Sunday, January 01, 2006

MATCH POINT

Director: Woody Allen (writer for Your Show of Shows)
Starring: Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Scarlett Johansson, Emily Mortimer

That Match Point was written and directed by Woody Allen is one of the surprises of cinema in 2005. This truly excellent thriller set among the young, rich and beautiful of London society bore little resemblance to the New York smart-set comedies that he’s known for. There’s one exception to this, however. Most every character of his, whether New York comedic culture-ites or English thriller culture-ites, all are possessed of a great degree of self-involvement. Usually, that is what leads to the conflict. Match Point is no different. These characters are swimming in their own desires.

At the most obvious level, this film is about luck. The opening image is of a tennis ball striking a net and bouncing in the air, which side it will land on uncertain. Who will win, and who will lose unknown. This image is critical to the excellent ending that I won’t divulge. There is certainly luck involved in it. More important, however, were the actions that led up to the ending. Most of the film is a slowly and steadily building suspense that follows a poor young tennis pro (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) as he joins the English social elite through the back door. That is, he happens to meet a rich, sweet young woman and marries into the family. This eager, active, and extremely ambitious young man will do much to achieve this status. Although I think it certain that there was nothing untoward in his relationship with the girl. I think he simply got lucky and found a good catch.

His own desires threaten to pull down the world that he’s built around him, however. Soon after meeting the young woman, he begins a secret affair with a luscious Scarlett Johansson, playing a struggling American actress. This man was ambitious and self-involved, and though he would do much to achieve his status, we see that he would do much worse to retain it. In the end he’s even willing to commit murder to do so.

I think that this would have been the best script of 2005 were it not for the excellent Brokeback Mountain. In fact, this film could make a claim to the best picture of 2005. It was a success in most every way. Woody Allen certainly deserves much praise for this work. Although deliberately paced, it always moves determinedly forward to the thrilling ending. This pace was extraordinarily well done, and really necessary to achieve the emotional highs that the climax provides. The characters were richly drawn and well acted. In particular Meyers and Johansson gave excellent performances. This film will rank among Allen’s best.

Standouts: Story, story, story. But it’s also excellent in most other ways.
Blowouts: Little to nothing.

Grade: A+

2/02/2006

Labels: , , ,

GRIZZLY MAN (DVD)

Director: Werner Herzog (Perhaps a “great” of German film, Aguirre: The Wrath of God, Fitzcarraldo, more)
Starring: Documentary

After 15 minutes of this DVD, I was terrified that I was watching nothing more than a glorified snuff film. You know, the old "man finds bear, man loves bear, bear lunches on man" story we've seen a thousand times. Luckily, I was wrong. This documentary about a silly guy who gets eaten was very much not what I was expecting.

The plot in a nutshell follows Timothy Treadwell, a compulsive, almost child-like presence, as he plays with wild grizzly bears in the Alaskan wilds. In some sense he was an animal activist, attempting to adertise the bear's situation. For 13 summers he got closer and closer to these wild animals until eventually he was killed and eaten by one. Most unfortunately, his foolishness cost him not only his own life, but the life of his girlfriend.

On one level this is an accurate description of this film. As the film progresses, however, it's startling just how much further it goes than these surface observations. This was significantly more than a crass look at this man's death.

Treadwell took a video camera with him during his trips to the wild north. The camera became a friend of sorts and a confidant. Gruesomely, it even captured his last moments where he was mauled by a bear. Luckily only sound survived from this final episode. I'm glad to say that Herzog did not include this audio, although I feared it at first. That really would have been unfit for this fine movie. We do get descriptions, however, and they are awful enough.

As the film unfolds we begin to see more and more layers in Timothy Treadwell’s confused persona. We see how his desire to play with bears has become a sort of religion for him. We see his own fears and inadequacies, his lonliness, and desire to connect with something greater. We see how he has even miscontrue his own place in the world. In reality this man is doing little more than taking pictures of some bears, and occasionally telling children about how wonderful they are. In his mind this has become a quest to save nature from the evil people he can't seem to connect to. In the film, he never really does anything concrete to save the bears. The closest he comes is to creep up on a group of men fishing on a lakeside. What in his mind is an odyssey of great proportions, becomes more clear as just another lonely soul searching for answers, or friends, or God.

