Niki Caro’s follow up to the delightful Whale Rider, North Country is the story of a landmark sexual harassment case in the taconite mines of northern Minnesota. The film starts off quite strong, and maintains this quality for most of its length. Very unfortunately, it ends with a whimper, but more on that later.

It’s the middle of a cold winter in the 1980s, during the macho Ronald Reagan administration. Anita Hill is on the TV accusing Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. Charlize Theron plays a young single mother struggling to feed her children and to maintain any meaningful relationships with those around her in the small town she was born in. Eventually, she is convinced by a trailblazing female friend (Frances McDormand) to join her in the union work force at the local iron mine. Needless to say there are very few women in this kind of work. The movie tells us that it’s a 30 to 1 male to female ratio.

The men don’t want the women there. The union doesn’t want the women there. The managers don’t want the women there. Eventually we find out the owners don’t want the women there, either. This is “man’s work” and every women hired is a job lost for a man in the small town. Often when sexual harassment is discussed in the media, the implication is usually that it’s little more than a ‘come on’ that the woman didn’t want. That may be so in some cases. The sexual harassment at this mine, however, was astoundingly offensive (at least in the story told on screen). All of the women suffered, but the young, pretty and weaker ones were the most targeted. We see the harassment as more than just male hormones gone awry. It took on the form of violent bullying. If rape didn’t occur, it was always a threat hanging in the air. The women knew who the bosses were in this little playground.

The women were caught in an awful catch 22. They desperately needed the job to feed their families, but the job was nonetheless terrifying and horrible for them. Eventually the circumstances become so heated that Charlize quits and sues the company. At first the other women are too fearful of losing their jobs, or of what would happen to them if they lost the case, that they would rather join in in hiding the harassment. As can be expected, the women, and Charlize’s father, do eventually gather their moral courage and support the case.

This courtroom climax is where the film breaks down unfortunately. Instead of continuing the compelling story of the workplace harassment, it attempts to impose an awkward twist on the plot (which I won’t divulge). Much worse than this, however, the script as a whole loses its gravitas and falls headlong into cheesy melodrama. Eighty percent of this movie was gripping, very well acted, and quality filmmaking. The final scenes leave a bad taste in the mouth, though. Despite this, I can rate the film fairly well. It is a subject and story that should be seen. Theron deserves award consideration for her fine performance. I would also like to applaud Sissy Spacek. Virtually every time I see her on screen, she has the most real, most fleshed-out character in the story. She has a small role as Theron’s mother in this film, but she was wonderful in it.

Standouts: A wonderfully acted, well-done film, with an enraging, engrossing story for most of its length.
Blowouts: The cheesy courtroom ending.

Grade: B+

12/30/2005

THE GREAT RAID (DVD)

Director: John Dahl (Rounders, Joy Ride, Unforgettable)
Starring: Benjamin Bratt, Joseph Fiennes, Connie Neilson, James Franco

The Great Raid is a fine little film that perhaps suffers a bit from a lack of star power. It’s a simple story about a US army raid on a Japanese POW camp in the Philippines during World War 2. This is told straight and without much embellishment. The Raid is planned and carried out successfully, end of story. A more successful subplot follows a Filipino resistance group (which surprisingly includes a statuesque blond) and their support of the POWs during their internment.

I don’t really have much to talk about in this film. It doesn’t take a single risk in the story or direction, but neither does it make any serious mistakes. It’s aimed solidly for the army-loving conservative set here in America, or perhaps some older viewers who appreciated a simpler style of story telling. Even though I don’t fall into either of those viewing demographics, I can still admit I saw a fine, enjoyable film. Oh, there were definitely some old-timey simplifications where the Japs were the bad guys and we were the good guys, but heck, not every story has to be complicated to be good. At least we didn’t wear white hats and the Japs black ones.

Personally, I think this movie might have come off better with a Guns of Navaronne attitude and star power. I did have some minor problems connecting with the characters, and I think the acting was to blame, but as I said it was successful nonetheless.

