Film Outsider

Movie Clip and Trailer of the Day

2009-04-14T09:04:00.001-07:00

Hey everyone, I'm posting this here in hope that you'll follow the new feature of FilmOutsider. Everyday, on my Twitter feed, I'll be posting a Movie Clip of the Day and a Trailer of the Day. These will range in time period, in content and mood but everyday these will be happening! Keep a close look at twitter.com/kevinsimpson for each day's update!

Trailer: Public Enemies

2009-03-04T11:52:00.000-08:00

So, here we have it: the first real glimpse at Michael Mann's newest. Immediate reactions? Not sure if I like the more modern feel of the music but I'm told that the music in the film is much more period-accurate, i.e. songs from the 20's and 30's. Visually, it looks like Michael Mann: arresting and innovative. However, the digital look is different for a period piece. It could just be my initial reaction but that look seems to put forth a certain type of modernity, even futuristic quality at points. It was perfect for the bright lights of Collateral and Miami Vice. How will it affect a period piece? It worked well for Che though so I have faith in Mann's technical expertise. Acting look spectacular as does the plot. Word has it (even those who have seen previews and not enjoyed the film) that Depp is tremendous and from this, I don't doubt it. This is my most eagerly anticipated movie of the summer, perhaps, year.

Public Enemies Poster

2009-03-03T12:50:00.000-08:00

Sweet.

The Other Side of the Wind at Cannes

2009-03-03T12:43:00.000-08:00

This is interesting and intriguing to say the least. We're talking about a legendary lost film, an unfinished supposed masterpiece from one of the true geniuses of cinema. If the prospect of an Orson Welles project with the description of "an aging Hollywood director attempting to revive his career by making a trippy movie filled with sex and violence" doesn't excite you, well, then, you're just not much of a cinephile.

Worth Revisting

2009-02-25T15:33:00.001-08:00

In the wake of Kate's win on Sunday.

Trailer: Funny People

2009-02-23T13:04:00.000-08:00

It can't be embedded but here is the first trailer for Judd Apatow's follow up to Knocked Up, Funny People.

Predicting the 2010 Oscars

2009-02-23T12:24:00.000-08:00

The day after the big show, the blogosphere is up and raring to go for 2010. Here's a glimpse from Kris Tapley, at InContention, and Jeffery Wells, from Hollywood Elsewhere, as to their opening salvo of guesses for what might be the big winner a year from now.

First Glimpse of Public Enemies!

2009-02-23T08:28:00.000-08:00

For those who stuck through the credits of the Oscars last night, you caught a glimpe of Public Enemies, Michael Mann's newest creation. As a Mann devotee, the footage looked tremendous, especially the shot of Christian Bale unloading a tommy gun at the camera. A classic Mann composition. July can't come quick enough. Look for a trailer in the coming couple of weeks.

Oscar's Wrap Up

2009-02-23T07:53:00.000-08:00

As last night's Academy Awards ceremony came to a close, so did the cinematic year that was 2008, a span of 365 that many felt was underwhelming, while others reveled in the releases. As I've written before, 2008 was underwhelming for me, save for some stone cold and could-be classics. The depth wasn't there, the variety didn't quite match 2007. Still, I look forward to the Oscars like a junkie to a fix so Sunday's ceremony was a welcome treat and with that said, all in all, I enjoyed the broadcast, although not always agreeing with it although I'm not sure there is anything on par with the Crash fiasco of a few years back.

Highlights:
-James Franco, Seth Rogen and Janusz Kaminski (!) in Judd Apatow's wonderful montage of the year in comedy, which including a brilliant skewering of some of the big Oscar bait. Franco is an immensely talented guy who I feel like we've only seen shades of what he can really do. 2008 was a great year for him between his film redeeming performance in Pineapple Express to his excellent work in Milk and this seemed like a good way for it to end.

-Tina Fey, Steve Martin and the Screenplay Nominees. A brilliant moment from two of the world's funniest that was topped off by Dustin Lance Black's immensely deserved win for Best Original Screenplay. Black's script is brilliant and heartbreaking, a timely portrait of pivotal figure that is frequently forgotten by the general public. Black's speech was heartfelt, moving and all too true, the best of the evening.