This was an extremely powerful movie in my opinion. The unintended autobiography of this troubled soul reminded me greatly of another great nonfiction film, Capturing the Friedmans. In both films we see how a video camera can capture unintended moments of great sincerity. While discussing bears, Timothy manages to tell us much more about his own confusion that lead him to search for something more. I rate this as one of the best films of the year.

Standouts: Remarkably telling home video footage of an immature man searching for something more.
Blowouts: Not much, perhaps the teasing moments where the film describes his death in detail.

Grade: A

1/29/2006




Labels: ,

THE MERCHANT OF VENICE (DVD)

Director: Michael Radford (Il Postino, 1984, more)
Starring: Al Pacino, Joseph Fiennes, Jeremy Irons, Lynn Collins

This is a very good, perhaps even excellent, portrayal of the Bard’s classic, and in great part due to the passion that Al Pacino brings to his Shylock. Often Shakespeare's works are placed in unintended settings to freshen up the old stories (and to show how they can be relevent in different ways), but this story is firmly placed in the Venice of the 16th century. The prejudice and pride of this tale in it's first form is certainly obvious enough to relate to our current society.

Although Irons and Fiennes and others give wonderful performances, there is no doubt Pacino is the standout. His vengeful Jew demanding the pound of flesh from Antonio was simply wonderful - a very good, very passionate performance all around. Most other aspects of this film were well done, if not exceptional. Very little stood out, but very little seriously detracted either.

This is certainly a commendable addition to the catalog of Shakespeare films. Better than most I would say.

Standouts: Al Pacino’s Shylock.
Blowouts: Is it just me, or do a lot of Shakespeare’s plots depend on silly cross-dressing devices?

Grade: A-

1/27/2006

Labels: ,

JUNEBUG (DVD)

Director: Phil Morrison (no major film work)
Starring: Amy Adams, Embeth Davidtz, Benjamin McKenzie, Alessandro Nivolla

Junebug is an excellent, if ambiguous, portrayal of family ties and conflicts. It’s a small film with a small budget, and even though it might have small goals in mind, they’re intriguingly conceived. Maybe “small” is not the right word for this story’s themes. Maybe light, or common would be a better description. The plot follows a young man in the big city as he gets married to a highbrow, hipster art dealer. Six months later they manage to find the time to introduce the girl to his southern middle class family. Comedy and confusion ensues as each character’s personal goals conflicts with all of the others. I think that the film tries not to take sides in this argument, showing the selfishness of the city folks and the lonely unhappiness of most of the country folks. There are enough characters covering a broad enough range of human emotions that everyone should find someone to connect with here.

In my opinion this ambiguity is both the film’s greatest strength and perhaps its main weakness. The movie shows flaws and triumphs in almost every character. That’s nice and allows for a broader understanding of the situations, but I think maybe that it might just be a bit of a cop out. A story that says we’re all okay and all flawed at the same time can be a nice change from the normal background voices in society screaming how they’re right and everyone else is wrong. At the same time, some people really are more right than others. Deciphering and defining those distinctions is what separates the best art, or so methinks.

So, this is a very good, very entertaining, very enlightening film. On the other hand it never really seemed to make any statements at all. That’s hard. It’s either wishy-washy, or it’s powerfully complex. I’ll place it somewhere in the middle. However, there is no doubt that it’s interesting and unique enough to receive a good grade as a film.

Standouts: Strong tone and style of story.
Blowouts: Not much to really complain about here.

