THE BLACK DAHLIA

Director: Brian De Palma ( The Untouchables, Scarface, Bonfire of the Vanities)
Starring: Josh Hartnett, Aaron Eckhart, Hilary Swank, Scarlett Johansson, Mia Kirshner

The Black Dahlia was one of my more anticipated films of 2006. I love film noir. There haven't been many good ones in quite a while, so I was even more interested in finding a new one. Ellroy's novel seemed like a great basis for a good bit of noir. I'm a particular fan of Eckhart and Swank. DePalma did some wonderful things in The Untouchables and I thought that this story could set him up to do some more.

After watching the film I have some disappointment, but I also still find much that interests me in what I saw. There were many unique choices in this film (mostly by DePalma I assume). So far I think many of those choices were not successful, but they still remain interesting to me. Rarely, if ever, have I seen a film that thrusts so much at the viewer so quickly. Visually, there are half-second images that are keys to the mystery in the story. Plot-wise the film speeds faster and faster until it's a blur of characters, events, action and images. I really liked this idea, the story spinning out of control and terrible events hinging on brief glances. The film is difficult, if not impossible, to completely grasp on a first viewing. I rather like this. I like films that become more rich on a second try (Mulholland Drive is one of my favorite films ever ...). After the first viewing, though, I'm afraid that the payoff at the end of this ever speeding plot was just silly, and I didn't get it. I'd hate to ruin the ending for you, but I almost felt as if the solution to the mystery was nearly arbitrary. There certainly didn't seem to be many clues or much motive to back it up.

I could write a few pages on the twisting plot that is The Black Dahlia, but in a nutshell it follows two cops (Hartnett and Eckhart), in a love triangle with Johansson's character, searching out the brutal killer behind the murder of a young Hollywood hopeful (Kirshner). A beautiful, over-sexed, bi-sexual, socialite, rich-girl from a crazy, crooked family (Swank) enters the scene during the investigation. The plot also includes (I think) illigetimacy, cheating hearts, barbaric murders, nasty falls, totally off-the-wall crazy characters, blackmail, torture, robberies(?), and breaking housing construction codes. There's a lot packed into this space. Frankly, there was too much. A "twist" in a plot works if the viewer is comfortable with one set of beliefs and then it all gets pulled out from under them. In this case I never had the chance to really understand any of what was going on, so I was never stunned when it changed.

Also on the negative side of the scale for this film was the acting. Hartnett was completely out of his league with this material. At times it felt like he was acting in a high school production of noir. Unhappily for me I found neither Eckhart or Johannson particularly exciting either. No one except Swank felt like she belonged in this film, and even she didn't hit a home run. Also troubling to me was the physicial production of the film. Creating period piece fantasy worlds is one of the joys of 1940s film noir, me thinks. A lot of the sets and environments in this film were just boring and ugly to look at. There were too many empty parking lots and not enough street scenes.

In the end I must give this film a great deal of credit for trying. There are unique things to be seen here. I absolutely intend to give this film another viewing, so that's some praise right there. I actually spent time after the film trying to work out exactly what happened, so I was definitely thinking about it after leaving the theater - so that's even higher praise from me. Unfortunately, after thinking about this first viewing I saw a lot that seemed a failure to me.

Standouts: Interesting ideas throughout, unique choices, not ever really boring.
Blowouts: Acting (Hartnett in particular), too fast paced, silly ending.

Grade: B

HOLLYWOODLAND

Director: Allen Coulter (TV work, 1st feature film)
Starring: Adrien Brody, Ben Affleck, Diane Lane, Bob Hoskins

Hollywoodland is a microcosm of all of the problems associated with getting the right actor for the right role. This hardboiled murder mystery, which had a down on his luck private dick, but was missing the femme fatale, had quite a bit of potential. It didn't quite live up to that potential and I think the fault lies (mostly) in the casting.

Hollywoodland follows private eye Adrien Brody as he searches for a murder mystery behind the supposed suicide of 1950's TV star George Reeves (Affleck). The film flip flops between Brody's revelations (the olde noir twists that we've come to love) and flashbacks to the life of Reeves. The Reeves role is a bit of a comeback for Ben Affleck, and really it was the perfect role for him. Reeves comes across as normal American guy. He was discovered by a talent agent and run through the studio system like a thousand other actors of his generation. Like most of those actors he doesn't really have the persona to become a true star, but he does have some average-guy good looks, a pleasant personality, and a bit of a drinking problem. Sound like anyone we know Mr. Affleck?

