RESCUE DAWN

Director: Werner Herzog (Aguirre, Fitzcarraldo, Grizzley Man)
Starring: Christian Bale, Steve Zahn

Wener Herzog's latest is very much the prototypical Herzog film. It's about obsession, man versus nature, and about finding the limits of how far we can drive ourselves. The story isn't even new to Herzog this time, as Rescue Dawn is simply a dramatization of Herzog's previous documentary on Dieter Dengler, a Vietnam War POW, called Little Dieter Needs to Fly. Oh, and it's also prototypically Herzogian in that it's excellent.

Dieter Dengler is very much a Herzogian protagonist. He's a character based on a real person; a real person who drove himself physically and emotionally to places that few of us will ever go. He is a naturalized American (originally from Germany, as if you couldn't tell from the 'Dieter' ...) who had a dream to fly. He moved to America to live his dream, and joined the US Air Force. On his very first combat mission early on in the Vietnam War his plane was shot down during a bombing run on the Ho Chi Minh Trail. He is captured, tortured, and locked away to rot with a handful of other POWs in a bamboo prison in the middle of an enormous monsoon jungle.

For your average, everyday kind of person, capture, torture and imprisonment might tend to bring you down. But not for Dieter. From the first day in internment, he is self-assured and positive, practically bouncy (at least compared to the other POWs). He knows that he will escape, or at least that he will try. There is a strength of will and of attitude that the horrible conditions just can't conquer.

But then his conditions get worse. After infighting amongst the prisoners, they manage to escape. They're nearly starved (resorting to eating maggots at one point ... and yes, I've read that they were real maggots that Christian Bale ate). They have no shoes. They don't really know where they are. But little Dieter has one thing going for him, his attitude. He won't give up. He may be killed, but he won't lay down and die.

But then his conditions get worse. His POW friend (Zahn) is killed by villagers. American helicopters that he thinks are going to rescue him, shoot at him instead. He's now alone, delirious and wasted away from lack of food. Through all of this he still manages to struggle on, through the thick green jungle that seems to grasp at him at every step.

Luckily his conditions don't get any worse. Frankly, I don't see how they could. At the point where his been reduced to eating a live snake for sustanance, a helicopter sites him in a riverbed. It's random that the helicopter found him, pure luck. But it was Dieter's determination in the face of overwhelming conditions that allowed the luck to fall his way. If he would have given up early on, as you or I probably would have, that helicopter would not have found him. But he didn't.

It's a fairly straight-forward film, just man versus his own will to survive, but it's excellent. I'm not sure I can even describe why. It is not a deep film. At least in terms of complicated intellectual ideas it's not. There's no denying that it's a very deep film in terms of how far it goes to show what it wants to show. It's simple, and powerful. It's often a hard film to watch, but it's never debasing. It's just a good movie.

Standouts: Herzog, the actors, and the real-life Dieter Dengler. I'm also a big fan of the guard "jumbo".
Blowouts: It's sometimes hard to sympathize with Dieter. Is this man a "hero", bigger and better than you or me? Or is there in fact something wrong with him? Something in his head that might not be so useful anywhere else except alone and in the jungle? The movie doesn't think so, but I'm not so convinced.

Grade: A

HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX

Director: David Yates (British TV and small film work)

Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Imelda Staunton, a cast of thousands (of veteran British actors)

Heeee's back. Again. The multi-billion dollar cash cow that is Potter has returned. And fueled by the popular excitement over the release of the final Potter book in mid July, The Order of the Phoenix has a chance of becoming the biggest earner of all of the films. Even if it turns out the least amount of money of the films (which looks to be unlikely), it would still rake in a half a billion dollars in profit. Yep, profit. Nice job.

Normally I feel a little slimey if I even mention profit and popularity when talking about a film, but in regards to Potter it all goes down a little easier because these are not bad films. I'm happy that people are spending their money to see decent movies, rather than Transformers. Decent? Hmmm. I'll go so far as to say that the first 3 Potter films were quite a bit better than 'decent'. They were good films. The Goblet of Fire was less so, but it was still miles above Transformers on most aspects of the quality scale. The Order of the Phoenix is a little less enjoyable, a little less fun, a little less ... good, but it's still fine. So, if somebody has to make a billion dollars on a movie, I'm glad they make it on Potter (and hope they don't make it on Transformers ...).

