Eric's Movie Reviews

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish. . .

2008-09-28T02:12:00.006-04:00

Thanks Blogger, for all you've done for me over the last two years.

Ghost Town

2008-09-22T01:41:00.003-04:00

"Ghost Town" is one of those minor miracle films that one who pays enough attention to film release schedules and box office grosses is always surprised to see pop up. For one thing, it's three main actors are somewhat well known, but none of them are major money makers-one of them is very famous in the United Kingdom, but not exactly at the pinnacle of fame in America. And it also is opening on a very crowded weekend for movies, and in the middle of September which is commonly a dumping ground for studios as they get ready for their big award pushers. So it was no surprise to me when Dreamworks decided to slash their release for "Ghost Town" a whole thousand screens, but it was a surprise to me when the film actually turned out to be very very good-a somewhat conventional romantic comedy formula that is elevated by three terrific performances.

Ricky Gervais is known to some folks here, mostly as the creator of the British version of "The Office," and than a somewhat popular HBO show "Extras." Aside from a few bit parts in some American films-"Night at the Museum," and "For Your Consideration" off the top of my head-this is his first top billing role. He plays Bertram Pincus, a most unpleasant dentist who just wants to be left alone. When his fellow dentist comes in and tells him that the receptionist had a baby recently, Bertram gives a small smile, but soon runs away while everyone's back is turned. He is rude to nearly everyone. On the gurney for his colonoscopy, he comments on the entire lack of privacy, and how one of the doctors looks like he is "on a field trip to the hospital." While on the operating table he ends up dying for seven minutes, and when he is revived he discovers that he has the ability to see dead people. Not decayed and disturbing like the dead people in "The Sixth Sense," but looking quite like they did when they were alive-even wearing what they died in. He is annoyed by several of them asking him to complete some unfinished work, and this is where he meets Frank (Greg Kinnear). Frank died by getting hit by a bus, right after a phone call with his wife Gwen (Tea Leoni) where she discovered that he was having an affair. She is getting remarried to a bad man, and Frank wants Bertram to try and stop it-and if he does it, than all the dead people will stop bothering him.

Gervais certainly isn't going very far from his bitter characters roots with this, but that is really what he knows. It certainly is a nice test to adjust him to American audiences, especially if he wants to be in future projects. He is very funny playing a character that wants to be anything but funny. Upon our first meeting with him-where he shoves some cotton into the mouth of a patient who will not shut up-we know exactly what type of character arc to expect from Bertram, but Gervais elevates this formulaic material into something much funnier and much more enjoyment. I was reminded of this year's "Smart People," which took a common mid-life crisis indie story and turned it into something much smarter. Gervais and the wonderful dry and sarcastic Tea Leoni have a few winning scenes together-and during the obvious "confession' scenes towards the end, work well to boost us out of some rather conventional moments. And lastly there is Greg Kinnear, who brings a surprising amount of poignancy to the role, as a man who is seeing all of his flaws too late. And what really adds to the surprise of this film is how under the radar these three actors are to the common audience. But it proves that to make a successful comedy one doesn't need to go straight to the common comedic choices-they just need to get good actors. Leoni has been very funny in films like "You Kill Me" or "Flirting with Disaster." Why isn't she ever given a chance to showcase these talents a bit more?

The script-written by David Koepp, oddly enough-does cover its familiar ground, but also has its charm and originality. I liked the concept of the living having unfinished business, and how that prevents the dead from being able to move on. It was a nice twist to the typical dead wanting their last say in things, which is actually something that really divided this film from "The Sixth Sense," which one must draw comparison to. Koepp's script does a good job balancing the comedy and the heart, which comes in during the second half, including a very sweet montage where Bertram finally begins to go about helping the dead folk. And Gervais manages the dramatic areas of the film well too, but never losing that charm that makes him such a good comedian. I was upset we never saw him kiss Leoni, just for my own personal curiosity of what it looks like for David Brent to kiss someone.

It's hard to write a lot for a film like "Ghost Town," which is just a pleasant, funny, and rather sweet trip to the movies. A comedy that is subtle with its jokes, rare for a movie getting a big release in an odd release schedule. It has its flaws, yes-mostly just the familiarity of the story. But its execution (no pun intended) is better than the average romantic comedy, and the performances penetrates the funny bone many times. I hope it has legs because its one of the better mainstream films that is around at the moment, and a great boost for Gervais as a leading man.

*** of ****

Towelhead

2008-09-18T13:26:00.005-04:00

Alan Ball is one of those writers whom when mentioned one either shakes their head in disgust at his work, or finds him to be a complete genius. And then of course there are those that have no idea who he is, but those need not be mentioned. Simply put, they don't know what they're missing. Hopefully you know what a daring, lurid, and interesting writer Alan Ball is. He blew me away with his writing debut in 1999 with "American Beauty," and I really enjoyed his television show "Six Feet Under" earlier in the decade. Of course when I learned that he was not only writing a new film, but also making his directing debut, my interest was at its peak. And of course when this film was premiering at the 2007 Toronto Film Festival, which I was in attendance, I wanted to do everything that I could to get a ticket for it.

Truthfully I haven't actually seen "Towelhead." I saw "Nothing Is Private," the film under its original (and in my opinion, better) title, about a year ago, and the very first cut version. I heard that nothing has been cut or changed except for the opening credit, and if that is truth than I can safely say that this is one of the best films of the year. Here we have a film of such raw emotion and extreme edginess, but never seeming like it is exploiting its main character for the sake of controversy.

Here our main character is Jasira (played by nineteen year old Summer Bishil, who warrants and Oscar nomination but probably won't receive one). Jasira, thirteen, lives with her distant mother (Maria Bello). When her mother's boyfriend ends up shaving Jasira in a moment of weakness (down there. . .), she sends her to live with her father Rifat. Ball revisits themes that he knows here, sending Jasira to suburbia, where privacy is something that is hardly practiced. Her father disapproves of almost everything, refusing to allow her to go out with Thomas-a good kid in Jasira's school, but Rifat doesn't like the fact that he is black. He does approve of Jasira babysitting Zack, a boy next door that introduces her to the word Towelhead, which he learned from his father Mr. Vuoso (played perfectly by Aaron Eckhart.) Mr. Vuoso is an Army reservist, and classifies Rafit as a lover for Saddaam and everything that he stood for. The only person that seems to actually care about Jasira, and to make sure that she is able to live her life, is her next door neighbor, the very kind and every pregnant Melina (Toni Collette). But Jasira's young adult life is soon shattered by her advanced looks, her very unprivate life, and her interest in sex that is beyond her years.

Ball has a knack for showing us scenes, images, and concepts that would make the average viewer get a bit uncomfortable in their seats. However these are things that actually happen in reality, and that actually advance the plot and enhance the characters instead of having the viewer feel like he is exploiting them. This very personal look into Jasira's life-the start of her periods, her losing her virginity, her discovering masturbation-are probably things that we wouldn't want to see, but just highlight the unprivate nature of the films major theme. I am quite upset at the title change, and still have a hard time adjusting to it. In crafting these characters, Ball does sometimes go back to the classic suburban formula, and giving most of his characters a few over the top qualities. But at the same time he gives them an odd humanity, grounding the film into a more realistic tone than one may think. For example, Jasira's father is a racist and somewhat cruel person, but from time to time he would show a different side to himself, if not for a mere second. And then he will literally unredeem himself a moment later. Such is life. Such are people.

I mentioned Summer Bishil's performance already, which is raw and very mature for such a young actress. She will be forgotten by the Academy at year's end, which is a shame. If Ellen Page can get nominated for a good performance in "Juno," than surely Summer Bishil can get nominated for a great performance here, but I say that quite sarcastically. Alongside older and very talented actors like Eckhart, Bello, and Collette, Summer Bishil really does hold her own. Aaron Eckhart is one of those actors that can drift from playing a lovable character to a downright nasty villain (as ironically seen in "The Dark Knight," which I hadn't seen when I saw this film.) As Mr. Vuoso, there is a small amount of humanity in him, and Eckhart really manages to subtly bring it out in him, but for the most part he is a creep of a man. It is their scenes together that really were the films highlights-giving us a great balance of extreme seediness and extreme innocence, where one clearly overpowers the other.

As for Ball's direction-I hardly have any quips about it. There is a certain feeling of dread when a good writer ends up doing a directing debut. There is a feeling that he might end up putting more effort into one aspect than another. That was the problem with Mike White's debut "Year of the Dog," where instead of a directing style he just put his characters in the center of the screen-very uninspired and not very creative. But Ball does a few neat touches. I think it was a good move that he revisited themes that he did in the past, because it gave him a chance to get used to the directing gears for future projects, where I hope he does things a bit differently storywise. "Towelhead" is certainly an impressive debut for Ball, and it's sure to be one of my favorite films of the year.

**** of ****

Burn After Reading

2008-09-14T19:45:00.003-04:00

It only took twenty years, and about a dozen terrific pictures, but the Coen Brothers have finally got into the more public spotlight, and the wide release and rather large box office take (their largest to date) for "Burn After Reading" is strong evidence of that. Perhaps now their films won't be released into the obscure only to appear on DVD a few months after their release. But it's clear that even after winning the Oscar last year for "No Country for Old Men" that the Coens are not crossing the line into the mainstream, and "Burn After Reading" is vintage Coens from beginning to end-from their classic low camera angles, to their "man at the desk" trademark that seems to appear in every film that they've ever done.

I will be as quick as possible with the plot, as this is a film where the less you know the better. The film begins off in Langley, Virginia, where CIA analyst Osbourne Cox (John Malkovich, as sleazy and sardonic as ever) is released from his job (no reason is really given except that he has a drinking problem.) Telling his wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) that he quit, he begins to work on his memoirs. Katie is meanwhile having an affair with Harry (a bug-eyed anti-Cary Grant-esque George Clooney), who is also married but enjoys going to internet dating services to meet and lay women. His latest prey is Linda (Frances McDormand), who works at Hardbodies Fitness Center, along with Chad (a gleefully over the top Brad Pitt). It is here where the meat of the story comes into play. Katie wishes to divorce Osbourne and her divorce lawyer has her get a CD containing his financial statements. This CD ends up in the hands of Chad, who teams up with Linda to try and get some kind of blackmail reward for it, as they think it contains some truly secret information. Linda wants the money to pay for four plastic surgeries in her quest to "re-invent" herself. And its from here that the fates of these five characters, and a small handful of others, come together.

The real ingenious part of "Burn After Reading" is how the main catalyst for this story is a CD-ROM that really doesn't contain any type of important information. Nobody outside of Linda and Chad really have any reason to care about its contents. And this is why the real meat of the film is that nearly every character in this film is a complete idiot, leading to one of the most frustratedly brilliant third acts in the recent memory (aside from the nearly perfect third act of "In Bruges" from earlier this year.) And our ending is just as sudden as the one for "No Country for Old Men," but still on the most satisfactory note. We don't get big finales for all of the characters here, and the last scene starts without the audience knowing that this is the end, and it really hits the nail on the head for how insignificant this story is in the grand scheme of things, and it also features J.K. Simmons is one of his most memorable roles, despite the fact that he's only in two scenes throughout.

As for the performers, there is good work from everyone involved, though some better than others. I already noted J.K. Simmons as a highly memorable character, both in character and through quotes. The best of the ensemble is probably John Malkovich, who is great as the frustrated, confused, and rather sick Osbourne Cox. After that is Brad Pitt, who does get last billing but is as hilarious as ever. Pitt really does take advantage of his "pretty boy" looks, and turns them into one ingeniously witty character. Chad is a real fitness freak at heart, clad with his red gym outfit and his iPod strapped to his shoulder. Clooney and McDormand do some good work, and its fun to have the lead actress not be an icon of beauty, which is actually addressed in the film. And lastly Tilda Swinton is clearly having fun with her very cold and icy Katie Cox, who is ironically a children's doctor.

As for the Coens-I really don't think we have to worry about them falling into the mainstream after all of this attention they've gotten. They really do stick to their roots, and allow the average audience to get enjoyment out of it. This isn't the strongly over the top comedy the ads seem to make it out to be, but those who enjoy black comedy will get strong entertainment out of it. The Coens also keep their typical angles and styles. Their quick edits on conversations, as well as the abundance of low angles-we are always looking up at their characters. And lastly their classic "man at the desk" image, of a man of rather high stature being seen behind a desk, prominent on their throne of glory. In this case its clearly J.K. Simmons, but its such a repeated image in their films that it is always worth mentioning. They did stray away from their usual cinematographer, Roger Deakins, who was nominated last year for his work on "No Country," but he had commitment to another film-Deakins was missed, but the film looks as crisp and clear as ever. It is always amusing watching a Coen Brothers film in a packed theatre to catch audience reaction. It's very rare that the entire theatre erupts into laughter at the same time-rather we have scattered reactions, which really do show how many different crowds their brand of humor relates to. "Burn After Reading" is not their best film, but it is very funny, very entertaining, and a great antidote to the powerful dark "No Country for Old Men" last year.

***1/2 of ****

Mister Foe

2008-09-06T22:08:00.003-04:00

I must admit I do not know much about Jamie Bell, a well received British actor who sparked interest when he appeared in 'Billy Elliot" in 2000. My only real exposure to him in a real leading role was in the Lars von Trier penned "Dear Wendy," a film I liked but did not have many comments regarding the young Bell. And now he appears in "Mister Foe," given a very depth-filled role in a very memorable little film. "Mister Foe" is a very gentle and well acted drama, which could have went a very different direction in terms of execution. Made in the United Kingdom, I have a feeling that had it been made in the United States, or in the hands of a more incompetent director, "Mister Foe" could have gone a more quirky and generic indie route. The eccentricities of its main characters are treated in a very human and natural way, instead of using them for cheap laughs or unnecessary comedy. And this is done, not only through the very realistic screenplay, but also the natural performances by the entire cast.

Bell plays Hallam Foe, who spends his days and nights spying on various members of his family and his neighborhood. Obsessed with his dead mother, whose photo appears very large on the wall of his treehouse, Hallam spies on his stepmother Verity, and his father Julius (Ciaran Hinds). His mother reportedly drowned after taking a large dosage of sleeping pills, but Hallam is convinced that Verity had some part in the wicked deed. He only makes appearances during meal times, where Verity has to go outside of the Foe estate and call for him on a large bullhorn. Both Julius and Verity agree that Hallam should grow up and leave home, and idea that Hallam greets with much negativity. That is until he is walking down the streets and spots a young woman that looks just like his mother. He follows her into a hotel, where he asks for and receives a job washing dishes. He befriends the look-a-like, named Kate, and soon does not return home. Instead he follows her, and makes a small room in a shack overlooking her window, where he watches he have an affair with a married man. But soon him and Kate's friendship takes a much darker, romantic turn, confronting Hallam with an Oedipal crisis and risking his natural routine.

Bell does a really great job here, channeling some of the more classic "angry young man" films of the 60's and the 70's, such as "Alfie" or "Saturday Night and Sunday Morning." We follow him throughout the film, from a very observatory standpoint. From the opening shots, done with a shaking camera and only a few feet away from his face. Our relationship with him is abruptly forced on us, but it ends up being quite a welcome one. And we watch him go about his business, slowly. We see him go about his spying or his regular routines as if plot and story doesn't matter. It probably takes about thirty minutes before Kate is even introduced. As Kate, Sophia Myles (who probably is best known for her turn in the other stalker main character film "Art School Confidential") is cute and charming, and her on-screen chemistry with Bell is very engaging. It is a role that could possibly become a bit creepy-after all, Kate and Hallam have a relationship that is based on a common look to his mother, and when they become intimate it manages to be sweet and not disturbing.

Along with the Kate/Hallam relationship, there is a much more subtle and much briefer relationship subplot between Hallam and his father, which bookends the films but ends up being quite the core of the film, especially in the next to final scene, where the true revelations of the death of Hallam's mother come to light. It is a very dark scene, both in tone and visuals, but is a poignant finish to the bulk of the films conflicts. As I mentioned, the film manages to avoid being a comedy through the eccentricities of its characters-from example. Hallam's fetish for following people makes for some minor light comedy, especially in the beginning, but it never goes over board to poke fun at it. In addition, we see Kate as a very troubled young woman, and not as a over the top character that many indie film protagonists manage to fall in love with-such as "Garden State" or "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"-two fine films, but had "Mister Foe" gone into that territory it would have been a very dangerous thing. The Verity character, played by Claire Forlani who disappeared for a while after the late 90's, is also given more dimensions than just the goldigger stepmother cliche that we have seen many times before.

It is these unconventional moves that bring "Mister Foe" out of the standard independent film formula, and along with some very good performances by the entire cast it makes for quite a nice light drama. Hallam is a very likable character, and none of the films subplots ended up weighing the film down. Moving from the personal storyline, to the love story, to the family story with great ease and careful pacing, "Mister Foe" has enough going on to keep the viewer consistently involved, and Hallam Foe stays with the viewer long after the final black out. It's a good little movie that will easily be dregged down with the early Oscar contenders coming out in the next few weeks.

*** of ****

Traitor

2008-09-04T01:03:00.003-04:00

"Traitor" is one of those good films that makes a quiet opening during an off-movie season (in this case, one of the last few days of August). And it performs decently at the box office, before disappearing out of the theaters and then popping up a few months later on DVD. It's a sad fact that films like "Traitor" appear as counter programming to garbage films that young audiences would eat up (in this case, "Babylon A.D." or "Disaster Movie,") but this is why film critics enjoy their jobs-because from time to time they will be saved from trash with something worthy like this one. I am assuming that "Traitor" is trying to go down a similar path as "The Constant Gardener," which managed to find an audience after being released on the final day of August three years ago. And based on its first weekend box office, it might not do as bad as I had assumed.

It could be the face of Don Cheadle, plastered on all of the posters and television spots, that could get people out. I don't exactly understand why Don Cheadle doesn't have a bigger career than he does. He's been nominated for an Oscar, people know his name, he headlines films all the time. He's one of those actors who goes off the radar for a bit, and than he'll be in a film and quietly blow me away (like in last summer's "Talk to Me," which deserved an acting nomination for him.) Here he plays Samir Horn, who is blamed for a few explosions and bombings in Yemen by Roy Clayton (Guy Pearce) and his partner Max Archer. I will warn readers from here on there are a few minor spoilers for the film, but only revelations within the first forty five minutes of the movie. I went into the film quite blindly, so everything was really a surprise for me. Samir ends up escaping from Clayton's custody, and runs off with Omar. Clayton discovers that Samir was once involved with the FBI. Samir and Omar then join a group of terrorists, using Samir's explosives expertise as a way to get them to bomb embassies in London. A cat and mouse chase ensures between Clayton and Samir, leading up to a massive terrorist attack where Samir and company plan on blowing up thirty buses in various locations around the world all at the same time. But there is also a slim chance that Samir might be actually working with the FBI, under Carter (Jeff Daniels, in a cameo appearance despite heavily appearing on all the advertisements), the only person that knows his true identity.

These cat and mouse films have been made several times in the past (I think I am mostly reminded of "Catch a Fire" as the most recent entry in this type of film), but its the execution of "Traitor" that really elevates the material from typical standard political thriller. The film flows along at such a natural pace that at times its almost as if there wasn't even a script. Cheadle plays most of the emotion through his face, which in certain scenes seem to contain all of the pain and sadness that Samir is clearly going through-having to leave his girlfriend, job, and identity behind as he emerges deep undercover. And even if he isn't undercover there is still a kind of pain in him and he struggles with what he is doing. When he blows up the London embassy he hears on the news that eight people were killed. "8?!" he cries out. When asked why he's upset, he stumbles out "I would have thought it would be more." Scenes with no dialogue are carried by Cheadles ability to contort his face to always have the audience see the layers behind Samir. Side work by Jeff Daniels and Guy Pearce is both good. I wish Daniels would have had more screen time, as his performance contained some layers to his character that weren't quite there. Perhaps there was something cut out of the final film-some more backstory between his relationship with Samir-that we won't be able to see. It really is just more backup to the fact that Jeff Daniels is a fine actor, even in small plot moving characters such as Carter. I really don't have much to say about Guy Pearce. He isn't one of my favorite actors around, but when he does a movie I have no objection to him normally.

The whole movie really does work together in terms of suspense. From the opening explosion, across the world as we follow Samir, Cheadle's performance works with the technical work around it. The intense score really does fit well. The shots are short, but never headache inducing-all of the action portions are edited to where we can actually see what is going on. And the script (which is based on a story that was presented by Steve Martin, which made me leave the theatre in shock), is smart enough to leave plenty of suspense even after twists are called out. I never actually felt like I was one step ahead of Samir or Clayton, and when the final twist presents itself I actually laughed out loud by how clever I found it. And the ending scene does not get as preachy as it could have, giving Cheadle the final line that could have been a long winded speech had this been a different type of movie. "Traitor" is a damn good suspense film, centered by a fine performance by Don Cheadle, who can take as long a break as he wants in between projects, as long as he keeps delivering the goods.

*** of ****

Hamlet 2

2008-09-01T00:16:00.004-04:00

When I first read an article about "Hamlet 2" back in January when it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival I was instantly attracted to its title. A musical sequel to Hamlet? What fun! And then I read that Steve Coogan was the star, a British actor that I have enjoyed for a few years ever since I saw his short with Alfred Molina in "Coffee and Cigarettes." Both of these forces merged to form some kind of anticipation from me. Sadly "Hamlet 2" was not the comedy masterpiece that I had hoped for, but it is certainly an entertaining film, and a nice ending for the summer movie season. It also completes the quartet of R-rated comedies of "Step Brothers," "Pineapple Express," and "Tropic Thunder." I'm a bit pleased with Focus Features for giving it a moderately wide release (and failing, sadly), as it might give Coogan some kind of notice in America along with his memorably explosive appearance in "Tropic Thunder."

Coogan plays Dana Marschz, a failed actor who worked in commercials for awful products ("I'm having a herpes outbreak. Right now. . .but you'd never know it. Thanks Herpicol!") After not getting work for a while he became a high school drama teacher is Tucson, Arizona, where dreams go to die. The drama elective isn't very popular, and every year Dana takes a popular movie and writes parts for his two "suck ups" Rand (whose sexuality is often called into question) and Epiphany. Every year the play is panned in the school paper by Noah Sapperstein, whose small size isn't a problem with Dana goes to him for advice. This year Dana learns two things. One, that many of the other electives have been cancelled, causing two dozen minorities to be forced to take drama. And two, that this is the final year of drama, as budget cuts are causing it to be cancelled. Noah tells the desperate Dana to put on the best play he possibly could, and Dana finished with Hamlet 2, a musical sequel to the Shakespeare play which is really a metaphor for his relationship with his father. Everyone basically agrees it is a terrible idea, especially since nearly every single major characters dies at the end of the original play.

In the play, Hamlet has a time machine which he uses, along with the help of Jesus Christ, to go back in time and save those he loves. But its the un-PC content within the story that end up causing the problems, and not the fact that Dana is touching what is considered to be the greatest play ever written. Its the fact that Jesus is considered to be a stud muffin who turns on all the girls (leading into the plays musical number "Rock Me Sexy, Jesus"). It's the fact that Satan is French kissing the President. And its the opening scene, where Hamlet, Jesus, and Hilary Clinton all come out of the time machine having some kind of a three way. This leads to the interference of Cricket Feldstein (Amy Poehler), who is hired to ensure that Hamlet 2 ends up getting performed, as the entire town is suddenly in an uproar over its content.

Steve Coogan is very funny as Dana, and he goes appropriately over the top in the role. His facial expressions and his excitement about acting and Hollywood that are impossible not to laugh at. Especially when he encounters Elisabeth Shue, who has quit acting and decided to take up nursing. And it also happens to be that Elisabeth Shue is Dana's favorite actress of all time. But it is clear that Coogan put an extreme amount of energy into the part, and it really does show. He carries the film for its first two thirds, and than the final act (which is pretty much the play itself) is quite funny unto itself strictly through concept.

The first hour is loaded with flaws, many of which I was able to see past simply because the film was extremely entertaining. One of these is the mention of Dana's home life, and his marriage to Brie (Catherine Kenner) and them having a roommate, Gary (David Arquette.) Kenner is her usual caustic and witty self, but her character is somewhat not needed, sans for the scene where she leaves Dana-the films only foray into seriousness. It is this serious scene that ends up making the performance of Hamlet 2 more than a completely random and insane segment, and we can understand how troubled Dana was in the past. Arquette is completely useless, and he is actually given a role where he really doesn't need to do much other than just stand there in the corner and be silent. I did like the nabs the film made towards the inspirational teacher genre, which Dana is always trying to be, citing films like "Dead Poets Society" or "Mr. Holland's Opus." And how the tough kid in the class (Octavio, who for most of the film Dana thinks is named Heywood Kablowme) comes from a very intelligent family and has gained early acceptance to Brown. It's small moments of brilliance mildly scattered about the first hour that held the film together along with Coogan's performance. Not all the jokes here are winners, and at times it gets a bit to slapsticky for the material, but it does hold attention.

Also to note, the film does not only get better written as it moves along, with after the first fifty minutes it feels like its in the hands of a different director. In the first half we get quite a bit of short shots, framed with a single persons head in the shot, very much like a sitcom. It isn't until the play gets put into motion does director Andrew Fleming play around with tracking shots (for which there are quite a few during a choral version of "Maniac") and more trickier images. It just becomes a much better film as it moves along, although I wish the final scene had a more stronger punch (despite ending in the most sensible way I can imagine). But all in all, despite many imperfections "Hamlet 2" is an entertaining comedy, and hopefully will be a vehicle for Coogan to get more notice in the U.S.

*** of ****

Momma's Man

2008-08-26T17:31:00.003-04:00

"Momma's Man" is a realist "slice of life" film that I could not seem to care about or even want to. Celebrated for its very realistic portrait of family life, I found it overlong, underwritten, and it moves at a plodding and maddeningly slow pace. It features a lead performance by Matt Boren, who is on the screen for ninety five percent of the five, often times not even speaking a word. But if his Mikey was an interesting character, or had a look on his face aside from the rather clueless and lazy one that he has for the entire movie, I might have been able to find something interesting in the work.

"Momma's Man" is the new film by Azazel Jacobs, who has two films prior to this one but is new to me. Jacobs casts his own two parents Ken and Flo Jacobs as the parents in the movie, which some will say is a bold and interesting move. I just have the feeling that he did it so that many will claim it was a bold and interesting move, in the similar way many celebrated Andrew Wagner for casting his own family in the rather awful "The Talent Given Us." In both cases we do a realistic feel, but are forced to watch some terrible acting and awkwardness from two sets of non-actors who act as if the camera is right in front of them.

