Changeling: Trailer

We're back!

My apologies for the huge gap here everyone but I'm getting this thing back on the tracks. Give me a little time and it'll be back with a new vigor!

The Dark Knight: Review

When Batman Begins was released a few years ago, it was met with considerable acclaim. While most had written off the Batman franchise after the disastrous Batman and Robin, Christopher Nolan's Begins caused many to stand up and take notice. Still, nothing could have prepared viewers for the next leap that Nolan would take to craft The Dark Knight. In doing so, he has not only crafted the finest Comic Book film of all time by a long measure, he has created one of the years very best films, a dark, morally complex thriller that is flat out gripping from it's opening sequence to the final credit. The Dark Knight is a masterpiece, a crime picture on par with the best the genre has to offer. Led by a stellar final full performance by Heath Ledger, confident direction from Nolan and a wonderfully rich and compelling script, The Dark Knight is tremendous.

As anyone who sees the film will undoubtedly agree, Heath Ledger's performance is nothing short of astonishing and if all is fair in the world, should a shoo-in for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Ledger, who plays the iconic Joker, is pure evil here, as sadistic as anything seen from Anton Chigurh in last year's No Country for Old Men. Often times, the film finds itself at a crossroads with the ability to follow the more traditional comic book film path but bravely, it veers right when it should go left, venturing further and further into darker territory. Just when the viewer thinks the film won't go where it looks like it might, it does and the results are truly discomforting. From beginning to end, Ledger adds a palpable tension with his performance and almost every moment he is on screen, the film is nearly unbearable in its suspense, a stunning achievement given its PG-13 label. How exactly this film was able to receive that rating given its dark, violent nature that pervades every moment of the film is beyond this writer and given the chance, would not bring younger children to the film. The Joker is positively unnerving in the best way possible and it all owes itself to Ledger's work. He obviously throws his entire soul into this performance and one has to wonder how much of himself he lost during shooting and whether it had any impact on his mental state this past February. He deserves every accolade he receives for a daring, all consuming performance that has already cemented itself as one of the greatest villains in history, occupying a list with the likes of Hannibal Lecter.

The story picks up from the end of Batman Begins with the Joker on the loose, escaped from Arkham Asylum following the breakouts from the first film's finale. Batman (Christian Bale) has continued in his quest to reclaim the streets of Gotham from the criminals of the city and we first see him in stunning fashion. However, it quickly becomes clear that the Joker is unlike anything that Batman has encountered before. Simultaneously, the film tracks the ascent of Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart), Gotham's DA, as he attempts to put the better half of the city's mob behind bars. To complicate the situation, Dent is dating Rachael Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal, replacing Katie Holmes from the first film), a childhood friend and love interest of Bruce Wayne (Batman's Alter Ego for those of you who have live in caves). It may sound like the typical set up for a comic book film and in all honesty, it probably is but where TDK differs is in its willingness to go down avenues that other films of its type of unwilling to attempt. Batman is not a hero like Superman, who believes in and always acts in ethical, moral ways. As the film progresses, Wayne is forced to realize that his actions must quickly begin to match the Jokers in their extreme ways. It presents an interesting and absorbing moral dilemma that the film examines with the subtlety and nuance of a refined drama. In this package, the results are even more effective as the action of the film deftly blends with its more introspective moments. Its masterful combination of the two grips the viewer and holds their mind and guts for the entirety of its 2 and a half hour run time. This is the longest of the more recent crop of comic book films and is all the better for it. The story it has to tell demands the time and pacing it receives, allowing the film's narrative and themes to breathe, enriching everything in the process.

Ledger is hardly the only performance worth mentioning as the entire cast, from bit players to stars all contribute some of their best work. Eckhart, as the city's DA Dent is wonderful, using the wonderful character arc his role receives to maximum effect. Dent is a fully human creation with Eckhart realizing every bit of promise in the Nolan's script (Director Christopher co-wrote the screenplay with his brother Jonathan). Bale, one of the best actors working today, is as good as he was in Begins and in many ways, gives a richer performance here. Wayne is given a much greater range of emotions in The Dark Knight and Bale nails each with equal amounts grace and power. Rarely do we have a single performance worth mentioning in a comic book film but here there are a trio of talented actors putting forth their best. The rest of the supporting cast, which includes Gyllenhaal, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine, are all in fine form as well. The overall level of acting is tremendous from start to finish.

Christopher Nolan, who has become one of the two or three finest young directors of the day, controls the show here, wonderfully filming smaller, interior sequences with the same panache as the huge glimpse of Gotham. He has continued of a streak of one masterful film after another since 2001 when the world saw the release of his first masterpiece, Memento. His films are consistently engaging and inventive, brimming with energy and wonder. With TDK, he proves that is as comfortable behind the reins of a 200 million dollar blockbuster as he is with a small indie project. He's a visionary director who will hopefully continue to produce work at the same level he is. Nolan also deserves considerable praise for the script, which is dark, complex and inventive. TDK succeeds largely because it zigs where you expect it to zag and is one of the few summer blockbusters that one can call genuinely surprising. The dialogue is sharp and probing and the overall structure of the film, while straightforward is tight and fast moving. The film never drags in its 150 minutes, a feat in and of itself, pushing itself forward at a faster and faster rate until the dizzying climax that features a number of wonderful payoffs. It finally ends with a satisfying conclusion that leaves it open for another installment but it doesn't feel cheap. Its an ending that is earned with blood, sweat and tears, both for the audience and the filmmakers.

The film's score must be mentioned as well. The Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard collaboration here is tremendous, providing the film with a perfect soundtrack that soars when it needs to and slinks whenever else. The theme for the Joker is filled with dread and tension and is perfectly realized for the character. Combined with Ledger's performance, it creates a pitch perfect mood for the evil ways of Gotham's mastermind criminal. Its solid tone, almost dissonant as moments, is eerie and grating, an on point match for Ledger. The rest of the score displays equal moments of subtlety and grandeur, rising to fit the mood or staying in the background whenever necessary.

The Dark Knight, even with all the hype, is worth every penny one would pay for admission. It’s a triumph of pop art filmmaking, a brilliant mixture of blockbuster thrills with real moments of drama and intelligence. Far from a strict comic book film, TDK transcends that tag with ease, becoming something so much more, something undeniably effective and chilling. Its a dark look into the lives of these characters that doesn't flinch at all. It’s brave and bracing with a tremendous performance from Heath Ledger that deserves an Oscar. While its current rating of #1 film of all time on IMDB user voting may be over praise, the fact that after nearly 180,000 votes, it has the highest rating of all time is striking. It’s certainly the live action film of the summer and perhaps the year.

Out the Door

Inglorious Bastards at last.

QT looks like he's finally got it finished, almost 15 years in the making. I'm interested to see what he can do with the fairly stagnant war genre. 

Trailers: Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Trailers: Australia

The Dark Knight

Reviews have been filtering in for Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight and so far, so good. In fact, these are spectacular. Heath Ledger is being praised up and down (as many thought he would be) but almost all these reviews go out of their way to make sure its clear that this film's success is not a result of a single performance. They don't even try to quantify it as being good for being a comic book flick. Its obvious that these writers were seriously impressed and it looks like we all may be, come July 18.