So, The Order of the Phoenix? Less good? Yep. Not too bad, but definitely less good. The plot of this film is certainly more intricate, and I don't think the screenwriters did a particularly good job of translating the story to the screen. Here the government of the Potter world (the ministry of magic) is intent of placating the populace, after Harry's claim that Voldemort has returned in the last film. Their belief is that law and order trump truth, and they will go to any length to maintain their version of it (order, that is). Therefore the minister of magic tries to discredit Harry and Dumbledore (Michael Gambon). Step by step the government begins to take over Harry's wizarding school Hogwarts. Imelda Staunton gives a creepily cute performance as Umbridge, the government agent who takes over the school, enacting rule after rule, restriction after restriction. She comes across as a mix of Joseph Goebbels, Queen Elizabeth II, and the most sickeningly sweet aunt in your family. She has a collection of kitten plates, and also a fondness for low-level torture. Creeeeepy.

While the facists take over the world, Harry suffers through a series of bad dreams that turn out to be some sort of link with the bad guy. (I won't try to explain the link, mostly because the film doesn't do a very good job of explaining it either. It just happens. Live with it.) At the big climax Harry has a dream that the bad guy is killing his godfather, Siruis (Gary Oldman). There is a mighty special effects fireworks display as Harry and Dumbledore magic it out with Voldemort and his band of baddies, and in the end the minister of magic is forced to admit that they were wrong about his presence. (Oh, if only it were that simple to get rid of the of the neo-facists in the world.)

It's all moderately interesting, but not as good in any way to the early films. The story is not as tight, not as clever. The world is not nearly as delightful, and that's a great loss. The Order of the Phoenix is much, much darker than the earlier films. This is not a happy decision, I think, since the Potter world is wonderful simply because of the wonder that it evokes. The visuals are not as interesting (excepting some parts of the big special effects finale, I think). It's just not as good a film. Heck, look at the movie poster to get a sense of what I'm talking about. Is that not the most mundane film poster you've ever seen? Ugh. Anyway, and it seems I say this a lot in my reviews, "less good" does not necessarily equal "bad". This film is certainly less good. I think Potter fans will look back at it as the weakest link in the series (so far). Luckily, it's still not a bad film. It's okay. It's fun, still somewhat creative and enjoyable.

Standouts: The Potter world remains full of fun delightful, intriguing moments.

Blowouts: The plot and direction were not home-runs, by any means. Kind of boring in parts.

Grade: B-

TRANSFORMERS

Director: Michael Bay (Masterpieces like Pearl Harbor, Armageddon, and The Island)

Starring: Shia LeBoeuf, Megan Fox, Adolescent Boy Dreams

Michael Bay, I hate you. I don't know you of course, so that irrational hatred is probably way off base. For all I know you might be a loving father of adopted war orphans who spends 3 months every year digging wells for villagers in Mali. So you know, if you are, I apologize. I take back all of my insults thrown your way over the years. Otherwise, I still hate you. Your films are the Hollywood equivalent of the World Wrestling Federation. I'd bet you'd pump up your actors with steroids if you could get away with it. Your films are dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb. They're fun, true. But they are dumb. So while I smile as I watch celluloid Mack truck robots punching each other, I get ever so slightly dumber at the same time. (And believe me I can't afford to get much dumber!)

Mr. Bay, I'm sure, I'm just sure, that you have it in you to be better than this. Your movies are usually kind of fun (The Rock? Kind of fun. Dumb, but fun). There's always a lot of entertainment value in your films. But like a folding chair being slammed over the back of the Iron Sheik in the wrestling ring, there's not much being contributed to society through your crap. Your movies are vibrant. They're loud. Often times your movies are pretty fun. What they're not, however, is good. Be better, Mr. Bay, be better. You owe us.