Standouts: Solid construction across the board.
Blowouts: Timid filmmaking without a single risk taken.

Grade: B-

12/23/2005

THE ISLAND (DVD)

Director: Michael Bay (Pearl Harbor, Armageddon, The Rock)
Starring: Ewan McGregor, Scarlett Johansson, Djimon Hounsou, Sean Bean, Steve Buscemi

Long ago (well, 1996) Michael Bay directed The Rock with Nicholas Cage and Sean Connery. I very much enjoyed that film. It was fun, stupid action entertainment done well. The movie, and the director, and the actors knew that it was fun, stupid entertainment. Ever since that film Michael Bay has time and again made truly awful pictures. He seemed to confuse the stupid pictures he was making with better quality work. Or perhaps he thought he actually was making better quality work. Who knows? The end result is a series of movies that don’t have a clue how dumb they are. This is disappointing. Bay is certainly a quality professional, talented enough to make a smart movie, or at least more fun entertainment like The Rock. Instead that talent has been wasted on flicks like Pearl Harbor, my pick for the most offensive film of the last decade. (It’s not nearly the worst made film, but it is the most condescending piece of crap Hollywood has foisted on us in quite some time.)

So, where does The Island fit into this depressing parade of Bay’s work? It’s better than Pearl Harbor and Armageddon, but like those films it has no soul. At times it wants to be smart, or perhaps just smart enough so that people like me will stop calling Bay a Hollywood leach. The film just can’t help but be stupid though.

The Island is the story of a colony of cloned humans basically used as organ farms for the rich and famous. A nefarious doctor secretly creates these clones (somehow they are born as fully functioning adults) and placates them by telling them that the world outside has been polluted. They therefore remain happy and isolated in their little clone factory until their original human templates need their organs. At this point, the clones are told they have won the lottery and are going to “the island”, which they believe to be the only piece of earth that remains unpolluted. They then walk happily into the arms of the organ harvesting surgeons.

Frankly, this is not a bad plot. Cloning is a nice little charged topic for a story right now, and it really could work quite well as a science fiction movie, or perhaps even better as a morality tale. Unfortunately, Bay decides that this is an action film. So, the plot I described above occurs entirely in the first third of the film. The final 90 minutes is nothing but chase scenes that have been far better done in a thousand other movies. It’s nothing but Ewen McGregor and Scarlett Johansson being hunted. Worst of all, there’s very little excitement to the hunt. Then, of course, they go back and rescue all of the other clones in a spectacle that includes the mandated 1 on 1 fight to the death between Ewen and the evil doctor.

The worst bits of this film for me were a hundred dumb little plot points that I won’t bother to get into, but when they are combined with the rather boring and silly action, and the massively confused tone of the film, it adds up to a downer of a film experience. This is yet another Bay film that talks down to it’s viewing audience. It’s glossy and professional and vaguely interesting in spots, but mostly it’s an entirely disposable film.

I’d also like to note that this movie doesn’t seem to understand what clones are. Instead of genetic twins like a real clone would be, these clones seem to be identical copies of people that include their memories and much more. Weird. I really don’t have a problem suspending my disbelief on that one, but if someone has the guts to make a story about clones while it’s being debated in society, I wish they’d at least try to get the most basic facts straight.

Standouts: A fine core to the story with glossy production and perfectly good acting. I really like Sean Bean.
Blowouts: Michael Bay. What did the viewing public ever do to him to deserve this abuse, huh?

Grade: C

12/23/2005

KING KONG

Director: Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings films, Heavenly Creatures, The Frighteners)
Starring: Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody, A giant CGI ape.

There are moments in this film that are quite extraordinary. Unfortunately there are also a few moments that are exceedingly ordinary, if not just plain stupid. Worst of all though, Peter Jackson suffers from a severe bought of cinematic gluttony throughout. There is simply no way this movie should have run 3 hours.