Some of these reviews do contain some minor spoilers but nothing major. If you've been reading anything about the film leading up to its release date, much of the basics of the film are known. Bottom line, read carefully if you want to go in completely surprised.

Ain't It Cool News' Moriaty (The one guy at AICN that I trust)

Rolling Stone's Peter Travers

IGN Movie's Todd Gilchrist

The Movie Blog

Check out the Trailer post from a couple days ago to see the most recent trailer.

Trailers: Pineapple Express

Trailers: Choke

Trailers: The Dark Knight

Trailers: Miracle at St. Anna

Review: Wall-E

A new Pixar film is a now, almost yearly cause for celebration and with the release of Wall-E, the studio’s most recent offering, its time to break out the party hats again. Just when you think that the folks at the most creative studio in the industry couldn’t do anything to top their last offering, they always seem to come through. Although, with Wall-E, they may have finally met their match as I can’t possibly imagine how they could top this sublimely entertaining and profoundly moving tale with anything else. Inside of the confines of Wall-E’s masterful 97 minute run time lies the vast expanse of human emotion. Sadness, humor, horror and overwhelming joy are all touched on in equal measure and with similar effectiveness.

Directed by Andrew Stanton (you may have heard of his previous film, a small box office success entitled Finding Nemo) with a skill that most live action filmmakers couldn’t fathom, Wall-E tells the story of its title character, a robot employed in the clean up of Earth. Ravaged by consumerism and pollution, our world was vacated long ago, leaving an army of Wall-Es (Waste Allocation Load Lifted – Earth Class) to do their work. However, after nearly 700 years of attempted clean up, everything has shut down/expired with the exception of our hero and his lone companion, a cockroach. Wall-E’s world is turned upside down when all of a sudden, a massive spacecraft lands on Earth, leaving a small device in its wake, code named EVE. EVE’s role is to search the planet for forms of life, anything to show that the environment has once again become compatible with human existence.

Upon seeing this new visitor, Wall-E immediately takes a liking to the stranger and for the, nearly dialogue free, opening 30 minutes, begins to help acclimate his new companion to the surroundings. The results are as a sublime a half hour as one will find in film this year, a mix of Chaplin-esque comedic pathos and mind-bending animation. For a children’s film to open with a dialogue free first third is unheard of, but Stanton, in all his ingenuity, obviously knows what he is doing, crafting a masterfully realized opening that beautifully sets the stage for the more action oriented second act. The opening moments are so magnificently constructed that I was sorry to see them end. That is, until the brilliant second half reassured me that Wall-E was in good hands.

Pixar has always pushed the envelope with their films, steadfastly refusing to fit into any mold. Wall-E may be their most ambitious project to date in every imaginable aspect. From the opening, soaring shots of the battered shell of the Earth to the inner workings of a massive star cruiser, Pixar have outdone themselves once again by crafting the most mind blowing animated sequences I have ever seen. Each shot is so lovingly crafted, down to each specific detail that the care and preparation leaps off the screen. There is literally not a single shot that doesn’t demand the viewers most careful attention to fully appreciate the grandeur of it all.

While the larger elements of the animation may put asses in the seats, it’s the smaller pieces that allow them to leave happy and thankfully, the animators at Pixar have performed nothing less than a miracle with Wall-E and EVE, two characters that are so instantly likable that one must frequently remind themselves that these two robots are exactly that. The emotion displayed by two seemingly mechanical beings is absolutely tremendous. Stanton and his crew have created what may stand as the most endearing character in the Pixar pantheon, all without the benefit of facial expressions and the like. Wall-E’s movements are humanistic without ever feeling unrealistic. The displays of emotion, of pain, of love are believable throughout. Stop and think about that for a second. The men and women of Pixar have created an animated robot, a mechanical device that emotes with more believability than most mainstream Hollywood stars. It’s a stunning achievement that should not be overlooked or underestimated.

Much has been made in the blogosphere about the ecological bent of Wall-E, and while there is a determined eco-friendliness to it, I see nothing wrong with it. It laments the destruction of our planet to a consumerist nature that values profit over environment. Whether one believes in the theory of global warming or not is irrelevant to the argument here. No matter one’s opinion about that subject, the care of our environment should be an important matter for anyone inhabiting this Earth, a point Wall-E drives home with grace and feeling. If we continue to live our lives as we do, the damage to the environment will increase with each passing year. There is a need for a drastic reevaluation of beliefs and practices and Wall-E recognizes the importance of this issue. I applaude the courage of Stanton and his team to include such a potent and timely message into a film that will be seen by youths the world around. If the youngest generations can be shown the dangers of our ways, perhaps they will be smart enough to find acceptable alternative ways of living. Perhaps they can succeed where past generations have failed.

Wall-E is an unparalleled success and to date, is the best film released this year. While the second half certainly feels different than the first, largely due to the inclusion of dialogue, both sections work equally well. The first is a mind blowing 30 minutes of silent filmmaking that features moment after moment that would make Chaplin and Keaton blush with joy. The second is the emotional payoff to the first half’s careful setup and it packs more of a wallop than almost any film in recent memory. Amazingly, none of it feels manipulative or phony as Stanton earns every last emotion with one moment of spectacular filmmaking after another. Wall-E stands as a film that works as well for adults as it will for children, an impressive achievement no doubt. What may be more impressive is that at year’s end, for the first time, in a long time, an animated film may truly, honestly and thankfully be the best a year has to offer. It is certainly the best film Pixar has released since The Incredibles, joining the upper echelon of indisputable masterpieces released by this consistently impressive studio.

Review: Diary of the Dead, Funny Games (US), Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

Funny Games (US)

Funny Games is a rarity, an exceptionally well constructed film that features wonderful acting, assured direction and tremendous cinematography while remaining about as entertaining as the morning's obituaries. In fact, some could argue that reading the obits, with their display of the importance one's life has had on others, may be a more spiritually enriching experience. Funny Games, which is more of a thesis by director Michael Haneke on the nature of violence in cinema than anything else, is a draining two hours, a film that is exceedingly difficult to sit through. In fact, Haneke would prefer that you didn't. It would please him to hear that his film was so disturbing to audiences that, in a fit of "I can't take it anymore'”, ran out of the theatre screaming. Upset by the proliferation of so called torture porn films in the mold of Eli Roth's Hostel series, Haneke took it upon himself to remake his 1997 Austrian film shot for shot, only this time with English speaking actors to make sure that its seen by American audiences. Trouble is, few really want to sit through 2 hours of deliberate and unending cruelty without any sense of redemption in sight. Haneke's point is pretty obvious and difficult to disagree with. Violence as entertainment is a tough notion to consider and by ramping up the tough to swallow, realistic nature of the violence on display in Funny Games, Haneke attacks every notion the audience has ever had to enjoy a film with death and suffering for the sake of it. It is a testament to Haneke's skill as a director that he was able to, inside this package of his, illicit nearly impeccable performances from his entire cast, particularly Naomi Watts, Tim Roth and Michael Pitt, who is positively chilling as one of the two sociopath who take a family of three hostage under the bet that by 9:00AM the next morning, the three family members will be dead. What follows is a night of emotional and mental manipulation and physical torture. Watts is tremendous in an emotionally and physically naked role that can best be described as raw. Roth is every bit her equal as the couple struggles through the particularly trying evening. By film's end, the audience is left in a daze of violence and suffering that will rattle even the most jaded viewer to the bone. Unfortunately for us, the film is so oppressive that while a viewing of it is undeniably memorable and unique, its something that few will ever want to endure. Most of us don't go to the movies to be punished and lectured and Haneke's film definitely won't be the starting point to a new type of American movie-going, that I can assure you.