Remeber the 1980s Mr Bay? I'm sure you do, because you're trying your darndest to resurrect the over-the-top entertainment of that decade. Back then there wasn't much to watch except for the campiest of movie fun. Rember the Republican propaganda films Red Dawn, Rocky IV, and Heartbreak Ridge? Yeah, they were fun films. I would still watch them under the right circumstances. But they're kind of degrading to us at the same time you know? Remember Cobra, the laughably bad Dirty Harry knockoff? Yeah, it *was* fun too with Stallone strutting around in his too tight jeans, and oversized Ray-Bans, chewing on a matchstick.

I've got a feeling, Mr Bay, that 20 years from now a bunch of 40 year olds are going to look back in the same way on Transformers. Yeah, it's a fun movie, but God, is it ever a dumb movie. Everything, and I mean everything in this film is lowest common denominator adolescent fantasy. Every woman in Transformers looks and acts like a Playboy model (except that these ones actually like nerds!). The movie likes big trucks, and tanks, and fighter planes. Heck, so did I ... when I was 12. One thing I did not love so much were GM cars, and I still don't. How much did they pay you for the opportunity to transform ugly yellow Camaros into robots? No, no, don't get mad. I do recognize the camp value in ugly yellow Camaros transforming into Robots.

Here's a question, if the green movement takes off are you going to have a trasnforming Prius in the sequel? You should. It would be pretty funny. "I use hybrid technology, Megatron! Now die!"

Mr. Bay, in my showing of Transformers there were droves of gawky, geeky teen-agers and chubby 20-somethings giving each other high fives everytime a Mack truck transformed into a robot in your film. I actually appreciate being able to see that. It was an interesting lesson on psychology and sociology. So thanks. Really.

I do have to admit, Mr Bay, that the effects in your film were pretty darn good. It was pretty cool when the transformers transformed. And all of the stuff that blew up, blew up wonderfully. I'm assuming that all of the girls' boobs were digitally enhanced as well. Kudos on that too.

I hope by now that you've gotten the point that this movie is fun. And that it's also dumb. I still hate you Mr. Bay. After Pearl Harbor you should have been banned from Hollywood. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people just like you in Hollywood, so you kept making pictures. But it doesn't really matter if I hate you, does it? In the end, you won. I paid $10 for two matinee tickets to see your film. You win. I hate that you won. I hope you spend your millions on a vacation home on St. Kitts or some such, and then the island explodes in a volcanic fireball. It would be fitting if you went out in a massive explosion, I think. Okay, I'm kidding, I don't wish you dead. That's just over the top. But then again I am writing to the most over the top director in Hollywood ...

Standouts: Visual extravaganza. Dumb, fun movie.

Blowouts: Really, really, REALLY dumb fun.

Grade: B-

P.s. I hearby join the chorus of voices that is projecting Shia LeBoeuf as a major Hollywood star someday. He's pretty darn good in this film. Please don't end up in rehab, Shia. You've got talent.

SICKO

Director: Michael Moore (Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine)
Starring: Documentary on US Health System

Ah, the Michael Moore films. Nothing raises the ire of conservative "true believers" more. Why is that? Well, I think it's because Moore (more or less) uses the same propoganda tactics as they do. He's a true-believer too. It just so happens that he's on the other side of the representational aisle. Does this mean we can ignore his panderings and propoganda just as we ignore Bill O'Reilley's red faced diatribes? Maybe. Maybe not.

The imporant thing (IMHO) is that somewhere deep down beneath the arguments of all of these people there is indeed an objective truth. Oh, it's certainly well hidden beneath layers of inuendo, misdirection, and most importantly, complete ommission of countering arguments, but the truth is there. Somewhere. I'll bet each side occasionally has that truth on their side, depending on the particular issue. Probably a better description is that one is "nearer" to the truth, because I'm quite sure Bill O'Reilley has never been precisely right on anything in his career.