Grade: A-

1/27/2006

Labels: , ,

THE BALLAD OF JACK AND ROSE (DVD)

Director: Rebecca Miller (Personal Velocity, screenwriting credit for Proof, some minor acting credits)
Starring: Daniel Day Lewis, Camilla Belle, Catherine Keener

I remember the day I finally got the Independent Film Channel. I was so happy I’d finally get to see more of the countering voices to the Hollywood din. After about a year I realized something, though. Much of the programming I was seeing on IFC was amateurish. Perhaps it was smart material, or at least the filmmakers making it appeared to be smart, but there definitely wasn’t as much wisdom in the works as I'd been hoping for.
I think we may be entering a real golden age for independent film in this country. It’s easier and cheaper than ever to produce a quality movie. With digitization we may find this even more so. For whatever reason, rather than letting young directors explore their own bounds the Independent film channel has seemed to focus solely on a style of story that often strikes me as somewhat unrewarding. I’ll call it the creative-writing-at-a-small-liberal-arts-school-of-filmmaking. I enjoy a lot of it, but I rarely get too excited by any of it. This film fits into that category like a hand into a glove.

Yes, the Ballad of Jack and Rose is an IFC production, and although I might be reading too much into that, this story definitely works with their “selling counter-culture” business model. Jack (Daniel Day Lewis) is an aging hippie, the last of his kind on a derelict commune on the seashore. His daughter Rose knows little of the world except what she’s learned in her isolation with her father. Sensing that the experimentations in their world may be reaching too far, Jack brings in his girlfriend (of sorts, played by Catherine Keener) and her two sons to live with them. Rose definitely needs another woman around. This is for sure.

In the end, and after some horrible symbolic imagery (an episode where a poisonous snake is let loose in the house for instance), this experiment is also a failure. Through it all Jack is fighting the construction of cheap suburban sprawl against his property. The telling line of the film comes with his final confrontation with the developer. Their differences all came down in the end, he says, to a matter of taste, not truth. Jack had isolated his daughter and raised her in potentially harmful situation because of his own snobbery. That may not be the full story, but it’s close enough to ring a few bells in his head.

As a story it’s nice enough. My faults lay with things like the overdone (and silly) use of imagery, and that there wasn’t a character in this film other than Daniel Day Lewis’ fine creation that felt even slightly real to me. These were parodies of people, or perhaps these were supposed to be characters in a parable. Either way, they didn’t greatly appeal to me. I'l admit that it’s a film that shows potential, although it just ain’t there yet. Wherever “there” may be.

Standouts: Nice enough basis to the story. Daniel Day Lewis is a terrific actor, almost always.
Blowouts: Silly moments in the script, unbelievable characters.

Grade: B-

1/26/2006

Labels: , ,

THE CONSTANT GARDENER

Director: Fernando Meirelles (International/Brazilian film work resume)
Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Rachel Weisz, Hubert Kounde, more

2005 was an extraordinary year for film, and The Constant Gardener is a movie that will suffer for it. This story of western corruption and exploitation of Africa would have been a notable film in most years. It’s not quite at the level required for Academy Award consideration, but it’s one of those films that would have been mentioned in the same breath with contenders most years. In ’05 I think it’s unlikely to get that level of exposure, although the Golden Globe for Rachel Weisz’ performance may prove me wrong.

In structure this is a topical thriller set in Kenya, but with some unique plotting. Rachel Weisz is in fact never “alive” in this film. Her fine performance is given in a series of flashbacks after she is found murdered on a back road in the bush. Fiennes plays a low level diplomat searching for truth after his wife’s death. Was she unfaithful? Was there something more? It’s an intriguing search for buried truth revealed only by thin slivers of evidence poking above. Eventually a plot of international intrigue takes over the story, and although I found this part less effective than the earlier scenes, it’s far from terrible.

Yes, this film is a liberal poster child, showing the corruption of the huge multi-national corporations and their various government partners. If you’re the type to get upset with viewpoints of this sort, you’ll be happier to stay away. As a story it’s not nearly as smart, balanced, or complete as Syriana, but it’s still strong from start to finish. There are definitely bad guys in this film, and they're the global corporations. However, the best part of this film comes in the midst of the plot, where we’re trying to find out if they’re the only bad guys.