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired

When RP:WaD premiered at Sundance this year, it was nearly universally praised but was unable to find a theatrical distributor, so when HBO picked it up and premiered it a couple of weeks ago, non-Sundance attendees were able to see what the fuss was all about. An exceptionally well made documentary about Polanski and the rape case that has caused him to flee the US for the past 30 years, RP: WaD reveals a great deal about a legal matter that may seem open and shut for the casual observer but in reality, is bogged down in a heavy dose of courtroom politics. While it is nearly indisputable that Polanski engaged in sexual relations with an underaged girl (13 at the time), an inexcuseable offense, the true story of the back door dealings at the trial is amazing. Filled with a variety of spotlight loving characters, the stranger than fiction tale is wonderfully illuminated by Marina Zenovich’s documentary. While it certainly doesn’t excuse Polanski for his offenses, it does humanize the man. No longer is he merely a convict on the run but rather a pained man who has had to withstand an incredible amount of pain and suffering in his life. This is not meant to reduce the severity of his crimes, but Polanksi stands as a complex and undeniably talented individual that demands further study. Argubly one of the top 3-4 directors of the late 60’s/early 70’s, Polanski created a series of films that have stood the test of time like a fine wine, revealing more of themselves with each passing year. It remains a shame that Polanski is unable to put this ordeal behind him and continue living his life. While he is certainly to blame due to his inability to face the still open charges against him in the country, there is more to the story. Those grey areas, which are expertly explored here make RP: WaD required viewing for anyone interesting in the New Hollywood. For more casual viewers, RP: WaD is a wonderful look at a fascinating subject, one that will continue to be explored as his career nears its conclusion.

Diary of the Dead

George Romero's fifth entry into his Dead series is something of a reboot. Where the previous three films (1978's Dawn of the Dead, 1985's Day of the Dead and 2005's Land of the Dead) have all dealt with the days following the initial outbreak, Diary goes back to the starting point, when the dead first began to roam the earth. One has to assume that the event's portrayed in Diary are occurring in a time parallel to the series' initial entry (1968's Night of the Living Dead) and while the newest installment never matches that first glimpse into Romero's world, it is a worthy sequel (as, miraculously, all the entries have been). Romero has never been a filmmaker interested in subtlety and there are moments where his message is too strongly put forth, hurting the overall film in the process, however, he is always been intelligent and boundary pushing. His social commentary, while not veiled in any sense of the word, is undeniably incisive and insightful. Starting with Dawn of the Dead's tremendous assault on the rampant consumerism that now dominates our society, Diary of the Dead turns it's focus to the modern day media, both mainstream television and internet bloggers alike. Diary tells the story of a group of University of Pittsburgh film students who, after hearing the news of zombie attacks, set off in a Winnebago with the intent of getting to the respective homes of each traveler. As one might expect, that goal quickly becomes secondary to basic survival but as Romero has always done, his film is brimming with smarts, refusing to cater to the lowest common denominator. In other words, Romero's films have always been horror films that appeal to horror aficionado and casual viewers alike and Diary is no different. The acting is never much higher than good and the script is clunky but the film, shot in a documentary style, just plain works. Its blend of thrilling suspense and darker than night comedy is well realized, adding another interesting, if flawed installment to Romero's groundbreaking and industry altering series that continues to astound with its ability to stay fresh and relevant, 40 years and 5 films later.

Review: The Incredible Hulk, Get Smart, The Hammer

The Incredible Hulk

With the financial failure of Ang Lee's 2002 Hulk which mixed comic thrills with heady and daring emotional exploration, Marvel looked to restart a potential franchise that looked to be on life support. By enlisting Louis Leterrier, they ensured that both action and emotions would be altered. The action amplified, the emotions Hulk smashed! The Incredible Hulk, the franchise reboot, starring Edward Norton (who is able but never spectacular) is never an outright failure but rarely a success, toes the middle of the blockbuster road. Except for the massive green creature seen time to time on screen, there is almost nothing in common with Lee's far superior effort, which looks positively heroic in the face of Leterrier's film. Where as Lee bravely tested the limits of the comic book film by injecting it with elements for the arthouse crowd, namely intelligence and a measured pacing, Leterrier seems content to let the film meander from set piece to set piece. Trouble is, none of those set pieces are all that exciting or involving, leaving the middle segments to a love story that rings hollow and a father/daughter side story that is weighed down by some less than nimble acting. Given the slate of superhero films this summer, The Incredible Hulk is an unnecessary diversion. Audiences would be much better off going to see Iron Man again, waiting for the seemingly more interesting Hancock or saving their money for the promise of Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, a sequel to a much more efficient and effective series reboot, Batman Begins.

Get Smart

Television's Get Smart benefited from the excellent comedic writings of Mel Brooks and Buck Henry, two of the finest satirists working in popular entertainment in the second half of the 20th century. While there names are attached to the feature length adaptation of said TV show as consultants, none of the breathless gags are evident. With the exception of the performances by Steve Carrell, as Maxwell Smart, and Alan Arkin, as Chief, the film flounders under the weight of its legacy. While there are moments of excitement scattered throughout, at no point does the film reach the tremendous comedic highs of Brooks/Henry's baby. Carrell is exceptional, in a role that was seemingly built for his understated, dead panned comedy. Arkin nearly steals the show from under Carrell's feet with a number of smart, quick witted one liners but when all is said and done, Get Smart can't decide whether its an action comedy or a satire of action films. While the set pieces are professionally staged and shot, none are all that exciting, leaving the gags, which just aren't there enough to justify the 110 minute run time. Too much time passes between jokes that truly work and although the rest of the cast (Dwayne Johnson, Anne Hathaway) display an affable charm, they don't possess the necessary comedic chops to stand alongside Carrell. The script by Tom Astle and Matt Ember lacks the wit and intelligence of Brooks/Henry and Peter Segal, better known for low brow Adam Sandler comedies, lacks the deft touch that gave the show a light and airy feeling. Carrell fans will find enough to enjoy here but a casual viewer will be checking their watches well before film's end.