Regardless, coming into this film, I thought the US healthcare system would be Moore's easiest target. The truth was definitely on his side this time, and it was obvious to anyone willing to give even the most cursory glances behind the gleaming facade that the AMA or HMOs present. As a film, I think that the results for Sicko are good, but they're not on the level of some of his earlier near-masterpieces. Sicko is a solid bit of editorial. It's certainly a maddening film, showing the flaws in the US' method of providing medicine to its people. It's also one that overplays its arguments, and omits any fact that might get in the way of its central premise. In the end it's still right though. And that's a tough pill to swallow for many.

So, American health care? My thoughts? In the tiniest of nutshells, I think: 1 - We are the only western democracy without "socialized" medicine. 2 - We spend 3+% more of our GDP on health care than any other country on earth (6% more than the UK and most others). 3 - We don't live nearly as long as the most advanced countries. 4 - Our youngest children die at a rate comparable to some countries we'd call third world. Conclusion: Our investment in health care is not delivering compared to other countries. Some people really believe we have the best healthcare on earth. They are simply, and completely wrong. We do not. Some of our very best facilities are on par, or better, than anywhere else. But the average American has more health problems, dies younger, loses more babies, and spends more of their income than *any* of the top 30 industrial nations. This is a system begging for improvement.

Why do we spend so much for so little return? Well, 2 reasons really. The first is sort of a statistical anomoly. Americans spend huge sums of money on elective procedures. From boob jobs to unnecessary knee surguries we are in love with the operating table. The bigger piece of our enormous costs, however, lies with the profit of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and managed care. The administrative costs of most government run systems is significantly (and I mean significantly) less than what it costs for us to have HMOs, million-dollar doctors, and even worse, million-dollar healthcare administrators. I am a capitalist - through and through. But in this capitalist's opinion this is a system that has shown the areas where capitalism fails. Put simply, it would be cheaper, and far more efficient to have a government run system. Hard to believe for the 'true-believers'? You bet.

Okay, after all of this I'll note that Sicko only lightly touches on the subject of macro-economics. It's more concerned with a more basic, and probably just as important subject: How real people live in the US system, or in other countries' systems. Here, ~ 50 million people do not have insurance. In health care terms, these people basically live as if they were in the 3rd world. One individual the film can only afford to have 1 of his 2 severed fingers reattached. Another is dumped (by a Kaiser Permanente hospital) on the street near a free clinic, because they can't pay for their health care. We as Americans have said clearly, firmly, and loudly, and we've said it time and again, that we don't care at all about the lives of the poorest. You might as well suffer, you might as well die. As long as we do not die, you can die. Please die.

Given this, the movie doesn't even really spend that much time discussing the plight of the uninsured, the dregs of our society. No, it spends the bulk of its time talking about average people, people with good insurance, getting screwed over time and again by our current system. This is probably the most effective choice Moore made. At least it's the most accessible of the arguments against our current system. Sicko gives a handful of horror stories about average joes with good insurance. If you don't believe that the insurance companies are in the business of making sure you do NOT get the best health care for a decent price, you're living under a rock. One patient's insurance denied her counseling after a rape, because the rape qualified as a "pre-existing condition". One patient took her dying baby to the nearest emergency room, only to be told that she must go to a different hospital across town because of her HMO. The baby died en route. There are many more. Importantly, these are not anomolies of the system. The system is very much designed to do these things.

After a number of stories about people like these, Sicko moves on to other countries' systems (Canada, England, France and Cuba). These systems are held up as wonders, nearly perfect. This is probably the biggest complaint I have with Sicko. I agree that these other countries systems are better than ours (it's hard to logically argue otherwise). They are cheaper, and their citizens have fewer problems. It's a little scary that Cubans, whose country spends only a fraction of what the US does, manage to live a little longer than Americans. Nonetheless, there are certainly complaints that can be made against these other systems as well. They are not perfect. They are better, but whereas 2/3 or 3/4 of Americans claim our system is broken, about 40-50% of the French and English complain of major problems. I should note, however, that there aren't a lot of French and English arguing to scrap their "socialized" system. That's one notion that not many of their citizens have.