The film has a very loose plot, where Mikey is visiting his parents (unnamed aside from Dad and Mom in the credits) while in town for work. When he has problems with his plane he decides to stay for an extra night, but then he just decides not to leave. He goes to visit a friend of his from his childhood. He sets up a meeting with an ex-girlfriend who he wrote a song about when she sent him a hate letter. (where "Fuck You" is said a lot). He goes through boxes from high school and finds notebooks filled with poems that he once wrote. He calls up his wife, Laura, who is at home with their little daughter. As the weeks pass she gets more and more worried, wondering if her husband is ever going to come home. And his parents get worried to, trying to figure out what is wrong with Mikey and if he is ever going to leave.

There really is not much going on in "Momma's Man" despite Jacobs trying to tell us there is. Mikey is simply not an interesting character, and I felt no intensity at all about if he was going to leave or not. I was reminded of another realist film of this summer "Take Out," which came out in June. That film spent nearly an hour having our Chinese delivery man lead character going from deliver to delivery collecting money so that he could pay his smuggling debt. That film barely had a script, but it was the intensity of the situation, and the constantly engaging lead performance that made it realistic and made it interesting. Matt Boren's dull interpretation of Mikey is frustrating, and not in the way that Jacobs would want it to be. His parents are not actors, which was probably the point, but after a while Flo Jacobs constantly asking Mikey if he wanted food or tea was just grating and the result of a poorly conceived script. After a while the script focuses on Laura at home, getting help from a neighbor. Instead of having those scenes feel intense by having us want Mikey to go back home before his wife leaves him, it just feels like filler, to spread out this plotless film to some kind of feature length (and at only ninety minutes this film feels much much longer.)

Perhaps I am in the minority here (and based on other reviews I've read for this film I feel like I am), but "Momma's Man" is a grating and terribly paced "slice of life" movie. It fails on all accounts, and while some have been moved by the material here, I just found it irritating and painfully slow. For a similar "portrait" feel, I still have to recommend "Take Out," which was also underwritten, but had enough talent involved inside the direction and acting (and its barely acting in that case) to make up for the lack of script. "Momma's Man" is just a slow and bothersome piece of work.

*1/2 of ****

Henry Poole Is Here

2008-08-20T22:31:00.001-04:00

In order to get something out of "Henry Poole Is Here," one would be forced to have a certain suspension of belief. After all, this is a film all about the power to belief-to belief in faith, miracles, and even God. Unlike other "faith" based films-such as last year's awful "The Ultimate Gift"-"Henry Poole Is Here" does not try to jam down a message of God down the audiences throat, which makes it possible for people of all different beliefs to be touched by it. That choice by the screenwriter, as well as the very humanistic performances by the entire cast, made this film extremely touching, and a very rewarding experience for me.

The first time we meet Henry Poole (Luke Wilson) he is clearly in bad shape. Unshaven and sporting worn out and untucked button down shirts, Henry buys a rather beat up house in the neighborhood he grew up in, and decides to spend his days wallowing and drinking bottle after bottle of vodka. Henry was recently informed by his doctor that he has a terminal illness, and all he wants is to be left alone. However, he is instantly bothered by his neighbor Esperanza (Adriana Barraza), who believes that the face of God is on Henry's wall. Henry just thinks that it is a watermark left over by a bad stucco job. However Esperanza spreads the news and soon enough there is a line of people gathered outside of Henry's house trying to get a look at the face of Christ. Meanwhile, Henry gets involved with Dawn (Radha Mitchell), the single mother next door whose daughter Millie is mostly silent. Its with Dawn's help that Henry is able to believe in life again.

RIght off the bat, Luke Wilson is excellent here. After a large bunch of silly and lazy roles like in "My Super Ex-Girlfriend," "Mini's First Time," and "You Kill Me," he is finally given a real depth filled character to sink his teeth into. Clearly depressed, Wilson is able to do quite a bit with his appearance, and his eyes are so filled with hurt, pain, and fear throughout. He is aided by Adriana Barraza, who is given a nice balance of emotion and comedy much different from her riveting role in "Babel." Radha Mitchell's performance as Dawn was also quite satisfying, despite the fact that her love story subject with Henry was an easy route for the screenplay to go.

I am also somewhat crazy about several of director Mark Pellington's choices behind the camera, especially in the films first half. Pellington does something with sound and atmosphere in these opening scenes that I have a hard time explaining. I felt the same way about moments in Ridley Scott's masterpiece "Matchstick Men," where there is some trance like moments involving background sounds-such as a train whistle, or a wind chime. They really come together to form a look into Henry's very damaged and angry mind. The music score by John Frizzell is quite wonderful to, with a very nice mixture of quirky and beautiful, reminding me a little bit of something Thomas Newman would do.

However some choices in the second half of the film I must admit I was not crazy about. I suppose it was the love story between Henry and Dawn which, while sweet, just seemed a bit obvious and not the way I wanted the story to go. It leads to a somewhat over long movie, where Pellington has several music video type montages with Henry running, or Henry watching the sunset, or Henry playing with Millie, which padded the running time. However Wilson is able to stand firm and in character, and all of the actors really continued to bring me back to reality.

As I said, it is important to suspend belief in the movie, which ends up being quite easy as all these actors make it very easy to believe what is happening here. The screenplay really handles belief and faith in a very gentle way, never having the viewer feel superior to those that fall for the face in Henry's wall. And I found it very clever having the image on the wall seem stronger and stronger as the film moved forward-during its first appearance it barely resembles a face compared to what it looks like in the films climatic moments. This a film that does have the power to move, and I think it can move even the strictest atheist. Simply because it does not focus on a belief in God, but just a belief in life and love, and in not giving up whenever things seem rough. It's quite uplifting in a month of somewhat cynical and mean spirited films.

*** of ****

Bottle Shock

2008-08-09T01:56:00.006-04:00

"Bottle Shock" is the new film by Randall Miller, a director whose work I've admired over the last two years. With three films under his belt, I first noticed him in 2006 with "Marilyn Hotchkiss' Ballroom Dancing and Charm School," a sometimes overly sapping romantic comedy, but one directed quite well and with some beautifully dark cinematography. The same went for his second film "Nobel Son," which I saw at the Tribeca Film Festival last year and is being released in October. Done with a very different tone and feel from his first film, it was still quite noticeable what talent that Miller had. Shot around the same time as "Nobel Son" and gathering quite a number of actors from that film, Miller made "Bottle Shock," a unsurprisingly entertaining historical piece with Alan Rickman giving a terrific lead performance as wine snob Steven Spurrier, who in 1976 shattered the myth that the French have the most superior wine in all the world. Not since the 2004 masterpiece "Sideways" have I seen such an wonderful film about wine. While "Bottle Shock" may not be as perfect as "Sideways," it certainly does have more information about the craze of wine, and the passion behind blind wine tastings.

In '76 Spurrier was living in France, owning his own little empty wine shop, trading snobbish stories with his American friend Maurice (Dennis Farina). Steven decides to go to California to find some competition in a contest where he collides French wine and American. His visit to California has him getting involved with a various group of people. At the head is Jim Barrett (Bill Pullman), whose opinions on the snobby Steven are instantly formed when he helps him change a flat tire. Jim quit his job a while back to open the winery, and he tries to perfect his white wine. However he doesn't get much help from his somewhat slacker son Bo Barrett, who is consistently late and comes to work drunk or on the cusp of a one night stand. There is also Gustavo, a Mexican worker who is secretly creating his own brand of wine on the side. And lastly is the new intern Sam whose good looks cause a jealous strife between the two male friends. And alongside all of this is Steven, collecting wine from the various villages to bring back to France to destroy this myth once and for all.

As with all 'based on a true story' films, there is probably much fiction actually being conveyed to us. The primary one would be the love triangle between Bo, Gustavo, and Sam, which was an added subplot that I had the most problems with. It burdens the film down with this slow and contrived love story, which does not even offer a tied up conclusion with the man that she does not end up with. It was a love triangle created simply for dramatic purposes, and it weighs the movie down. The film really succeeds mostly when Alan Rickman is on the screen, and as Steve Spurrier he commands the audience to watch him. Rickman is terrific at delivering long and drooling speeches, and he does it here in both English and French. And him and Bill Pullman, who have an odd buddy relationship here, play off well and have great chemistry together. Pullman's performance does deserve more script than he gets, and he should have gotten a more solid arc and some back story. I would have liked to see more with these two characters instead of the convenient love story that we are stuck with, and more screenplay could have been written to give us back stories involving the Pullman and Rickman characters, who are the ones that are the most palatable to spend time with.

Despite that bit that bogs the movie down, "Bottle Shock" is a crowd pleaser tried and true. It may be obvious how the film will end once the main characters present themselves, but its the journey that makes it worthwhile. It's the intensity of making it to that final revelation-during the wine tasting contest itself-that makes Miller such an enjoyable storyteller. And his direction is really quite unique, offering us some rather contrived story lines and genres, but never giving us any conventional camera angles or directorial approaches. Take a shot of Rickman driving-instead of giving us a typical close up of him driving, we get a rather obscure camera angle, as if you camera was by the break pedal. Or a shot of him trying to change a tire is giving more energy by making it a high angle, giving us a beautiful view of the blue sky and green trees of California.

Miller really has a knack for the moving image, and I really do get quite enjoyment out of his movies. They are never perfect, and at times feel bogged down by contrived plots, but at the same time there is an undeniable charm about them. Perhaps its their look, or their performances, or just characters that are such a perfect blend of the real and the fantastic, that make me want to see what Miller will direct next. "Bottle Shock" is not a perfect film, not at all, but its warm and even oddly magical. By its end it gave me good vibes. To compare it to another wine film, "Sideways," I will admit it does not come close to even touching the masterful film making of that film, but its a nice smaller companion piece to the love people have of wine and how life consuming the cultivation of the grape could be to some folks. And if Randall Miller could make a film that I am able to compare to another which had a strong impact on me, he's on the right track.

*** of ****

Films to Looks for in NYC

2008-07-31T13:51:00.004-04:00

A few films I've seen already to note have been released in New York City that I'd like to bring attention to.

The first is the Duplass Brothers excellent "Baghead," which I saw at the Tribeca Film Festival a few months ago. Billed as a horror comedy, this is more of a relationship comedy, and is more proof that the Duplass Brothers (and actress Greta Gerwig) are the only two worthy things in this so called "mumblecore" film making movement-but then again, I don't really count the Duplass' as mumblecore film makers.

Here's the review for the film.

-----

Also out is the entertaining documentary "Man on Wire," about Phillipe Petite, who decided to string a wire between the two towers of the World Trade Center and balance on them. Here is what I wrote on it after seeing it at Sundance at BAM last May.

""Man on Wire" is a consistently entertaining and even fascinating documentary which won a few prizes at the Sundance Festival earlier in the year. It's one of those stories that comes along every once in a while that really does just show that the best stories cannot be made up. And much like the main subject of "Grizzly Man," or "Deep Water," "Man on Wire" has such a fascinating main character-in this case we follow Philippe Petit, a tightrope walker who, in the 70's, attached a wire across the two World Trade Center towers and walked back and forth a few times, eventually getting arrested. Doing a mix of interviews with the actually people involved in the incident, and a reenactment, Marsh crafts a very entertaining and thoughtful story, which is even also quite intense. Although I will admit that I would have liked some more after the incident-it even hints at how Petit changed after the event and after he started getting famous, but it doesn't explore that. And I would have been curious how Petit would have felt after 9/11 occurred, with the towers being a different kind of symbol than it was for others."

-----------------------

Lastly being released on Friday is "Frozen River," the next one in the endless list of films about illegal immigrant smuggling that I've seen in the last few months. Headed by a terrific performance by Melissa Leo, "Frozen River" is a tense and powerful drama, about a woman who resorts to nearly anything to provide for her family. I don't have any material written on "Frozen River" to direct you to, but I can recommend it.

----------------

Also been released in New York is the awful "American Teen," which I was surprised at the somewhat low box office take for its first release-I was certain it would have been a big hit that I would have declared overrated for years to come. But several other critics were able to see past this cliche ridden documentary that had many obviously staged moments and situations. Here's what I wrote about it when I saw it in May.

Pineapple Express

2008-07-27T23:15:00.005-04:00

Earlier this year I saw a film named "Snow Angels," which I found hauntingly perfect in every way. At the moment its one of the best movies of the year, and will certainly remain on my list when 2009 rolls along. The film was directed by David Gordon Green, whose filmography contains a number of independent, low-budget dramas, so it would seem a bit of an odd choice for him to direct "Pineapple Express"- a big budget, action comedy in the vein of the R-rated comedies of the decade like "Superbad" and "The 40-Year Old Virgin." So with that in mind, this is a bit of a different genre for him, but at the same time its also something a little different for Seth Rogen, whose venturing into a major genre cross. But the final result ends up being something quite hysterical and simply a grand time out.

Rogen plays Dale Denton, a process server who in his spare time smokes massive amount of pot. Not really doing much with his life in terms of taking care of himself, Dale even dates a high school senior and is jealous of the jocks who seem to hit on her on a daily basis. His dealer Saul Silver (James Franco, once again playing a character I've never seen him do) gives him a bit of a weed called 'pineapple express,' the grandfather of marijuana. All is good and fine, but when Dale spots the local drug dealing godfather and a police officer shooting his Asian rival, Dale and Saul are suddenly being hunted by some bad people. Along the way they are aided by Saul's middle man Red (Danny McBride, who was given such a boost from these guys after they loved "The Foot Fist Way"), who sometimes works for them and sometimes against, depending on whose pointing the gun.

"Pineapple Express" is a very different vehicle for Rogen, Apatow, and the gang, just in terms of the genre crossing. We know that Seth Rogen writes some great comedy, but is it possible that there could be some great and funny action in here as well? Its proven quite early on with an extended car chase, and sealed even later during a huge set piece in a shipping barn. Rogen and Franco have great chemistry as well, giving us a very strong buddy element as well. Rogen does his thing well, but its Franco whose the real revelation here. After playing a rather stale straight man in the "Spider-Man" films, Saul is a role that Franco could really sink his teeth into, and its clear that he is having a fun time playing him. With his long hair, his 70's drug dealing clothes, and his yellow head band (which I learned was added to the wardrobe after James Franco cut his head during a stunt scene), its even funny to just look at him. Danny McBride is really just doing a rehash of his somewhat irritably likable character in 'The Foot Fist Way," and is good at providing a balance between the two so that he isn't intolerable. And the last performer to note is Craig Robinson, of "The Office" fame, who provides very strong laughs as one of the men after the two, certainly stealing that subplot of the film.

The film is absurd and ridiculous, but that really ends up being its charm. Built under the concept of "what if the lead characters in these action films where just high the entire time?" its quite obvious that at its core this is just a satire of action films. While not as smart as the similarly executed "Hot Fuzz," there are some very memorable characters, jokes, and action sequences here. I was actually quite surprised at the amount of violence here, and they cross the line several times (for example, when one of the characters shoots the foot off of a character already dead.) However the finale, however over the top and insane, is really constantly entertaining and enjoyable. There is a rather nice buddy relationship between the two main characters, but a very strong difference between this and "40-Year Old Virgin," "Superbad," or "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," is the lack of the unexpected depth and heart out of the characters. This isn't a negative thing, but this is the first time an Apatow produced comedy goes over the top and actually is successful doing it, unlike the awful "Drillbit Taylor" or "You Don't Mess with the Zohan." As expected, there is a fair share of improv here, mostly the final scene which has Saul, Dale, and Red sitting in a diner discussing their adventures. At nearly three minutes in length they do a quick recap of nearly the entire movie, done in a way that doesn't feel like a waste of time, but like comedic genius.

Not all of the comedy works of course. The opening scene, set in the 1930's, shows experimentation with various forms of weed. The scene is shot in black and white and given a B-movie feel (the Columbia Pictures logo is even in black and white), but the scene really serves no other purpose than to give Bill Hader something to do in the film. It wasn't a very good opener, and didn't set the bar very high for the rest of the movie. Another scene that doesn't really seem to work is a very long fight scene in Red's apartment between the three leads, which eventually overstays its welcome and isn't a very good introduction to the Red character. It's small quips here and there that can't make "Pineapple Express" perfect, but in the stoner genre, many people will be massively content with the finished product.

And lastly, how is David Gordon Green's direction? Tackling such a different genre and jumping into the mainstream at the same time is a bold move, but Green segways very well. It's somewhat hard to believe that the director of his film could have once directed such a powerful and realistic drama like "George Washington," but it even has his same style and feel. This isn't nearly the masterpiece that "Snow Angels" was (however much I'm in the minority of that), but it proves that he does have range and can jump into this strong comedy and be successful.

"Pineapple Express" opens August 6th everywhere.

***1/2 of ****

The Dark Knight

2008-07-20T23:47:00.005-04:00

I really did not have many expectations for "The Dark Knight," despite finding the trailer somewhat good. I honestly was not a fan of "Batman Begins," even though there was so much love and affection for it, with critics and Batman fans alike both proclaiming it the Batman movie to end all Batman movies. Rewatching it in preparation for "The Dark Knight" still had me wondering what the big deal was. After seeing this sequel, I have put more faith in Christopher Nolan's "Batman" vision, and he somehow magically fixed all of the problems that I had with his first film. "The Dark Knight" is an excellent super-hero movie, which works beyond the realm of the super-hero genre and into the realm of a great crime film. There are not many large set pieces in this film, and Batman only appears for a small handful of time, but its the drama that elevates this film-much like the drama elevated "Spider-Man 2," only this is bigger and better and almost flawless in execution.

The film starts off right where 'Begins" left, only Batman isn't leaving the type of impact that he expected. People are still somewhat doubting him in Gotham, and he has brought out a bunch of copycat vigilantes-the difference being that they kill the bad guys, breaking Batman's primal rule. Our bad guy here is The Joker, played by the late Heath Ledger, who approaches mob bosses telling them that he'll kill the Batman if they give him half of their money. The mob men have become scared of the Batman, meeting in daylight to avoid coming into contact with him. Meanwhile Bruce Wayne/Batman begins to see hope in retiring in the form of Harvey Dent, the Distract Attorney of Gotham (played by Aaron Eckhart) who is known as the White Knight of Gotham. Dent has an agenda to destroy the crime spree and save Gotham, but he also happens to be dating Rachel Dawes, Bruce's childhood love (this time around played by Maggie Gyllenhaal, taking over for Katie Holmes who had to decline this because she wanted to film "Mad Money.")

There are several plot twists here and there, the biggest one really being the fate of Harvey Dent (but those that know even a small bit about the Batman story will know that Dent ends up becoming Two-Face.) As mentioned, all of my problems with "Batman Begins" were remedied here. To begin with, Nolan was able to find a better actress than Katie Holmes to play the love interest. While I'm still not on the edge of my seat with them getting together (as I was with the love story in "Spider-Man") Gyllenhaal is much more competent of an actress than Holmes (although I'm still not her biggest fan either.) The Joker (and even Two-Face) are far more interesting bad guys than The Scarecrow ever will be. And the action sequences here actually were visible. One of my biggest qualms with "Batman Begins" was that I couldn't see anything-Nolan had an edit nearly every second during them, and the picture was so black it was nearly impossible to make anything out. Here Nolan allows the camera to stick around for a bit, and also gives us enough light to really make out what is happening. Darkness is used at really pivotal times, such as to cover up the deformed side of Two-Face, or to really show The Joker at his most fiendish (although he does stick out like a sore thumb with that white make-up.) And the action set pieces (few and somewhat far between) are really a wonder to behold, especially a car chase scene which uses very little CGI.

Nearly all the lead acting is perfection. Bale makes a terrific Bruce Wayne, although sometimes the booming Batman voice seems a bit forced through. Ledger (whose been getting Oscar buzz since his death in January) is gleefully insane, and an extremely memorable villain-giving us a nice balance of dark comedy and insane madness. He doesn't steal the show, as there is good work by everybody involved. Eckhart is tragically powerful during the emotional parts of Dent's story. And the rest of the high profile cast-Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman-all get their moment to shine. When "Batman Begins" was released, Christian Bale really wasn't much of an A-Lister, so they surrounded him with vet actors. This is fine, but their work in "Batman Begins" really did seem like it was just there to give the film a boost. But all of them get their little moment here, especially Oldman, whose Gordon really gets a few applause worthy moments. The film is packed with events and characters, but it never seems overloaded with them, which was the case with the flawed, but entertaining, "Spider-Man 3."

What does end up change "The Dark Knight" from any other super-hero film was its realism. It doesn't go the over the top route as the other Batman films (which isn't a negative, this is just a different approach). It is dark and dramatic-the Joker's origins aren't explained by some kind of toxic accident like we were told in the other Batman film. Instead we are left to always wonder what made The Joker who he is-and his origin story about his scars which he says from time to time is always different. Ledger is actually doing a sick criminal, whose theories about chaos are grimly fascinating. It makes me mad when I read reviews that suddenly compare Ledger's performance to Jack Nicolson's by badmouthing the Nicolson one. They are two completely different approaches to the story-even Nolan's vision of the film is different from the Burton one. There is no need to suddenly act negative towards those early two films, which just looks at the Batman action in a different way-which is through extreme camp instead of it being an intense crime drama. This is not the smooth Point A to Point B type of super-hero tale that we've seen before-there is true and genuine chaos here, and there are moments where I really did not know what would be the fate of these characters, all the way to the very end which takes a very impressive and dark turn.

So its with extreme happiness that I am able to be so happy about "The Dark Knight" because of my reluctance with Nolan's first film. It is epic in the highest sense of the word, so vast in scope, character, and drama. Nolan seemed to know what he did wrong and fixes everything to the utmost amount of perfection. And the ending, which does set us up for a third film and I hope that we are treated to it if he can possible pick up from the brilliant (and downbeat) final five minutes that we are treated to here. I got chills as I watched each of these main character walk out of the film. "The Dark Knight" is the best film made about a super-hero that I've seen, which uses the crime drama genre to elevate the material away from any formula or paint by numbers plot revelations. This is a great step up for Nolan, and its one of the best movies I've seen this year.

Final Rating-

**** of ****

Portions of this review can be found at this address.

This review can also be found here.

The Stone Angel

2008-07-16T14:19:00.004-04:00

The titular angel in Kari Skogland's "The Stone Angel" refers to two things: one is an actual stone angel used atop the family plot of the Currie family, and the second is Hagar Currie herself, one of the strongest female protagonists in quite some time-played with fierce brilliance by both Ellen Burstyn in her golden years, and newcomer Christine Horne in her early ones. An occasionally over-heavy, yet well acted, drama, "The Stone Angel" premiered at the Toronto Film Festival last September-and while at the festival I heard absolutely nothing negative or positive about it, which was surprising considering how fast word travels there. I had honestly forgotten that it even existed until the trailer revealed that it was a part of the festival's selection. I give credit to its release to Ellen Page, whose "Juno" success suddenly caused every one of her already existing pre-"Juno" indie films to be released, however awful (such as "The Tracey Fragments.") It's probably irony that Page isn't in this film very much, appearing in a few scenes towards the end, despite getting second billing in the trailer and quite a bit of space on the films poster.

Starting in the present, we meet Hagar Currie on her way to tour an assisted living facility with her son Marvin (Dylan Baker) and his wife Doris. From her very first line ("I have to go to the bathroom!") one can tell the fierce independence that she has, just in Burstyn's delivery. It's revealed in these early scenes that she is somewhat unstable, suffers fainting spells, and is often forgetful, but she resists going to the home. Through flashbacks a la last year's "Evening" (a film that I can easily compare this one too), we get a sense of who she was and is, showing us her separation from her father when she decides to marry Bram Shipley (Cole Hauser). Her father would rather her continue the family business of running a store. We see her relationships with her two sons-Marvin and John-and as she gets on in the years we see her make many mistakes, not even getting it fully right when she is close to death, making her more human than any movie character you'll see all year.

Burstyn is extremely good in this film, and this is her most mature role in a while (fresh off of "The Wicker Man" from two years ago). But the real soul of the film comes from young Christine Horne, who plays the young Hagar, does not only resemble and act like Burstyn would, but also acts with such experience that its hard to believe this was her first major role. A supporting role by character actor Dylan Baker is also very welcome-Baker is one those actors who appears in and out of many movies and whose name never sticks, but in one week he showed much range for me, making me laugh hard in 'Diminished Capacity" and almost breaking my heart here. And Ellen Page, however brief her performance, is good in the last performance from her pre-"Juno" burst of fame. Playing at interesting parellel to the Hagar character, Page's Arlene is a chance for Hagar to stop someone else from making the same mistakes that she did. Page does a good job at resisting Hagar's advice, just as Hagar did when everyone tried to advise her. Comparing this more human performance to "Juno," or even the film she made after that "Smart People," I personally think that "Juno" might have been the worst thing for her in terms of future typecast. Similar to Jon Heder never breaking the "Napolean Dynamite" image.

It really ends up being the acting that makes "The Stone Angel" easy to recommend. At times the screenplay does get a bit convoluted in terms of drama-eventually so much stuff happens to these characters that it got tedious and even a bit unbelievable, but thankfully the performances played it well enough where it did not become overbearing. And the only example I can possibly think of, a moment of real true beauty here, comes towards the end of the film. Hagar (in this case played by Burstyn) goes to see Bram after many many years of separation. We see what he has become-a sad and lonely drunk who needs whiskey instead of medicine-and the two of them share a look. A simple glance, that is acted so well where we can see their histories and their love and her ability to never give up on him, that almost brought a tear in my eye. Sadly the whole film couldn't deliver that kind of simple beauty, but its the moments like those, played so effortlessly by masters young and old, that made "The Stone Angel" worthwhile.

Final Rating:
*** of ****

This review can also be found here.

Kabluey

2008-07-07T02:19:00.002-04:00

Scott Prendergast's "Kabluey" is one of those little movies that warm the heart when they get a theatrical release, and when that theatrical release actually gets some revenue, however moderate. It's also the first bone budget indie film I've seen in a while that thankfully doesn't involve some kind of coming of age road trip-which is somewhat ironic as the center piece of the film involves a road. "Kabluey" is a short, sweet, and ultimately quite hilarious little movie, which is smart enough to avoid a political message that would weigh haved weighed it down even though the device that sets in motion the entire plot.

Lisa Kudrow stars as Leslie Miniver (perhaps a sly reference to the war torn family in "Mrs. Miniver," but that could be reading into it more than it should be), whose husband Noah (never seen except in pictures where he constantly has this snarl on his face) has been sent to Iraq for his tour of duty. Left at home with her two screaming and misbehaved children Cameron and Lincoln, Leslie is in desperate need to help. Her mother in law than comes up with the idea of sending her son Salman (played by director/writer Prendergast) to babysit for a while. Salman is down on his luck in every way possible, to the point where he tries to sell his car for two hundred dollars just to try and get a few meals. He does come willingly, and after a few days of being tortured, is given a job at Leslie's company BluNexon. Hurt in a stock market crash, the company is in a large building with a lot of office space, and Salman's job is to stand on the side of a highway road passing out fliers to rent the office space. The only catch is that he has to wear a large blue suit-the emblem of the company that isn't really much of anything-just a large blue blob.