The Hammer

Given his previous work, I.E. The Man Show and his radio show, Adam Corolla seems to be about the least likely candidate to star in a heartfelt romantic comedy about ex-boxer-turned-carpenter who decides to give it another go round in the ring while simultaneously falling in love with a public defender. Boy, was I wrong. In The Hammer, Corolla plays said boxer with a shaggy, loose feel, a performance that never feels forced. In fact, at many points, Corolla doesn't even seem to be acting but rather, being himself and the results are a wonderful surprise. From the word go, The Hammer is an enjoyable underdog story that may be cliché at points but has enough heart to go around, making even the more mundane moments seem passable. Featuring a witty script that perfectly plays into Corolla's strengths, by writer Kevin Hench and directed with an improv heavy feel by Charles Herman-Wurmfield, this is one of 2008's genuine surprises, an out of nowhere indie that really works. While it is certainly far from flawless and isn't all that original, its likable leads and quick pacing lend themselves to a perfectly entertaining 90 minutes. The film is an almost perfect length for its subject matter, wisely eschewing the unnecessary moments that so frequently bog down the modern RomCom. Opposite Corolla, as his love interest Lindsay, is Heather Juergensen, who is as easy going as our hero and equally likeable. The Hammer doesn't pretend to be anything its not. It's enjoyable as a sports film, as a romantic comedy and as a showcase for Adam Corolla. While it had almost no theatrical run, its more than worth tracking down on DVD for an easy going down film that is light, effortless and enjoyable.

Review: Sex and the City

Few films released this summer will have the hype and anticipation of Michael Patrick King's Sex and the City. A major film about women, for women yet written, directed, shot and produced by men is never an everyday occurrence. Even a minor film about women, for women is rare. It is with disappointment that with such an opportunity, SATC abandons nearly all of the audacity and bravery of its television counterpart in lieu of generic plotting and cliché execution. While the HBO series rode a wave of feminine empowerment and honest, in your face sexuality to critical acclaim and audience adoration, the accompanying film instead becomes a materialistic, shallow and out of touch bore that overstays it welcome considerably.

Taken in short, 30 minute bursts, SATC worked tremendously. Even its staunchest male attackers will have trouble not being sucked in by the intelligent writing, pacing and humor of the television show. However, when one is forced to endure the presence of these women for a solid 2 and a half hours, even the most adamant fan will begin to wear. For those unfamiliar with the show, the story is centered on four women, Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker), Miranda (Cynthia Nixon), Charlotte (Kristen Davis) and Samantha (Kim Cattrell), and their (mis)adventures with love and fashion around New York City. For the duration of the show, Carrie had an on again, off again relationship with the elusive Mr. Big (Chris Noth) that finally culminated in the show's finale with a romantic encounter in the City of Lights. The film picks up from there, albeit 4 years later, with Carrie and Big still happily together and shopping for apartments. Thankfully for Carrie, Big is absolutely loaded and the duo buys a massive, luxurious apartment at the drop of the hat, which given the current state of the housing market, seems more and more fantastical with each passing day. From there, the topic of moving in/getting married is raised and agreed upon. However, after an event that to any fan of the show, shouldn't seem at all surprising, Carrie's world is turned upside down and our heroines head to Mexico for vacation.

While SATC is frank about its inner emotions, the film is largely ignorant to the outside world. These women seem culturally shut in, completely oblivious to anything other than the pursuit of love and wealth. SATC allows its protagonists to live in a bubble, never even mentioning any awareness of what is occurring in the outside world. Given the current political climate of the country, its inexcusable for a film that claims to represent what the modern woman thinks and feels and to which women respond to in an overwhelmingly positive manner, be so shut off to such matters. Hell, even Knocked Up, in all its stoner, male centric brilliance displays an acute sense to the political and social climate through its inspired and intelligent banter. Through its knowledge of pop culture touchstones, Judd Apatow and crew show knowledge of the world that permeates through the hazy, improvisational vibe that is, excuse the pun, intoxicating. SATC seems to think that all that exists in life is your friendships with your girls, love and money. Its an off putting portrait of women that the show's complexity wisely avoided through its nearly 46 hours of narrative.

The cast here is no different than in the show, with the notable inclusion of Jennifer Hudson and they slip back into the familiar roles with general ease. Their performances are as one would expect. Its unfortunate the material isn't. There are two notable sequences that are, quite frankly, hand wringing in their gratuitous and cliche nature. The first, a photo shoot for Carrie to try on wedding dresses for Vogue magazine, is nearly 3 minutes of Sarah Jessica Parker posing with extravagant gowns on while her voice over names the designer. The scene is complete and utter overkill, a outrageous heaping of materialistic fetishizing that serves absolutely no narrative purpose other than to plug famous chic designers. Some women I've spoken to said that it was ok because everything was so beautiful in it. Something tells me that if the next installment of Die Hard spends 3 minutes of screen time showing nothing but half naked models with John McClaine saying said model's name in a voice over, there might be a larger outcry. It serves nearly the same useless purpose. The television series would have either cut or condensed this heavily in order to fit their run time and the results would have been much better.

The second scene, which begins with a surprise visit from Samantha (who now resides in LaLa Land) and the girls screaming about her entrance features another fashion segment, finds Carrie strutting around her closet figuring out what to throw away, while her three compatriots from the bed. As SJP throws herself around her walk in an endless array of vintage wears, the girls lay on their stomachs on the bed, feet in the air, kicking to the music, howling and wailing at her with Yes/No's. I was waiting for Carrie to break into "Sandra Dee" and have Rizzo and Frenchy bust out of one of the moving boxes to join the crew but alas, they did not. The scene feels like a bad outtake from a John Hughes' film, another 2 minutes that could have been left on the cutting room floor. Defenders will claim it’s a giggly scene that is fun and carefree. I'll claim its unnecessary fat that should have been trimmed to help tighten the film.

With my vitriol nearly spent, I must admit that there are moments here that work well and feel like a return to the roots of the show. A scene by the pool in Mexico is unforgettable, not only for its frankness but its sharp, snappy dialogue as well. It is a moment that the show had in droves but the film sorely lacks. The film possesses an emotional clarity that is welcome and refreshing, no matter how mundane some of the situations may feel. The show's strength always lay in its ability to accurately portray HUMAN (not just female, some are universal) emotions with a blunt honesty that never backed off the truth. Sure, the men are treated as not much more than cardboard cut outs, unable to cope with their emotions and thoughts, thinking with their dicks rather their minds but few films have total gender neutrality. Even my beloved Knocked Up, a personal pinnacle for the romantic comedy genre, is from a certain male viewpoint and while it is highly critical of male behavior at times, its point of view is never in doubt.

One goes to HBO for challenging, exciting and intelligent programming and SATC was in the first wave of series that announced the network's willingness to push the boundaries. One goes to the film adaptation of SATC for the comfort factor, to revisit these women and their lives, four years down the line and in that, lies the films issues. It lacks the guts to continue to push itself into new and interesting territory. Throughout its six season run, the television series continually altered itself to retain a feeling of freshness and excitement. With the film, for the first time, these characters feel lived in and stale, a remnant of a past era. There is nothing in the film that feels surprising or different. It follows a generic storyline that is compounded by its generic ending. For a show used to walking the high wire, this down to earth return feels unfortunately limp.

Review: Iron Man

When Iron Man was announced as the next major Marvel Comics film franchise, expectations were probably more on par with Ghost Rider than Spider Man. While Iron Man is certainly an established character, the series of comics never achieved the type of mainstream crossover success as the Webslinger or, say, X-Men. However, when word spread that, in a major casting coup, director Jon Favreau placed Robert Downey Jr. in the title role, the situation started looking up. In hindsight, by placing the weight of the film of Downey's very capable shoulders, Iron Man positively soars as the first huge surprise of the summer.