As if you didn’t know, King Kong is the story of a giant ape gone to Broadway. He’s a feared god-like creature living on the distant Skull Island until subdued by soulless capitalists and put on the grandest of stages. Of course he then escapes and runs amok in the city so nice they had to name it twice. Eventually, he climbs the Empire State building and gets smoked by some biplanes. Yep, that’s it. Oh, except for the creepy part where he falls in love with the blond. Naomi Watts is the blond. In fact she enters a deep, nearly romantic relationship with the 25-foot tall monkey. Thank god the union is never consummated.

This is a bit of a silly story. There’s no way to claim the original was a great story, and there’s no way to claim this version is any better. Nominally we’re talking about exploitation of the natural world here, but we also have a love story between a destructive giant ape and a blond. I’ve yet to understand why that’s supposed to be anything but weird.

Anyway on to the good parts of the film: There were some very good visuals here and there. The finale on the Empire State building was truly gorgeous. Additionally, there was a fun tone to the script. It knew that this movie wasn’t to be taken particularly seriously. As such, the film worked solidly. Parts may be nothing more than glossy entertainment, but it has its moments of real emotion. As I’ve mentioned, though, there were some problems that made the flick far less entertaining than it might have been.

Peter Jackson made a single awful mistake in this film. He assumed that if one CGI creepy crawly is cool, and two is better, than 400 must be just that much better. This film utterly fell in love with its effects, and to the severe detriment to the film as a whole. Virtually every single time there was a shot of the ape it would be extended past the point of interest. That is, if he wanted to show Kong scratching himself, we wouldn’t just see him scratch himself. He’d scratch himself, and then again, and then sit down, and then growl, and then scratch himself again. I laughed out loud more than once during these ridiculously drawn out shots.

Even worse than these long CGI shots, though, were the annoying CGI action sequences. I will point out a rampaging herd of dinosaurs and a random battle with giant insects as the two worst offenders. These scenes were simply not well done.

I’m really going to go out on a limb here, and this might be travesty to suggest such a thing about the art team that brought us the Lord of the Rings movies, but I frankly didn’t like a lot of the art design in this film. I hated the blatantly racist, subhuman natives on Skull Island. I hated the design of the island as a whole. I hated many of the CGI monsters (excluding Kong himself, who was quite interesting). I very much did like the design of 1930s New York, however.

As a final note I will add that when Kong finds his blond love in New York, they go ice-skating together. That might just have been the biggest laugh I got in 2005. Unfortunately, I’m not sure it was supposed to be funny.

Standouts: Aspects of the art design and tone of the story. Kong himself.
Blowouts: Gluttonous direction, other aspects of the art design. Somewhat ho-hum acting.

Grade: B

12/21/2005

AFTER THE SUNSET (DVD)

Director: Brett Ratner (Rush Hour I & II, Red Dragon)
Starring: Pierce Brosnan, Selma Hayek, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris

Brosnan has had a lot of success with spy and master thief movies recently. The Bond films have made his name in this regard, but I was a much bigger fan of both the Tailor of Panama and The Thomas Crown Affair. I found both of these to be extraordinarily fun films. This film doesn’t measure up to either of those successes, but it is in its own right a satisfying little thief film. The tone of the story is extremely lighthearted with a fair amount of humor mixed in with a couple of complicated thefts. The story works on this fun, humorous level. Actually, I wish they would have gone further in that direction than they did.

The plot, despite a few holes, is solid. Brosnan and Hayek are a team of thieves after a series of three famous diamonds. They steal the first two, humiliating a certain FBI agent in the process (Harrelson). They then retire to the Bahamas to live the sweet life. Coincidentally, the third diamond soon goes on display in the Bahamas. Harrelson follows it and ends up in a series of wacky adventures with the thieves. The heart of the movie lies in the fun relationship between the four main characters while they spar back and forth. I really hoped they were going to end up joining forces in some way in the end. I wish they would have. I think it would have been a better story if they had.

Regardless, the film was successful as it was. Everybody seemed to be having a good time living it up in the lush Caribbean sun. Every set was gorgeous and Salma Hayek was extraordinarily beautiful in bikinis throughout. This will probably end up being a bit of a throwaway movie, but I definitely enjoyed it while I was watching it.