Rachel Weisz gives a very good performance as a young liberal crusador. Fiennes is also quite good as her more temperate, diplomatic husband searching for answers. A fine film in most ways, although not subtle or complete enough to be a great one.

Standouts: Weisz and Fiennes performances, a good script and solid direction.
Blowouts: This story of exploitation of Africans never humanized the Africans being hurt. It felt more like white-man’s guilt, than a real quest into their lives.

Grade: A-

1/24/2006

Labels: , , ,

PRIDE AND PREJUDICE

Director: Joe Wright (No major film work)
Starring: Keira Knightley, Matthew MacFayden, Simon Woods, more

Here is a film that paints much of the same subject as Memoirs of a Geisha, yet shows how much more sharply the image can be conceived. Most of my arguments against Geisha could apply to this film. P & P is sappy at points, there are helpless women galore searching for their prince. This film just does everything better, both in the framework and in the details of the story. P & P is a very good movie because each piece fit perfectly with each piece next to it and as an artistic whole. Of course, maybe if Memoirs of a Geisha had been written by one of the great writers of western literature it would have been better. Makes sense, huh?

Pride and Prejudice is yet another of the Jane Austin stories put to film. Austin is surely one of the most influential female writers of all time, and justifiably so. In her tale of the struggles of women in her society to find a mate, all of the facets of the story are extremely well balanced: The plot is twisting and perfectly maintained, the emotional highs and pacing extraordinary, and all of this is wrapped in a delightfully lighthearted theme and subject. This is definitely a story almost perfectly suited to its setting.

The plot follows a family of 5 girls (I think …) searching for their husbands. They are a landed family, on the lowest fringes of the upper crust. These noble girls were raised far away from any city on a small country estate more concerned with farming pigs than learning the etiquette of court. They all have their struggles with men, but it is Keira Knightly, in an excellent performance, as the second daughter that is the center of the story. Over the course of the film she learns that prejudice against the rich and powerful can be as wrong as theirs is against the poor and downtrodden. In the end she gets the rich husband that she at first so disliked. Basically, this story again shows how a book should not be judged by its cover. Almost every character in this film is misjudged at first. Whether the rich are seen as foolish or uncaring, and the poor are seen as uncouth , they’re all wrong in the end. Certainly this is a wonderful story.

Keira Knightly deserves credit for holding this film together. It would have failed mightily if she hadn’t been up to the task. Luckily she was. This English period piece was quite good in most every facet. It’s not nearly at the level of the greats such as Howard’s End or Remains of the Day, but it certainly deserves a seat at that table of frilly, and wonderful, anglophile film literature.

Standouts: The story itself, most every other facet was well done.
Blowouts: A sappy moment here or there that seemed to go just a bit to far.

Grade: A-

1/23/2006

Labels: , , ,

MEMOIRS OF A GEISHA

Director: Rob Marshall (Chicago, TV work predominantly choreography)
Starring: Zhang Ziyi, Ken Watanabe, Michelle Yeoh, Youki Kudoh, more

There are movies that I am simply not well-suited to review, and this is one of them. Memoirs of a Geisha is a film about, by, and for women. It's a lush melodrama set in a Japanese period fantasy world that is deeply evoked. Could a man appreciate this film? Absolutely. Am I the man for the job? No, probably not. The audience at my showing was 80% women and 20% their boyfriends/husbands. I fell solidly in category #2.

I think of this story as a shot of Pretty Woman with an exotic Japanese period chaser. I had many of the same problems thinking about Pretty Woman as this film, and in the end I come to some of the same conclusions for both: That both movies may have significant flaws, but they are deeply appreciated by those in the intended audience.

For my part I could view this film intellectually and say I hate that this is a story entirely at odds with anything positive for women’s rights. The women here are helpless slaves learning to love their exotic lives as high-class whores until a rich man comes along and frees them from their bonds. That’s just disappointing to me. No woman in the film, excepting the girls' mistress (pimp), ever learns to stand on their own two feet.