Downey Jr., in brilliant summer performance that comes along too infrequently, plays Tony Stark, a weapons dealer, multi billionaire and professional womanizer rolled into one. Up until a trip to Afghanistan, which winds up with him in terrorist custody, Stark rode a wave of unparalleled success. However, as it often will, being gravely injured, captured and held in a mountainous cavern complex brings Stark back down to Earth. After seeing the entirely negative effects of the weapons he has been designing and selling for the better part of his adult life, Stark rededicates himself to good, building a rough, proto-Iron Man suit from scrap metal that allows him to escape from his captors' grasp. When he returns to the US with a hero's welcome, he begins to create the more recognizable Iron Man suit and begins to take out the trash.

The story, while certainly not much more than the stereotypical superhero origin tale, is exciting and quick paced. Favreau wisely moves quickly from scene to scene, from character to character, which benefits the wonderful supporting cast assembled here. Gwenyth Paltrow plays Pepper Potts, Stark's assistant, and contributes her most likable performance since at least Shakespeare in Love. Terrence Howard, as Col. James Rhodes, is in fine form with a sidekick performance that takes nothing away from the film's central performance while also not annoying the audience. Equally as impressive is Jeff Bridges as Obidiah Stane, in his best role since 1998's The Big Lebowski. Bridges brings an uncomfortable terseness to Stane and when the narrative takes its first twist, Bridges in right there to make it seem believable.

Jon Favreau, who has turned from a passable actor to an efficient handler of big budget studio productions in a short time span, is in full control here. Iron Man is easily his best film to date, combining the sly sense of humor one would expect from Favreau with a number of expertly directed action sequences that will undoubtedly be remembered as some of the best of the season. While there isn't anything particularly innovative being done here, the results, nonetheless, seem fresh due to the high level of execution. It’s a beautifully mounted, quick moving and exciting blockbuster.

As mentioned above, Downey is simply spectacular, blending in sly comedic touches into his performance to make a heartfelt, humanistic portrayal of a surprisingly complex character. Assuming that a sequel will be on its way (Favreau is on record as saying that he envisioned the series as a trilogy), given the continued evolution of Stark throughout the comics, Downey will find more and more to latch onto. Much like the Pirates of the Caribbean launched Johnny Depp into the stratosphere, I can see a similar effect for Downey. His life story is nothing short of improbable and with that history in mind, its amazing to see the man continue to work at such a high level. Over the past few years or so, he has contributed great, underrated performances in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, A Scanner Darkly and Zodiac, to name a few. is a former star continuing to reclaim his past glory and then some. Downey is one of the best actors in Hollywood today and with a few more choice performances, he'll solidify his spot in history, not for his colossal personal problems but for his considerable skill and charisma. Without Downey, Iron ManIron Man would have been another summer film; with him, its one of the best Marvel films to date.

Trailers: Burn After Reading

Trailers: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 6 months, I'd hope you're fairly aware that there is a new Indiana Jones film. Premiered to great fanfare this past week at Cannes, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull may not be the masterful return to Raiders of the Lost Ark (or even Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade) that some fans may have been hoping for but when viewed with an open mind, there is more than enough to enjoy here to warrant a viewing. Packed with superb action sequences, a tight script, the typical Spielberg-ian direction and a handful of good performances, the Indiana Jones franchise has another winner on its hands.

Back in the fedora for the fourth time is Harrison Ford, who, despite his age, absolutely nails his performance, comfortably stepping back into the shoes of the title adventurer. In this installment, set in 1957, his focus shifts from Nazis to Communists as the Cold War rages on and that change is somewhat jarring at the film's start. In the post World War II environment, Indy is a decorated vet rather than vigilante fighter for democracy. When the Russians, led by Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchett) arrive at Area 51 (which we have actually seen before in the series, you just didn't know it) in Nevada with a captive Indy in tow, they are looking for a particular artifact with some otherworldly abilities. This may sound like a typical start to an Indy film but the political climate change that inevitably followed the end of WWII permeates the film. All things considered, like the lack of the definitively evil Nazis hurt Temple of Doom, it hurts Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as well. For whatever reason, Indy always seems more at home socking it to some eight foot German.

Anyway you slice it, Indy escapes, without the artifact (C'mon, the bad guys have to start with the upper hand, its Indiana Jones!), but with his life, which is slightly unbelievable given the situation that ensues. Regardless, he winds up back in a classroom until an unexpected visitor, Mutt Williams (Shia LeBouf), arrives with chaos quickly on his heels. He asks Indy to come and help him look for an old friend of Jones', Professor "Ox" Oxley (John Hurt), who had been a father figure to Mutt, but has seemingly lost his mind in pursuit of the legendary city of Akator and the associated crystal skulls said to possess magical powers. Indy being Indy, he's off and ready to go. Without spoiling too much, he is reunited with his old friend Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), who carries some interesting news, as he clashes with and races against the dasteredly Commies. In other words, its an Indiana Jones film.

Spielberg hyped the film by claiming that CGI would be kept to a minimum, which makes the mutiple appearances of CGI prarie dogs in the opening twenty minutes so questionable. In what is the most obvious moment of George Lucas meddling, the shots, albeit brief, seem to be out of the traditional spirit of the series, which has always relied more on gross out animal sightings than loveable cuddly ones. At least in Raiders, the monkey was real. It is a disappointing start to the film and in all honesty, the shots immediately took me out of the flow of the sequence. Thankfully, Spielberg retains the reins and locks in, leaving the rest of the film satisfying and exciting. Its obvious that a true master is behind the camera here as the direction is assured, flashy when necessary but never distracting. Spielberg can craft an action sequence with the best of them, knowing exactly when to peak and step back, pacing each moment to near perfection. While Kingdom of the Crystal Skull doesn't have the same seat of your pants moments that made Raiders so spectacular, it tries its hardest to make it all look effortless and for the most part, it works.

Shot by Janusz Kaminski, Spielbergs DP of choice, this is definitely the most visually extravagant installment of the series. Kaminski is one of the best cinematographers working today and his skills are on display here in spades. Its definitely more artistically shot than the previous three, the changes that comes with nearly 20 years of lag time doesn't feel as jarring as, say, the difference between the first three Star Wars and the subsequent prequels. Unlike Episodes I, II, III of Lucas' epic story, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull doesn't try to rewrite the books on everything previous. It wisely chose a later moment in time to set the narrative and while it eliminates the classic villains of the series best installments, to try and take a nearly 20 years old Ford and install him into another part set in the 1940's would have been a cataclysmic disaster, a bona fide film destroyer.

As I mentioned above, Ford is wonderful as he turns in his best performance in at least 10 years (since 1997's Air Force One). Equally as impressive is Cate Blanchett, who adds another stellar performance to her impeccable canon. If she isn't the most consistently talented actress working today, I'd be hard pressed to find her equal. While there may be some performances in a year that are better than hers, when all things are considered, the woman is a force of nature, undertaking a variety of roles and knocking everything out of the park. She may be the closest thing to Katherine Hepburn that the film world has seen since Hepburn herself. Its ironic that one of Blanchett's absolutely best performances was her portrayal of Hepburn in The Aviator, which she rightfully won an Oscar for. With The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, another Blanchett pic in the pipeline for a late 2008 release and an almost guaranteed run at the Oscars, it looks like 2008 may be another year of Cate Blanchett.