Anyway, like most Michael Moore films, he doesn't really discuss too many statistics, too many facts. No, he just wanders around in his rube persona documenting funny little episodes on these issues. In Sicko he takes a group of 9/11 rescue workers denied coverage for their respiratory problems to Cuba where they are treated far better than they were in America. Detractors will call this a publicity stunt. Yes, it is. The truth still lies there buried underneath, however, and Moore has gotten much much closer to the truth than most of the propoganda you'll hear about US healthcare. Sicko is a fine film, maddening to the viewer. It's intent is to enact specific change by the government. Let's see if it does or not.

Standouts: Another fun, humourous Michael Moore documentary on a social ill.

Blowouts: Very much propoganda, no time spent on the downsides to his film's argument. Not as entertaining as some other Moore films.

Grade: B+

WAITRESS

Director: Adrienne Shelly (low budget indy films, starred in some Hal Hartley movies)
Starring: Keri Russell, Jeremy Sisto, Nathan Fillion

It's impossible to talk about Waitress without mentioning the sad fate of director Shelly. It's also impossible to watch this cute film, which is simultaneously sad, funny, and optimistic, without feeling a little dread at the real-life events surrounding it. Shelly has been a marginal player for years in the film industry, her previous high-point probably being her starring roles in the early (good) Hal Hartley movies The Unbelievable Truth and Trust. Waitress would have been a new high point in her career I think. Unfortunately, Ms Shelly was randomly murdered one day while working. It seems that she started an argument with an illegal teenage immigrant about construction noise in a neighboring apartment. So he killed her.

So, watching this bittersweet film becomes even more bitter. Luckily, the film is good enough to make you forget the sad truth while you're watching it.

Waitress is the story of a young woman (Russell) with a talent for making pies, a job in a pie diner, a pretty face, and very dim prospects for a happy future. She's married to the most loutish of louts (Sisto), a terrible man who's own low self-esteem is almost pitiful to behold. He's so extremely controlling that it's perhaps difficult to believe he could actually exist in today's modern America. Luckily this story exists as a fairy tale rather than as any kind of realistic portrait, so disbelief isn't too hard to suspend. She has two friends, other waitresses at the diner, both cute, perky, and quirky themselves. She also manages to struggle through her situation with an upbeat attitude despite her fatalistic belief that her future is for certain. She has no money (and what little she does have is taken by her husband), and she has a baby she doesn't want on the way. She's stuck in a horrible marriage. She's just stuck.

Right about now is where she meets a handsome, nerdy Ob-Gyn (Fillion), and if ever an affair was in order, it was in order for her. So she cheats, and you can't really fault her for it one bit. A wise old regular at the diner (played wonderfully by Andy Griffith) tells her that no matter how right it might seem, it's always better to just not cheat, but what are you going to do.

For the rest of her pregnancy high jinx ensue, as she struggles through her affair, and her friends start their own silly relationships. Through it all, however, there are always moments of terrible reality that occasionally bring us back to earth. The husband finds money that she's stashed away in the house, or sees her with a suitcase at a bus stop and frighteningly accosts her. He's a scary guy because he's a child. He's so terrified himself that he could lash out at any time. He's a very good character creation.

Finally, in the most wrapped up and neat of endings, it all works out for our little waitress. I won't spoil it, except to say it's a tad obvious, and not particularly effective climax. But ending aside, the film as a whole works well. It's a cute, bittersweet, funny little film. Equal parts romantic comedy and black comedy. I liked it a lot.

Of course the saddest thing is that Ms. Shelly won't experience the rest of her life at all, but it seems just a tad more terrible that she didn't even get to experience some of the accolades that she deserves for this fine little film. What a downer.

Standouts: Good script, good direction. A cute little film.
Blowouts: The ending was completely mundane.

Grade: B+

RATATOUILLE

Director: Brad Bird (The Incredibles, Iron Giant)

Starring: voices of Patton Oswalt, Lou Romano, Ian Holm,

Animated movies are in a golden age right now. The first golden age was of course the Disney films, sweet fables all. For me the second high point in animation were the 50s, 60s, and 70s TV cartoons, led by Looney Tunes, but followed by a host of other intriguing, albeit lower quality works (Scooby Doo?). Now we're in a new animation era ushered in by computer technology, and at least in movies these might just be the best kids flicks that we've ever seen.