"Kabluey" is very thin on plot, which ends up being a positive more than a negative., despite getting minorly tedious towards the end. It's less of a plot than just a bunch of short sketches, tied together by a loose story. The furtherest it goes is giving Leslie an affair with her boss, which Salman tries to stop quickly to defend his brother. But Prendergast does have a gift for offbeat physical comedy. Researching him after seeing the film, I only recognized one title. A four minute short film that he did a few years ago called "Anna Is Being Stalked," which I remember seeing on the IFC Channel during a shorts presentation. That short you can find online through google, and I'm pleased that he was successful with his first feature. The blue suit, which could have been only used for comedy because of the way it looks, is made much funnier by what he does inside of the suit-which include having to stick his hand out of the rear to get food and drink inside as the suit doesn't have a place for his hands.

The material here is sometimes overly quirky, a problem that I have with several independent movies, and I'm sure some of the material must have looked odd on the page. But its the performers that really elevate the material quite a bit, giving it the humanity and the realism that this sometimes extreme quirk really needs. I was mainly impressed with Lisa Kudrow, and this is her best post-"Friends" work since "Happy Endings," (although she hasn't really been given many parts, unless you want to include "Marci X.") There is also fun supporting work by character actress Conchata Ferrell and Teri Garr. The latter does her second performance in under a month (the other being "Expired) and in both cases she is given a character that deserves more time because of how well Garr plays it. Here, Garr plays a woman who screams in anger and terror every time she sees Salman in the suit because she lost her life savings when the company crashed. Not much is really done with her character, and the screenplay wraps her character up after an encounter in a grocery store. The flawed screenplay does this several times-introducing some very good ideas and than dropping them in favor of a very brisk 80 minute running time. In one segment, Salman gets a job in the suit at a kid's birthday party, and eavesdrops on the other guest who just ignore his presence not deeming him a threat. And the viewer only gets a single joke out of that which doesn't even end up being as funny as it should have been.

Despite its flaws, "Kabluey" ends up being a very effective little comedy, which is blessed with several memorable performances. Even side characters are given enough to care about, and they deliver some truly hilarious moments. I wish some of the material could have been fleshed out a bit more, but for a feature debut Scott Presdergast really does offer up hope for a follow up.

*** of ****

Finding Amanda

2008-07-03T23:32:00.005-04:00

"Finding Amanda" is a dark comedy about gambling, drinking, strippers, hookers-you name it. Really bottom of the barrel stuff in terms of dark humor. And yet there wasn't a single moment throughout its rather smart screenplay-filled with some four letter words and few sexually explicit conversations-where I felt dirty watching it, or felt like it was dirty for the sake of being dirty, or it was trying to cross a line to be edgy. Everything really seemed in place and earned in a way, enough for the third act to be fittingly poignant and even somewhat sweet. Matthew Broderick is one of those actors-much like John Cusack-who the audience just has a tendency to want to root for him and want him to win. Take Cusack in "The Ice Harvest," a film where he lies and cheats and steals, and yet in the end he still looks like a good guy. The same goes for Broderick's Taylor Peters, a TV writer who is finally getting his recognition back on a somewhat low rated sitcom starring Ed Begley Jr. Taylor had a few rough years where he was addicted to drugs and booze, but is starting to get on his feet with the help of his wife Lorraine (played by Maurs Tierny.) However Taylor can't seem to stop gambling, and will easily throw a few thousand dollars at the track.

When his wife is ready to leave him because the gambling is getting out of hand, Taylor decides to try and show her that he can control it. And the perfect opportunity arrives when he learns that his twenty year old niece Amanda (played by Brittany Snow) is working as a hooker in Las Vegas. He vows to go to Vegas, find Amanda, bring her to a rehab center in Malibu, and not gamble a single cent while being there-a rule that he breaks almost the second he makes it to Vegas.

Broderick really does give a silently terrific performance here, really making us interested in this character from the first second he appears on screen. He turns this somewhat seedy and sick man into someone to care about, and I was absorbed in all of the aspects of his character-from all of the lies he tells all the way up to the somewhat poignant truths that he delivers in the films final scenes. Brittany Snow also does a good job as Amanda-a young girl filled with hope and love and really living a life that she doesn't deserve, and yet she and her uncle share so many of the same painful life choices, and both of them play this relationship aspect of the film so perfectly. Both also deliver some of the real crisp dialogue-written by director Peter Tolan-well, offering some real laugh out loud moments. Many of which also come from a casino worker played by Steve Coogan, one of those guys that tries to be everyones best friend when he really doesn't give a damn.

And than the ending, which really doesn't provide full closure for either Taylor or Amanda, really is quite fitting and effective. I don't want to ruin anything, but it really does provide a fitting conclusion to the relationship aspect of the film, which really ends up being the most important-how Taylor and Amanda end up helping each other find happiness and contentment-an irony considering how they both have made so many bad choices in their lives. This is a point driven home by a short monologue Broderick delivers towards the end.

Sadly "Finding Amanda" did not find any kind of real audience when it was released last week, and I saw it to late in its one week in theatres to really try and recommend it as much as possible. But that is why they invented DVD, and this one is coming out in the middle of September. It really is a well scripted and well acted dark comedy, delivering some moments of edgy humor, but never to a degree where it gets excessive or feels un-needed. In this world of somewhat seedy activities, the language really does fit. It's a good film, and one of the more refreshing offerings of the year so far.

Final Rating:

*** of ****

Celine and Julie Go Boating

2008-06-23T02:26:00.002-04:00

Its been almost two weeks ago since I went to a screening of "Celine and Julie Go Boating," and I wish I did a write up on it while it was still playing at BAM. It was only recently that I read up on the film and learned that it is not out on any DVD format for people to see, and the theatre screening was actually somewhat rare. In any case, it did take me some time to really process this somewhat massive film-a real life fantasy story of almost the most innocent kind, which also happens to be a bit over three hours long, something which I found interesting with a film like this. It's an epic in the smallest sense, almost, and I wish I would have the chance to see it again quickly, to somehow process it all again. I think I like the film the more I think about it.

In a nutshell, the film revolves around the meeting between Celine and Julie. The two somehow stick when Julie (reading a book on magic in a park) begins to follow Celine (a magician) after she drops a scarf while running down the road (this being a scene taken from the first scene of "Alice in Wonderland" which this film is loosely based on.) Eventually the two of them become somewhat inseparable, and eventually begin to retreat into a fantasy world where they watch a melodramatic murder mystery unfold-with the aid of hard candies that the would get from a rather mysterious house. Eventually the two of them feel the need to interfere with the story to save a little girl from getting killed.

At such a massive length, one would suspect they would get bored of the movie, especially with a somewhat simple plot such as is. But you would be surprised how involved and how easily you fall into the "antics" of these two women-played by Juliet Berto (Celine) and Dominique Labourier (Julie), who depict such quirky and wonderful chemistry. The facial expressions and the banter between the two is adorable, while the laughing fits they burst into from time to time are contagious, especially in the final act when the two cannot control their happiness and delight at being placed into the story that they have been watching for many many nights. The fairy tale elements of the movie end up working mostly through their performances, and much like the ridiculous plot twists in 'Lady in the Water" end up working because you buy into them so easily thanks to the large talent revolving around the screenplay.

Practically every element of the film provides hopeful sentiment that make the movie such a joyous and quick experience-sans the murder subplot, which since its of a little girl probably isn't very joyous. What strikes as the most happy would probably be how Celine and Julie share the same type of imagination-and even though the fantasy world they concoct is only part of their own head, they manage to find a middle ground between their two imaginations so it is like they are the same person. It's like little children-how they play in worlds that somehow interact with one another, but slowly into adulthood that common imagined bond drifts away. And yet Celine and Julie manage to find that bond within one another-and once again due to the wonderful performances by the two actresses, it is easy to buy into that little kid notion. I wish I could see the film again and try to find more correlations between the real world and the fantasy world, to see if there are any clues within their surroundings that key into the major events of the fantasy, but alas I doubt I'll see the film for a while (unless Criterion manages to make some kind of edition, this seems right up their alley).

I return once again to the very first scene-where Julie chases Celine after witnessing her dropping a scarf. The film is bookended with this scene, only at the end its Celine who chases Julie after witnessing her dropping a book. A somewhat odd ending, considering it goes back to the beginning, and yet it fits perfectly. It's hopeful. It somewhat gives the viewer the feeling that the magic and innocent fantasy will continue over and over again, which is exactly the hopeful sentiment that leaves you smiling as the credits role, which is easy because the movie has so many moments of smiles that just come out of nowhere-from the little earned moments where the two girls share a furtive glance at one another, or are just so clearly happy to be in each others presence. It's chemistry rarely exhibited in many films anymore.

And as for the title-they do go boating. Yes. About 180 minutes into the movie. And why? No clue really. I guess because its in the title. And since they go boating with the little girl, wouldn't that mean that they didn't really go boating at all. Wouldn't that still be a part of the fantasy, which the little girl is? But for Celine and Julie, the fantasy is their reality.

**** of ****

When Did You Last See Your Father? and My Winnipeg in Theatres Now

2008-06-23T02:21:00.003-04:00

Two films that have been in release for a little bit now that I forgot to mention, both of them which I caught at the Toronto Film Festival last year.

The first is "When Did You Last See Your Father?", a sweet and effective father/son drama which may have its share of conventional storytelling, but it really ends up being a somewhat beautiful piece of work. Playing at the Angelika Film Center and the Lincoln Plaza Theatres (not for much longer due to poor box office), here is my review of the film from last September.

The second is "My Winnipeg," another eccentric and maddeningly brilliant autobiographical film by Guy Maddin. A darkly comical foray into his past, Guy Maddin yet again crafts a great little film, which some rather amazing edits-certainly one of his more funny works. Playing at the IFC Center, here is my review of the film from last September.

The Foot Fist Way, War, Inc,, Savage Grace, The Promotion, Take-Out, The Happening, Love Comes Lately, Quid Pro Quo, Encounters End of World

2008-06-22T02:06:00.010-04:00

A selection of films I've decided to do short writeups on-all of the films listed here can still be found in the New York City area as of the date of this publication, with the exception of "Quid Pro Quo."

The Foot Fist Way

Directed by Jody Hill

"The Foot Fist Way" is a massively independent comedy, loaded with dirty jokes and perhaps one of the most oddly unlikable characters we may ever come across. And after finding its way around the comedy circuit for the last two years or so, the familiar names of Will Ferrell and Adam McKay have finally helped bring it to theatres, in a very limited release but still a step up nonetheless. And it also has given Danny McBride a chance to work with all of them in other projects-and sure enough he has popped up in a few comedies of late including "Drillbit Taylor," "Hot Rod," and two others from this summer "Pineapple Express" and "Tropic Thunder." But what can be said about this one? Well, for one thing it is quite funny, although certainly not for everyones tastes. McBride plays Fred Simmons, a karate instructor who certainly believes that he is immortal among man. After Simmons wife Suzie ends up cheating on him with her boss, he ends up reevaluating himself. He also begins a quest to bring Chuck "The Truck" Wallace, an action movie star who he worships, to one of the demos at his dojo.

"The Foot Fist Way" is very loose on plot-shot with shaky handheld camera and probably with several non-professionals. What makes McBride successful as Fred is that he really does find a middle ground between being such an immoral jerk, and at the same time allowing us to sympathize with him. We can understand why his wife would sleep around him, but at the same time when she does it stings a bit. And aside from that, improved or not, some of the lines here are just hilarious. Between Fred's musings about life, to his massive ego, to the way he treats some of the kids in his class (including his young assistant Julio), just really worked with my funny bone. This is far from a perfect comedy (at only 85 minutes, it begin to wear thin and overstay its welcome towards the end), but with its low budget roots and the fact that it is actually funny makes me happy that it found a home, however underground and cultish that home would be. But thats the place for it, really.

*** of ****

At Village East Cinemas

--------------

War, Inc.

Directed by Joshua Seftel

Much like "The Foot Fist Way," "War, Inc." is getting some attention but this time from audiences. Released at the end of May in two theatres in the country, with the intention of being released on DVD at the very start of July, the DVD date has been moved to sometime in October to accommodate the somewhat massive audience for it, and now its being released in more theatres throughout the summer. I suppose that would make me a bit happier if the movie was better than it ended up being-and it certainly had the prospect and talent behind it to make it brilliant. But sadly it misses the mark just a few too many times. John Cusack (who also co-wrote the somewhat dismal screenplay) plays Brand Hauser, a hitman for the government who is assigned to kill the president of the fictional country of Turaqistan Omar Sheriff (not the actor), by the Vice President played by Dan Aykroyd (doing his best to do a Cheney impression-and he is also underused to a mere three minutes of the whole movie, bookending the film.) Struggling with his own inner demons and his late wife and his kidnapped daughter (and an odd fascinating with hot sauce), Brand poses as a Trade Show Producer and organizer of the wedding for pop star Yonica Babyyeah (Hilary Duff) in order to pull of the hit, and at the same time falling for a rather good looking reporter named Natalie Hegalhuzen.

I will say without hesitation that all of the lead performances in the film are very well done. John Cusack does his exhausted and weary character very well, and he has for years, and sister Joan Cusack (although appearing briefly) is extremely funny as always. And Marisa Tomei (who although having won an Oscar seems underrated almost) delivers, and the big surprise here was Hilary Duff, playing something very different from her teen bobber performances of the past (one of which I actually saw). But the turn actually seems to benefit her, and she somewhat plays a satire of what she isn't. What I like about Duff the person is that she doesn't appear on the news everyday with pictures of her privates or pictures of her smoking cigarettes, and her work here is oddly mature and even somewhat funny. And one of her characters songs which appears during the credits is somewhat catchy. So perhaps she is the saving grace with all of these muddled young stars out there. And Ben Kingsley doesn't really impress with a rather awful accent, but thankfully his appearance is brief. And I also liked the look of the film, the dark hues matching the dark tone of the movie. But the script is almost a complete mess, drifting from satire to slapstick to drama in a very unfocused way, right down to the third act which offers a few twists that try to end the film on both a dark and forbidden note as well as a rather cute satisfying one, and it fails on both counts. In a nutshell, the jokes aren't funny enough, and the drama isn't sincere. It also packs in far too many targets, going the "American Dreamz" route, only failing more. The plot gets so loaded that it becomes overly confusing to follow at times, and for no real reason. The actors do their very best to work with this lackluster material, and several of the performances actually make "War, Inc." THIS close to recommending, but it misses the mark, much like every single joke in the movie. "War, Inc." is one of those films that I wish I liked a bit more, because with the talent and the topics involved it it could have been quite a biting satire.

**1/2 of ****

At Angelika Film Center

----------

Savage Grace

Directed by Tom Kalin

"Savage Grace" is a pretty bleak and dark film, which would be alright if this tone wasn't so forced down the viewers throat. I don't mind depressing movies-in fact, most of the time I prefer. But this film is unpleasantly miserable-from its characters who are all so unlikable and shallow and self-absorbed all the way to the events we find them in. There isn't a single amount of empathy in any of them, so that we don't really care about what happens to them. In the end-when that final punch is delivered-there really is no reaction because at this point you just want to go home. At the center of the film is Julianne Moore, doing a good job because she's Julianne Moore and I can't expect less of her. She manages to make the movie somewhat tolerable with her rather engrossing performance, and she is trying to have a good time with the role even though the script doesn't really give her any dimensions to work with. She plays Barbara Baekeland, starting with the birth of her son Tony. Barbara is a somewhat overprotective mother, and as we follow her relationship with her son over the years we slowly see how she ruins him. With her trying to get him to side with her after her husband Brooks leaves her for a younger woman, all the way to her actually sleeping with him to defer him away from his blooming homosexuality, Barbara is pretty much the nasty mother from Hell, culminating to a climatic violent scene, with hardly any emotion in it at all (as I mentioned earlier).

"Savage Grace" just simply isn't a very good film, complete with a very faulty script which doesn't offer any character dimensions-which is a shame because the material here could warrant quite an interesting character piece, with multiple characters to analyze. And the film suffers greatly because of this lack. Its a nasty and bleak ride from start to finish, offering not a shred of hope or remorse for anyone in it or anyone watching it sans Julianne Moore who really does give it her all.

** of ****

At IFC Center

-----------

The Promotion

Directed by Steve Conrad

My question walking into "The Promotion" was answered within the first ten minutes of the film. Why does a comedy with two rather big names-Sean William Scott and John C. Reilly-get resorted to a very small limited release by an almost unheard of production company? "The Promotion" is a rather slow and subtle comedy, never exactly offering huge laughs, but that isn't what it is a aiming for. Not to say it ends up being a great film-and it is highly uneven at times, but there is certainly more to this material and than characters than could possibly appeal to a mainstream audience. And this is for the better. I guess I should have suspected this considering it was written by Steve Conrad, who penned the criminally underrated 2005 film "The Weather Man" which was a subtle dark comedy which ended up failing in the mainstream. "The Promotion" is a corporate satire, with Scott playing Doug, a young man with a wife (played by Jenna Fischer who can play this role in her sleep, and she kind of does. She is somewhat waning thin on me outside of "The Office.") living in a very small apartment with paper thin walls. Doug works at a grocery store, and when he discovers a new branch is opening soon, he applies for the promotion-full manager. When his boss tells him that he is a shoe-in, Doug jumps the gun and signs the lease on a bigger apartment. Things seem to be looking up for him until Richard Welhner comes in from a branch in Canada, and he also applies for the position. And so we get a cat and mouse chase up the ladder to get the coveted promotion.

Conrad is very kind to his characters, and he never has the audience pit on against the other. While Doug does get the audience advantage by having more screen time and giving voice over narration, Richard really is a nice person-a recovering drug addict with a wife and daughter, very Christian, and hardly likes to use swear words-but Reilly plays it authentic and not in a way where these positive attributes could be used to make laughs at. Both actors really do give it their all, but Sean William Scott really did impress me the most giving a somewhat nuanced performance compared to his "American Pie' days. Performances aside, the film does have its share of laughs, despite being somewhat uneven at times. Some of the jokes end up being so subtle and some scenes so awkward that it becomes painful to watch, especially whenever the Board Executive character is on the screen. And some of the winning jokes-including the material on Richard's self help tape-end up being used too many times, and by the end they aren't funny anymore. But on the whole, "The Promotion" is a good remedy to the somewhat heavy indie films playing in the art houses right now-and certainly one of the more accessible and more likable ones.

*** of ****

At the Angelika Film Center

----------------

Take-Out

Directed by Sean Baker and Shih-Ching Tsou

"Take Out" might be one of the simplest narratives of this or any other year-a little film with such stark realism that it ends up taking little or action at all and ends up becoming oddly engrossing, gripping, and very emotional. I was really surprised how much I liked this movie. Taking place over the course of one day, we follow Ming Ding, an illegal Chinese immigrant who is woken up by two men that tell him that he has to pay his smuggling debt by the end of the day or the price will go up. We then follow him throughout his day working at a small Chinese restaurant, where his friend gives him his share of deliveries as well, and we watch as Ming tries to collect enough money. And thats it, really. There is a tiny twist at the end, but the bulk of the film consists on Ming making food deliveries and we try to keep mental notes of how much money he is making. There are some problems-some people don't tip, one man sends him all the way back before the cook gave Ming chicken when the man asked for beef. And I have to give credit to both the two directors for making such a simple story engrossing, but also the lead performance by Charles Jang, who does so much without hardly saying a word-the pain is all in his expression. When the strong setback towards the end of the film occurs, you can sense the pain in his eyes, and you feel it too. It really is a performance of quiet effectiveness. I really liked this little movie, and am glad to see it doing very well in its small release.

*** of ****

At Quad Cinemas

-------------------

The Happening

Directed by M. Night Shyamalan

M. Night Shyamalan and I have an odd little history together-looking back I have either loved his films immensely-three of them had odd emotional effects on me. And the other three I have detested quite a bit. The three which I loved are "The Sixth Sense," "The Village," and "Lady in the Water,"-the latter two being hated among film fans everywhere, and to this day I have only found a handful of people who liked them just a little bit. And the three I detested quite a bit have been "Unbreakable," "Signs," and now "The Happening," which nearly everything goes wrong. Marketed strongly as the first R rated Shyamalan film-which seems to be just a way to get people in the seats after the strong failure of "Lady in the Water,"-Shyamalan tells quite a disturbing story (and the film does have its small share of actual disturbing moments), but goes a bit over the top in his telling of him. Shyamalan's ego (he even credits himself for a performance that you can hardly hear as its over the phone the whole time) has been announcing that the film was intended to be over the top in B movie fashion, but to me it just seems like a way to try and save himself from having a bad movie on his hands.

The films tells about Elliot and Alma Moore, who along with their friend Julian, his daughter Jess, and pretty much the entire state of New York have to find a safe place to be after a mysterious attack ends with people killing themselves in odd fashion. Cops shoot themselves in the middle of the street, people get disoriented and forgetting how to speak, and construction workers throw themselves off buildings. Some say its terrorism, but it turns out that there is something even more dangerous going on, and Shyamalan quickly weaves this into an environmental cautious horror story. Things go wrong from the first second with the awful acting. Not only are leads Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel delivering poor work, but also every single extra, every single side character-every appearance by everyone on screen delivers such massively bad performances-from the over the top way they talk to their voices which seem so high pitched and unnatural. Its as if the toxins that were unleashed suddenly turn everyone into bad actors. And the script is kind of a mess as well, and Shyamalan could have weaved a very effective story if he didn't drift as much as he does. One main problem is the introduction of a creepy lady who doesn't know about the attacks, and who has a creepy doll in her bedroom, but before that could be explained she begins to ram her head into the wall. Even James Newton Howards score, which has been a highlight in all of Shyamalan's other films, is annoying and intrusive. There are a few effective scenes-and most of the suicide segments are disturbing in their suddenness and creativity-but on the whole "The Happening" is a weak effort, especially considering what a good storytelling Shyamalan could be and has been for a long time.

** of ****

At area theatres

----------------------

Love Comes Lately

Directed by Jan Schutte

I missed "Love Comes Lately" when it played at the Toronto Film Festival last year, but Kino picked it up and is giving it a small release in New York City right now. The film is a quiet mediation on love lost and gained for an eighty year old man, and for some reason I was channeling last years "Starting Out in the Evening," only this was a bit more quirky and upbeat than that film (also very good.) Based on three short stories by Isaac Bashevis Singer ("Alone," "The Briefcase," and "Old Love," none of which I have ever read), we follow the Max Kohn, an eighty year old writer who lives with his girlfriend of twelve years. Being eighty has hardly any effect on Max, and we follow him love life both fictionally and realistically during a trip to give a lecture at a college. "Love Comes Lately" is a nice little movie, centered by a very good performance by Otto Tausig, who plays Max in a way that diverts the concept that he is just a dirty old man-when he is in fact sweet, affectionate, and just simply an old romantic.

*** of ****

At Quad Cinemas and Lincoln Plaza Cinemas

-------------------

Quid Pro Quo

Directed by Carlos Brooks

"Quid Pro Quo" channels a bit of David Cronenberg's 1996 film "Crash," only the difference being that this is actually a good movie. Both of them deal with odd lifestyle fetishes-that film being car crashes, and this one being the ability to be disabled. Nick Stahl plays Isaac, a newspaper writer who is not able to walk and is confined to a wheelchair. When he receives a mysterious email from "Ancient Chinese Girl" he is brought to a strange underground meeting where people sit in wheelchairs with certain disabilities yearning to be that way forever. Eventually "ACG" brings herself out in the open in the form of Fiona (Vera Farmiga who is terrific here). The two start an odd relationship where she yearns to be able to not walk, and he would like to walk, and eventually a pair of magic shoes brings themselves in the mix that might give Isaac the chance to do just that.

The film is shot is very beautiful and crisp digital photography, and the two leads are quite good (Stahl impressing me mostly because he never impressed me before.) They carry the film, as most of it is dialogue between the two of them. And the film avoids being condesending to those that wish to be disabled, and the movie ends up being more about identity, and how various lifestyles can affect perception of oneself-the disability underground cult ends up only being one thing mentioned.

"Quid Pro Quo" has been taken out of its release here in the city, but should be on DVD soon.

--------------

Encounters at the End of the World

Directed by Werner Herzog

"Encounters at the End of the World," which is selling out almost constantly at the Film Forum in Manhattan, is a fascinating and visual appealing documentary from one of the visual masters out there, Werner Herzog. I don't think it comes close to being the masterpiece that his nature documentary "Grizzly Man" was a couple of years ago, but I am attracted to Herzog's films-from his fascinating with imagery all the way to his dry and sarcastic personality and sense of humor. Herzog brings us to Antarctica, and also to several different sectors of study within the continent. When he is not focusing on some kind of trancelike image underneath the ice (to some quite great chamber like music which is as haunting as it is dreamlike), Herzog is also being quite funny, and his sense of humor is very heightened. We never laugh at these people, but with them, as they are placed into situations and philosophy's that do have their sense of comedy within them. There is some great comedic footage here, including a group of people going through a safety camp where they have to go through a follow-the-leader type of exercise with buckets over their heads to simulate a whiteout, or a segment involving a penguin that goes insane and begins to run towards a chain of mountains nearly 70 kilometers away.

And so Herzog continues to impress me with his nonfiction, but even with his fiction he loves to just linger on images for a little longer than most, but thats because its an image that we don't see everyday and probably will never see in the flesh. And as humorous as the film was, it also ended quite gravely, with Herzog pretty much telling us that he thinks the human race is going to die out very soon, and one day explorers will be exploring the ruins wondering just what went wrong.

*** of ****

At Film Forum.

Choke

2008-06-06T01:11:00.003-04:00

"Choke" is a pitch dark comedy that ends up being a romantic comedy of sorts about people with sexual deviance's. It is somewhat the movie that "Good Dick," another film playing in the Sundance at BAM Festival that you can read about here, wanted to be. The only difference is that "Choke" offers terrific performances by everyone, characters that actually earn their eccentricities and a very smart and well written script by actor and first time director Clark Gregg, who also appears in the movie in a small, but memorable, role.

Sam Rockwell delivers yet another most likely underseen, but great, lead performance (which he seems to be the master of especially after he was completely disregarded after "Snow Angels" was released) plays Victor Mancini, a sex addict whose mother Ida is in the hospital, and thinks that he is one of her long dead lawyers whenever he visits. As a way to pay for her hospital bills, Victor plays off on the sympathies of people that save him from choking to death, something that he has perfected whenever he goes out to restaurants. When his mother, during one of her mental spells, reveals that she has been keeping something from Victor about his father (who he always thought was a Norwegian traveling salesman with Tourettes Syndrome), and he intends to find out what it is. Along with his compulsive masturbator best friend Denny, and the beautiful but possible insane herself Dr. Paige Marshall, Victor intends to find out this family secret before it is too late.