I could view this film artistically and describe the gorgeous film sets and locales that create this world. Of course I could also tell you about the bits of trite dialog and narration, and melodramatic story construction.

I could describe the plot and tell you that this story is about the little girl raised to be the best geisha in her town. She overcomes the nefarious schemes of the other competitive geisha, and finally charges the most money of any geisha in history to lose her virginity! Good for her. I wonder if she gets an asterix next to that stat since she led the league. There is a brief period in the story where World War 2 intercedes, but the war seems to be a tangential affair for this romance. In the end the young geisha gets her man. He’s handsome, and nice, and rich, and just a great catch all around.

I could describe the film in all of these ways (and have), but really, just like in Pretty Woman, this film exists purely for its emotional value. It is a dream where women can rise from their perceived inadequacies and meet the man they hope they can meet. There is nothing wrong with this, and this film works quite well as this fantasy. There’s no difference between this fantasy and many of the film fantasylands that I happen to love, except that it isn’t my personal fantasyland.

In the end, creating a personal fantasyland for the audience is the main entertainment goal of any film. As such I have to applaud this one for greatly succeeding. This has nothing to do with the artistic success of a film however. And for the reasons I noted above, I think that this movie failed on that count.

Standouts: Lush sets and photography, a sweeping romance for the ladies.
Blowouts: Some cheesy melodramatic dialog and plot points, and thematic material I disagreed with.

Grade: C+

1/10/2006

Labels: , , ,

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

Director: Ang Lee (Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Ice Storm, Sense & Sensibility)
Starring: Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal

So it turns out that the gay cowboy movie is quite a lot more than just a gay cowboy movie. One of the best films of 2005, this story is bursting with quite a lot of exceptional material and only some of it is exclusively about homosexuality or cowboys. Oh, in the foreground this is absolutely a love story between two Wyoming men, but much of this story is relevant to any love forbidden by society, or religion, or class, or ideology. In a way it’s a story of how a society can be so absurdly and obviously wrong, but more to the point it’s a story of two lovers doing what they can to enjoy their short lives in that wickedly confused society.

Brokeback Mountain begins with these two men working as sheepherders on a mountain in Wyoming for a summer. They are alone for a brief time in the spectacular world of the American Rockies. This first third of the film is simply gorgeous in most every way. There are beautiful shots of the Rockies and the wilderness and the men sharing these wonderful things. Once the characters are forced back into society, the film becomes more complicated and less purely beautiful, but no less evocative. They marry women and father children and make money because that is what men do. Eventually they come to realize what they’ve really missed by neglecting their own love. By this time they’ve experienced enough in life to know fully how dangerous what they are doing is. They truly were risking their lives in this cowboy society. At one point Ledger’s character tells a story of a couple of tough old queers who shared their lives in his hometown when he was a child. They ended up dead. This is a real possibility for the men in this story, and a painful one. They must remain hidden.

This script is sharply written, and it deeply evokes the lives of these two men. We see the struggles for money, and to some degree acceptance. We see how they struggle to maintain all of their relationships, not just a sexual one. We see how their hidden homosexuality affects others. Most wonderfully in my opinion, we see how their homosexuality is a much more rich and complicated subject than most of the nurture versus nature arguments can fathom. We see sexual love, and emotional love, and how those two are intertwined. We see sexual repression and emotional repression and how these two can be intertwined. It’s a wonderful story, exceptionally well written, well told, and beautifully shot. It’s also filled with fine acting, and not just by the main characters - although Ledger’s repressed cowboy (and only some of that is sexual repression) is an exceptional creation. I hope he receives an Oscar nod for his work. I also expect Ang Lee to get a nomination, as well as the scriptwriters (one of whom is Larry McMurtry I should note).

Standouts: Excellent direction, photography, acting, and script. This was a beautiful movie in many ways. I think it has a chance to turn into a "classic" of film.
Blowouts: Almost nothing was seriously wrong.