Standouts: Harrelson as the comic relief, lush beautiful locales, and a fun script.
Blowouts: A few plot holes in the thefts and twisting portion of the story.

Grade: B

12/19/2005

MAD HOT BALLROOM (DVD)

Director: Marylin Agrelo (no major film work)
Starring: Documentary

Mad Hot Ballroom is a documentary about ballroom dance classes in New York City public schools and a corresponding citywide competition for the children. I found the film to be mildly cute, despite it being incredibly thin as a subject/story. There simply wasn’t much to talk about here after we saw the awkward boys and girls spinning around the dancefloor once or twice.

Yes, there is no doubt it’s fun to watch 10 year olds in poor neighborhoods like Washington Heights doing the tango or rumba. Unfortunately, I think the filmmakers were well aware there wasn't much to show except for these kids dancing. So that’s what we get again … and again ... and again. This was no Spellbound, a moderately enjoyable recent documentary about funny little kids in spelling competitions. In that film the story was about the families and children themselves. The spelling competition was just a foreground. In this film we never really get to know anything about the kids except for a few snippets on their views of their dance classes.

I’m guessing here, but I’m assuming that the filmmakers intended this to be a story about the power of art (or dance as it were) on the poor. If that’s true this film really only enforces the notion that trying to free the downtrodden masses with art is a vaguely silly idea. The kids in this movie were generally the nerds of their schools, whether in a middle class or poor school district. I’m guessing they took the class to fulfill their gym requirement. Now I have nothing against this. In fact, I’m all for giving the nerds some new experiences. These are the kids who are the most likely to get out of their situations, and broadening their horizons can only help that. However, I doubt that ballroom dance did much of anything for most of the future gang-bangers or the next generation of the underemployed. At least this film didn't show me anything that suggested otherwise.

In the end this is all speculation on my part, because other than a very few bits here and there the film never really touches these sorts of things. It just watches the kids dance. So, I give the film some minor credit for cuteness and for giving some exposure to the dance program, but frankly I think this would have worked much better as an hour-long Frontline episode on PBS than it did as a feature film.

Standouts: Cute kids dancing their hearts out.
Blowouts: It’s a very thin story in the end.

Grade: C

12/19/2005

SAHARA (DVD)

Director: Breck Eisner (no major film work, Thoughtcrimes, Recon)
Staring: Matthew McConaughey, Penelope Cruz, William Macy, Steve Zahn)

There is a moment in Sahara where the film jumps away from the searing mediocrity it exhibits up to that point and firmly defines itself as shit-for-brains stupid. (It’s when the good guys start windsurfing the sands of the desert on some random plane wreckage if you’re specifically wondering.) Prior to this, the film is just average dumb. It might be the kind of movie someone could enjoy if they didn’t really want to think too hard (or at all actually), but really I just found its average-osity to be borderline painful. Honestly, once this film took its swift turn toward the ridiculous I felt a little better at first. It was like someone stamping your foot when you have a toothache. At least I didn’t notice the dull pain in my jaw during the last third of this film.

Plot-wise, this is the story of Matthew McConaughey and Penelope Cruz having piercingly stupid adventures in the deserts of North Africa. Some of those adventures involve civil war era ironclads and international toxic waste intrigues, but mostly they just involve Matt and Penelope frolicking in the sands.

McConaughey displays an incredible talent for character creation in this film. He plays a one-time frat boy from some large state university down south embroiled in adventure. This role is not to be confused with his other notable roles, like the one-time frat boy from some large state university down south embroiled in romance, or the same embroiled in comedy. Penelope Cruz also does a fine job stretching the limits of her persona, portraying “the cute girl” on the screen. She nailed the role.

Frankly, this was a pretty awful movie. Straight up, I think I’d have a great time tailgating with Matt and Penelope before the big game. I had an awful time watching them try to do whatever they were doing on the screen in this movie though.