LeBouf is charming here as well. He continues to solidify his position as one of the better up and coming stars of his generation. He may not always have the best technical acting performances but his charisma and screen presence is pretty undeniable. If he wasn't a massive star from last summer's Transformers, he will almost certainly be one by the time it's sequel finds the multiplexes in the near future. Ray Winstone, who was absolutely stunning in 2005's The Proposition and 2006's The Departed, contributes another good performance here as Mac, Jones' wartime buddy and adventurer. John Hurt is excellent as well as a mentally lost archaeologist. His performance is over the top and provides some moments of inspired facial work. What is perhaps most surprising and welcoming is that no sidekick grates upon the audience like some of Indy's prior acquaintances did (Willie Scott, I'm looking at you). Each contributes worthwhile moments that help enrich the overall experience.

In the grand scheme of things, look at Kingdom as somewhere between Last Crusade and Temple of Doom, in the 3 out of 4 spot in the series and you won't be disappointed. It is by no means a bad film, not at all, and more often than not, features inspired filmmaking, the type summer blockbusters too often miss. Spielberg is obvious having fun here and while it certainly doesn't provide the intellectual depth of some of his other blockbusters (read: Minority Report), it is a stellar recreation of the serials of yore. For those who complain about the ludicrous stunts or sequences, one must remember that nothing in this film would be out of place in the previously mentioned serials, Flash Gordon or The Phantom, for example. These are not films that rely on reality, the supernatural and the absurd have always factored into the Jones' films. Is a thousand year old knight sitting in a cave, drinking water from a magical, sacred cup all that much more believable? Or does the fact that if you drink from the wrong cup, you age years in seconds, your skin shrivels and your skeleton explodes, strike one as plausible? I'd like to think not. Those who will be upset with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are viewers, guided by nostalgia and selective memory, who have their minds made up about what an Indy film should be. This newest installment may not fit into that mold, but then again, it doesn't have to. See it with an open mind and bring a seatbelt. Its a wonderful ride.

Review: Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Shine a Light, Son of Rambow, OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

Another film from the Judd Apatow factory (he produces here) features the same formula, hefty doses of raunch and heart played by the same guys. What separates the Apatow written and directed from his produced is a sense of down home realism. Forgetting Sarah Marshall, while touching and funny at turns, never reaches the heights of Apatow's and Knocked Up and falls considerably short of the inspired antics of last summer's The 40 Year VirginSuperbad. Written and starring Jason Segal, some of the jokes here feel too staged, something that never afflicts the Apatow helmed entries. The biggest surprise of Marshall comes from Mila Kunis, who sheds off her That 70's Show garb and does a comedic 180, bravely moving from the safe and restrictive confines of network sitcoms into the more risqué R-rated comedy. A bust by no means, it is somewhat of a disappointment given the previous output from this crew but this is undoubtedly better than 90% of the comedies that will be released this year.


Shine a Light

Martin Scorsese is one of the few directors around the world that can do almost no wrong with critics and audiences alike and with Shine a Light, his collaborative concert film with The Rolling Stones, he succeeds again. The Stones are on top of their game here, a stunning revelation that a nearly 50-year-old band can still bring the heat and at times, could easily outplay any band in the world. The performance is loose and fun but never messy. In fact, on the contrary, as the band is tight and propulsive, moving from hit to fan favorite with ease and precision. Seen on IMAX, the film is a visual and aural rocker, expertly edited and shot. Prior to the concert, Scorsese enlisted some of the industry's finest DPs to act as cameraman and the results are entirely evident on the screen. Featuring the work of such luminaries as Robert Elswit (There Will Be Blood, Good Night and Good Luck, Syriana), Ellen Kuras (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, He Got Game, Bamboozled), Andrew Lesnie (The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, King Kong), Emmanuel Lubezki (Children of Men, The New World, Y Tu Mama Tambien) and John Toll (The Thin Red Line, Braveheart, The Last Samurai), Shine a Light spins, swirls and soars around. It may be the best shot concert film of all time. Combined with a searing performance from the band, Shine a Light is another Scorsese hit, if not another a classic.


Son of Rambow

At its best moments, Garth Jenning's second film seems to match the best of Gondry. Where it differentiates itself is in its inability to retain the sense of wonder and whimsy that Gondry so effortlessly presents. Son of Rambow, which tells the story of two boys, who after viewing a bootleg copy of First Blood, set off to make their own Rambo film, is an enjoyable yet ultimately slight film. It never quite reaches the heights of The Science of Sleep or even this year's Be Kind Rewind, two films that immediately come to mind while watching Rambow but still manages to keep its audiences entertained for its hour and forty minute run time. Bill Millner, in his debut performance, plays Will Proudfoot, one half of the filmmaking duo, and Millner is nothing short of spectacular. Without his heartfelt, humorous and intelligent performance, Rambow would greatly suffer. With it, the film is never dull or an outright disappointment. The film's finale is as uplifting and warm as one would imagine and hope for, leaving the audience with a pleasant taste in their mouths. While it may never inspire someone like First Blood does to the young boys, it certainly helps to bring back its audiences to the point where they recognized their own love of film, which for many of us, is a memory well worth reliving.


OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies

France's answer to James Bond is Hubert Bonisseur de La Bath a.k.a OSS 117, a bumbling mix of Inspector Closseau and Jason Bourne. In OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies, OSS 117 is used to mixed results and while there are some moments of inspired satire and comedy, too often the film's jokes fall well short of their goal to fully succeed. OSS 117 is sent to Cairo to investigate the death of another OSS agent and from the get go, its obvious that while he may try, 007 is a world away. Wonderfully played by Jean Dujardin in a performance that single handedly saves the film, OSS 117 spends the next hour and forty minutes racing around the streets trying to determine the culprit behind the death of his friend. The comedic moments that work are tremendous, displaying a sharp understanding of the East/West dynamic as well as a keen sense of the genre in which it works. For fans of spy films, there is enough here to entertain. However, for the unconverted/newcomers to the genre, much of the film's sly comedy will be lost, leaving only a few sparkling moments of physical insanity to do the heavy lifting. Thankfully the film moves quickly and is never boring so there is certainly worse ways to spend the two hours but one can't help but be disappointed by the promise of certain scenes that never fully materializes, leaving an empty feeling at film's end.

Leatherheads: Review

When one looks back on the classic screwball comedies of Hollywood's past, all share the highest quality of screenplays. My Girl Friday, Bringing Up Baby and the such, all feature whip smart writing first and any sort of visual prowess second. Unfortunately, Leatherheads, George Clooney's latest directorial effort, seems to have missed that lesson resulting in a beautifully shot comedy that lacks much in the life or laughs category. In fact, even the normally reliable Clooney, who usually seems to effortlessly effuse the type of natural charisma that few others have possessed, never quite hits his stride, leaving a performance that can't help but feel lackluster. As a result, Leatherheads is nothing less than a complete disappointment, a novel idea that falls on its face.