"Choke" is based on a novel by Chuck Palahniuk, whose work I have never read mostly because of my rather mild disdain for the extreme popularity of "Fight Club" which I'm really not too fond of. Therefore I cannot comment on Clark Gregg's working at adapting the film (although the Palahniuk worshippers in the audience were upset by a few omits that Gregg apparently made-my favorite being this one guy who was upset that he didn't start the movie with the "genius!" opening line of the novel.) However I can say what a fine script I think he wrote here, really making these somewhat un-realistic characters and turning them into such three dimensional characters-of course having a ton of help from the actors themselves. Sam Rockwell really ever disappoints, and from his opening narration at the start-where he explains who each type of person at a sex addicts meeting are-he really does have one hooked. Considering his actions throughout one might be curious to how you can feel bad for such a sordid mess, but you fall for it right away. Angelica Huston is kind of heartbreaking in her role as Ida, and I liked how the script was structured to reveal a bit more about her relationship with Victor and his rather depressing childhood over the course of the movie, sealing it during the last few minutes. Kelly MacDonald (as Clark Gregg said which I agreed with) gives an extremely subtle performance, and it is easy for the audience to really fall for every word that he says, even when certain things in the second act become a little ridiculous. And lastly we have Brad William Henke as Denny who delivers a nicely played 'buddy" role, with a bit more depth than the usual quick witted side kicks that we usually see in less smart films-for example, "Run, Fatboy, Run."

But the film does have its large share of flaws, and most of them come from Gregg's work as a director. As a writer he proves himself quite worthy, and as an actor (giving himself a small but memorable part in the film) does his job, but some of his directing and editing choices did not please me as much. For one thing, the average shot length isn't very long, and the movie runs with edits like one would see in a sitcom. And I felt like there should have been more at the end of the story that was not addressed, and based on much of the talk after the film I get the vibe that the novel actually does have all the multiple storylines and worlds within the film wrapped up more. I didn't feel like I had closure by the end of the movie, even in the main story that Gregg decides to end on which is the relationship between Victor and Paige. I was wondering what would go on with a stone house that Victor, Denny, and Denny's girlfriend begin to build in a vacant lot. I did find out about an ending that was shot involving the said house, and it would have been quite fitting based on many of the themes of religion that end up running through most of the film. "Choke" runs a lean 89 minutes, but it really seems a bit too lean. There were several unaddressed aspects of the movie that I wish were addressed to make a more tighter narrative.

Is "Choke" a great film? Not at all. Not even close. But it is an absorbing, well acted, very well written, and a very very funny dark comedy about addiction and deviance and what can come of it. There is a rather sick and sad addiction in every character in this film, but all of them rather earn their problems unlike the forced eccentricities of "Good Dick." I really do have faith in the writing of Clark Gregg for the future, and while I may not have agreed with some of his choices as a whole, he did craft an extremely entertaining little movie which is sure to be a big hit when it ends up opening in September, through what he called the "heavenly bosom of Fox Searchlight." And based on their track record, its a very heavenly place to be indeed.

*** of ****

The Strangers

2008-06-05T03:13:00.003-04:00

It has been quite some time since I've seen a horror movie in the theatres, and by that I mean a mainstream horror film targeted to the masses. I have no desire or urge to ever again sit through the eighty minute Japanese horror film remakes that seem to come out all the time, and missed the large batch that came out the last few months-"One Missed Call," "Prom Night," "Shutter." There is no need for these movies to exist let alone see them. But "The Strangers" looked somewhat different, and even though the free ticket price was a plus, something else was drawing me to it. The trailer did not look that bad for a film of this reputation, and it reminded me of "Funny Games," only a bit more mainstream. And I was right. The best part about "The Strangers" is that it deviants away from the horror movie formula that has become standard in Hollywood, and it shows true talent by director Bryan Bertino, to whom this is his first film. The problems with the film occur only when he deviants from this more unique vision and when he drifts into the horror film formula, including the very last second of the film (literally), which seemed a bit of a cop out and was not fully needed. However, there is enough in this movie to recommend, and its a step above the horror films of the last few months and a very good remedy for those who tire of those.

It's never a good sign when a creepy narrator at the starts states that the story is based on true events. I will say that I was drawn from the first introduction of the couple played by Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman-in the film named Kristen McKay and James Hoyt-who are driving home from a friends wedding reception. They are silent. The cinematography here by Peter Sova is very top notch in this short segment, and there is a rather beautiful shot of them at a red light, with the red tint over them becoming green. When they get to their summer house in the middle of nowhere, the reason for their silence slowly unravels. He asked her to marry him and she said no stating that she wasn't read yet. She takes a bath in the prepared house-covered with rose petals and champagne, while he eats a large tub of ice cream and makes plans to be picked up the next morning. These opening moments might seem slow, but they are never boring, mostly because Bertino directs these actors and images in a captivating way-Liv Tyler does so much with her silent face here, and Scott Speedman (whose character I really wish was played by someone else) does his best despite having a huge lack of talent. Suddenly there is a hard KNOCK on the door, and a young woman asks for a girl that doesn't live there. Eventually James leaves to go for a drive, while Kristen somberly does a few things, until there is another loud knock at the door and its the same girl, only this time her voice is just a bit more creepy. Eventually the two of them are terrorized by three people with masks all throughout the night, who taunt them and tease them, and when asked why they simply reply "Because you were home."

This material here is certainly creepy-and the thought of people just coming into someone's home with the intent to kill with no reason at all is a sick but true fact, and if it happens as much as the opening title card states than it is ever creepier. However under the hands of a lesser talent, this same material could have been destroyed and turned into a standard horror film. But there are real genuinely creepy moments throughout this film. One to mention is a shot of Tyler standing in her kitchen drinking a glass of water. It's a wide shot and its a large kitchen, and in the background in the middle of the dark you can see a man with a mask making himself known. Bertino doesn't start the action here, though, and for at least a full minute and possibly more Tyler paces in the kitchen, and by the end of the scene she never sees this masked man. And the lack of music works well here. Other moments are placed throughout, mostly the nonchalant way in which these stalkers walk around the house-there is a moment where Tyler is in a closet hiding and the masked man walks around the entire square footage of her view, at one point sitting down for a minute. Maybe he was tired. But then he gets up and the terrorizing continues.

Speaking of the music, Bertino makes a good choice of having some moments of the film not contain any scored music at all instead relying on a record player that is in the house with them. During a creepy chase segment the record player is smashed into and the beginning of a song plays over and over and over again. And another moment has one of the creepiest uses of "Sprout and the Bean" by Joanna Newsom that I have ever heard. It reminded me of the one worthwhile thing in the awful awful awful 2006 horror film "The Return," which I remembered hoping would be the step up that "The Strangers" is.

Sadly the whole film is not compiled of these thoughtfully shot and silently tense moments, and at times Bertino disappointed me by going into the realms of mainstream horror formula. This is why the first twenty five minutes or so of the film are so good, because it actually relies on character and talent to tell the story. For example the actual scored music, especially during the films key set piece chase scenes. I understand that there couldn't be the record player as the only form of music, because eventually that would have grown tiresome. But why not no music at all? Why is that never an option? The score by the (annoyingly) named tomandandy is very cookie cutter and very obvious, and it really has no use being here. And than your typical jump scenes-thankfully there is never a "it was only a cat" moments, which are jump scenes simply for the sake of being jump scenes. A few here are earned, but the one at the very end just ruined the effect the film would have had had Bertino stuck to his guns and made it more ominous instead of "in your face."

All in all I did like "The Strangers" surprisingly enough. Those who probably would not look at the film as much as I did-and thats probably most of the audience who intends to see it-should still definitely get something out of it. It's a pretty creepy story, and told in a more subjective way than "Funny Games" was. It's ironic, but "Funny Games" actually comments on why people would find a movie like "The Strangers" sickly entertaining. And those that do look at film closer might find themselves pleasantly surprised by how well made and directed this movie is. I am intrigued by whatever Bertino has in his mind next, because when he diverged by the standard horror film format "The Strangers" was very effective, and what the material did deserve. It is only when drifting towards mainstream scares did the film faulter, but there is enough here to recommend, especially for a horror film fan. It doesn't tread much new ground, but it was a mild discovery.

*** of ****

Two Years. . .

2008-06-02T08:13:00.003-04:00

A few days ago marked the two year anniversary of this blog, and its hard to believe that all of that time has passed. There have been plenty of changes in this time, and if you read the first thing I wrote here, which was a review of "Cars," compared to the last few I've written you can almost chart the growth over time. And while I do not write things for every single film I go see anymore (for that has been heavily time consuming in the past), I do enjoy writing about the films that should get out there more, and that I have some very strong feelings about-either positive or negative, depending.

But I would like to thank those who have been reading this site (the people that I know and even the ones that I don't know) for the last two years and heres to more months and maybe years of being up.

Stuck

2008-06-02T07:54:00.003-04:00

I've officially become quite curious about Stuart Gordon, who impressed me two years ago with the William H. Macy starrer "Edmond," and continued to impress me a few days ago when I saw his latest film "Stuck," which I remembered seeing it on the schedule at last years Toronto Film Festival. "Stuck" is based on a rather fascinating true event, with the Gordon penned script going further than how the actual event ended.

Steven Rea plays Tom Bardo-a down on his luck man who was recently evicted from his apartment, and was also not granted the interview that he had an appointment for after a computer mix-up. Resorting to having to live on the streets, Tom ends up coming into contact with Brandi, after she hits him with her car. Brandi is a caregiver at a nursing home, and finds out that she is up for a promotion. She hits Tom while high on ecstasy, and doesn't know what to do about it when he gets impaled in her windshield. Since nobody sees the accident she brings Tom home, leaves him in her garage with him still in the window, and than goes upstairs to have sex with her drug dealer macho boyfriend Rashid. The real event story that this film is based on ends with the homeless man dying in her windshield after she leaves him for a few days, but the script here goes further to show what happens with the man-in this case Tom-tries to escape from the situation. And that is where "Stuck" becomes even more interesting, intense, and even a bit fun.

This is either the saddest story that I've ever seen, or possibly one of the funniest-but in a very very dark and even kind of sick way. Gordon has the audience easily worrying about Tom from the very beginning, and during his entire situation it is impossible to ever side with Brandi, who is selfish from the get-go. Mena Survari plays the part very well, and this is easily her most complex role since her impressive turn in "American Beauty" nearly ten years ago. And Stephen Rea as Tom manages to go beyond the one note performance that could have possibly come out of this character, whose dialogue mostly consists of "Help me. . ." or "You can't leave me here. . ." And one would have to be of sick mind to laugh at some of the little jokes here, such as a dog finding itself inside the garage where Tom is and licking his leg wound which has the bone jutting out. But at its core, "Stuck" is a classic survival story-not only the obvious survival element of Tom trying to get out of the garage in one piece, but also the survival in every day life. Brandi does not want to turn the accident in in fear of it damaging her promotion. Tom is facing struggle at the very beginning. Even side characters like a kind homeless man who gives Tom some advice is easily trying to survive the everyday world in his situation, as well as a family of immigrants that see Tom in the garage, but do not want to involve the police in their lives for fear that they would be deported.

And simply put, "Stuck" is just an entertaining little film, told in some B-movie format. It is both gruesome and compelling at the same time, constantly entertaining and absorbing for its lean 90 minute running time. It has all the classic moments of a film like this-the close calls to rescue, the damage that the torturer keeps inflicting, and than a third act with several twists and clues about how the story would end. I certainly didn't know if Gordon was going to kill Tom like in the real life incident, or let him live and have something else happen. And without giving any spoilers I still didn't know until the last minute, and it managed to have me walk out of the theatre very satisfied. I intend on looking into some of the older films of Stuart Gordon, but it's safe to say that I have been impressed with his last two very much. "Stuck" is worth looking for-it's currently in one theatre in Manhattan and will probably stay that way, but it wouldn't be a regretful trip.

***1/2 of ****

Two at Sundance at BAM: Good Dick and Man on Wire

2008-05-31T01:36:00.002-04:00

Good Dick

Directed by Marianna Palka

"Good Dick" is a kind of cross between "Punch Drunk Love" and "Lost in Translation," if both of those movies took their rather offbeat love stories and turned them into completely forced and even at times rather creepy indie fair. Marianna Palka writes, directs, and stars in this project of her's, as a unnamed woman who comes into a local video and only rents dirty movies. The people that work at the store are fascinated by her, especially our nameless male character (this is starting to seem a lot like "Once" too with the name thing. . .), who takes her address and starts bringing her dirty movies to her door, telling her that his aunt recently died who lives in the building and he is in grief. He begins to stay at her house, sleeping in her bed after she looses a bet, and having to deal with her emotional lifestyle-mainly her sexual compulsions and how she only wants to sexually please herself with the movies.

The film tries to be more offbeat than it really is, and it borders this quality into near-creepiness, mostly on the part of the male character, played by Jason Ritter. His self-proclaimed love for her, with I saw more as an obsession, eventually got strange-him showing up at her house night after night, masturbating in her bed while she takes a shower in one scene, and than even calling himself her boyfriend when she doesn't seem interested. If Palka intended us to get the impression that she was interested in him in her distant way, it did not come across, except for when she follows him to the movies one night but doesn't go in. I really liked Palka's acting here, and she really did make a character worth depicting, and I would have liked more of that. I would have liked more about her and not about this forced odd love story that was being told. As for Palka and her tone, I'm not exactly sure what she wants this to be-comedy, drama? I don't know. The subject matter is serious, and I have a feeling on the page the material was supposed to be serious, but it borders on the edge of being just plain bizarre-the audience was laughing too much, and I really don't think that was the intention. She is trying to channel all of these other, and better, indie films-the nameless characters of "Once," the odd OCD of "Punch Drunk Love," and than at the end she whispers something in his ear, much like the ending of "Lost in Translation." However the different between the whisper at the end of that film is that Bob and Charlotte actually earned that private moment for the two of them, and I was able to feel the love they had for each other. "Good Dick" simply feels like it wants them to have a private moment, but they didn't earn it. There was not an single ounce of love in this film, and as amusing as it was for a short period of time it really is rather meaningless.

** of ****

------

Man on Wire

Directed by James Marsh

"Man on Wire" is a consistently entertaining and even fascinating documentary which won a few prizes at the Sundance Festival earlier in the year. It's one of those stories that comes along every once in a while that really does just show that the best stories cannot be made up. And much like the main subject of "Grizzly Man," or "Deep Water," "Man on Wire" has such a fascinating main character-in this case we follow Philippe Petit, a tightrope walker who, in the 70's, attached a wire across the two World Trade Center towers and walked back and forth a few times, eventually getting arrested. Doing a mix of interviews with the actually people involved in the incident, and a reenactment, Marsh crafts a very entertaining and thoughtful story, which is even also quite intense. Although I will admit that I would have liked some more after the incident-it even hints at how Petit changed after the event and after he started getting famous, but it doesn't explore that. And I would have been curious how Petit would have felt after 9/11 occurred, with the towers being a different kind of symbol than it was for others.

"Man on Wire" is being released through Magnolia Pictures on August 15th.

*** of ****

Sundance at BAM Opening Night: American Teen

2008-05-29T23:34:00.004-04:00

Once again the Sundance Film Festival has come to Brooklyn for a week of narratives, documentaries, short films, and music, and apparently a few art exhibits. I have several tickets to films playing this year-some of them coming out in the next few weeks, and some of them without a distributor yet, but no matter the case I am sure that it will be like every other festival-some great, some so-so, and some so bad that I would never want to see them again. With the opening night selection of "American Teen" we are already off to a bad start. A few other titles that I'll be seeing in the next few days that could be of interest are the documentary "Man on Wire," the Sam Rockwell dark comedy "Choke," "Frozen River," and "Ballast,"-the latter of which I am looking forward to after a reliable recommendation came my way.

The opening night festivities were standard-a few speakers for twenty minutes batting off names of folks that I could really care less about. It was funny the applause that was received when the woman thanked one of the sponsors which was a vodka company. And there was a speech like the master of all BS artists Marty Markowitz, and I was surprised by how many applause he got-apparently not many of the people in the crowd were from the area. And then there was a little 'thank you' from Peter Sarsgaard and Maggie Gyllenhaal, who are on the board at BAM. And than the film started-

"American Teen" will likely be the documentary of the summer that many flock to see. It should make a great deal of money, and I really can see several folks buying into it. Charting the senior year of a group of high school students at a small school in Indiana-focusing in on five of them-Nanette Burstein tries to craft a mosaic of growing up and coming of age-a subject that I could relate to strongly as I have recently graduated high school and have started college. The five kids are Hannah Bailey-a spunky, artistic, freewheeling young girl whose heart was recently broken by her boyfriend of two years. Then there is Colin Clemens, the high school jock who hopes to get to college on a basketball scholarship because his parents don't have enough money to pay for it on their own. Then there is Megan Krizmanich, the high school princess who has her strong clique of friends-two of whom seem to have some kind of odd fling happening between them which she doesn't seem to like. There is Mitch Reinholt, a rather popular boy who has interest in Hannah. And lastly there is Jake Tusing, the loner type fresh with a face full of acne and long black hair that just about covers his eyes. Interested in video games and not having many friends, Jake really just wants a girlfriend, and finds himself heartbroken a few times over in the search for the right one. And so we follow these five kids during their year long endeavors-through fights, heartbreak, college acceptances, and lastly the big senior prom.

My problems with the movie lie completely with the way the material is handed. There is a good documentary here, just not in the hands of a very good documentary film maker. I get the idea that Burstein wants to try and steer clear of the stereotypes of the typical high school stories, and yet that is exactly what she feeds into. By finding herself with subjects of a small town, it becomes easier to do so. My high school was nothing like the high school depicted here or in the John Hughes movies-there was no jocks, there was no importance in sports, there were hardly any cliques. It was almost like a large united community in a way. But the thing with that structure is that there is no real conflict there. By fitting themselves into the common stereotypes of high school, she is able to manipulate conflict and create her movie. She works with conflict that has been seen before in fiction films-there is even a "big game" segment towards the end of the movie where the final shot is shown in a slow motion scene. And by seeing how the five she picks end up getting rather content and happy and satisfying endings, I wonder if there were any subjects that she focused on and dropped because of their uneventful conclusions-namely Mitch, who hardly gets any type of arc and seems to only be in the film as much as he is because it completes the five "Breakfast Club" type characters that Burstein is obviously looking for-after all, she even models the poster after it, and it works perfectly.

Another thing I had a problem with is the rather condescending tone that is going on during the whole thing. There were segments where the audience was laughing, but the material was shifted in a way where it seemed like it was set up for the audience to laugh AT the subjects and their lives and not WITH them. For example, when it is revealed that Colin's day is an Elvis impersonator it seemed like the audience and Burstein was not taking that seriously, instead making a joke of their lifestyle. Another was in Megan's house. This is a family that is somewhat better off than others-they have some money and she seems set when it comes to another related to that. Her staircase is filled with pictures of her young sisters and brothers, all who have some kind of portrait, which got a laugh. Burstein also does not exactly allow us to care for many of the characters, mostly Megan. One scene we can see her being a rude and horrible person, and than the next they try to tug at our hearts to try and get some sympathy. The tone really is all over the place, and I never get the feeling that Burstein actually cares for her subjects.

That all being said, some of the material is really really good, but in the hands of someone a little more competent of putting a documentary together it could have been used to its full potential. There is an interesting study here of growing up and changing and coming to terms with adulthood that just is lost in Nanette Burstein's muddled agenda. She seems to want to drift away from the cliche moments of high school that we have seen again and again, and yet she chose subjects that would lead us down those paths. Her choices are wrong from the first minute, where you can easily see where all of this is going to go. There is no reason to blame the subjects, all of whom live and act exactly how one would expect. It is the fault of the creator, who sadly took something potentially memorable and made it something forgettable, disposable, and ironically enough (a word I hate to use, but it does apply here for irony) cliche.

"American Teen" is opening July 25th by Paramount Vantage.

** of ****

Postal

2008-05-29T01:00:00.005-04:00

Film fans, video game fans, and even Ed Wood fans have heard the name Uwe Boll, perhaps the worst living director out there right now, but certainly one that has a lot of faith in himself. I haven't seen a film by him since 2003 when I subjected myself to the awful zero star film "House of the Dead," which ended up being the worst film of that year, and perhaps one of the worst films ever made. He followed those up with "Alone in the Dark," "Bloodrayne," and lastly "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tail," which all barely made any money and barely generated any fair reviews let alone good ones. He's angered film fans with his bad movies, and angered video games fans with his bad adaptations. There is even an online petition where he claims if he gets a million names he will stop making movies forever. But seriously, watch some kind of interview with him-he really thinks he is something special, and it is very very funny.

Well, Boll has mixed things up a bit here with "Postal," another video game adaptation, but its a straightforward comedy. An offensive, loud, bloody, and very un-PC comedy, which, I will admit, actually did manage to make me laugh at some points. "Postal" is a bad film, but not nearly as bad as "House of the Dead" in that it is such a trainwreck of a film that some of it actually seems to work in an insanely twisted way. The first scene depicts two terrorists on the plane on September 11th debating on how many virgins they will get in the afterlife, until they just decide to land in the Bahamas, until the passengers end up bringing the plane down into the towers. If that makes you look at the screen in disgust, than this clearly isn't the movie for you. We are then brought to Paradise, a trailer trashed little town where our main characters-billed as Postal Dude-is going to an interview, while his rather rotund and adultery prone wife yells at him. Postal Dude is obviously about to go. . .well, you know where, until he is approached by his cult leader Uncle Dave (played by Dave Foley) to help him rob an amusement park, as both of them are in need of some money. They plan to rob the park of a bunch of dolls, which the Taliban is actually intending on stealing to put vials of some kind of disease to spread around America-a way to spread terrorism without actually killing any of their own.

You would really have to walk into "Postal" knowing what you are in for-and it really does apporach "so awful that it is tolerable status." Pretty much every aspect of this movie is awful-much of the acting (including a cameo by Verne Troyer as himself) is just awful, although Dave Foley manages to actually turn in something decent here, which is understandable as he just is so naturally funny. The lighting is overly bright, the music is just painful to the ears. But the ridiculous nature of some the jokes are oddly humorous. Even though he is a mass murderer and an awful man, the concept of bin Laden going to self-help meetings to work on issues of anger is oddly amusing. This really is a bad movie, but it is fun to watch, especially in a crowd that laughs when the words "A Uwe Boll Film" come up.

The reason why I even went to see "Postal,"-the first film of Bolls that I actually gave money too, and this is having a hard time breaking the 5,000 barrier-is because of the story behind it. The film has been pushed back and back and back, and it was going to be set for a wide release last Friday, to go against "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." But at the last minute the 1,500 screen release was reduced to a mere 13, and the only place in all of New York State that you can find "Postal" is the Cobble Hill Cinemas, a small little theatre in Brooklyn that I haven't even been to since 2004. As for Boll, I will say that I did not sign his petition-I just couldn't. First of all, he is doing what he loves to do, and he is such an interesting character to follow that we has already written himself in the history books. We have a man here who appears in the middle of his own movie as himself, makes fun of himself, proclaims to the creator of the "Postal" video game that the movie we are watching is great, and than ends up getting shot in the testicles, and folks want to get RID of him? A character like that? But, unless something generates as much talk or humor as the story of getting "Postal" into theatres did, I think I have seen my last film by him.

Final Grade

** of ****

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, The Edge of Heaven, Redbelt, The Children of Huang Shi

2008-05-28T22:41:00.003-04:00

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Directed by Andrew Adamson)

As entertaining and expensive "The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" was, there is just something missing from it to make the better than the last installment "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe." There is some element of magic or character missing here. I watched the action in this film from a detached standpoint, not really caring about what would happen to any of the people or animals here, but finding it interesting enough to follow. There is heart missing from this film, something that makes every single successful fantasy story successful-and its also why "The Golden Compass" was quite a failure. We follow the four children-Lucy, Susan, Peter, and Edward-once more as they find themselves in Narnia, a year after the events of the last film, but two hundred years after the events of the Narnia scenes of the last film. Narnia is in trouble, and it has been taken over by another race of people, but the trustworthy and mistreated Prince Caspian ends up teaming with the four children to save Narnia and restore it back to its original state.

Last summer I bought a big volume with all seven of the Narnia books by C.S. Lewis, and they were quite wonderful-epic novels in miniature form which are being somewhat overblown in these movie forms. The last film was actually quite wonderful to watch as the book was so wonderfully rich with themes, characters, and plots. I remembered the novel for "Prince Caspian" was also rich, but the themes, characters, and plots are all somewhat dulled here. And yet, as detached as the viewer will be from the action here, it is still engrossing, and the special effects battle scenes are quite a wonder to behold. The film is more of a spectacle, and while that is the definition of a summer movie, it isn't all that should be looked for in them.

*** of ****, but its a very mild recommendation.

----------------

The Edge of Heaven

Directed by Fatih Akin

A few years ago I was very taken by Fatih Akin's "Head On," which was one of the oddest love stories in recent memory. His follow up "The Edge of Heaven," which I was very close to seeing at the Toronto Film Festival last year, is another oddly structured film, but one so absorbing, and so rich in character and plot, that the narrative flows naturally. Nothing in this film seems forced or unneeded, with the exceptions of the "Magnolia"-esque moments which cross the characters together. The film follows Ayten, a young man whose father Ali pays Yeter, a hooker in town, to move in with him and be his only client. Yeter has a daughter named Nejat, who works as a resistance in another part of Turkey. When she is arrested, she asks for the help of a German named Charlotte, and the two of them strike up some kind of a lesbian affair, much to the chagrin of her somewhat rude, ex-hippie mother Susanne, who somehow finds herself trying to help Nejat through her plight.

Akin really is a terrific director based on the two films that I've seen of his. There are a few questionable things that he chooses to do, which somewhat destroy many of the twists in the narrative-for example the fact that he heads some of the films sections with telling us about the death of characters that we have not yet encountered. And I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the ending, which does not tie up every loose end, but in a film that paints such a large scope it might be almost impossible to really show exactly how everything ends. Suffice to say that "The Edge of Heaven" is more good work by a director who really seems to know what he is doing, and I look forward to his next film.

*** of ****

------------------------

Redbelt

Directed by David Mamet

"Redbelt" is David Mamet's first film since his awful misstep "Spartan" in 2004, but he did reclaim himself in 2006 when he wrote the screenplay to "Edmond," a film staring Willian H. Macy which I am very fond of. "Redbelt" brings Mamet into the world of jujutsu, which apparently Mamet is quite fascinated with. We follow Mike Terry(played by Chiwetel Ejiofor, in a rare leading performance) , a man who owns his own dojo, but is having problems with money. When an accident involving a gunshot has his window broken, Mike finds himself in a world of underground fighting, movie stars, and creepy mobsters who bet on fixed fights, all going against his principles of non-violence and limited confrontation.

