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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK

Director: George Clooney (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind)
Starring: David Strathairn, George Clooney, Robert Downey Jr, Patricia Clarkson)

Film is intended to entertain. Good film has the added benefit of enlightening. I have a problem reviewing film that, for lack of a better word, panders. I try to remove myself from personal tastes when doing a review just to avoid this problem. I think that this film panders, although I’m not entirely sure. Good Night and Good Luck is a short, small and straightforward look at Edward R Murrow, the nearly mythic (to journalists) newsman and his confrontation with Senator Joe McCarthy over his red scare tactics. Rather obviously this is a topical film about the current, ahem, issues in America today. Personally, I agree with the statements made in this film. That certain of our leaders are using scare tactics to immorally constrain and ruin the lives of a few good (or even evil) men. Yes, conservatives generally believe that stability for the masses is more important than the lesser freedoms afforded us, and that breaking a few eggs making their stable society is perfectly acceptable. Hell, everyone believes that to one degree or another. As for me, I think we’ve gone too far, that we’ve used the rallying cry “national crisis” to do (a few) pointedly evil things. Yes, it’s absurd to talk endlessly about this when each year hundreds of thousands are being killed, and raped, and maimed, and tortured in Uganda and Congo and Liberia and Angola and Eritrea and … I hope you get my point. But this is my back yard, and this is what I can most directly affect with my vote, so it’s important. Now with that said, back to the film. I’m not sure that this film will do much enlightening. It may exist rather to rally the few liberals such as myself who will see it. As such, I doubt that makes this a great film. Given the fine acting of David Strathairn as Murrow, and the solid production, and the important topic of the film, however, it does make it a good one. If nothing else, it is the reminder that we should never forget history. Hopefully, it will help in some small way to broaden the conversation. That is important, and great. (June12)


Standouts: David Strathairn’s Murrow, logical, concise, and direct.
Blowouts: It’s a surprisingly light script, more documentary than story. Characters are never fleshed out.

Grade: B

12/01/2005

WALK THE LINE

Director: James Mangold (Identity, Kate & Leopold, Girl Interrupted)
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Reese Witherspoon, Ginnifer Goodwin, Robert Patrick

Johnny Cash makes it big, does drugs, hits bottom, and then learns to love his father and himself. Father-loving aside, this film’s similarities with Ray, last year’s Ray Charles biopic are many. They both tell the same story as every VH1 Behind the Music ever produced (a bunch of nobodies make it big, do drugs, hit bottom, and then rebound). The differences these films have are the added factors of truly excellent music (can you imagine a Motley Crue feature film?), and the truly rough conditions of Ray Charles’ and Johnny Cash’s childhoods. Apparently both lost brothers early in their life. How strangely coincidental is that? The other (rather humungous) difference is the top notch writing and acting and directing of both of these films. Here Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon give Oscar-quality performances, Oscar winning quality performances that is. They both have real shots at this year’s awards. This was a very, very good film. One of the year’s best undoubtedly. (November 27)


Standouts: Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon as Johnny Cash and June Carter.
Blowouts: Nothing that I can think of.

Grade: A

11/28/2005