Reeves starts up an affair with the wife of a studio bigwig (and Affleck does a very good job of showing us the gray area of how he does this both for the opportunities she can give him, as well as for the fact he just likes her). We see how he struggles for any opportunities that acting can give him, even going so far as professional wrestling. Eventually he dies of a gunshot to his head in a bedroom of the house that his high-powered mistress (Lane) bought for him. Downstairs is his fiancee and some friends.

The story arc basically follows Brody (who is suffering from a divorce and unsuccessful livlihood) as he desperately searches for a deep mystery in this suicide. It's obvious that the Brody character needs there to be something in the rumors of murder as his own life spirals out of control around him, and he does his utmost to find a conspiracy. Without ruining the end of Hollywoodland, it's obvious that he understands that the real mystery is with his own perceptions of the death rather than the suicide/murder itself.

I liked this plot a lot. It touches on what I consider to be a most important topic, how we view reality based on what we want (or need). I think that this theme and story had the potential to be great. It didn't really pull it off, though. The direction was pedestrian, many of the plot details were simply bad. Most importantly though, I just didn't like Brody as the private investigator. I found Brody's role in the Pianist to be truly powerful and he certainly has talent as an actor, but I really don't like the guy when he tries to act the hipster. He doesn't look or feel tough or cool to me. I think he was miscast in this role of the noir private eye searching for some truth.

So, all told, this is a film with much potential that just ended up as an all-right, nice-enough type film.

Standouts: Affleck's average joe actor, Bob Hoskins (as the studio bigwig) showing the rest of the cast what real screen presence is all about in his few short scenes.
Blowouts: Brody, direction, and a lot of plot points were rather ho-hum.

Grade: B

CARS

Director: John Lasseter (Toy Story I & II, A Bug's Life)
Starring: voices of Owen Wilson, Paul Newman, Bonnie Hunt, Larry the Cable Guy

I like movies, a lot. I can usually find something to enjoy even in the bad ones. Cars was not necessarily a bad movie. What it was, though, was one of the most uninteresting movies I've seen in months. I just could not pay attention to this flick. I haven't been less interested in a animated main character since Will Smith's hip hop mackeral in Shark Tale, and frankly I may have enjoyed this movie even less than Shark Tale. I think that conceptually, this film has a LOT more to offer than Shark Tale. Unfortunately, that conception didn't pan out on the screen. I was just plain bored.

Cars lives in a humanless world of sentinent machines. Cars, trucks, tractors, planes, they're all alive in this world. The story follows a newbie Nascar racing car stud(Wilson) who gets stuck off of the interstate in a one-horse town (or one-car town as it were) along the once great Route 66.

Here in the middle of the desert he learns to slow down in life and enjoy it. He makes friends with the local characters, something he's never had time to do before. He finds love in a transplanted California lawyer car (a porsche voiced by Hunt). He finds a wise old teacher in Newman.

Point by point this film's plot was stolen from Doc Hollywood, the much cuter and much more enjoyable Michael J. Fox film of 15 odd years ago, and I mean stolen. It's probably the most severe creative plagarism I've seen in years. Everything from theme to major plot points to the kooky characters were lifted from that film. This is scary to say the least.

Here's the thing tho, I found Doc Hollywood anything but boring. Why was Cars so sleep-inducing? Well, the film had some absolutely beautiful images in it, and I mean really top-notch. The desert scenery and cars themselves were very well evoked. Storywise (stolen or not) this was a nice idea - slowing down, making some kooky friends, and falling in love. For whatever reason I just didn't find it enjoyable however. I realize that this film has received quite a bit of praise, but I disagree with it. America simply doesn't need 2 Nascar-related films in 2006. Nothing against Nascar, but that's just the way it is.

Probably my biggest complaint with this film is with the basic idea of making machines alive. I had the same issue with Robots, another massively hyped kids film of recent memory. Machines are just not lovable, at least not as compared to anything that's actually alive. You see rabbits are cute and hyenas nasty and people are the best of all. Things that are alive are what it's all about. Cars on the other hand are just hunks of steel that get you somewhere. Robots are a bit better since they at least imitate life. The toys in Toy Story also imitated life. Cars, though? They don't even vaguely resemble anything alive anywhere.

Standouts: Beautiful pictures on the screen. Decent story, plagarised or not.
Blowouts: Boring as all get out. This is no Nemo, or Toy Story.

Grade: C+