Standouts: William Macy in a paycheck role.
Blowouts: Most everything else.

Grade: D

12/16/2005

RENT

Director: Chris Columbus (Harry Potter I & II, Home Alone, Mrs. Doubtfire)
Staring: Anthony Rapp, Adam Pascal, Rosario Dawson, Jessie Martin, and more.

I am no expert on musicals. I’ve probably seen less than a dozen live, and this was my first introduction to this particular one. From what I have seen however, I think I understand some of the difficulties in bringing a musical to the big screen. There is an exaggerated earnestness and sincerity in the live theater that is rarely captured on screen (short of The Wizard of Oz or Singing in the Rain that is). It’s hard not to appreciate these things in the theater environment. On screen though, the camera often magnifies the grand gestures required in a large theater (whether figurative or the actual physical movements needed in a large space). There is no doubt that this is one of the most sincere, most earnest stories I’ve seen in some time. That by itself is worth quite a lot I think.

Rent is the story of a group of young Bohemians in New York’s east village in the 80s weathering the effect of AIDS on their free-living, free-loving lifestyle. There are characters overcoming drugs, overcoming AIDS, and loving their fellow man in an orgy of grand (if immature) emotion. These characters have only a short space to live. They are “renting” their lives and their love. That’s quite good.

Musically I didn’t find a lot I loved here. Most of the songs were perfectly good, but there isn’t much chance I’ll end up singing any of these in the shower. At one point I even wondered if the songwriter was simply going through the various preset beats on a Casio keyboard for each song. There was a tango, and a samba, and a, well you get the point.

My main complaint with this film lies with the director, Chris Columbus. This was an extremely ordinary bit of direction I think. To compare it with the musical film Chicago, this was almost an embarrassment visually and stylistically. I’ve never seen a musical yet that didn’t entirely inhabit a fantasyland. Rob Marshall, the director of Chicago, created a wonderful visual fantasyland where the actors could make their grand, earnest gestures in wonderful Broadway style. In this film, everything was rather ho-hum. It was almost a little silly seeing the actors behave theatrically on some average dirty New York street corner.

So I have mixed feelings on this film. Parts were certainly worthy. I can certainly recommend that the musical should be seen, although I imagine it would (and has) worked much better on stage than on the screen. At the same time, I was not particularly impressed by the construction of this film version of that story.

Standouts: Tony award winning, engagingly sincere bit of theater shown on the screen.
Blowouts: Entirely ho-hum direction.

Grade: C+

12/16/2005

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE

Director: Andrew Adamson (Shrek, Shrek 2)
Starring: Tilda Swinton, William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Georgie Henley, Skandar Keynes, voice of Liam Neeson)

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, which is not to say that I found nothing to fault, just that I had a very good time throughout. It’s a classic story for good reason, and this production was mainly true to it. Oh, there were a few Hollywood-isms that would pop up now and again in the great final battle, such as silly, overdone swordplay and whatnot, and there's no denying that they turned the great battle into a Lord of the Rings’ type spectacle. Yes, this film tried to be a little bit of everything to everyone. Direct from the book was the Christian symbolism for the Jesus set and the humorous beavers and fauns for the kids, but the massive CGI spectacle was all Hollywood for the PG13 crowd. I’m pleased to say that although this was no masterpiece, I can’t fault them in the slightest for their attempts to sell tickets. Most of what was on the screen worked well.

And now on to Jesus. Yes, this story is vaguely allegorical, or at least it's heavy with Christian symbolism, with its sacrificial Lion, Aslan, Peter the high king on earth, and raging battle between good and evil. Here’s the kicker though: it’s quite a bit more than that. CS Lewis was smart enough to get many of the important and wonderful bits of the Christian tale and plug them into a rip-roaring story of great originality. This is not The Passion of the Christ, where the ‘true believers’ can wallow in their in own persecution. This is a story of imagination, sacrifice, great adventure, love, and childish delight (and Turkish Delight) for all people who can appreciate such things. Despite a handful of lines that I suspect are modern additions to the story to appease the worries of the current crop of faithful, I certainly did.