Grade: A+

1/04/2006

Labels: , ,

MUNICH

Director: Steven Spielberg (1 or 2 movies you might know)
Starring: Eric Bana, Daniel Craig, Ciaran Hinds, Geoffrey Rush

Munich ends with a wide shot of the New York skyline, the twin towers of the World Trade Center in the distance, and we can see clearly that the film isn't just an examination of how Israel has dealt with terrorism, but a warning to us not to make the same mistakes that they have. Broadly, this story is about the perceived necessity of revenge, and the reality of the cycle of violence that that revenge can actually breed. Specifically the plot follows the violent attacks and reprisals between Palestinian terrorists and Israeli assassins.

The plot of Spielberg’s Munich follows an Israeli hit squad formed after the terrorist attacks at the Munich Olympic games of 1972. Historically speaking, a Palestinian terrorist group took 11 Israeli athletes hostage at these games. Eventually, after a tense standoff with German police, all of the terrorists and all of the hostages were killed in a gruesome shootout at the Munich airport. Israel did in fact form hit squads to kill off certain Palestinian leaders and terrorists in reprisal for this act. This story is a fictionalized account of one of those hit squads. At times the film is beautiful and powerful. At other times it’s thrilling and informative. Unfortunately, there are also a few moments that don’t entirely work, but these are few and far between. Generally, this is an excellent film. Much better than A History of Violence, a recent film that covers some of the same thematic ground on violence and revenge.

I think my favorite aspect of this film were the characters themselves. Usually, international spies and assassins are portrayed as infallible experts, almost supermen. These hit men were talented, but nonetheless very human individuals taken from jobs that had nothing to do with what they were being asked to do. The bomb maker was employed to defuse bombs until the Israeli government asked him to start building them instead. Eric Bana, in a career-making role, was an army officer and bodyguard asked to lead this group. We see how at first he is reluctant to kill in cold blood. We also see how it becomes easier for him with each murder. Or are they assassinations? Although once his enemy strikes back again in retribution, he eventually comes to regret or at least question the cycle of strike/retribution/counterstrike that he has become embroiled in. Political revenge is often labeled as a show of strength. We see in this film that it might just be that showing the enemy that you are strong in this way may only lead to them hit you harder the next time they strike.

This is one of Speilberg’s better films and one of the best of 2005. It is not at the level of Schindler’s List, or Raiders of the Lost Ark, but it is better than his other statement films such as Amistad and The Color Purple. There are beautiful images peppered throughout. The acting was quite good. Bana was especially good, although I also very much enjoyed Ciaran Hinds as one of the Israeli agents. Truly there are many actors in this film, such as Geoffrey Rush, that deserve credit for their fine performances. I won't bother to name them all. Unfortunately, as I said previously, there were a few lesser moments in the film that did detract from the overall experience. By and large, however, they were soon forgotten next to the success of the rest of the film.

I should note how daring a story this is for Spielberg, as one of America’s most prominent Jews. Some of this film speaks to the morality of each side in the Palestinian conflict. Personally, I don’t agree that it was a moral act to create the state of Israel. This movie accepts that it was. Much of the film speaks about the necessity of having a home. Israel was created to give a wandering people a home, but it was at the cost of stealing it from an even weaker people. America stole its home from the Native Americans, and Israel stole theirs from the Palestinians. These are facts. Few Americans will argue that it was immoral to create their country. Few Israelis will argue the same for theirs. I think they’re both wrong, but who am I to think so? In the end, asking these sorts of questions is exactly why this is a good film. A story that doesn't dare ask you to question yourself and your society is a film that exists only as pure entertainment, not art. If you want that sort of movie, don't worry, you have plenty of options at your local cineplex.

Standouts: Direction, acting, story - an excellent film in most ways.
Blowouts: A handful of really cheesy moments in the script.

Grade: A

1/02/2006

Labels: , , ,