Mamet surrounds Ejiofor with his regulars-wife Rebecca Pidgeon, Ricky Jay, David Paymer, and a few others-while also mixing it up with a few newcomers, including a misplaced Tim Allen as the cocky movie star. He ends up crafting a sometimes muddled mystery story, but an interesting fable about principles and sticking to ones own thoughts about life. Ejiofor really does shine here, and being virtually in every scene really does help matters. A few things in the screenplay for "Redbelt" maybe could have been cut out, or just changed a bit to make Mike's problems a little less and a bit more realistic. But this really did make Mamet a name more lined up with success as opposed to failure-"Spartan" is a film not left very well in my memory.

*** of ****

-----------------------

The Children of Huang Shi

Directed by Roger Spottiswoode

"The Children of Huang Shi" is far from being a perfect film-it follows the formula for these types of movies to the letter-but it certainly is well made, telling an important real life story and telling it well. Jonathan Rhys Meyers plays George Hogg, a journalist living in London who cons his way into going to China to follow the report of the violence and war happening there. After he gets injured and his partner is murdered, George is sent to Huang Shi by Lee, a nurse played by Radha Mitchell, who wants George to help the young orphaned kids who live there. Hogg finds himself working with the kids, and helping them to find more faith in the life that was almost taken from them, while at the same time finding love with Lee, and finding more about himself than he ever knew before.

There are several obvious turns in the film that we've seen before in movies like this-the love story for sure, which could possibly deviant from life, although I did not do all my research, and the evolution of the kids from when they meet Hogg to the end of the movie. We even get a few real life interviews with the actual kids (now adults) during the beginning of the end credits for the movie. But it never feels manipulative-it just feels like we are hearing this rather uplifting and nice true story. Meyers really isn't a great actor, and there are some moments in this film where you somewhat find yourself laughing at him, but this has been consistent in just about all the films I've seen him in-including "Match Point" which is probably his best role. Mitchell is very good, and grows on me every film I see her in both professionally and visually, and there is good supporting work by Chow Yun-Fat, who provides some minor comic relief. And the cinematography here is quite epic, and nearly every shot is beautiful. "The Children of Huang Shi" is an obvious cookie cutter of a movie for the war torn country/love story drama, but it is a well made one, using the cliche elements as an advantage instead of as a fault.

*** of ****

OSS 117-Cairo-Nest of Spies, Priceless, Noise, Reprise, Roman De Gare, Sangre De Mi Sangre

2008-05-28T22:40:00.003-04:00

OSS 117-Cairo-Nest of Spies

Directed by Michel Hazanavicius

"OSS 117-Cairo-Nest of Spies" is a somewhat amusing spoof of James Bond films, probably in a way that is more true to the actual Bond film formula than say the "Austin Powers" movies, but no way nearly as likable or endearing. In fact, some of the jokes here grow flat very quickly, and overstay their welcome. But it is elevated by a very likable performance by Jean Dujardin, who was nominated for a few French film awards for his work here. He plays agent OSS 117, who is distraught after finding out about the death of one of his fellow agents, Jack. We see some rather homosexual humored flashbacks of the two of them spending time at the beach He is sent to find out who did it, getting involved with a group of terrorists in the Middle East, a bunch of skeletons in the middle of the sea, and lastly Nazis, all while at the same time wining and wooing various women, who sometimes turn out to be bad all along.

The film certainly does capture the looks and the feel of the Bond films, right down to the color tinting. And Dujardin is obviously having a lot of fun with the role, but that is not enough to really make it a fully worthwhile endeavor. First of all, the concept of spoofing Bond films isn't exactly an original outing, and this script certainly doesn't have enough jokes to sustain its rather long 100 minute running time. It's the type of film to sought out only if you really need it as a last resort. You're time could be spent worse, but this certainly isn't a straining film to take in or an imperative one to see.

**1/2 of ****

---------------

Priceless

Directed by Pierre Salvadori

"Priceless" is one of those French comedies that seem to like to come out this time of year-disposable, yet enjoyable, light, and very entertaining. Much like "The Valet" or "Apres Vous," "Priceless" tells a somewhat ironic love story, between two rather unlikely people. The two here are Jean and Irene, played by Gad Elmaleh and Audrey Tautou, who is right at home here in her element. Jean is a poor and rather hopeless man who works several jobs, including a nighttime hotel bar-tending job which Irene walks into one night after she cannot sleep. She sees Jean and mistakes him for a rich man-Irene is looking to marry to marry for money which is why she wines and dines older rich men and only them. The two of them spend a night together, but when she finds out who he really is, she ends up milking him for all he is worth as all he wants is a little romance. Eventually he ends up getting involved with a lonely rich woman, in the same hotel as Irene who is starting to con another lonely old man, and something more than expensive clothes and watches begins to come out of this.

"Priceless" does seem to follow a formula for these types of films, but it is entertaining and likable and very sweet. Gad Elmaleh is a fun protagonist to watch, with his Buster Keaton like eyes that seem to contain all the sadness and romance in the world. He reminded me a bit of Dany Boon in last year's "The Valet." Tautou doesn't really have much of a challenge here, and this is a role that can play in her sleep, and sometimes it seems like she does. She never really charmed or wowed me as much as others were, and "Amelie" almost does nothing for me. But "Priceless" is quite enjoyable and very funny.

*** of ****

--------------

Noise

Directed by Henry Bean

The main problem with "Noise" is that there really isn't enough movie to sustain its (painfully) short 90 minutes. A ten minute short film, yes, or maybe-just maybe-twenty. An ironic morality tale, possibly. But in its current state, it is just one awfully executed idea after another. We start by meeting David Owen, played by Tim Robbins, who begins to spout out ideas and problems that all New Yorkers have-the noise is just too damn much. David targets car alarms, and whenever a car alarm goes off he goes and cuts the wires, and also maybe breaks a window or two. The film is told in flashbacks as he is caught by a young woman who demands her money back for her car, but then gets roped into trying to fight for "the cause," all while David is targeted by the cities Mayor, played by William Hurt whose wig is probably worth the ticket.

There is just no movie here-the real plot ends after the first ten minutes, which provide the voice over narration set up, which is quite funny and enjoyable. Any single person who lives in or visits Manhattan often can understand David's plight, so we can relate to him almost right away. But it becomes dull-he breaks a car, he gets arrested, he gets in trouble with his wife, repeat. She eventually does leave him, and than we get thrown into an odd relationship between David and the girl that he is telling the story too, and there is even a misplaced three-way scene which is only there to pad the running time. Bean tries to give his script a message about how everyone is trying to find their own type of perfection to make life worth living, which comes through only because one of the characters states this. The climatic moments where David drills his point home by disrupting a block with an extra loud car alarm in his own car does seem to work, but there is seventy-five minutes in between the start and finish of this empty shell of a movie to get through that is almost painful.

** of ****

---------------

Reprise

Directed by Joachim Trier

"Reprise" is getting some earth-shattering praise, and is certainly is a good film. But I can't help but feel like this debut film-by Joachim Trier who certainly will have a follow-up after the success of this-overdoes it by letting style tell the story more than the characters, who are interesting enough to not be loaded with insert shot after insert shot, and narration that is just completely misplaced. At the start of the film we have Phillip and Erik, who both submit their novels to publishers at the exact same time. Phillip gets his book published first, but ends up having a rather painful crisis, mostly because of his relationship with Kari. When he gets out he tries to duplicate their relationship once again, bringing her to Paris exactly a year after they went the last time, and trying to get her to fall in love with him again through his repetitive "When I get to zero, than you'll be in love with me" and than counting down from ten. We also follow Erik, who ends up getting his first novel published much later, but actually does have a follow-up later on.

Trier does a good job at capturing the feeling of being young and getting the first marks of being successful. There is hope in all of these characters at some point which sadly begins to diminish as the film continues. This is highlighted by the two very well done lead performances by Anders Danielsen Lie and Espen Klouman Hoiner. But I do not think that Trier was comfortable in finding his own style to tell the story, and we get many jump-cuts, and rewinds, and voice overs, and split screens, making the story overly confusing and sometimes impossible to really connect with. But it does so hopeful promise for a rising director, who will hopefully find his tone in his next outing.

*** of ****

----------------

Roman De Gare

Directed by Claude LeLouch

From what I can recall, "Roman De Gare" is my first film by Claude LeLouch, and it is certainly an absorbing and mysterious thriller, which really does grab you from the beginning. There are so many red herrings and twists and diversions that when you think you've figured it all out, everything shifts. It's all about the crossing of the paths of three characters-Pierre, Huguette, and Judith Ralitzer-an award winning novelist. Pierre finds Huguette in a gas station after her fiance abandons her on the way to see her parents and offers to give her a ride. The viewer already has their suspicions about Pierre, as at the start of the film we hear about the escaped convict "The Magician," who does a magic trick for all his victims. Pierre is seen doing a magic trick for a little boy early on. How these characters cross paths and what happens is really best left unsaid, as it ends up being a surprising and amusing and engrossing and very funny ride, all the way to the final twist. Each character has their moment of being untrusting or suspicious, and its how the script weaves in and out of this forboding feeling that makes it a successful thriller.

Most of my problems with "Roman De Gare" didn't come until the credits were done and I had left the theatre, but its just the standard plot holes that you generally discover while watching any type of thriller. But throughout the film you really watch it with rapt attention, and it is really a very, for lack of a better word, taut thriller.

***1/2 of ****

----------------------

Sangre De Mi Sangre

Directed by Christopher Zalla

I missed "Sangre De Mi Sangre" at last years Sundance at BAM festival back when it was called "Padre Nuestro," and I wonder what brought about the title change. It won an award for Best Dramatic Film at the 2007 Sundance Festival, and I can understand why. I kind of loved "Sangre De Mi Sangre," and its probably the best and most unpredictable of the many immigration films that have been coming out of late-including the awful "Fast Food Nation," and the cute by obvious "Under the Same Moon." What starts as a simple mistaken identity film ends up becoming a powerful morality tale, which takes several unexpected turns, and ending with much more to be said but all on film. At the start we meet Juan, a stowaway on his way to New York who steals the identity of Diego, another young man who is on his way to find his father. While Juan ends up going to Pedro, Diego's father, Diego enlists in the aid of the cocaine addicted sometimes prostitute Magda, who helps him for a fee.

The tone here is consistently dark, with the constant foreshadowing of danger as every minute passes. In the end it is a very well made thriller, plotted perfectly and with a rather frantic style that really is at place here, as opposed to some segments in "Reprise." As for the abrupt ending, which does not conclude everything for these characters, is very fitting as well because it really does tell the end of the story. The fates of Juan, Pedro, Diego, and Magda is really up for you to decide-with the exception of one of them, not to reveal anything too much-but its the way Zalla handles what comes before it is the important part, which he does well.

***1/2 of ****

Iron Man, Speed Racer, The Fall

2008-05-25T03:41:00.005-04:00

Iron Man

Directed by Jon Favreau

"Iron Man" is your standard superhero introduction script, elevated by the charismatic and constantly sharp and entertaining performance by lead Robert Downy Jr. It is him that ends up making the movie memorable-not the story, not the effects, not even the hero himself. As Tony Stark, Downy Jr. is able to play his wise cracking and charming self, and at the same time is able to blow things up and fly around in the air. Despite its rather slow start, "Iron Man" is quite an entertaining introduction to both the character, and the summer at the movies. Downy Jr. plays Tony Stark as if he's been doing it for years, providing enough of a mediation of wit, sarcasm, and even a mild amount of warmth to make it believable. Other than that, the script is really the standard superhero story-the telling of how the hero came to be, a few comical scenes involving the hero trying to figure out all of the powers they have, and than finally the introduction of the villain. In this case that is the Iron Monger, played by Jeff Bridges, who, of course, is the long time friend of Tony Stark who obviously thinks that business comes first. This is pretty much the meat of the film-the theme of big businesses being quite a villain worse than anything could imagine, and Tony Stark-at the start a powerful weapons creator-really does see the errors of his ways. But that aside, the performance is great, the action scenes are mostly terrific, and its enough fun to forgive the fact that we've seen these origin stories before. If all the elements remain in place for the sequel, than a more original story will prove to be something even more special.

*** of ****

-------

Speed Racer

Directed by Andy and Larry Wachowski

On the other side of the spectrum is the headache inducing 'Speed Racer." Remember in the late 90's when a bunch of people in Japan suffered a seizure from that episode of "Pokemon?" Well, those that were fine at the end of that incident will be screwed here, as "Speed Racer" is one flashing light and sparkling color after another, while also combining some rather awful dialogue, acting, story, and a similar message as "Iron Man," except presented in terrible fashion. We have our Speed Racer, who has always dreamed of being fast just like his brother Rex, who long ago died in a freak accident after beginning to race underground. The Racer family has always been interested in things that go fast, right down to Pops Racer owner his own garage (played by John Goodman, who is always the highlight of the everything-Walter Sobcheck anyone?) Older, Speed Racer looks to be following in his brothers footsteps, until he is introduced to Mr. Royalton, who has to throw the concept of money into the equation to try and rid the heart out of racing and turn it all into business. First of all, the Wachowski's don't seem to know what they want this to be-a children's movie, a film for younger adults, or a throwback to the world of anime, so it tries to be all three. We have our children's movie-complete with an annoying young brother and his monkey-a film for younger adults-complete with many many many sexual innuendo's-and than our anime-where the bright lights and flashing headache inducing colors come into play, as does the constant green screen which I'm sure the entire movie was shot against. Emile Hursh, who got acclaim from last year's somewhat overrated but good "Into the Wild," throws that credibility out the window here, as does most of the "talent" involved. The Wachowski's just manage to do everything wrong here, including being extremely long in length. There is about a forty five minute halt somewhere in the middle here, and by the time the final race comes along (which some folks have mentioned gave them the "chills,") you just stop caring. The Wachowski's throw in an obvious twist at the end of the film which does give hope for a sequel, but I highly doubt we will see the racing world again, at least not for a long while.

*1/2 of ****

------

The Fall

Directed by Tarsem

"The Fall" is beautiful to look at, highly imaginative and creative, and very ambitious to boot, despite having its pretentious moments here and there that become just a little showy. I haven't seen the first film by Tarsem, "The Cell" from a few years back, but I hear that it was as highly experimental as this one. Taking place in 1920's LA, "The Fall" tells the story of young Alexandria (played by the wonderfully natural Catinca Untaru), who suffered a fall and is recovering in a hospital. While looking for things to do, and while not being under the watch of the kind and beautiful Nurse Evelyn, Alexandria meets Roy Walker, a Hollywood stunt man also recovering from an accident. He begins to weave to Alexandria a fantastic tale about the evil Lord Odious, who is being hunted by a slew of characters including Charles Darwin, an explosives expert, a hunter, an ex-slave, and finally a mysterious masked man that looks like Roy quite a bit. In exchange, Roy gets Alexandria to sneak into the closets and steal him some morphine in his attempts to kill himself, which keep failing. As Roy's life gets darker and darker, it reflects in the story as he begins to kill character after character.

Tarsem shot this film in eight-teen different countries, and takes advantage of some really beautiful shots that certainly deserve to be seen on the big screen. But it is at times where his attempt to blow the viewer away through the visuals ends up getting in the way of finding real heart into the characters. Our two leads Untaru and Lee Pace (who suddenly has been popping up in everything since "Pushing Daisies") do find some naturalness in their on-screen relationship. One touch I really liked a bit was having Alexandria say things at times to which Roy doesn't understand, causing her to repeat it, which is certainly realistic considering both the age and language barrier between the two. But Tarsem's script is a bit all over the place, trying to infuse too many things into one movie-the story within the story, the outer story, and than the throwbacks to Hollywoods and such. There were a few parallels between the the two stories that I haven't been able to catch on because I do not think Tarsem highlighted that section enough. At times the film does get a bit arty-such as the slow motion black and white opening credits with Beethoven's 7th (as beautiful as it is) playing in the background. But "The Fall" ends up being a special experiment and event that deserves to be seen, on as big a screen as possible, to wash into the beauty that Tarsem tries to infuse in every shot. I just wish he threw more effort into the other aspects of the film, as "The Fall" could have been something more masterful-and it should have been.

**1/2 of ****

My Blueberry Nights, Fugitive Pieces, Stuff and Dough, Then She Found Me

2008-05-23T18:36:00.003-04:00

My Blueberry Nights

Directed by Wong Kar Wai

Wong Kar Wai's first English speaking film has been talked about for some time now, especially considering it is the debut feature of singer Norah Jones. Her early Oscar buzz vanished very quickly when word got out that the movie was no good, and while "My Blueberry Nights" is somewhat of a mess, there is even to slightly recommend it, if you look hard enough. Jones plays Elizabeth, a young woman who has just had a nasty breakup with her boyfriend. She seeks refuge in a local diner owned by Jeremy (Jude Law), where she spends several nights with him discussing her life. Eventually she leaves New York and goes on a journey across America coming into contact with three different characters. One is Arnie, an alcoholic cop who is perpetually celebrating his last night of drinking, played perfectly by David Strathairn. The second is his estranged wife Sue Lynne, played by Rachel Weisz, and lastly is Leslie, a gambler who needs a lift to visit her father to get more money, played by Natalie Portman. In each encounter, Elizabeth learns a bit more about life and love and all that good stuff.

The highlights of the film are easily Jons and Strathairn, with the former carrying herself quite well considering she isn't used to this type of work. But the Arnie character really ends up being the heart and soul of the piece, and when he is gone everything somewhat falls apart. Weisz is certainly not doing her best work here, and by the time we get along to meeting the Portman character, you've certainly had enough. Jude Law does his typical Jude Law thing, which he hasn't deviated from in some time. But the films weakest link is easily Wong Kar Wai himself, who feels the need to throw in this very annoying stylistic approach to the story. Some scenes are some in slow motion, a few are through the camera that is placed at the top of the diner, and a song that Jones sang especially for the film is played several times during important moments, to the point where I could not take it anymore. He directs like a film school student trying to get artistic, when I know to expect better from him, despite him never exactly "wowing" me to the full extent of the word. "My Blueberry Nights" is a bit of a chore to get through, but the good aspects are exceedingly good to make it somewhat worthwhile.

**1/2 of ****

-------

Fugitive Pieces

Directed by Jeremy Podeswa

"Fugitive Pieces" opened the Toronto Film Festival last September in which I was at attendance, but was unable to get a ticket to the gala event. It finally opened in New York three weeks ago, to a final product that was quite disappointing. "Fugitive Pieces" is a rather emotionless independent drama about Jakob, a young boy who during WWII escaped from Poland where his parents are killed, and found himself in Greece under the care of Athos, a kind older man who takes Jakob under his wing. Podeswa decides to do a structure of flashbacks, showing us the adult Jakob before delving into his past. We see Jakob is clearly disturbed by something, which affects his marriage to Alex. Adapting from a novel by Anne Michaels, Podeswa is clearly trying to make something out of nothing, which is probably why he inflicts this type of structure on us. But the central performance by Stephen Dillane is quite dull, which could fit the emotionless character of Jakob, but I really don't think that is what he was doing with it. In addition the flashback segments offer nothing exactly, giving us the standard war story formula with the "wise older man" formula that we've also seen before. The film moves at a very slow pace as well, and the distance that the viewer has from the characters makes it a bit more unbearable. I read somewhere that the ending to the film has changed-the ending at the festival was apparently a bit of a downer. The ending in this film was somewhat hopeful, but I wonder what was originally there. Maybe it gave some kind of life to this very forgettable film.

** of ****

------

Stuff and Dough

Directed by Cristi Puiu

"Stuff and Dough" is the first film made by Cristi Puiu, released in Romania in 2001. It was given a United States release probably after the success of Puiu's 2005 masterpiece "The Death of Mr. Lazarescu," which had a decent run here in 2006-and it was indeed one of the best films of that year. "Stuff and Dough" has the possibility of being one of the best released films this year, and it shows that Puiu had the magic right from the beginning. I did miss the first minute or two of the film, but not enough to ruin any of the story. We are introduced to Ovidiu, who is enlisted by the rather shady man to deliver some "medical" supplies to a certain location by 2pm, in exchange for some money. Ovidiu's parents run a small kiosk in the back of their house, and Ovidiu wants to someday start his own. Going against the rules of going by himself to make the delivery, Ovidiu is joined by his friend Vali and Vali's girlfriend Bety. Ninety percent of the film takes place in the car on this trip, shown in shaky camera, which begins with conversations galore from little trivial things such as the asphalt-kind of like a Jim Jarmusch or a less pretentious Richard Linklater. And then the car begins to be followed by a mysterious red van, whose connections to the whole shady business are never exactly told.

Puiu manages to keep the tension constantly flowing with his realistic approach to the narrative-and a lean 90 minute run time, nearly an hour shorter than "Lazarescu." With this entire so called "Romanian New Wave" I have been so impressed with how several of these films take simple plot lines, and end up making such complex and engrossing films-the cat and mouse chase here, the all night deterioration of health in "Lazarescu," or even the real time talk show in "12:08 East of Bucharest," or just an abortion in "4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days." I am very grateful that Film Forum showed "Stuff and Dough' for two weeks, and I don't think it stuck like "Lazarescu" because its gone now. It is certainly worth a look-see, especially for both fans of "Lazarescu," or these new Romanian films in general.

**** of ****

------

Then She Found Me

Directed by Helen Hunt

"Then She Found Me" is the directing debut, and obvious pet project, of Helen Hunt, who not only directed and acts the lead role, but also wrote much of the screenplay, based off the novel by Elinor Lipman. What we get is a rather well made, well acted, and enjoyable little human dramedy, which certainly is not without its flaws and problems, but an endearing effort all the same. My problems with this film did not really surface until after it was over, and they still weren't that much anyway. Hunt plays April, a thirty or fortysomething woman that is getting to the age where she wants to have a baby. Recently married to Ben (Matthew Broderick, the casts weakest link who seems a bit awkward in his role), April is separated from him to quickly to conceive. After a break-up quickie on the kitchen floor, Ben disappears from town, and the distraught April begins to be courted by Frank (Colin Firth), the father of one of her students. To add to everything, April, an adopted child, is found by her birth mother, talk show host Bernice (Bette Midler), who suddenly wants to connect with her daughter after all these years. She does eventually become pregnant, but the father ends up being someone other than you'd expect.

There is quite a bit going on in the film to involve yourself in, and the three central stories that you can fall back on. April's story involving herself and her desire to want children. Working as a teacher she is able to experience distant relationships, but having one of her own is too important to her-she writes adoption off very fast. And than we have her love story(ies) with Frank, who is charismatically played by Colin Firth. Firth has been doing the same types of roles for a while now, but he seems like he is trying extra hard here, giving so much life to Frank that there is quite a bit to laugh at. You even feel his pain at times. And lastly is this mother/daughter story, and Hunt and Midler clearly have a good time playing off of one another-each other possibly talking quicker than the other. Several reviews for this have found a fault in Hunt finding the right tone for the piece, but I found that it drifted from comedy to drama and back again very well, despite the heavier dark tone of the third act. I also admired how Hunt directed the film, resorting to a few interesting shots. She actually looked like she knew what she was doing, or wanted to try a few things, as opposed to say Mike White's directing debut "Year of the Dog" last year, where his shots repeated to be the character speaking close up and in the center of the frame. All in all I enjoyed "Then She Found Me" quite a bit, and it seemed like what Hunt needed after lackluster roles in the last few years.

*** of ****

My Father My Lord

2008-05-19T14:40:00.004-04:00

I was honestly quite surprised by how much I was effected by "My Father My Lord," perhaps one of the smallest movies I've seen in a while. David Volach' directorial debut is a quiet affective family drama, centering around a family of three where religion is the central focus. Although it in the end, it is the message that religion should not be the most important thing with any family. We follow the story through the eye of Menaham, a young boy who lives under the stern religious following his his Rabbi father. His father does love him, but in this lifestyle, it is religious practice which must come first. A scene where Menaham's mother instructs him to go into the living room to speak to his father is very telling in that his father never says a word to him as he reads his religious templates. The film moves along its very thin 72 minutes almost plotless, until a trip to the Dead Sea culminates in a tragic accident.

This is the debut feature of Volach, who actually picked up the audience award at the Tribeca Film Festival last year, which honestly surprises me. This is a film not for every ones taste-very simple story, if having a story at all, and reminiscent of many of the realist films of decades ago. I am mildly reminded of Apu in "Pather Panchali," simply because of the following of this young boy. Volach opens our eyes-and the eye of Menaham as well-through many simple beautiful scenes-included Menaham discovering an old woman, recently dead, being loaded into an ambulance. Her faithful dog whimpers as he jumps in behind her. It also helps that the film is beautifully shot and scored, creating quite a hypnotic atmosphere, especially during the final scenes at the Dead Sea, where suspense quickly builds. I walked in knowing that there was to be a rather somber ending, but I could not expect how deeply I was able to become invested in these characters in only a little over an hour. "My Father My Lord" is a very effective moral drama, slowly developing its characters and creating a universe all of its own.

Final Rating-

***1/2 of ****

Baghead

2008-05-19T03:08:00.005-04:00

"Baghead" is the new film by the Duplass Brothers, and if you have absolutely no idea who I am talking about when I say that, hopefully in the near future you will. They impressed me quite a bit with their film "The Puffy Chair" about two years ago, and they continue to impress me with the slightly better "Baghead," which is already being marketed all wrong based on the single trailer I've seen for it. "Baghead" is, at its core, a relationship comedy, with elements of horror sprinkled into it. It has pretty much the same tone as "The Puffy Chair," and even similar characters, only its in a mild horror setting. Based on the marketing it seems like Sony is trying to get this out as your typical "four people in the woods" type of movie, with laughs thrown in to tell people they are going to have a good time. And I suppose, if you really want, you can call "Baghead" one of those "mumblecore movies," that so-called genre of film making that really isn't picking up as much as Andrew Bujalski would hope. You can read more about that movement here. But I did not consider the Duplass' last film a mumblecore movie nor do I consider this one one, despite it having similar styles.

So now that I've managed to confuse everyone, why did I like "Baghead?"

First off, it started with the perfect joke for a film festival attendance to hear. The film actually starts at a film festival screening, and its a really arty and pretty bad film with some nudity thrown in. Our four main characters have quite a laugh at it. And when the director comes out for the Q & A, the Duplass Brothers poke fun at audience questions-"What was the budget?" In this case, it was one thousand dollars, but he wanted it to be half of that. And so we meet our quartet, who regroup in a restaurant after the screening and decide to go off into the woods for the weekend and write a screenplay for them to act in, and get out of being extras for the rest of their lives. There is Matt and Catherine, who seem to have had a fling going on for almost ten years. He says its over. She says that hes the love of her life. And then there is Chad, who has a little crush on his friend Michelle (the excellent Greta Gerwig), but she seems to have her eyes more set on Matt, especially during this weekend get-away. Chad seals the deal with Michelle being his movie-girlfriend (a hint at the movies heartbreakingly sweet final lines), but nobody is able to come up with any ideas until Michelle has a dream about a creepy figure outside with a bag over its head. And then suddenly creepy things start to happen, and this baghead perhaps isn't a figment of anyones imagination after all.