Of particular note in this film was the use of CGI. Aslan the Lion was extraordinarily well done with Liam Neeson voicing him to perfection in sad, yet strong tones. This was a beautiful digital fantasyland that exceeded most anything I’ve seen before. Additionally, I must give praise to Tilda Swinton as the White Witch. She gave a wonderful, fearsome performance.

Standouts: Great story, very good use of CGI, wonderfully imaginative.
Blowouts: A few (rather cheesy) modern additions for the benefit of our current crop of Christians, and/or the PG13 crowd.

Grade: A-

12/15/2005

TIM BURTON'S CORPSE BRIDE

Director: Tim Burton(Edward Scissorhands, Batman, Beetlejuice, Ed Wood, Sleepy Hollow)
Starring: Voices of Johnny Depp, Emily Watson, Helena Bonham Carter, Tracy Ullman, Albert Finney)

First off please allow me to complain about the title of this film, would you? I don’t like having Tim Burton’s name in the freaking title. Get over yourself Timmy and sell some damn tickets without using a horrible title. Believe me, anyone who knows anything about Tim Burton and The Nightmare Before Christmas knows enough about this flick to decide whether to buy a ticket or not.

Whew. Sorry. I had a Bill O'Reilley/terrible twos moment there. I apologize.

Okay, now to the movie itself. I’ll begin by saying that I was a huge fan of The Nightmare Before Christmas. I thought it was an enormous success creatively, visually, stylistically and even musically. I loved Halloweentown and all the characters that lived in it. Alas, I love neither the drab no name town, nor the brighter and cheerier land of death in this similar claymation film. Burton has gone to these places before. Beetlejuice was pointedly about the exciting and fun afterlife, and I won’t bother to count the number of times he’s shown the everyday ho-hum world in a gray palette, whether figuratively or visually. There’s nothing wrong with these ideas. It’s a fine notion to paint the imagination of death as fantastical and alluring, but I don’t think that he did a particularly good job this time round.

Death, I say? Yes, that’s the fantasyland of this film. Johnny Depp is the voice of a sweet, soft, quiet boy matched by his parents for marriage to a sweet, soft, quiet girl with wicked parents. It’s a perfect match as a wedding, but alas, Johnny accidentally puts the wedding ring onto the outstretched finger of a corpse (while practicing his vows) and ends up betrothed to a dead woman. I won’t go into too many details here, although that is where the joy of this film lives, in the little singing black widows and the like.

The new couple head briefly to “Deadville”, or whatever the town of the dead is called. Of course, all must eventually be worked out. Johnny must find his living bride, and the corpse bride must get retribution from the baddie who killed her on her original wedding day. Fear not, they all do just that.

I have many complaints about the film, but I should note that it’s by no means an awful production. Much was fine, and parts did work. I simply found that for a number of reasons, the film didn’t come together anywhere nearly as well as The Nightmare Before Christmas. It’s disappointing to me as I think this film could have been quite good. I won’t go into too much depth on the problems except to say that the music, acting and script were rather weak. I feel that each of these had the roots to be quite good, but that nothing grew out of it. The music was usually quite mundane, the script felt very rushed to me, and I rarely felt that the characters ever got “fleshed out” so to speak, whether they were living or dead. I liked the job Emily Watson and Helena Carter did, but I don’t think the script gave them much of a chance to really create characters. To probably mangle a phrase I attribute to Robert Evans, “If it’s not on the page, it won’t be on the screen”.

This was an average film that at its heart was quite creative, and could have been much more. A disappointment.

Standouts: Aspects of the art design and visuals were interesting, and at its heart this was a very creative story.
Blowouts: Script, music and some acting was “thin”.

