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 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

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

AFTER THE SUNSET (DVD)

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

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

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

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

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

Grade: B

12/19/2005

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