But like I said, this is primarily a relationship drama, with the horror used comedy, satire, and just as a way to highlight this relationship drama even more. I was surprised how great I found all of these characters, and just how natural they were to me. Greta Gerwig, who was the best part about "Hannah Takes the Stairs," even though the rest of the film did not raise the bar that high, continues to showcase her talent here, and its an extremely natural performance. There is some good buddy laughs between Matt and Chad (played by Ross Partridge and Steve Zissis, the latter of whom I wish had the last name Zissou since it comes so damn close). And Elise Muller as Catherine plays a jealous angle quite well, but also avoids being a caricature and is able to be very human here. And while the horror elements are easily bought into-there are a few fun scares sans any hint of blood and gore at all-it was not until after the film where I realized how they fit into the entire scope of the four characters and their relationships with one another.

"Baghead" avoided being everything I had expected it to be, but in an extremely good way. I left the theatre extremely satisfied with what I saw, and I really loved everything about it. I loved the characters, their situations, and the final scene which just reached an unexpected note of poignancy, on the same level that 'The Puffy Chair" ended-these are two very abrupt endings (no fade-outs, no real hint of the film about to be over at all), but both end their films on such perfect notes. I walked out of the theatre not only happy to have seen the film, but happy that there is a contentment within this group of characters-as if they were my own friends that I just spent 85 minutes with.

This is the aim of Andrew Bujalski's movement-to make movies with characters so natural and real that it gives the viewer the impression of being out with their friends. But his movies obviously want to be that-they reek of pretentiousness and simply try to hard. But without trying as hard, the Duplass Brothers made these natural characters that I WANTED to be around. The film just reminded that there is hope-hope in love, hope in life, and even hope in good independent film making. This is one of my personal favorite films of the year at this point.

"Baghead" was set for release in summer, but seems to have been moved to avoid confusion with "Towelhead," which was originally under the better name of "Nothing Is Private," so in the end everyone really loses.

Final Rating-

**** of ****

Tribeca 2008 Report

2008-05-16T23:46:00.005-04:00

Two weeks ago I made a special trip to the city for the 2008 Tribeca Film Festival. After having such a terrific time at the festival last year (which you can read up on right here), I knew that I would have to find a way to go, despite the barrier of college in the way. This year I was able to see eleven films showing at the festival-some already set for distribution in the coming months, some that will most likely get a distributor very soon, and some that I hope to never see again.

First up was "This Is Not A Robbery," a quite delightful documentary that managed to be successful without an overtly political theme. It was just plain fun. It's these types of documentaries that I really do get the most enjoyment of, taking an rather odd topic and making it colorful and enjoyable. Lucas Jansen and Adam Kurland take on the story of a man named J.L. "Red" Rountree, who lived a long life where he was screwed over several times financially, and finally snapped at the age of eighty eight when he went out one day and robbed a bank. He robbed several banks for a few years (he was put in prison for life when he was 92 and he died very shortly after), none of which were very successful, and it came to the point where he only began to do it because he thought that "stealing was fun." "This Is Not A Robbery" is the type of story that fiction wishes it could create but never will-an enjoyable and highly entertaining documentary.

*** of ****

---------------------------

Next was "Simple Things," a Russian film by Aleksei Popogrebsky which I really wasn't overly fond of. Being raved about as "one of the best Russian films in recent memory"-which I really can't comment on having not seen that many Russian films in recent memory-I had a hard time really immersing myself into this film. This is the story of Sergei Maslov, a doctor who has quite a bit on his plate. He is having problems with his wife, his daughter seems to have run off with a no good boyfriend, his mistress is angry at him, and an aging actor asks him for help to kill himself in exchange for a pricey painting. While the main acting by Sergei Puskepalis is wonderfully nuanced and very rich (which made the fact that he's had a small role in one other movie aside from this that much more shocking) I was never able to really invest myself into these characters. There are scenes of dialogue where nothing really moves forward, and I felt like everything took a kind of halt . There is also a somewhat awful meshing of tone, mixing comedy into the strong drama when it is not really needed at all, and this includes the ending. "Simple Things" was not an awful film, but certainly not an awful film, but I expected something more. There are better Russian films out there at the moment, including "The Banishment" which I hope finds it way here soon.

**1/2 of ****

-------------------------

Next was "The Cottage," a rousing good time (and everyone in the theatre seemed to be enjoying it too.) Starring Andy Serkis (Gollom from "Lord of the Rings" and "King Kong") and Reece Shearsmith as brothers David and Peter, we follow their failed (right from the start) attempt to "kidnap" a rich man's loudmouthed and crude daughter Tracey, and than collect on the ransom money. Retreating at a cottage in the middle of the woods, the two bumbling would-be criminals, another partner, and Tracey end up crossing paths with a psychopathic deformed farmer, while at the same time avoiding two Korean hitman brothers hired by Tracey's father. I enjoyed "The Cottage" from the very start for its two very different approaches-the buddy aspect between the two brothers who can be no more opposite and the scare sequences involving this farmer creature. Some of its horror/comedy mergings are a bit awkward, but the quite dark ending is very fitting for it, and most of it does work. And the real mixed feelings come after its over, but the ride really is quite an enjoyable one.

"The Cottage" is actually now on DVD, getting just a few screenings at Tribeca. I am glad that I got to see it.

*** of ****

----------------------------

My Saturday began with "57,000 Kilometers Between Us." a film that I really found nothing worth liking. A painful excursion into a dysfunctional family, the movie is based on the commentary about technology-where does it begin and end, especially in real life where the world is pretty much revolved around screens. Our main character Nat lives in a world where everything is propelled on a screen, as her mother and her stepfather are the stars of an internet reality television show. Her only real friend is Adrien, a sick young boy who speaks to her over the computer while in the hospital. Nat is only really happy in this technological world, and as her life with the family gets odder and odder it could be that this fictional world is better than reality.

The problem with this was its extreme nature-as a way to highlight the main points of what director/writer Delphine Kreuter wants to say, she really does make Nat and Adrien's life a real hell. The family antics just become painful to watch, and you know it is when the wonderful Mathieu Amalric is resorted to climbing around on all fours during a dinner scene. There really is a hollow quality to this-nothing to relate to, and nothing you'd want to relate to. An interesting question posed in an uninteresting movie. When I walked past the director sitting in a chair on the way out (me skipping the Q & A because I would rather eat than have to sit through more of her work) I somewhat felt bad for her. The theatre was emptying quite a bit and there was no real applause for it (which is rare. I've sat through extreme trash which have still gotten claps. "57,000 Kilometers Between Us" is just such a messy and poorly made dull film that there really is nothing much worth clapping for.

*1/2 of ****

----------------------

"Somers Town" is Shane Meadows follow up to his highly acclaimed film last summer "This Is England"-which, if I recall right, premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival last year as well. To some extent I liked his previous film, although not to the higher accolades as several other fellow film fans. I was highly impressed by the lead performance by Thomas Turgoose, who returns in this film along with Piotr Jagiello (both of whom won the Best Acting Award at the Festival). They play Tomo and Marek. Tomo is a runaway from Nottingham who ends up being mugged and robbed and left with nothing in London. Marek lives with his newly divorced father, who spends his days working and his nights drinking with some friends he made on the job. These two lonely souls end up finding each other and get into all sorts of mischief and trouble. Along the way their bond strengthens, and they both find friendship with Maria-a beautiful waitress who they both have the eyes for.

"Somer's Town" is a very simple little movie, given so much life by these two leads. Meadows shoots all in black and white, and while that usually ends up being a stunt by the director to give it an arty feel, it really does add to the story-kind of like of cruder British Woody Allen film. This is quite obviously a quick project after "This Is England,"-perhaps he had some extra time on his hands and did not want to lose Turgoose before he ends up being looked for. I really did love these two man characters, and despite only running a lean 75 minutes the film really does feel complete. Turgoose is especially terrific, not loosing any of that momentum he got from "This Is England." I personally think this is a Meadows best film since "Dead Man's Shoes," which I found to be a perfect drama. My somewhat lackluster festival lineup was given a massive boost here.

***1/2 of ****

------------------------------------

The first forty minutes or so of "Charly" were quite possibly some of the most brutal forty minutes I've spent in a theatre in a long while. The packed crowd at the start slowly dwindled over this amount of time-I believe less than half of the theatre was filled when the credits began to roll. But staying and making it through the tough times were quite rewarding for me, as the second half of "Charly" introduced me to both a great character and a new actress I intend on keeping my eyes on. We follow the story of Nicolas, a young boy who seems to always have his head in a book and his mind outside of the fact that his family life is not one to be thrilled about. He eventually runs away from his home, and ends up meeting Charly, a young woman who lives in a roadside trailer. Working at night and having odd obsessive compulsions revolving his housework by the day, the two of them manage to forge an odd little friendship, awakening Nicolas from his slumberous youth.

At the start, it was almost unbearable to watch these day by day actions for Nicolas, who was perhaps one of the dullest characters I've observed in a while. I understand this was probably Isild Le Besco's intention, to make the third act that much more sweeter, but it was really hard to invest myself in this movie when I was getting nothing in return. The groans from the audience were almost awkward for me to endure. And then there was a silver lining at the end-and her name is Julie-Marie Parmentier, who plays Charly. She was excellent here, and had such command on the screen. Beautiful and quirky and odd and annoying all at the same time, she really threw a much needed amount of life into this sometimes painful film to endure. Of course the movie certainly doesn't become a masterwork into the second half, but it made it tolerable enough for "Charly" to be worthwhile. It isn't everyday I'm able to make a new discovery for myself.

** of ****

------------------------------------

When I saw Bill Plympton's name on the bill for a Tribeca screening, I made sure I revolved my schedule around it. I have been into Plympton's animation since I first saw his short "Guard Dog" a few years ago, and even made a special arrangement to see "Hair High" about a year and a half ago. Also, his films rarely seem to get picked up, so I feel lucky to have seen his new film already. "Idiots and Angels" is a bit darker than his usual fare, but it certainly doesn't lose quality. In fact, Plympton may have crafted one of his best films yet, in this strange odd story about a completely rude man who wakes up one morning to find a pair of angel wings on his back.

The story goes into several odd directions, but Plympton is the master of the interesting drawn image. He draws the old fashioned way, and than gives the sketches to his animators who make them come to life. I forget the number of sketches that he says "Idiots and Angels" was, but it was quite mind-boggling. I have a hard time drawing one picture let alone in the several thousands. He is also great at creating a fine mood here, with a beautiful musical score and some selected Tom Waits songs that really blend into the dark atmosphere. Yes, strange things happen, but that is to be expected from a Plympton film. It's the effort and this amusing directions his stories go into that make them so worthwhile, despite a sometimes grueling pace, which he works with often-you really do get adjusted to it quickly.

*** of ****

------------------------------------

"The Secret of the Grain" won several top awards at the French Academy Awards, and I plan on seeing it again when it is readily possible. There was quite a bit to take in here, in this story of a sixtysomething year old man, fed up with his dull job at a shipyard. Mr. Slimani is divorced and instead of making it strange and detached, he stays close to his family. His plan is to open a restaurant aboard a boat, but the only problem is that his salary cannot pay for such a venture. With the help of his young niece (the excellent Hafsia Herzi), he tries to make this dream a reality, with several complications along the way.

The film was quite involving, especially with the subplots regarding the various family members, including a cheating husband. A scene where his wife ends up blowing up at Slimani about all of her problems was terrific, and I only wish that I made a better mental note about her character name so that I can look her up. This makes my interest in revisiting this film even better. Some of the film does get a bit tedious, as can be expected with a 151 minute running time-many scenes overstay their welcome, including the climatic scene at the end involving bellydancing (and when bellydancing can become dull, that is when there is a problem.) I was also massively impressed with the lead-Habib Boufares-who has never acted in a film before. This list of amateur actors impressing me continues after "Simple Things." But I did like "The Secret of the Grain," and intend on seeing it more when it is possible. I feel like things flew past me, which can affect my enjoyment of it-it could possibly grow even more.

*** of ****

------------------------

"Katyn" was nominated for an Oscar for Best Foreign Language film this year, so I'm certain that it will make its way into theatres soon enough. And it also involves the Soviets attack on Poland, and this time period in history seem to have become quite typical for awards-I wasn't very impressed with "The Counterfeiters" or this, so I'm hoping that this period dwindles-but after the success of "The Lives of Others," I do not see that happened soon. "Katyn" follows four families during the way, tragically interweaving them in your typical interweaving ways. What really annoyed me about this was how manipulative it was, trying to get the audience to fall into its tragedy in the most obvious ways possible. In trying to make the finale more intense and deep they really went the whole nine yards to get graphic, and when the film blacked out and lasted a minute more before the credits with the sounds of chanting in the background, I was more angered than moved. Not angered at the horrors of war that these people had to go through, but angered at the film makers who not only approached new ground, but did not even be dramatic in a new way. This film was obvious and poorly made from the beginning, but the sounds of tears in the audience made me see that many could fall for it. I really did not like this film at all.

** of ****

-----------------------

Lastly was "Bitter & Twisted," which while enjoyable and somewhat touching in an odd way, would sometimes tread into extremely odd territories, that I still cannot really make heads or tails of. In a way it reminded me of "Imaginary Heros" from a few years back, in telling of a family in the wake of the suicide of one of their own. In both cases it is an older brother, who leaves behind a stoic and overweight father, a mother who intends on turning her dull life around, and a brother who does not know what to do with himself (played by director Christopher Weekes). He also lusts after Indigo, his neighbor who went out with his brother before he died. While some moments truly do go into quite moving territory, others go into more surreal and odd. To mention two, I would say the mothers encounter with a rather creepy bachelor in his apartment, and the oddly homosexual friendship between Weekes and a guy named Matt, who lives with his senile father. The film would take these odd interludes in the midst of the somewhat gritty drama, all combined with a lovely musical score. "Bitter & Twisted" is a strange film, but an effective debut by Weekes, who I think needed to work a bit on tone for his next cinematic venture.

*** of ****

-----------------

And thats all for Tribeca 2008-looking forward to another trip in 2009.

I also saw "Baghead," which I intend on writing an extensive review for very soon because of how much I liked it.

A Few Films to Look for in New York.. .

2008-04-28T20:02:00.003-04:00

A few movies out at the moment and starting this weekend that I caught at various festivals over the course of the last few months.

The first is actually out at the moment and doing quite well in its limited release-the film is "The Visitor," with Richard Jenkins in a rather career defining role as a widowed and depressed college professor who gets involved in the struggle between two immigrants from Syria. The film can be found in various locations around the city, and my review for the film at the Toronto Film Festival can be found here.

The second is being released this Friday at the Angelika Film Center-it's the wonderful comedy "Son of Rambow," about two young boys who begin to make an action movie after being inspired by 'First Blood." My review from the Toronto Film Festival can be found here.

The third I did not like at all-Harmony Korine's "Mister Lonely," which is opening at the IFC Center on Wednesday. This is somewhat of an example of a good story gone bad, and when the best scenes in the film feature documentary film maker Werner Herzog in a subplot that I still cannot connect to the main story line there is clearly something wrong with the movie. Oddly enough Herzog had some of the best scenes in the recent mockumentary film "The Grand," which I did not review here but found some enjoyment out of. My review for "Mister Lonely" from the Toronto Film Festival can be found here.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

2008-04-28T19:33:00.003-04:00

"Forgetting Sarah Marshall" is yet another comedy film that is out that has Mr. Judd Apatow being involved, and while he is really getting the most credit for these box office hits, this film really belongs to Jason Segal, and it is him that give the most credit to-for not only does he act in this, but he also wrote the entire screenplay as well. Apatow had a hand in the script and the direction for "Knocked Up" and "The 40 Year Old Virgin," but he should stick on the producers side as his direction is often choppy and his editing skills need quite a bit of work. His improvisational feeling just doesn't do much for me, and "Virgin" only got a pass on that because it was Apatow's first-I would have hoped he improved for his second film but he did not. As for "Sarah Marshall," this is perhaps the best Apatow produced comedy since "Superbad." In between there was the very funny "Walk Hard" and the kind of awful "Drillbit Taylor," which I did not even bother to review here.

Segal, who certainly steals the show on the weekly TV series "How I Met Your Mother," plays Peter, a composer for a lame CSI type television series who is given the shock of his life when his long time actress girlfriend, and the star of that show, ends up breaking up with him. Peter goes into a cycle of self-pity, spending days without leaving his house and making himself depressed by sleeping with tons of women in meaningless one night stands. Hating his job doesn't help either, and Peter spends some of his free time attempting to write a musical opera based on 'Dracula." When his stepbrother Brian suggests that he take a trip somewhere to escape from the thought of Sarah, Peter hops on a plane to Hawaii without any hotel reservations to try it out. Booking himself into a hotel and gaining the support of the receptionist Rachel, Peter soon learns that Sarah is on vacation with her new boyfriend, the British rock star Aldous Snow-whose first scene has his looking for his other shoe which he describes as "like this one, only the opposite-but not like the evil version of it, just the other one." Instead of fleeing, Peter decides to stay at the hotel, staying in the most expensive room in the hotel free of charge (as long as he cleans it up himself), and he also begins to befriend some of the more colorful people around the hotel, including Matthew, a waiter who has an obsession with Aldous. And then he is able to find love again when he begins to fall for Rachel.

What makes these movies so successful-with the strong exception of "Drillbit Taylor," which was just a waste of effort and time-is that they manage to take tiresome material, have the stories end in the way that you expect it to, but they are just so wonderfully written and their characters are so well drawn out. While some of the actions of the characters here are questionable, there isn't a single person in this film that I did not enjoy seeing when they were on the screen-even the hated and stuck up Aldous Snow, who still has some great lines and a cool persona that one cannot help but fall under-which makes us understand why Sarah would want him instead of the self-pitying Peter. Sarah as well-played well by Kristen Bell-does not go for the villain type here, and she has some moments where you actually feel sorry for her, and can understand her ending the relationship. It's a very three dimensional role in a character that could have easily been turned into something else. And she has a good time poking fun at her own role in movies and television shows. Bell is primarily a TV actor, and she led "Veronica Mars" and now she's in "Heros," and I believe she does something on that show "Gossip Girl," and every now and then she finds herself in a movie, usually nothing good. There is a very funny scene here at a dinner with Peter and Rachel eating with Aldous and Sarah. Sarah-a TV actress in a terrible show that co-stars Billy Baldwin-is talking about a bad horror movie that she did recently, which she defends-a story about a mobile phone which has an agenda to kill people. Sarah proclaims "It's just a metaphor for our obsession and reliance on technology," while Aldous goes "No, it's a metaphor for a crap movie." She is clearly making a jab at "Pulse," a rather awful horror film which came out about two years ago. And all of the side characters manage to be entertaining, and when one of them wasn't on the screen there was one equally good to make up for it. By the end of the movie I was somewhat sad, only because I wanted an excuse to hang out with some of these characters for a little more-the two hours really did fly by.

And then there is Segel himself-Peter-who wrote this wonderful screenplay, and doesn't mind really baring himself for the world to see-and I mean that figuratively and literally and there is enough full frontal nudity to appease the female crowd. But he doesn't mind looking like hell for the cameras in scenes, or just depicting himself as a putz at times-yet he is so likable and enjoyable to watch, so you actually can pity him even when you see him sit around the house wearing sweatpants for a week, in one of the films funniest segments. So in a film like this, where the resolution is quite obvious for everyone who is watching, it is the journey that counts, and that is where "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" is successful. It is sweet, smart, and just massively funny, hopefully sealing Segel as a actor that we will see more and more in comedies.

Final Grade-

"Forgetting Sarah Marshall"-***1/2 of ****

Shine a Light and Young @ Heart

2008-04-22T00:11:00.003-04:00

Yesterday I indulged myself with two music documentaries-I didn't plan it that way, thats just how the times worked out, so I figured I would respond to them together instead of in separate posts. The two docs are the Sundance favorite "Young @ Heart,' and the Martin Scorsese directed Rolling Stones concert film "Shine a Light."

I suppose both films did not meet the expectations that I had set out for them originally-"Shine a Light" underwhelmed me while "Young @ Heart" was far better than I had conceived it. I'll start with the Scorsese film, which begins with a rather enjoyable ten minutes of preparation for the Stones concert at the Beacon Theatre in NY in Fall 2006. Now I know that Scorsese is a huge fan of the Rolling Stones, and they certainly have an impact in his movies. Almost all of his films-at least the ones that are not period films-seem to have a Stones song here and there, and I believe that he's used "Gimmie Shelter" three times-and it appears in "The Departed" twice. There is some comedy by Scorsese at the start of this documentary, and part of me feels like it was filmed after the fact. Scorsese scrambles about trying to figure out where to put the cameras around the theatre, and trying to figure out which songs the Stones were going to play. One of my favorite parts here was when Scorsese indicated a whole stack of papers with notes for nearly every song that they could possibly play, divided into sections based on the odds of them playing it. It was a rather interesting segment in seeing the process of the film maker.

And then the concert starts-bookended with a rather awful special effects shots, but more on that later. And that is just about the rest of the film, intersected every two or three songs with some interview footage from the early days of the band. Oddly enough, these brief interviews were some of the best parts of the film, and I would have enjoyed it more had Scorsese intercutted more interviews among the songs instead of having it straight concert film. Or even some more about why the Stones mean so much to Scorsese-for someone who uses them as often as him, they clearly influence him greatly. But why? I would have liked for "Shine a Light" to be a bit more personal for the film maker, and while it is quite rocking and enjoyable as it is, this could have been even better. And as a Stones fan myself, I was not a hue fan of the song selection, and especially segments in the middle it somewhat got mildly extended, at least until they jam the last five songs of the setlist with some of the best Stones songs ever made. There is also three special guest performers-Jack White, Buddy Guy, and Christina Aguilera.

The final two minutes almost completely ruins the experience as Scorsese decides to be a tad bit cuter than he should be. He ends the film with a special effects shot out of the Beacon, panning across the skies of Manhattan, before ending with a shot of the city underneath a moon. The moon than turns into the Rolling Stones symbol (the tongue sticking out) before fading out. The shot annoyed me-not just because of the bad special effects that look unrealistic completely-but also because it was not needed. Scorsese has time for these bad FX shots, but he cannot throw in a few more personal thoughts about the band, which is what this needed.

"Shine a Light" is playing in IMAX theatres, and due to scheduling conflicts I was only able to see it in a conventional theatre-which was fine, but I feel like this would have been mammoth on the giant screen-with every single wrinkle, pore, and spitwad from Mick Jagger probably being visible. It would have probably been like being at the front row of a Stones concert, something rare for a lot of people I am sure. I did get enjoyment out of "Shine a Light," but it's only for the die hard Stones fan really-it does not have enough background and personal feeling injected into it for it to be an introduction to the band, or even just for someone who does not have a strong love for the band. There was quite an entertaining man in front of me who was rocking along with the music for the entire time, while his wife sat next to him not moving. I wondered what her facial expression was.

And just for those interested, here is the setlist for "Shine a Light":

Jumpin' Jack Flash

Shattered

She Was Hot

All Down the Line

Loving Cup-with Jack While

As Tears Go By

Some Girls

Just My Imagination

Far Away Eyes

Champagne and Reefer-with Buddy Guy

Tumbling Dice

You Got the Silver

Connection

Sympathy for the Devil

Live with Me-with Christina Aguilera

Start Me Up

Brown Sugar

(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction

But where is "Gimmie Shelter?" "You Can't Always Get What You Want?" "19th Nervous Breakdown?" "Street Fighting Man?" "Ruby Tuesday?" It just felt so. . incomplete.

And then on the other side is "Young @ Heart," which I have already debated with someone who found the film completely patronizing-to the point where she opted to walk out and watch a Yankee game. I found this documentary to be completely sweet and uplifting, and there wasn't a patronizing bone in its body. Telling a story of the Young At Heart chorus group in Massachusetts where the members average at about eighty, and their specialties are classic rock and roll songs-songs by Sonic Youth, The Clash, The Rolling Stones, and The Zombies are thrown in there briefly too. We follow seven weeks in the lives of these chorus members as they prepare to do a big show.

I must say I was quite charmed by all the members here-especially Eileen Hall, the oddest member of the chorus at ninety two at the time of this filming. The film starts with her delivering a rather enjoyable version of "Should I Stay or Should I Go?" complete with her proper British accent. After the credits rolled there is a little window saying that she died a few months ago, and I actually led out an audible "no!" I began to care for these people, and over the course of the seven weeks they lose two of their members-one recent and the other coming out of a retirement to sing one last song. Instead another member who came out of retirement does a solo version of Coldplay's "Fix You" during the big show, and I will admit I had some tears coming out of my eyes during it-as did several members in the audience of the big show itself.

Some of the film becomes painful to watch-especially during the rehearsal scenes-all of them trying to memorize all seventy-one "can's" in "Yes I Can" or trying to get the words to "I Feel Good," but the finished product ends up being quite entertaining. Yes there is some reluctance of them to actually sing the rock and roll songs, but none of the members ever seem to complain about it. They simply enjoy singing and they enjoy singing with each other. The version of Sonic Youth's "Schizophrenia" starts off as a mess during rehearsals, and ends up being something really unique and enjoyable.

So there we have it-two completely different yet oddly similar music docs-but I was oddly fascinated with "Yougn @ Heart" more than "Shine a Light"-perhaps its because I expected something more by Scorsese-a die hard Stones fan for years not taking full advantage of the potential that it had. It is something I can recommend to a die hard Stones fan, but everyone else might find themselves expecting something different. But "Young @ Heart" should take folks by surprise-a very uplifting and sweet and highly entertaining music doc, from a group of people that you would least expect.

So, final grades-

"Shine a Light"-**1/2 of ****

"Young @ Heart"-***1/2 of ****

Smart People

2008-04-20T01:29:00.003-04:00

The first time we see Professor Lawrence Wetherhold is when he is tramping along a college campus, on his way to teach his class of students whose names he cannot even remember. Clad with a nice brown jacket, a beard, and an oblivious look to everything around him, we know exactly how this story is going to go. "Smart People" is the story of a depressed middle aged man, a genre which I've always been rather fond of-if it's movies like "Lost in Translations," "Sideways," or "American Splendor," than I am there on opening night. Something about them always manage to get to me. This time the lead is Dennis Quaid, an actor who I am able to find agreement with when he isn't trying to be an action hero-when he does actual real life characters-very much like in "In Good Company," than he manages to find some kind of middle ground and actually does impress me to some degree.