Grade: C+

12/14/2005

SYRIANA

Director: Steven Gaghan (Abandon, writing credit for Traffic)
Starring: George Clooney, Matt Damon, Jeffrey Wright, Kayvan Novak, Christopher Plummer, more)

As I understand it, Syriana is a flippant term used in US government circles as a potential Middle Eastern country redrawn from the current mess of nationalities and political boundaries. The use is of a new country that would be more sympathetic to US desires, or at least a new country easier to deal with. This extremely well constructed story is about the reality of Syriana.

Steven Gaghan, the screenwriter of the fine film Traffic, has followed that same script format as that film for an even more complicated issue than the illegal drug trade. This time we see interrelated stories in the geo-political/economic/cultural/religious struggles in the Middle East over Oil. That is a complicated, frustrating topic if ever there was one. It’s very surprising to me that Gaghan did as well as he did constructing this excellent story. It is not as tight in my mind as the interwoven tales in Traffic, but it does quite nicely for a two-hour movie.

In brief, the US, and the world, has massive interests in the oil under the sands of Arabia. Massive interests. Personally, I would not want to imagine an economy void of petroleum, because it would probably resemble the Bedouin herders who make an appearance in the film. But that aside, due to this need for oil, there are certain corruptions that have occurred, and are occurring, will occur, and in some cases ‘might’ occur. The film shows Texas oilmen lining their pockets, while skirting the less important of our trade laws. It shows our government promoting foolish tyrants in the region to maintain the status quo. It shows terrorists blowing up oil facilities because they live in a hopeless world.

These are all truths. They are all things that have happened, are happing, and will happen. It is a political charged film, because it’s taking on a subject that is currently considered political. It should be noted that not all oilmen are corrupt, that replacing evil dictators in the region is not exactly an easy thing to do, and there certainly are terrorists who are very nearly the human form of evil. I hope that viewers take this sort of story beyond the “political” braying of cable news, and actually use it to ask themselves questions. It’s a good enough film to do so.

There is no doubt that this is an extremely complicated issue, and the tone of the film is such that it understands this. I don’t think it says that America is the bad guy in all this. It simply says that America, or some Americans, in some instances may be more concerned with fattening themselves than in improving life for the masses. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

Beyond the politics, I found this to be a smart, engaging thriller (of sorts). It was well constructed on most every level. I should give a particular bit of praise to George Clooney. In this role he simply captured the look of a vital man weak and weary with the world. With the weight he gained he looked like he was almost heaving himself from one job to another. He gave a very good performance, although the role as written was fairly straight and uncomplicated. The same level of praise should be given to Jeffrey Wright as a quiet lion of a lawyer working for the oil companies.

Standouts: A very strong, smart script. Fine acting by Clooney, Wright, Chris Cooper and others.
Blowouts: Matt Damon was very solid, but not quite at the level of gravitas required, I think.

Grade: A

12/13/2005

THE SQUID AND THE WHALE

Director: Noah Baumbach (Kicking and Screaming, Mr. Jealousy, The Life Aquatic (Writing credit))
Starring: Jeff Daniels, Laura Linney, Owen Kline, Jesse Eisenberg

I was a marginal fan of both Kicking and Screaming and Mr. Jealousy, but I tend to think these films suffer from a degree of tunnel vision by the writer. The scripts seemed to be nearly autobiographical works that didn't quite know anything apart from the little worlds they inhabited. It's not that these scripts didn't know their audience, it's that they didn't appear to know there was an audience.

Both stories swirled around groups of smart buffoons. That seems nice enough, but in the end I found little that was appealing to anyone who wasn’t well acquainted with and a proponent of smart buffoonery. What's more, neither story could make up its mind what it really thought of its characters. This film knows better. This film is better.

Once again this story is precisely about a bright idiot, and this time it’s the most idiotic of the bunch. The plot involves two children confronting the dueling personalities of their divorcing parents. The father, played superbly by Jeff Daniels, is a foolish, egocentric, emotionally stunted writer convinced of his own importance. The character is massively incomplete as a functioning adult, and though deep down he may know this, he very well may not. He marks himself as an intellectual, but really his views on life have nothing to do with great thoughts, but rather rise directly from his own childish needs. He is one of the most flawed fools I’ve seen on screen in many years, but he's also entirely believable. The mother is less fleshed out, but she is at the least much preferable to the father.