The story should be simple enough yet Leatherheads seems to complicate even the smallest moments. Instead of having the classic boy meets girl narrative at its core, Leatherhead attempts to blend commentary on the necessity of heroes with slapstick laughs and a dull romance into a script that never finds its voice. It tells of Dodge Connelly (Clooney) who plays football, in the post WWI 1920's, for the Duluth Bulldogs, a professional football team at a time where professional football was nothing more than a complete laughingstock to the American public. On the other side of the equation is Carter "The Bullet" Rutherford (John Krasinski), a war hero and Princeton football star. Throw into the mix bombshell newspaper reporter Lexie Littleton (Renee Zellweger), whose assignment is to reveal Rutherford's wartime exaggerations and you seem to have the makings of a throwback to the classic screwball comedies of the past. However, after a promising opening act, the film spirals quickly downward until the audience is left looking at their watches, hoping it all ends soon.

The heart of the blame lies in the film's dialogue, a stilted attempt at recapturing the sound and feel of the 1930's classics. Written by Rick Reilly and Duncan Brantley, two sportswriters, Leatherheads feels much less like a modern reinvention of the film's obvious influences than a botched attempt at a direct replication. The dialogue never comes close to the quick-witted repartee that folks like Sturges and Capra fed off of. Its much heavier than its influences and where classic screwball comedies floated along on a feather light dialogue of quick barbs, Leatherheads' conversations feel dull and tired, leaving the cliché storyline bare. As a result, the entire film moves slowly towards an unsatisfying finish. If one feels anything at the end of the Sturges film, the viewer knows that the romantic relationship at the film's core was earned through blood, sweat and tears, yet Leatherheads' finale never feels like anything other than a welcome relief from the film.

Clooney's direction here is capable and assured. He certainly has the cinematic eye of an industry veteran and much of the film's pleasure comes from the work of Clooney and Newton Thomas Sigel, the film's cinematographer. It really nails the look of the 20's and the visual feel of an old Hollywood film, right down to the opening Universal logo. There are some inspired visual gags, many of which are the best have the film to offer and those are well set up by Clooney's direction. While it may be the worst of his three directorial efforts, much of the film's faults are not due to his direction so Leatherheads continues to show that Clooney has continued to develop into a powerful director with an eye for brave, interesting projects.

As mentioned earlier, Clooney is surprisingly bland in his role. However, Zellweger seems to jump into the character and run with it, taking Lexie's sass and adding some edge to it. The real star here is Krasinski who, up to this point, is most well known from his work in NBC's The Office. Leatherheads may signal a start of a solid film career for him as he has a great deal of charisma and creates the most memorable character in the film. His performance is vital and is a major highlight of a film desperately looking for more. With the pedigree behind this project, it can't help but feel like a massive disappointment that the end results are so lackluster. Its too fixed on the its influences yet it lacks almost everything that made those films such classics. It serves as an example of a film doomed from its script, something no amount of star power or directorial prowess can recover from.

Stop-Loss: Review

In 1999, Kimberly Peirce burst onto the scene with Boys Don't Cry, an impressive debut feature anchored by the stellar, Oscar winning work by Hilary Swank. It wasn't until almost 10 years later when she returned to the film spotlight with her second feature, Stop-Loss, a moving and focused examination of the effects of the current conflict in Iraq. With its release, Stop-Loss jumps into the upper echelon of films dealing with the war, joining In the Valley of Elah as the two pinnacles of the current crop Hollywood has to offer. Featuring stellar performances from the rapidly improving Ryan Phillippe, the now, always spectacular Joseph Gordon Levitt and a solid supporting cast of talented, young actors, Stop-Loss is a flawed but heartfelt look at the unfair practice of the back door draft that currently plagues the US Military.

Peirce's film explores the lives of Brandon King (Phillipe) and Steve Shriver (Channing Tatum), two high school friends from Texas who enlist in the Army. Upon returning from a tour of duty in Iraq, both are scheduled to get out of the Army but after a night of celebration, both are stop-lossed and involuntarily re-enlisted. King, who is ready to be done with fighting, goes AWOL and hits the road with Steve's fiancée (Abbie Cornish) to try and speak with his senator, in order to save himself from another tour. Much to Steve's chagrin, who believes that another tour is something that they could easily do, Brandon contemplates abandoning his life and moving to Canada but is brought back by the tragic death of one of their squad mates.

The film works so effectively thanks to Peirce's obvious' passion about the subject and her cast's ability to buy into and match that enthusiasm. From top to bottom, the young group of actors takes to the material and imbues the film with heart and soul. Phillippe, who has begun to blossom into a solid leading man, much less of a pretty boy star and more of someone who one can count on to take on challenging, yet rewarding roles. Equally as impressive is Joseph Gordon Levitt, who appears to be one of the leading talents of his generations. Shedding more and more of the baggage of his teenage role in 3rd Rock from the Sun with each successive performance, Gordon Levitt is a supremely talented young actor who displays considerable range here. Tommy, one of Brandon and Steve's squad mate, is confused and angry, yet compassionate and caring and Gordon Levitt brings it all to life.

Peirce's direction is assured yet not overpowering. Instead, it appears that she'd rather allow the film to speak for itself than force her opinions on the audience. Unlike In the Valley of Elah's, which featured a shot in the closing moments that was positively over the top, Stop-Loss never feels outrageous or heavy-handed and is all the better for it. While it is clear that Peirce is upset over the process of Stop-Loss, she is never condemning of the war itself and certainly not of the soldiers. While these men have committed terrible acts, none did so of free will. Rather, the situation they were in warranted their responses and Peirce understands that. She shows a great deal of compassion to the men who have fought for their country.

While it never feels like a perfect film, something I'm beginning to doubt will be made about this conflict, the strength of its emotions cannot be ignored. There are some flaws and the film works better when it stays closer to the personal feelings of the characters than try to take on larger themes but those individual encounters are often too moving to be ignored. With Stop- Loss, Peirce has constructed a brave and worthwhile work that stands as one of the first universal must sees of the year. One can't help but feel like the mark has been missed just slightly here and that Peirce could have crafted an even more powerful film had she abandoned the road trip to the senator and kept it close to home but when each part is viewed, they are greater than the sum of their parts. For a second film, no matter the length of time it took to make, sometimes that’s enough to signal the continued emergence of a filmmaker worth paying attention to.

Chicago 10, Paranoid Park, 21: Review

Chicago 10

Brett Morgen's insightful and inciting documentary is a scathing look at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, the riots in Chicago and the ensuing trial/circus. Blending some of today's angriest, yet motivating music, with archival footage and a number of animated sequences may seem like a road to disaster but Morgen seems constantly in control. In doing so, he has crafted the first must see documentary of the year that should resonate with both Boomers and their kids alike. The animated sequences, which depict the trial of the Chicago 8 (+2 [their lawyers] to make the 10), a group of Yippies, Hippies and political extremists, are initially jarring but as the film rolls along, they become second nature and before one knows it, they work to provide a palpable excitement to the ridiculousness of the trial. While it is a bit short sighted in its one-dimensional view of the demonstrations, it is undeniably fiery and at a time where many sit around in complacency, which just may be enough.