And yes-Lawrence is a depressed middle aged man, a few years after the death of his wife Caroline. He lives with his daughter Vanessa-a tightly wound Republican who is constantly worried about getting a perfect score on the SAT. His other son James lives is the college where Lawrence teaches English literature-where he lectures to his students, and implores them to wear nametags to get to know their names. However we learn early that this doesn't work, when a girl says "I've taken three classes with you this year and you still don't know my name." A funny little detail in the script is that she pops up at almost every function that he is a part of, including dating his own son. From what I can recall, we never actually learn her name. And another thing-Lawrence is an all around unpleasant, self-absorbed, and very stuck up professor, committed to trying to become the head of the English department. And Vanessa is on her way to becoming just like him. After his car gets towed and he injures his head trying to retrieve his briefcase from the impound lot, Lawrence learns he cannot legally drive for six months. This is where his adopted brother Chuck comes in-a rather sleazy and lazy but good natured man who always wants to get a buck off of his brother. Chuck ends up moving in and becoming Lawrence's driver. Then there is Janet, a doctor who took Lawrence's class as a freshman and carried a small schoolgirl crush on him.

The pieces are quite in play for the script-which was written by Mark Poirier as his first feature film-and considering that he really does go a rather formula route he does manage to write some nice characters and a few good exchanges. The thing about "Smart People" is that from the very first scene we more or less know the routes that these characters will follow-and they all have their own place-the rigid and stern lead character who will change over time, the woman who will help him change his ways, a clone spawn, and lastly the colorful relative-in this case its Thomas Hayden Church who is channeling his own brilliant work in 'Sideways" here. But it is really all acted quite well-Quaid really looses himself in this role, and this is a huge step up from his phoned in work in "Vantage Point" from two months ago. Ellen Page-probably the reason why this ended up getting a rather small wide release instead of being released in seven theatres opening weekend-does do some "Juno" channeling here-just in that smart as a whip, fast talking, character.

While "Smart People" does have its moments of rather hurried formula, it is quite satisfying. As much as Lawrence is a jerk, Quaid makes him tolerable and you continue to watch him to see what will happen next. The weak link here in terms of acting is clearly Sarah Jessica Parker as Janet-I read that Rachael Weisz was the original actress for the part here, and she would have clearly done a much better job. Parker just really has no presence at all, and her performance here is quite one note-and it did affect the love story portion of the film quite a bit, but luckily there was enough good to make up for it. I also was not a huge fan of some of the directions that the screenplay goes with the love story-and I would have preferred something a little less extreme in terms of how that plot ends-without giving anything away.

"Smart People" also throws in some neat little satire here and there-the pompos nature of Lawrence and even Vanessa is more or less the basis of the title of the film, and even though they may be book smart there are so many answers that they can't study for or get from a textbook. And it really is fun to watch Quaid when he is amping up the stuck up side of him, especially during a disaster date scene between him and Janet. So I can recommend "Smart People" despite it being quite the conventional "depressed" picture, but in stories like this-which we have seen quite a number of times-there is still quite a bit of good going on to satisfy even when the screenplay doesn't thrill that much.

Final Grade-

"Smart People" *** of ****

Revisiting Matchstick Men

2008-04-05T02:05:00.006-04:00

The following posts several spoilers for "Matchstick Men," and big plot devices will be ruined if you read this without having seen it.

Tonight I watched "Matchstick Men" for the first time in about a year and a half. I've seen the movie easily over ten times before-and I declared it the best film of 2003 that year. I find all aspects of it criminally underrated-from the masterful performance of Nicolas Cage, to the terrific direction of Ridley Scott. Despite directing many big movies between this and "Blade Runner," I find it to be his best work.

But of course, hardly anybody agrees with me on this assessment. And even almost five years later, "Matchstick Men" hardly gets any credit and it seems to just float there, despite me still seeing the greatness that I discovered a while back.

To just put some plot down if you are reading this without having seen it-something that I will not suggest, but after this plot summary I will suggest you stop-"Matchstick Men" stars Nicolas Cage as Roy Waller. As a con man, Roy is quite good at it. Doing it for years, and having accumulated over a million dollars in his safe deposit box, Roy has reduced him and his partner Frank (played by Sam Rockwell) to small time con-talking people into buying something worthless and then taking them for all they've got. It's in his normal personal life where Roy is failing-ridden with various tics and twitches, Roy cannot go into a room without opening the door three times, and he does not tolerate shoes on his carpet. Taking some kind of illegal pill to calm his nerves, Roy's life turns upside down when he spills his remaining pills down the drain. And his source has packed up his things and moved back East. Roy begins to see a shrink, the calm and soothing Dr. Harris Klein, who Roy reluctantly warms up to and confides it. In their sessions he begins to think about his ex-wife Heather, and the fact that she was pregnant when he left her. And put into contact with this daughter that he learns he has, Angela (played by Alison Lohman), Roy meets her, under the ruse that he is an antiques broker. This comes at the same time that Roy and Frank decide to con Chuck, a rather sleezy and greedy businessman, in a con involving currency exchange.

What happens here is that we have three stories running parallel to each other, before merging in ways that are unexpected. We have Roy with his obsessive compulsions, battling his own inner demons as his world changes around him. The thing is that we do not know what is actually bothering Roy. It's been fourteen years since he left his wife, and in that span of time what occurred to bring him to this fragile mental state. It doesn't really matter, because Nicolas Cage sells this role with expertise. We are able to believe his compulsions without actually knowing the cause of them.

Our second story is the one between Roy and Angela, and the bond that they form. This is clearly the real core to the story, as the only times that we see Roy actually ease off his twitches is when he is with her. Three scenes can be mentioned here. The first is when he agrees to open up to her about what he does for a living. Sitting on the floor over a pizza he tells her what he does, and this is the first scene where his eye remains mobile for the entire time. In one of the best scripted exchanges in the whole movie we actually get a glimpse at what could be bothering him-he's sick of his work. He has to con people that do not deserve it-"old people, fat people, lonely." In a sad voice Angela asks why he does it, to which we do not get an answer. But we don't need one either. The second scene is while bringing her out onto a job, teaching her a minor con involving a lottery ticket and a woman doing her laundry. And lastly is really a stretch of scenes throughout the movie. Notice the windows in the car in three scenes where Cage is waiting for his daughter. Before their meeting the window is closed up-the smoke from his cigarette fills the car in sickly fashion. While waiting for her to get out of summer school, the window is opened almost halfway. And a scene at the end where he begins to tell her his plans for gaining custody, the window is practically open all the way.

The final story is the con itself-the con that Roy and Frank begin to play on this Chuck. Oddly enough this is really the least important aspect of the film, even though the final twist in the end (which I will get to later) really does incorporate all three storylines into one. On the surface this con would really just seem central to keeping the story entertaining-which is does. In fact, the whole movie is entertaining enough to keep watching simply because of the way it ebbs and flows among all three of these stories. It never lets go, because all three storylines just fit so gently into one another.

These are all observations that I have made before, the other dozen or so times I've seen this movie. Watching it this time, with a new context that I have made for myself, I began to notice more. When I first saw this in 2003, I paid attention to story not expecting it to be as masterful as it was. Five years ago I paid most of my attention to script and acting, mainly because of my interest in writing at the time. Yet over the past year or so I have been intriqued by so many different aspects of film making-mainly cinematography and sound. I've been impressed by the look of things like "Children of Men" and "There Will Be Blood," mainly for the scope of their shots. Both include such terrific long shots. And for sound, especially in last year's "No Country for Old Men," which relied on sound for tension since it only had about a minute of music throughout its entire running time. This time I watched the film with this is mind-not having to concentrate on the performances and the script as much simply because I've poured my obsession over them for the last few years.

Ridley Scott simply scores with every single trick that he does here. I have not been impressed by any of his recent works-"American Gangster" and "Kingdom of Heaven" both missed the mark by large amounts. However, but working on a smaller scope and yet having an epic feeling, he is able to focus on a smaller scale. You are uncomfortable watching this film in the first twenty five minutes or so. There are quickly edited shots, following a very quick rhythm. A scene where Roy calls his pill provider and learns that he moves involves so many cuts. Roy in the middle of the screen, and the camera cutting from his left profile to his right profile very quickly-at least eight shots were in a period of ten seconds. The shots do slowly get longer, and although not shots in the film really does last for longer than twelve seconds (I didn't time it, but this is just an educated assessment) it just hints further that Roy (the character we follow in every single scene of the narrative) never does fully get better, but better enough to function and come to terms with himself. As he says in the final scene of the movie, when all is said and done, "I see things differently now," and as the viewer we seen things differently in almost every scene.

I've always been a fan of the Hans Zimmer score-which combines a jazzy sound with a rather offbeat and quirky rhythm-but I paid more attention to the actual background sound, which was very apparent on the big screen that I watched it on and with the sound up very high, something I haven't experienced from this movie since seeing it in the theatre. There is an almost trancelike feeling you get while listening to this movie. A scene where Roy is trying to comfort Angela after she storms out of his house after they fight has them outside-there is no music, but there is plenty of tension because of the background noise that Scott decides to fit into the soundtrack. She asks why he has a gun, and at that same second you can hear a train whistle in the background. Perhaps a train just passed by while they were filming, or maybe its a mere symbol for Cage's desire to get away from the moment-it is time to confront an issue that he has been trying to skirt since meeting Angela-an issue that perhaps he's been trying to skirt himself. Conning is something that he is good at, even though its killing him to do it.

And lastly the pool. Roy has a pool in the back of his house-an in ground small pool that is never used, and only seen in one scene up close-where the ever obsessive Roy goes out of his way to get out of a leaf from the center, which he throws into his sink to dispose of to avoid mess. The rest of the film features the pool as a reflection over the characters, making it a character itself in a way. A scene where Chuck-after finding out that he's been conned by Roy and Frank-holds them up in his apartment one night has literally no indoor light, and the only light we see is by the blue of the pool, which cascades gently over the four people in the scene. And it all just leads more to the tension of the scene-there is plenty that we do not see here, and we just want the water to flow just a little bit more off the screen for us to see what we want. It's wonderfully shot and directed, just the whole way through.

I have been thinking about the pool and why it is there. This could be a stretch, but Roy is stuck in his house-he doesn't like to leave-and meanwhile there is this flowing pool, with water that is constantly moving out in the open. The only time Roy physically interacts with the pool is to get a leaf out of it that falls inside-it's a rather comedic moment in the film. The rest of the time its just there reflecting Roy's actions as he wanders around his home with not much to do. And I wonder if there is any connection to the fact that Roy only eats canned tuna fish-another example of a trapped sea creature. But that could be stretching it a little-as is the wonder of film.

What makes "Matchstick Men" so successful, in addition to these elements I listed on the more technical standpoint, as the points that I mentioned already-the acting and the script. All of the three central actors give fantastic performance, especially Cage-and this is his best work in years. This was during the Golden Age of Cage-this followed the great "Adaptation," which was then followed by "Lord of War," and "The Weather Man." Here he just weaves perfectly from his more dark days to the light ones-and after seeming to be finally gaining some composure, right after the con goes wrong and his life falls apart again-his relationship with Angela dies for the time being-he lays there on his couch in disarray. He runs out of pills once more, and in one of the best scenes in the entire film-both written and acted-he runs to a pharmacy to try and restock on them. This change is very sudden-he makes a one hundred eighty degree switch from how he acted only five minutes before-and yet it just fits in so perfectly, as Roy never was fully cured anyway.

The supporting work by Sam Rockwell is very good, as Sam Rockwell always is, even though I still haven't exactly discovered the strong depth with the Frank character as with the other two. It's somewhat hard to approach Frank, as in the end-with Frank, "Angela", Klein, Chuck and a few others-end up conning Roy for all he's got-minus a small "gift." Simply put, Frank is playing Roy the entire time. All of the little acts that he does that seem to help Roy-including putting him in touch with Dr. Klein-seem like he is helping him, but he is just laying the groundwork for the big con. I would like to watch the film once more, focusing entirely on Frank the times that he is on the screen-just to watch his relationship with Roy from the standpoint of him simply as a mark and not really as a friend. Although Frank does see Roy as a friend, he is a mark first.

And lastly there is Angela, played perfectly by Lohman who doesn't appear in enough films. What makes this such a complex character is that she is a twenty something year old playing a fourteen year old who is really a twenty something year old playing a fourteen year old-if that makes any sense at all. Looking at some other roles of twenty somethings playing teens-namely the recent "Juno,"-Lohman does this with a more natural appeal. I understand that the final con at the end really does put a spin on the way all the characters act throughout, but putting that aside she really does allow up to buy into it all. It is with this ease that makes the movie believable, and even though many will figure out the final twist at different times, her work here really does allow the viewer to not realize it until much later than it could have been. And there are the complexities to her character that really are hidden-once again she is seeing Roy as a mark before really seeing him as a fatherly figure, which explains why she does not continue conning people during the one year later segment at the end of the film. She is settling down-maybe not with the most sharpest guy in the world-but she is still settling. Once again, we do not know anything about Angela's past-we don't even find out what her name is-but as Roy puts it as the last words of the film "I know your name." And this is where Roy's influence over Angela really does come into strong focus, and it is an angle I would like to watch this with in the future.

And lastly Ted Griffins script is just so wonderfully written-in exchanges between the characters (especially some of the witty banter between Roy and Frank, which is needed in buddy con films like this) or just in structure and narrative, every scene is needed and important, even if during the film you don't think it might be. There is a certain flow here-the movie reveals its surprises when the audiences attention begins to wan, sucking you right back in. It doesn't seem at all fast paced or slow paced-it just fits right in. An extended moment between action sequences involving Chuck contains more quiet sequences between Roy, Angela, and Frank-we see Roy and Angela out to dinner and dancing at a Spanish restaurant, and its then when you somewhat are ready for more-which is exactly what Ridley Scott gives there-more. And the final twist, which many disliked upon its release, is really just the icing on the cake. Yet it isn't a sad film, despite Roy loosing everything that he had, and everything that he thought he had. It's puts life into perspective-the con job is what was doing this to him. He is now able to sit down and relax-he gets a legit job (at a carpet store in an ironic twist of fate), he married the woman at the grocery store that he casually flirted with through the film, and he is actually having a child now. And yet, in a perfect moment by Scott that is there for you to discover instead of being highlighted to death, Roy gives a slight twitch as the movie fades out. A wonderful last touch.

As for the twist ending-the entire thing being a con to get Roy's money-all I can do now is notice the clues that Scott provides for us throughout. I watched a documentary on the DVD for the film, which shows clips that were in the original cut that Scott took out. Short little tiny moments that could reveal too much. For example, a glare between Frank and Angela while Roy's back is turned in a pivotal scene in the film. These were all taken out, but there are plenty of little touches. As Roy says to Angela during his little training for her con, "Ninety percent of this game is variable. You have to be ready for anything." And you can somewhat see Frank's big con change throughout. When Roy starts to see Dr. Klein, you can see him manupulating him trying to extract information. He asks how old his child would be, if he had a child, just to make things go smoother. It is him who even tells Roy to be honest and open with her-in a line that makes you know that Klein doesn't have any children of his own. "They are not difficult kids. Just make sure they eat their vegetables, don't stay up to late, don't watch too much TV." For Cage, wrapped in his own little world at the moment, he doesn't notice the odd line that he says here, for there is certainly more with kids than just that. But for the viewer, it's a small mental note. How Klein passed through Cage's real question and just made it about getting the information that they need to rob him dry.

I'm not exactly sure what my point is. I suppose I just wanted to revisit the movie through words instead of just watching it and moving on. My opinion on the film has not changed, it has only deepened. No film entertained me more, made me think, and just made me realize the talent of everyone involved as this one. It's clearly ingenuis, and should have been nominated for all major awards that year-but it was the year of "The Lord of the Rings," so its chances were very slim from the get go. And yet it is a masterful movie-masterfully directed, written, acted, and even masterful from the various technical aspects. I love this movie, and my desire to write such a long and perhaps winded essay on it really must highlight it. I really look forward to seeing it over the years, and just hoping that it finds it momentum one day.

Final Grade-as if its needed

"Matchstick Men"-**** of ****

Funny Games

2008-03-28T01:36:00.003-04:00

With "Funny Games," director Michael Haneke-whose last film was the somewhat overpraised "Cache,"-has remade his own film from 1997 shot for shot-the only thing changing here is the language that the actor speaks, and the actors themselves. So in this way, as Haneke even said himself, seeing this film having seen the original is completely and utterly pointless. Of course, I saw the original film and I went to see this one, if only curious to see how it translates to American screens. Sadly for Haneke, "Funny Games" completely bombed in the United States, barely making a million dollars with a rather generous release considering its subject matter and its budget. Maybe its because its marketing tricks the audience into thinking it will be something that it isn't.

I am a big fan of the 1997 "Funny Games," finding it a rather haunting and grueling experience, as it should be. I suppose I wanted to see the remake because I wanted to experience this story on a big screen, with a crowded audience for maximum effect-even though I knew everything that was about to come. The story begins with a family moving into their summer home for a couple of weeks. Everything about this family screams "stuck-up," and married couple Ann and George-played by Naomi Watts and Tim Roth-are playing a car game where each one selects an opera to play and the other has to guess which one it is. We are hearing this rather pleasant music against the backdrop of a car driving along the road, until Haneke plays a trick on us and suddenly employs loud heavy metal music to play. It is a shock for the viewer, and at this point you know that this is not ordinary movie you are about to watch. Ann and George, along with their son Georgie and their dog, begin to settle into the summer home, until the door rings and two young men dressed all in white are there. Under the ruse to borrow four eggs, the two men-Paul and Peter, played by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbet respectively-milk this request for all its worth, until it culminates in George slapping Paul. The two men get their revenge, and soon they are holding the family hostage, betting with them that in twelve hours they will be alive or dead.

What follows is a grueling and unpleasant ninety minutes, where we watch with a rather sick fascination as to who is going to live or who is going to die. However, we hardly get a look at any of the violence on the screen-and all strong acts of violence committed are off screen, although we do get to see a few bloody results. Haneke seems to be commenting on our fascination to violence-not just in the movies, but in general. This is shown by the Paul character talking to the audience from time to time, breaking the 'fourth wall.' He asks us who we are rooting for, or if we want the film to end there. And the only time we actually get to see an act of strong bloody impactful violence is when Haneke plays a trick on us and has Paul "rewind" the image using the television remote changing the course of action in the story. Haneke frustrates his viewer by denying this release for the viewer. And I like how we never get to really know these character before they are taken hostage-we see them playing their innocent games, and we see their rather snooty lifestyle unfold before us-but we never actually get to know them as people. Their marriage is fine, their son seems to love them, it is all really picture perfect. But we are detached as they are tortured-which makes it easily for the viewer to want to know their fate and at the same time not exactly feel a strong amount of sympathy for them.

All of the acting is right on target-Watts, who serves as an executive producer as well-and Roth are both fantastic here. I wish that Roth would work a bit more-he disappears for a while and then shows up. And I wish he didn't waste his time with last year's "Youth Without Youth." Pitt and Corbet really do seem to have fun and play around with their roles. I like Michael Pitt from time to time, but he plays this rather sick and deranged character better than he plays in films like "Silk," which was just plain awful. And Haneke does his job very well as director. "Funny Games" has a slow pace, much like "Cache" only in this case its quite tolerable. Haneke allows the camera to stay on one image for long periods of time, namely one shot where Watts is tied up and moving around the living room after a big shock incident. It goes on for about five minutes without moving once, and even though there is no dialogue at all it is quite gripping. The visual style is extremely dark, despite almost the entire set and the outfits of Paul and Peter being completely white. Every single shot has this dark undertone that is just beautiful, and one shot that comes to mind is a shot of Roth sitting on the couch talking to the two of them saying that they don't have to do this-its framing and lighting is quite perfect. Haneke's ability to frustrate his viewer is at a strong high here, much like it was in "Cache"-however the slow moving of that film just seemed to have a negative toll on the viewer, although I am in the minority saying that. There is one scene where we see blood draped over the television set after a gunshot goes off-we do not see the gunshot fired and we do not know who it hit-and on the television screen is the sound of a NASCAR race that seems to drill into your head as you watch it in eager frustration. Haneke wants us to be eager-he wants us to be dying to know who is dead, which would be exactly what he is commenting on. It really is well done.

But the point of this movie-well, in the end there are a few explanations. Is Haneke just trying to make a fast buck by being unoriginal and redoing a movie that he made already? Is he trying to bring his comments to an American audience, since the odds of them watching a slow French film is quite slim? Is it both? It is safe to say that "Funny Games" is useless to someone who has seen the original, unless they want to be interact with an audience for the experience. Or unless you are a film nerd who wants to see both versions to compare. I found both films to be equally unpleasant and grueling to get through, but that is absolutely the point. This isn't supposed to be a cake walk. And so I cannot recommend one over the other-I suppose if it is someone open to subtitles I would say the original-only because the familiar faces of Watts and Roth and Pitt make the experience somewhat less horrifying than when it is faces of the unknown-because the unknown French actors could be anyone, and the mystery of that really does make you want to know what will happen next every bloody and violent second later.

Final Grade-

Funny Games-***1/2 of ****

Married Life, Snow Angels, and Paranoid Park Open This Week!

2008-03-06T12:26:00.004-05:00

Two very good movies open this weekend in the New York City area, that I can recommend heartily, and oddly enough somewhat companion one another.

The first is "Married Life," Ira Sachs new 1920's romance/thriller/mystery/comedy, which is based on a noir book from the 50's that he adapted into a rather offbeat mediation of love and marriage and everything else in between. I saw the movie at the Toronto Film Festival, where it opened to rather mixed reviews, one of them from Dan Sallitt, whose own film thoughts can be found here, but I found it to be quite good and one that I would like to revisit. My full review of the film from the festival can be found here. The film can be found at a few locations around Manhattan, including the Sunshine, the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas, and the Chelsea Clearview Cinema.

The second is "Snow Angels," which I saw last June at the Sundance Film Festival at BAM's week long festival. I fell in love a bit with the film, and its other haunting mediation on love, marriage, and other various stages of relationships. This is a much heavier film than "Married Life," but its themes somewhat connect. Sam Rockwell gives another fantastic performance here, and one that I would have considered for awards had the film been released during the awards heavy season. At the moment I consider "Snow Angels" and "In Bruges" the two best films of the year, and this is one I hope lasts long enough for me to get a second look at it nearly a year later. My full review for that film can be found here. The film can be found at the Sunshine Cinemas and the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas.

On the other hand, Gus van Sant, probably my least favorite film maker currently working, has a new film coming out called "Paranoid Park," which I saw at the New York Film Festival and somewhat hated just as much as his last two efforts "Last Days" and "Elephant." Dull, long (which is tough to say with an only 80 minute run time), uninterested performances, and a script that has scenes of filler because there isn't enough story to cover a full length film (there is even a scene where a younger brother is reciting dialogue from "Napolean Dynamite" to his uninterested older brother!), "Paranoid Park" was simply a waste of my time, but fans of van Sant might just eat it up. My full review can be found here, and it can be found at the Angelika Film Center and the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas.

Be Kind Rewind

2008-03-05T00:38:00.003-05:00

It is quite easy to say that Michel Gondry has quite a creative knack. As a director he is filled with so much energy and excitement. The more times I see "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," the more perfect I find it to be. The more times I see "The Science of Sleep,' the more times I realize that the film is kind of a mess, if not creative and very colorful and filled with imagination to the very brim. I somewhat have to give the most credit to Charlie Kaufman for his rather genius script for "Eternal Sunshine," but the two do work as a team the make that film so great. On his own, Gondry has spirit and imagination, but at times his movies on his own can be a little uneven. Such is the case with "Be Kind Rewind," a film I liked quite a bit, but with such an oddly incredible plot it should have had a bit more. Perhaps it was the marketing, which seem to promise a rather Jack Black-esque ridiculous comedy, but I should have known better. Instead "Be Kind Rewind" ends up taking a feel good finale, which was fine and well-done (I even had some water in my eyes), but this sudden divert change in tone made the movie as a whole a bit uneven.

Taking place generally inside of Be Kind Rewind, a video store on the corner of a rather old neighborhood, run by Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover) who trusts his store over to his only worker Mike (Mos Def) for the week while he goes out to do research over what makes video stores more successful. The store only rents video tapes, a dollar for a day, which is a dying breed. Mr. Fletcher's only request is for Mike to keep Jerry (Jack Black) out of the store, because he destroyed everything he touches. Mike doesn't listen because of a communication error, and when Jerry goes out to sabotage a local power plant his brain becomes magnetized. Going into the store he ends up erasing all of the tapes by touching them, leaving them with nothing. Mike becomes worried, especially when a long time customer (Mia Farrow) who is on good terms with Fletcher demands a copy of Ghostbusters. And struck with the only idea to save the store, Mike and Jerry begin to make their own versions of these movies-twenty minutes length usually-and suddenly find themselves as local celebrities.

One thing I had a problem with was the rather forced method of getting the tapes to be erased in the first place. Jerry's magnetism (and his obsession with the power plant in general) is barely introduced, and clearly only used as a way to get us to the remade movie subplots. His magnetism is also discarded quite easily, in a very Gondry style animation segment, involving pee (it was one of the few parts where I actually thoughts to my "what is going on?") Either Gondry could not think of another way to get to the remade movies, or he started writing something much different when he continued. The middle section focuses mostly on the remade movies, which is a constant thread of creativity. One example is during a version of "Boyz in the Hood," where one of the characters gets shot and instead of a pool of blood they put a cheese pizza right behind his head. Little details like that really do show Gondry's sometime genius, which has been waning since 2004. Some of the acting is a little off as well, especially since Gondry enjoys a rather casual style of dialogue, having the characters speak while the camera kind of drifts in front of them, sometimes not even paying full attention to them. It worked in "Eternal Sunshine," perhaps because Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet are just much better actors than Jack Black and Mos Def.

And then the third act becomes something out of Capra. The themes of the movie come into play- preserving the old neighborhood and bringing the community together (sometimes I actually wrote an entire paper on at the tail end of high school) but it seems oddly out of place in comparison of the rest of the movie. I did enjoy it, but the three separate segments in the movie seem very loosely tied together making it a rather uneven, but still entertaining and imaginative, little movie. So I have come to not expect greatness from a Gondry film anymore, unless Charlie Kaufman has a hand with the screenplay, but I can expect something unlike anything I've seen before, and just an overall good movie.

Final Grade-

*** of ****

Some Classical Music

2008-02-25T01:22:00.003-05:00

Fans of "There Will Be Blood" may recognize this as the music that goes with the end credits. But I've found a terrific live version of it on YouTube, and thought I would share it with all of you.

Absolutely beautiful.

A Few Thoughts About the Oscars. . .

2008-02-25T00:08:00.003-05:00

Well, it's over now. So just a few thoughts about the winners.

"Elizabeth: The Golden Age" copped a costume Oscar, even though I preferred the dark and colorful costumes of "Sweeney Todd." I was happy that it did win an award for Art Direction.

"Ratatouille" won the animated feature Oscar, which I agreed with. A better film than the wonderful 'Persepolis."

The visual effects of "The Golden Compass" was at times too fake for my taste, and although a bad film "Transformers" did have some terrific effects.

"La Vie en Rose" copped the makeup Oscar-it was the best of the three, but I was secretly hoping I could say the words "The Oscar Winner Film Norbit."