The story follows the children as they come to realize that their father, who they thought was so bright, may not have been so right in the end. One child reaches this epiphany by dissecting a single memory of his more caring mother at the natural history museum, in an exhibit about a squid and a whale - hence the title.

The film worked on a psychological level, on an emotional level, and surprising to me, on an entertainment level. I found the film very, very funny. I’m reminded of A Confederacy of Dunces in this regard. Both stories had a great deal of fun mocking their pompous main characters.

This was a delightful little film that owes very much to Jeff Daniels. His character creation was very much noteworthy. I hope some award nominations very much come his way.

Standouts: Jeff Daniels performance as the selfish, and foolish father.
Blowouts: Some gruesome psychological problems with the children. I don’t know if they really needed to show the kid masturbating on everything to show he was messed up. Minor complaint, I guess.

Grade: A-

12/12/2005

A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE

Director: David Cronenberg (The Fly, M Butterfly, eXistenZ)
Starring: Viggo Mortenson, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, William Hurt

This film reminded me of Unfaithful, the critically acclaimed pseudo hit of 2002 that propelled Diane Lane into the People’s 100 sexiest stars lists. It wasn’t the plot details that reminded me of that movie. It wasn’t the theme. It wasn’t the characters, or the action, or the visual style. Nope. For lack of a better description, I’ll call it Brainy Hollywood-itude. Behind this film I see smart people looking for a buck, but not entirely willing to sell every last piece of their rapidly depleting motion-picture soul.

Let me explain. Unfaithful was a critical darling that I really disliked. I found it to be a solid good script that nonetheless existed at its heart to show sexy people getting it on. I liked this film better than Unfaithful, but I still don’t quite agree with the majority of critics who seemed to feel that this story massively succeeded as both an engaging story and as a critique on "The History of Violence".

I do agree that this was a solid action/drama flick. A 'dram-action' if you will. It was well written on that level, enjoyable, well acted and engaging. I don’t agree that the thematic material was particularly strong, however.

In quick summarization, Viggo Mortenson is a mob killer who has given up the life to become a small town husband and father. He forgets the old, bad life entirely. But one day a couple of hoodlums attempt to shoot up his diner in Nowhereburg, Indiana. He whacks them something good, and becomes a media darling in the process. Unfortunately, this notoriety brings him to the attention to his old enemies who of course come to get him. That’s some nice irony I will admit. Like I said, I found the film enjoyable on this level.

I should note that I really enjoyed the performances of all 4 of the main actors, especially Ed Harris and William Hurt as the mob baddies. Actually, I enjoyed all 5 of the main characters, if you include Viggo’s son, the nerdy kid who eventually learns that beating the school bully up is the right thing to do (according to the film’s morality at least).

“Huh”, you say? The solution to all our problems is to make sure we posses the awesome Hollywood action skills of Viggo Mortenson? Yep, that’s right. That’s what I get thematically from this film. That violence in society is pervasive. We can’t escape it by hiding. Being a peacenik will only encourage the enemy. Toughen up, mess up your enemies something good, and you’ll live happily ever after.

So, I really think that that's awful thematic material, just awful. And I don’t just mean morally, I mean intellectually. Everyone knows that pulling out a gun in an argument is quite rarely the right response. Actually, let me rephrase: Most everyone knows that …

Okay, I doubt that the filmakers really had that as their intended moral to the story, but it was the result nonetheless. I give the film credit for trying, but it didn't quite succeed. Also I had a number of quibbles that really let me down. The most notable of these were two totally gratuitous sex scenes. They didn't add anything to the movie that couldn't have been added in a much better way. Oh well, sex sells, just like violence.

Standouts: Ed Harris and William Hurt as the bad guys, and an enjoyable action story.
Blowouts: It tried to talk about violence in society, but I don’t think it said much worthwhile.

Grade: B-

12/08/2005