Paranoid Park

Gus Van Sant has crafted yet another mesmerizing minimalist drama that grips the viewer from the start and never lets go. Despite almost nothing happening from the start of the film to the end, Van Sant's assured direction lures one in. Combined with the spectacular cinematography by Christopher Doyle, Paranoid Park is a great little indie film that will have a long resonating impact on its audiences. At its core is a story of grief and, you guessed it, paranoia as a mid-teenage Alex deals with the accidental death of a security guard he is running from. Gabe Nevins, who plays Alex, is excellent, providing what may be the most realistic portrayal of a teenager in recent memory. Fans of Van Sant should find a great deal to like here, but for those who have never experienced one of his films, this may actually be a good place to start. It’s slow but short (less than 80 minutes) and is an interesting introduction to his themes and characters. Come year-end, this may be the best small film of the year, despite having been released almost 10 months earlier.


21

If it wasn't for the lead performances, all of which are likeable, 21 would have almost nothing to stand on, which is saying something given the fascinating source material. However, instead of a thrilling and decadent time, 21 feels more like an overwhelming generic bore. Telling the story of 5 MIT students who learn to count cards and make millions may seem easy but here is the way one shouldn't do it. While the leads are good (Spacey is always welcome, given his increasingly rare work and Jim Sturgess is a talent to watch), the look of the film is so dull that one can't help but wish for more zing. This is, after all, not the most reserved story in the world. Why can't they kick up the visual style a little more instead of making it a cautionary tale for the use of digital video? Where luminaries such as Mann/Soderbergh can make a stirring argument for digital's advantages, Robert Luketic, of Monster-in-Law infamy, pulls the whole movement back a couple of years with the dull, lifeless look here. It's not a complete loss as it may give Sturgess a jumping off point to other projects but 21 feels like a house win to me.

City of Men: Review

In City of Men, the sequel of sorts to Fernando Meirelles' 2003 City of God but actually a continuation of the Brazillian television series of the same name, Paulo Morelli abandons much of the delirious energy of Meirelles' masterpiece in favor of a more straightforward story of two young men struggling to live their day to day lives. In the end, the results are compelling viewing, and while not as successful as its predecessor, it is a welcome relief that it stands up to the toughest criticism as a valuable continuation of the series. Based in the slums of scenic Rio de Janeiro, Morelli's film is a moving look into the lives of the poorest areas of life that warrants at least one viewing.

Where Meirelles' film told the story of the rise and fall of one crime syndicate over the course of thirty some odd years, Morelli's ambitions are more reigned in. City of Men focuses on two 18 year olds, Acerola (Douglas Silva) and Laranjinha (Darlan Cunha) and their longtime friendship. Careful viewers will recognize both actors from their small but moving roles in City of God. While there are a number of side plots, the primary storyline here revolves around the duo's struggles to retain their friendship while a violent drug war erupts around them, pitting opposing factions against one another. During the film's 110 minute run time, they try to keep each other safe while coming into their own manhoods. Ace has a young son he is forced to care for while his wife leaves Rio in order to find work. Laranjinha attempts to find his real father and upon his discovery, tries to forge a relationship with him, one that suddenly faces serious odds with a reveal about half way through the film. Ultimately, Morelli is interested in presenting these two teenagers journey into adulthood, with all its fears and dangers.

Those familiar with City of God will feel right at home here as City of Men shares a similar look and feel. It may not feature the frantic camera moves and chaotic mise-en-scene of God, but the coloring and overall look is pretty similar. However, what Morelli borrows visually, he moves apart in his storytelling, as I mentioned above. Where Meirelles' film is constantly jumping from character to character, from storyline to storyline until it paints a larger picture of a city in decline, Morelli's film is much more personal, concentrating on the human elements involved here. Ace and Laranjinha get the type of strict, in depth characterization that City of God's more expansive ambitions wouldn't allow. Whether it works better or not is up to the audience to decide. For this writer, it plays more of a generic coming of age tale, granted one with a great deal of heart. Ace and Laranjinha are both believable and three dimensional. As both strive to find what it means to be a real father, something neither had growing up, their lives and friendship become increasingly complicated. While its unclear at the film's end if either have discovered the true meaning of fatherhood, it appears that they have at least determined its importance.

Both Silva and Cunha are wonderful here, continuing their underrated work from the television series, which tracks the same characters through their teenage years. Silva is more memorable from City of God as the young Lil' Dice, a character that would be difficult for any actor to outlive. However, Silva is tremendous and where Lil' Dice was a murderous psychopath, Ace is a loving and kind young man that harbors a certain level of naivety that was completely absent in his work in City of God. When compared, the two performances are as different as Warhol to Michelangelo but both showcase a young actor who displays a tremendous range for someone his age. Cunha is every bit his equal and if he wasn't given the full time to showcase himself as Steak and Fries in City of God, here he is able to stretch out and show his true prowess. His performance is truly exceptional and when combined with Silva's work, the two provide the film with warm heart and soul that keeps the audience interested and invested in the narrative's twists and turns. Given Morelli's decision to focus on a single, smaller scale relationship than City of God allowed, it is imperative that Silva and Cunha are up to task. Thankfully, they are.

City of God was a kaleidoscopic view of life in Rio but one that was sharply focused and consistently moved forward. Very few moments of the film felt wasted or unneeded, almost as if Meirelles recognized that if he wanted to fully tell his expansive story, he needed to focus as much as possible on avoiding stagnant segments. City of Men, on the other hand, seems much less intent on the constant forward momentum and takes a little bit of time to get moving forward, which ultimately hurts the film. For those unfamiliar with the television series, the first third will feel meandering and unfocused at times, leaving the audience waiting for the emotional connection to kick in. However, for those who have followed these boys over the course of the show's 20 episode run, the connection has already been made and the lack of a defined story is much less distracting. To alienate a portion of the audience though is a brave choice, one that hurts the film is you're not caught up with the story. It is by no means a killer, the film still works very well despite it but it does warrant noting.

City of Men may not be for all. Much like City of God, it displays an unattractive aspect of life, one filled with poverty and daily struggle. However, unlike City of God, which displays a nearly hopeless situation, Men is not nearly as dark, suggesting that survival and escape is not as impossible as its predecessor suggested. While City of God was never nihilistic or inhumane, far from it as it overflows with an undeniable vibrancy, City of Men allows itself to invests itself with a sense of hope. For all its darkness, there are rays of light that shine through, illuminating the paths out for those willing to walk them. In that sense, City of Men brings to mind John Singleton's seminal Boyz N The Hood more so than anything else. It shares optimism in that, regardless of how hopeless a place or life may be, its never too late to turn it around and escape whatever troubles may be happening. In fact, it is not much of a stretch to view BoyzCity of Men as a sort of Brazilian Boyz N The Hood, even down to the theme of the importance of a strong father figure. It seems like the highest praise to compare this to Singleton's masterpiece, surely one of the best films of the 90's and it is. While it may not be entirely its cinematic equal, it is certainly a contender for its throne, and that will please all but the most jaded moviegoer.