It's been a step by step growth I think, from the first digital scenes in Disney's Aladdin to this film. Digital has gotten better and better. It's obvious that these films are still enamoured with how much the new technology allows them to do, and they still have a tendency to fill up every inch of every cell with as much "stuff" as they can. There are a lot of examples of movies that just feel meaninglessly cluttered (See *all* of the recent Star Wars movies as a great example). And in this regard Ratatouille isn't that different. There is a LOT going on in many of its frames. The big difference is that here it's beautiful stuff that seems to fit into a wider whole, whereas in Star Wars it was usually just pointless fluff.

Yes, Ratatouille is a beautiful movie. One of the most beautiful animated films I've ever seen. It's got a much improved visual style over most of the previous digital films. I loved the exagerrated faces of the human characters. It's also taken a bold step away from some other conventions of the recent wave of animated movies. First, this is not some arbitrary cast of name-brand actors, globbed together for marketing appeal. There are only 3 significant Hollywood names in this film (O'Toole, Ian Holm, and Janeanne Garofolo), and you might not even recognize their voices when you hear them. All in all this no-name cast works wonderfully. These characters exist as themselves, not just as famous voices. Instead of hearing David Schwimmer or Ray Romano in a movie, and thinking how lowest common denominator it all sounds, I was listening to a rat named Remy in Paris. I was completely transported to the world of the story.

Secondly, this film is calmer, more subtle, more substantive than most of the kids flicks these days. Rather than degrading kids and their parents with a fart or poop joke, this film spends a long time discussing the art of cuisine. This is an elevating story. A movie that will force kids to think a little bit, rather than one that panders to them. Believe me, if kids today are anything like I was, they'll come up with plenty of fart jokes on their own, without the aid of Hollywood. It's a story about a rat that loves to cook, and ends up turning a Paris restaurant into the talk of the town with his culinary masterpieces.

Thirdly, this film has a thematic center. I'll admit it's not one I really agree with, but it is there, and it's substantial. And that's unusual for a kid's flick. The Incredibles was a fun film by Brad Bird about a family of super-heroes that the little people in society jealously hated. I liked the film, I hated its message. Ratatouille is a fun film by Brad Bird about a genius Rat also held back by society. Brad Bird seems to be quite a fan of Objectivism. Objectivism, if you're not aware, is sort of the philisophical equivilent of Scientology. Primarily they were both money-making schemes by their inventors. They're easy to swallow, easy to sell, versions of religion and philosophy. Objectivism in many ways is a marketed version of Neitzsche's Superman notions, the idea that there are genius individuals among us who have the right to disregard civilized morality, since their value is far greater than the average engineer or ditchdigger. It's an easy sell to people who think they're special. You'll find a lot of business types who like to make millions and pay lower tax rates than their secretaries who believe in Objectivism. They're special, you see.

Anyhow, whatever your opinions on the Ayn Rand religion/philosophy, this film luckily doesn't go nearly so deeply into my more hated aspects of Objectivism. It mostly sticks with the theme of a rat struggling to overcome the fact that he's a rat. Gourmet diners tend to have a stereotype about rats. Remy, though, is different. He's a rat who likes to cook. He's a rat, who through a little luck, and a lot of effort manages to overcome the prejudice of his kind and becomes successful. I don't see how anyone can argue with that as a theme, whatever else the film says. I mean, how often can you even have an argument about the thematic material in a kid's movie? So that must be a good thing right there.

The best and most surprising thing about this film is undoubtedly just how engrossing it is for such a small subject. It's fun, and sweet, and sincere, and it's about cooks and cooking. It's also entertaining, and pretty enlightening for a kid's flick. I highly recommend it.

Standouts: Visuals, story, direction. Most everything.

Blowouts: My personal distaste of some aspects of film's theme.

Grade: A