I think a big surprise to us technical geeks were the three wins for "The Bourne Ultimatum," which won for Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Editing. I did think these three techniques were put to great use in the film, but films like "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood" had some fantastic use of sound, and it was no question that "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" should have won Best Editing, at least in my eyes.

My two short film picks-"Peter and the Wolf" and "The Mozart of Pickpockets" ended up taking the gold, and I was happy.

While I did like "Once"-not love to the extent that I have seen-I really didn't like "Falling Slowly," and have heard it several times at the Angelika where it played on the music before the movie started.

I only saw "Sicko" out of the documentaries, and wanted it to win because 1) I liked it very much and 2) I wanted to see what Michael Moore would say. He was booed off the stage in 2002 when he started going anti-war, Anti-Bush, but if he said it now he'd probably be cheered. Ironic, eh? Instead we got Alex Gibney with "Taxi to the Dark Side" which I did not see in NYC last month when it was playing. I am just getting a little tired of these Iraq War docs, and would have preferred to see one of the best films of last year-"The King of Kong"-on the ballot. I did like Gibney's last doc "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room," and was rooting for him that year.

I did not see any of the five Foreign Language films (the Academy REALLY screwed those up this year) but I wanted to see "The Counterfeiters" and this just means it'll be out for a longer time in the city, upping my chances to see it.

"Atonement" had good music, but I was more a fan of the music in "Michael Clayton," which was simple but very haunting. I cleaned this theatre at work often to just hear it.

The cinematography award could have went to any of the five and I would have been happy. My personal vote would have been for "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," but the images in "There Will Be Blood" were so jaw-droppingly beautiful, and the derrick explosion scene in the middle is still in my head. Roger Deakins did a great job with his two films-"No Country" and "Jesse James," and "Atonement" had a nice looking scene in the dunkirk. But I'm content.

The Coens naturally won Best Screenplay for "No Country for Old Men," but other picks like "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" and "There Will Be Blood" would have been fine with me too. After all, I can't stop saying 'I Drink Your Milkshake."

Diablo Cody's win for "Juno" was one of the biggest "eh's." It was expected, for sure, but I personally felt that "Juno" was more of an actor's piece than a writer's piece. If I read "Juno" as a script before I even saw the movie or its trailers, it would have left a rather sour taste in my mouth-as if it was written by a sixth grader. But the actors made this rather sloppy writing strong, and I can't give much credit to its script, which is quite flawed. I was rooting for Tony Gilroy's "Michael Clayton" which is a great film-both in writing and acting. The opening monologue alone is worth more than the entire screenplay of "Juno."

Best Supporting Actor was clearly going to be Javiar Bardem, although my personal pick was for Tom Wilkinson. But any of the five could have won and I would have been pleased. Wilkinson with his paranoia, Bardem with his evilness, Hal Halbrook with his tender "Into the Wild" performance, Philip Seymour Hoffman with his anger in "Charlie Wilson's War," and Casey Affleck with his haunting work in 'Jesse James." It was a strong category, for sure.

Although my pick was Amy Ryan in "Gone Baby Gone," I was very pleasantly surprised with Tilda Swinton's win for "Michael Clayton." The whole category was very up in the air, and I'm glad the Academy didn't succomb to Ruby Dee.

Best Actress was Marion Coltillard for "La Vie en Rose," a film I thought was long, dull, generic, and had a leading performance that really did nothing for me. I was rooting for the underdog-in this case Laura Linney-but would have been content with Julie Christie as well.

Best Actor was Mr. Daniel Day Lewis, who did win as he should have.

Best Director was the Coens, who had nothing to say from the last time they were up, although I was personally rooting for my favorite film of the year, "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly." Paul Thomas as my second, and Tony Gilroy as fourth. Jason Reitman didn't have a chance among these ambitious and masterful directors.

And of course, Best Picture of the year was "No Country for Old Men." While my first choice was "There Will Be Blood," and the third "Michael Clayton," any of those three could have win and I would have walked away content, although I do feel "Blood" will sustain more energy over the next few decades, and will soon be declared a "classic." "No Country for Old Men" is terrific, though, and I'm glad we didn't get an upset with "Juno" or "Atonement" written on the envelope.

And so thats it. We start from scratch again. We begin once more. Sundance was last month, and perhaps this year's Oscar contenders have been born there. We shall see.

The Signal Opens This Week!

2008-02-23T03:45:00.001-05:00

I saw "The Signal" at the Two Boots Pioneer last August, when Magnolia had a special free screening for it. Expecting it to open in September, and then October before settling on its Feb. 22 release date, its been some time since I've seen 'The Signal," but recalled it being well worth the price of admission-which for me was free, so thats not a good example.

You can find "The Signal" in select cities all over Manhattan, and my original review written last August for this horror/comedy here.

Vantage Point, Charlie Bartlett, and Definitely, Maybe

2008-02-23T01:09:00.003-05:00

I don't exactly feel like writing full reviews for any of these three films, but I did manage to sneak in a couple of entries in Hollywood film history-nothing special, but nothing exactly terrible either. A short little writeup follows.

Vantage Point **1/2

A decent little action thriller, which does a good job at telling a rather exciting story but never really getting involved with any of the characters to the point where you care about anything thats happening on the screen. When the president ends up getting shot during a big convention in Spain, we see the incident in regards to a certain number of people around at the time. And with every perspective we get another little piece of the puzzle. This is a rather interesting plot device, but after the third or fourth story it begins to get tiresome a bit, and only some of the perspectives end up being very interesting. We don't learn much about the side characters, with the exception of Dennis Quaid as a Secret Service Agent who took a bullet for the president a year ago, and Forest Whitaker who is divorced from his wife and two children, which makes it hard to really want to relate to any of them, and tense moments involving a little girl and her mother end up being just completely pointless and don't add to the story at all. However, "Vantage Point" remains oddly entertaining and holds mild amusement for its ninety minute running time, but thankfully its nothing more than that.

Charlie Bartlett **1/2

"Charlie Bartlett" actually played at last years Tribeca Film Festival, but to sold out shows so I could not get a ticket. Finally in a minimal release, the film stars Anton Yelchen, a rather talented young actor who is carted from poor script to poor script-but this is a step above the blase 'House of D" and "Fierce People." He plays our title character, a rich young boy who has advantages, but also a knack for doing things that get him in trouble. After getting kicked out of another private school, Charlie goes to public school, where- in a desperate quest to be universally liked, begins to gives the other kids advice in the men's bathroom, and give out medication that he gets from the family shrink. Things grow worse for Charlie when he begins to date the rather mellow Susan, the daughter of the principle-played by Robert Downy Jr. "Charlie Bartlett" has some fine acting-especially by Downy Jr. who steals every scene he's in as usual-and it does have some funny moments, but too much happens in this story and we shift from episode to episode that it stopped feeling like a narrative and more like a mini-sitcom. It's script is just uneven, and at times the film becomes simply tiresome to the viewer. But the ending achieves a rather poignant level where you leave satisfied, and it was pleasant to see a film dealing with the constant quest for popularity that we all try to achieve in high school, and even perhaps-as this film suggests-later on in life.

Definitely, Maybe ***

All in all, "Definitely, Maybe" is quite a sweet little movie-a romantic comedy that ends up being both likeable and entertaining, and I really did fall under the spell that this movie casts on the viewer. Ryan Reynolds-the rather annoying and grinning mug from films like "Van Wilder" and "Waiting. . ." does a rare heartfelt lead role as William Hayes, who at the beginning of the film suffers a divorce from his wife of a few years. He does get his daughter for half of the time, and she begs him to tell her the story of how he met her mother. Changing the names and some of the events, William tells a story of three of his loves-his college sweetheart Emily (Elizabeth Banks), a copy girl named April (Isla Fisher), and an intellectual who had an affair with Emily years ago, Summer (Rachael Weisz) all while charting his rise in his career, as a worker for the Bill Clinton campaign in 1992. Following conventional romantic comedy formulas, but doing it right and in an entertaining and fresh way, "Definitely, Maybe" becomes a very good watch-a light and enjoyable little movie that holds your attention consistently. And I applaud all three of the female leads, all three of them doing a fine job, and young Abagail Breslin who is a mild step down from her wonderful work in "Little Miss Sunshine,' and whose cuteness sometime feels overbearing. And there's even a fun cameo by Kevin Kline! Of all the standard Hollywood fare at this point in the year, this is certainly the winner.

Final Oscar Picks and Predictions

2008-02-19T15:51:00.004-05:00

First of all, I encourage all readers to tell me their own personal Oscar picks by leaving a comment in the comment section at the bottom of the post.

-----------------

With the Oscars just a few days away, I have revised my picks and predictions since my initial commentary last month. Here is the list of the people I feel should win, and the list of those who I think will end up winning Academy Awards this weekend.

You can find the nominees on the link to my initial commentary, as I don't find it needed to relist them all again.

For Documentary, Short Subject Documentary, and Foreign Language Film I am not going to have either because I only saw one of the documentaries and none of the other nominees.

Best Picture

My Pick-There Will Be Blood

My Prediction-No Country for Old Men

Best Director

My Pick-Julian Schnabel for "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"

My Prediction-The Coen Brothers for "No Country for Old Men"

Best Actor

My Pick-Daniel Day Lewis for "There Will Be Blood

My Prediction-Daniel Day Lewis for "There Will Be Blood

Best Actress

My Pick-Laura Linney for "The Savages"

Mr Prediction-Julie Christie for "Away from Her"

Best Supporting Actor

My Pick-Tom Wilkinson for "Michael Clayton"

My Prediction-Javier Bardem for "No Country for Old Men"

Best Supporting Actress

My Pick-Amy Ryan for "Gone Baby Gone

My Prediction-Cate Blanchett for "I'm Not There"

Best Animated Film

My Pick-Ratatouille

My Prediction-Ratatouille

Cinematography

My Pick-The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

My Prediction-No Country for Old Men

Makeup

My Pick-La Vie en Rose

My Prediction-La Vie en Rose

Best Musical Score

My Pick-Michael Clayton

My Prediction-Atonement

Adapted Screenplay

My Pick-There Will Be Blood

My Prediction-No Country for Old Men

Original Screenplay

My Pick-Michael Clayton

My Prediction-Juno

Art Direction

My Pick-Sweeney Todd

My Prediction-Atonement

Costume Design

My Pick-Sweeney Todd

My Prediction-Sweeney Todd

Film Editing

My Pick-The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

My Prediction-The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Music Song

My Pick-Happy Working Song for "Enchanted"

My Prediction-So Close for "Enchanted"

Sound Editing

My Pick-There Will Be Blood

My Prediction-There Will Be Blood

Sound Mixing

My Pick-No Country for Old Men

My Prediction-No Country for Old Men

Visual Effects

My Pick-Transformers

My Prediction-Transformers

Short Film Animated

My Pick-Peter and the Wolf

My Prediction-I Met the Walrus

Short Film Live Action

My Pick-The Mozart of Pickpockets

My Prediction-At Night

Good luck to all, and expect some critiques on Monday afternoon!

In Bruges

2008-02-17T03:00:00.003-05:00

Alright, so I've only really seen about six movie from 2008, but I can tell already that "In Bruges" will end up being one of my favorites. Who knows? If the year ends up being shoddy and nothing special, maybe this film will end up on my final Top 10 list-a rare feat for anything that comes out this early in the year. It is the best film of the year so far, even though that isn't really saying much. But I kind of fell in love with this dark thriller comedy-yet another trip into the world of hitmen and professional killing. But this is different. They aren't drunk, like in "The Matador" or "You Kill Me," but it combines elements from all of those films- the buddy comedy of the former, the love story of the latter, and at the same time managing to find its own little niche and creating something original, funny, suspenseful, and supremely entertaining. And it might even make you want to visit Bruges.

But where is Bruges?

Well, its in Belgium.

And our main characters Ray and Ken (played by Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson) have been told by their superior Harry (Ralph Fiennes) to hide out there after a killing goes horribly wrong. Harry tells them to quietly sightsee for two weeks and await further instructions. Ken is perfectly happy in Bruges-looking at all the gothic art and architecture. But Ray wants out. He hates Bruges. So since he can't leave, he looks for enjoyment elsewhere- mostly in the arms of Chloe, who works on a movie set that is using a midget for a dream sequence. And Ray has some kind of odd fascination with this midget-or midgets in general-although this midget has a theory that there will one day be a war between the blacks and whites-but that’s something else altogether. Eventually the true nature of Harry's plans for Ray and Ken come to light, and when instructions are not followed Harry finds himself in Bruges himself bent on making sure what he wants done is completely done.

I did not realize how hard it would be to write a plot summary for the film, but it is impossible without revealing any of the twists and turns that go out throughout. This is a packed movie- and where there isn't something going on that is moving the plot forward, there is enough going on with the characters to make everything interesting. Writer/director Martin McDonagh, who directed Gleeson in the wonderful short film "Six Shooter," which won the Oscar two years ago for live action short, puts so much dimension and depth into all of his characters, and through their conversations you learn so much about them within just little minute details. He likes to work with two characters on screen at a time, and its rare that there is something going on with several people-the group cocaine scene is one of the few exceptions I can think of.

Colin Farrell is absolutely fantastic as Ray, and when he isn't using his big mug in films like "Alexander" or "SWAT" he proves himself quite well. I thought he was very good in "Cassandra's Dream," but this is certainly his best role to date. Perhaps its because he's comfortably in his own native voice. Without revealing the true nature of Ray's anger and confusion, Farrell plays it wonderfully-at times he makes you want to laugh, and at others he makes you want to cry, and McDonagh's smart and sharp script balance the two elements perfectly. Gleeson is great as always, and I would have to mention a terrific shot of him on the phone talking to Harry, learning what he must do to set things right. It's all in one take, no more than a few minutes, but Gleeson works amazingly well in the scene. And Ralph Fiennes, turning in one of the funniest supporting roles in recent memory, also has his own share of depth and despair in his character, and even though we laugh or grimace in fear at him, he really does have some beautiful and poignant moments. The whole movie manages to have this unexpected air of poignancy in almost every single scene, and the final moments are haunting, but hilarious, all at the same time. And the visuals! The visuals are just quite beautiful, and the film really makes you want to visit Bruges.

I honestly kind of loved this film. I loved everything about it, and commend McDonagh on his wonderful work. As a big fan of "Six Shooter" the few times I saw it, I was looking forward to this when I first saw its trailers a few months ago, but I was surprised by just how perfectly everything clicked. How the mixed genres felt so natural, and how involved in the story I was- especially the third act which at times could have easily fell into farce territory (the way it brings all the characters from the film as a whole together again), and avoids that and becomes something rather sweet and hauntingly beautiful. And the great score by one of my favorite composers Carter Burwell adds something to the mix.

Final Grade-
"In Bruges"-**** of ****

The 2007 Oscar Nominated Shorts

2008-02-17T02:31:00.004-05:00

February ends up being one of my favorite times of year because it gives me a chance to catch up with some of the short films that have been nominated for awards. This is the fourth year that I managed to see all the Oscar shorts, and they have become increasingly popular each year, which is why Magnolia Pictures continues to even bother distributing them. Three years ago I saw a mish-mosh of several of the short films, but not all, but this marks the third time where I've been able to see both programs-the animated shorts and the live action, each with a separate admission, but usually well worth the trip. And it gives you a chance to see some of the films from the two categories that are usually glossed over the most-although the short subject documentaries probably don't get much audience attention, and I still have no clue where you'd be able to see those. And so, for a cheap price of twenty-three dollars, you are able to see the ten shorts up for Academy Awards.

I saw the animated programs first, and you must understand that as in all short films complilations-and I've seen quite a few from the "Animation Show 2005," to Jim Jarmusch's "Coffee and Cigarettes,"-there are some duds and there are some real winners. I think the best year for the Oscar Shorts was in 2006, when all five of the live actions were dark and seriously witty and kind of brilliant, and most of the animations were worth the ticket as well. Last year I wasn't impressed by four of the live actions, and the animated ones had left much to be desired.

The five films in the animated category were-

MEME LES PIGEONS VONT AU PARADIS (EVEN PIGEONS GO TO HEAVEN)
France, 9 minutes, French w/ English subtitles, CGI

We were off to a good start with this rather cute little tale about a greedy Frenchmen that allows himself to be conned into buying a machine from a man that promises to take him to heaven. It's short, very entertaining, and the simple animation looks quite appealing. The ending is dark, but extremely clever.

MY LOVE (MOYA LYUBOV)
Russia, 27 minutes, Russian with English subtitles, Drama

"My Love" probably suffered mostly from being too long. It's animation is unlike anything that I have ever seen before-done in a watercolor effect where every single shot and image looks like something out of a painting. It follows the story of a young Russian boy who has affections for two very different women. I did lose interest in the story, despite the visuals being quite striking, and this was certainly a lull in the program.

MADAME TUTLI-PUTLI
Canada, 17 minutes, Claymation/CGI, Drama

"Madame Tutli-Putli" started off quite witty and smart. A women is on a train and checking out all the wacky characters aboard with her. Two of which are playing a chess game where the pieces move themselves every time the train hits a bump on the tracks. One of which makes disgusting hand gestures to her in suggestive fashion. But what started off in one direction quickly turned into something darker-something that seemed right out of a David Lynch film. And it began to just get plain incoherent at the end, something that it never recovers from, leaving a rather blase image in my head.

I MET THE WALRUS
Canada, 5 minutes, English, 2D Animation, Documentary

I am quite convinced that "I Met the Walrus" will end up winning the Oscar, even though it isn't my pick if I were an Academy voter. It was also the only one of the five that got applause at the end of it. It is an interview that a young boy had with John Lennon, only with some rather neat visual animated tricks to go along with it. I did like this little film, but it was more of spectacular that actually being something moving and original. Sure enough the audience clapped, but I doubt they clapped at the actual film itself and instead was just excited to hear Lennon talk about war, peace, and everything in between.

PETER & THE WOLF
United Kingdom & Poland, 27 minutes, Drama

My pick for the Oscar is "Peter and the Wolf," set to a classical piece tells the story of a young boy, his pet duck, his pet bird with a balloon tied to it, and the evil cat that lives with them, and their struggle to survive a hungry wolf. The animation is great, its very funny, and sustains interest despite the rather long length. I really liked this little film and I hope that it walks away with the Oscar come Feb. 24th.

One thing to note this year was how long both of these programs were. In past years, the animated films total running time barely extends over an hour, and Magnolia has to throw other noteworthy animated films from the year to just give it an eighty minute running time, but this year all five of them managed to do that one their own. I think last year's shorts (which are reviewed on this site!) barely hit forty minutes, and I sat through another forty minutes of rather medicre little films from the year. The live action shorts this year totaled to about 137 minutes, and they are usually about 95.

The five films in the live action category were-

TANGHI ARGENTINI
Belgium, Comedy, 13 minutes, French w/ English subtitles

A completely wonderful thirteen minutes is to spend it with "Tanghi Argentini," a story of a man who meets a woman on the internet and lies to her about being a tango expert. He goes to the help of one of his co-workers to help him learn the tango in three weeks time to impress this woman at a big dance. Funny, smart, and with a sweet Capra-esque twist ending, this was a terrific start to the program. It reminded me a little of "Shall We Dance" almost, just in the chemistry between the two men working hard for our hero to impress his girl.

AT NIGHT
Denmark, Drama, 40 minutes, Danish w/ English subtitles

A long, depressing, and sometimes tedious short, "At Night" tells about three women in a cancer ward who manage to find friendships with each other in their great time of need. What could have been a beautiful little piece sometimes gets a little melodramatic and some of the little segments just felt a little long winded and occasionally too much. I have a small feeling that the Academy will end up voting this one as the best short film in this category, even though the real winner comes later.

IL SUPPLENTE (THE SUBSTITUTE)
Italy, Comedy, 17 minutes, Italian w/ English subtitles

I still don't really know what to make of "The Substitute," but it was quite enjoyable regardless. We have a man come into a high school classroom saying that he is the sub. for the day, and ends up giving wacky assignments and taking a signed baseball off one of the students-much to his dismay. The first half is rather off the wall and humerus, but it isn't until the second half where the film really hits its stride and begins to develop some sort of philosophy-but I still had a hard time behind what they were trying to say with it, and who this man really was.

THE TONTO WOMAN
United Kingdom, Drama, 36 minutes, English

The slowest and most unusual of the five, "The Tonto Woman" is yet another western-and 2007 was the year of the modern day western, if you can recall-about a cattle wrangler that ends up meeting the wife of the man whose cattle he plans to steal, who has been held prisoner for eleven years by a group of Indians. The visuals are quite striking, and the script is quite decent, but the slow pace becomes a bit tedious at times, and some of the acting (especially the part of the woman's husband) is almost laughably bad. Not a bad addition to the genre, but compared to the other fantastic westerns of the year this is a minor work.

LE MOZART DES PICKPOCKETS (THE MOZART OF PICKPOCKETS)
France, Comedy, 31 minutes, French w/ English subtitles

My pick for the award is "The Mozart of Pickpockets," an absolutely wonderful film about two con men that end up taking a young deaf boy under their wing, and using him to hustle wallets off a people in movie theatres. This film is very funny, has great chemistry between the two leads, and offers enough surprises in its thirty minute running time to never feel overlong or burdensome. I actually kind of loved this film, right down to the rather deserving and very funny finale.

The Oscar nominated shorts are playing right now at the IFC Center in Manhattan, and selected theatres all across the United States-a little over 60 in all! Some of them make sitting through the entire program worth the admission and the trip, and its a fun way every year to make your Oscar conversations just a little more interesting. I am always the only one in my groups of have seen these, and it makes you feel just a little bit better than everybody else. Ha, ha, ha. . .

Final Grade:
Animated Shorts-*** of ****
Live Action Shorts-*** of ****

Diary of the Dead Opens This Week. . .

2008-02-14T14:39:00.003-05:00

George A Romero's return to the zombie genre comes out this weekend with "Diary of the Dead." After the rather commercial "Land of the Dead" from 2005, Romero does something a little experimental, but more true to his former from the earlier "Dead" movies. While not perfect, it should hold fans over and make them believe in Romero a little more than they did two years ago.

I saw the film at the Toronto Film Festival, and you can find the review here, and the movie is playing in limited release in Manhattan.

Some Academy Award Nominated Scenes. . .

2008-02-10T22:12:00.000-05:00

No I don't have any new movie reviews for you, but I promise I will have an update next weekend with an actual movie review. Even if I were in the great city of New York, there isn't much to see out there, and I just didn't have the stomach to venture out and check out this weeks offerings-'Fool Gold" and "Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins."

So instead to hold some of you over, thanks to the fellows at YouTube, I managed to find a few of my favorite scenes from some of the Oscar nominees this year. So watch at your lesiure, and as always, be warned of spoilers. Just click on the name of the actor for a great scene from their nominated film, and click on the film's title for my review of the movie from whenever I wrote it.

Philip Seymour Hoffman (Best Supporting Actor nominee) yells at his boss in "Charlie Wilson's War."

Javier Bardem (Best Supporting Actor nominee) in the popular coin toss scene in "No Country for Old Men."

Tom Wilkinson (Best Supporting Actor nominee) and George Clooney (Best Actor nominee) in "Michael Clayton." as well as an additional scene featuring Clooney and Tilda Swinton (Best Supporting Actress nominee)

Daniel Day Lewis (Best Actor nominee) in "There Will Be Blood"-classic milkshake scene

Casey Affleck (Best Supporting Actor nominee) in the title sequence of "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford."

Cate Blanchett (Best Supporting Actress nominee) in the Bob Dylan "biopic" "I'm Not There."

Ellen Page (Best Actress nominee) and Michael Cera's sweet musical finish of "Juno."

Julie Christie (Best Actress nominee) in "Away from Her."

Viggo Mortensen (Best Actor nominee) in the brilliantly staged bathhouse fight sequence in "Eastern Promises."

That's all the scenes I could scope out, but suffice to say it is a tough race this year, and it really is anyone's game.

Except Daniel Day Lewis. He just has it in the bag.

The Band's Visit Opens This Week

2008-02-04T15:52:00.000-05:00

Opening Friday at the Angelika, and I believe the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas, is the wonderful Israel comedy "The Band's Visit." Not many people saw the film during its week long awards consideration run at the beginning of December, but if you did not this is a great chance to see this wonderful, funny, warm, and somber comedy. Sadly, a complete bonehead move by the Academy ended up disqualifying this film for Best Foreign Language Film because more than fifty percent of the film is in English- but that technicality is part of the moral of the film- and the emotional core is strongly defined by the English language usage.

For a full review of the film that I wrote two months ago, click here.

New York Screenings Not To Be Missed

2008-01-28T18:58:00.000-05:00

Hello readers.

I am no longer residing the Brooklyn as I have been for the last eighteen years, so of course this website will not be as current and up to date as it normally would have been. I will only be seeing a movie every now and then in the theatre, and when that happens it will probably be something very banal and trite-I have "Vantage Point" and "Semi-Pro" as two things I will probably see in the theatre-but on breaks and visits home I will be catching up with a few things. I will be taking a film class while being in school here, and so if I see anything interesting in those events, then I will gladly post here. The weekend of the 15th of next month I will be going home for a couple of days, and in that span I intend on catching the crime comedy "In Bruges," as well as the 2007 Academy Award Nominated Short Films, which will be playing at the IFC Center.

Looking at some websites, there are a few screenings in the NYC area that I wouldn't want you to miss.

Over at MOMA

Feb 7th-Lady Chatterley (2006) at 7pm
Feb 15-One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) at 8pm

Feb 23-One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) at 4:00pm

Over at The Museum of the Moving Image

Feb 3-The Prisoner of Shark Island (1936) at 5pm

Feb 23-How Green Was My Valley (1941) at 2pm

Feb 24-How Green Was My Valley (1941) at 6:30pm

And over at the Walter Reade:

A few good films are going to be playing at the Walter Reade in the middle of February for a couple of weeks that I saw at the Toronto Film Festival. I can recommend three of them-none of them anything remarkable, but your dollar won't be wasted seeing them.

The first is a special sneak showing of George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead, which is playing Feb. 14th at 10:30pm. Be warned, though, that the very next day the movie will be opening in select theatres all over Manhattan, so you probably do not need to spend the extra few dollars on the ticket unless you really want to.

The second is Import/Export, a bizarre and sometimes sexually explicit comedy/drama that I found rather interesting and even sometimes riveting. Granted it was several months since I saw it, and I've seen tons of films in between, but I did find it rather interesting to watch. That is playing Feb 17th at 1:30pm, and Feb 20th at 8:15pm.

And the third is the Russian epic The Banishment, which plays like an epic Russian novel. The film is playing Feb 18th at 6pm, Feb 20th at 3pm, and Feb. 25th at 2pm.

If I had the chance to see any one of those again, it would be a toss between the last two. Import/Export had lots of visual gags and strong silent moments to tell the story, while The Banishment has some more dimensional characters that certainly warrents several more viewings.