-Sean Penn's win for his impressive work in Milk. While I would have been content with either Penn or Rourke (and I think Rourke's speech would have been more moving and entertaining), Penn's performance is too good to miss. It's a subtle, moving portrayal that deserves all the accolades it has received. Rourke's work is equally as impressive but this was Penn's award and he rightfully came out on top. Also, I try to avoid politicizing here but his remarks about Prop 8 were dead on. Those who wish to discriminate against gays are no different than those who tried to destroy the civil rights movements of the 1960's. We look back at those people as uneducated bigots and I believe that, in due time, those with anti-gay agendas will appear no different.

-Penelope Cruz's win for Vicky Cristina Barcelona, a transcendent performance in a criminally underseen and underrated film. She's a talented, charismatic performer and her performance in VCB is her best to date.

-Heath Ledger's win for The Dark Knight, the only win of note for the biggest film of the year. This is the last time the Academy will be able to award an actor who seemed to be becoming of his generation's best and thankfully, it doesn't have to go to a sub-par performance. Even the most TDK haters have issues trying to critique Ledger's brilliant, searing and disturbing work.

Letdowns
-The overwhelming Slumdog victory. I believe that Boyle deserves it but the rest of it rings hollow to me as I've noted here before. It went 8 for 10 on the evening and very few of those were the right choices. I hate to sound like a fanboy hitting back at a film I wasn't crazy about but this was not the best film of 2008 by any stretch of the imagination and nothing anyone will say will convince me that it was any greater than any number of films, including most of the other Best Picture nominees, most particularly Van Sant's Milk.

-The length was a bit much. It seemed like it was moving along pretty well at the half way point but the second half of the show began to drag a little bit, not enough for me to want to turn it off but enough for me to understand non-cinephiles tuning out.

-A general lack of surprises. The only award that stunned me (and seemingly the film community) was Best Foreign Film, which many felt was a shoe-in for Bashir or The Class. It appears that very few people have seen Departures (hell, even A.O. Scott at the NY Times admitted to not having seen it) so I believe it's win was a stunning turn. The category was already one of controversy with the snub of the supposedly tremendous Gomorrah and I'm not sure this isn't more ammunition for the complainers.

Overall, as I said earlier, I enjoyed the evening but with the Oscar's, it doesn't take much to keep me interested. It's unfortunate that Slumdog's big night will obscure the other winners but many have pointed out this morning that it's win may signal a new path in Hollywood. As the recession bores down and studios have less money to make the big Oscar contenders, 2009 may be a year of small films making big splashes next February. Until then, thanks for reading! Enjoy 2009!

Looking to 2009

2009-02-20T07:32:00.000-08:00

Apologies for a lack of reviews. I was holding off on re-starting them until 2009 releases hit the pipeline and have had no desire to see any of the dreck that is being released now (Gomorrah hasn't hit CT yet).

Still, with the Oscars only a few days away, here is The Playlist's look at 2009. Films I'm looking forward to?

Public Enemies (Mann)
Ashecliffe (Shutter Island) (Scorsese)
The Human Factor (Eastwood)
Fantastic Mr. Fox (Anderson)
Adventureland (Mottola)
The Road (Hillcoat)
The Tree of Life (Malick)
Inglourious Basterds (Tarantino)
Funny People (Apatow)
Where the Wild Things Are (Jonze)
The Hurt Locker (Bigelow)
Green Zone (Greengrass)
The Informant (Soderbergh)
Taking Woodstock (Lee)
Watchmen (Snyder)
Avatar (Cameron)
500 Days of Summer (Webb)
Star Trek (Abrams)

Thats just a sampling. Of those, Public Enemies is about as excited for a film that I get. A recent test screening brought some positive buzz which is hopeful but from an ardent admirer of Miami Vice, Mann's follow up should be worth the price of admission.

What are you looking forward to?

Zodiac Appreciation Pt. 1

2009-02-12T09:10:00.000-08:00

As perfect a tone- and mood-setting opening as there is in recent memory.

Finally. Inglourious Basterds: Trailer

2009-02-12T08:21:00.001-08:00

At a time when all war films feel the same, QT rides in to save the day.

And the Best Director Oscar Goes To...

2009-02-01T10:44:00.001-08:00

Danny Boyle. Congrats man, you're a hell of a talent who is the sole reason for Slumdog working at all. With his Directors Guild win last night, Boyle has more or less locked down the Oscar win, which is too bad for David Fincher, who's work on Benjamin Button is nearly as impressive.

Newsweek's Oscar Roundtable

2009-01-27T16:02:00.001-08:00

A nice, yet kind of awkward (given Sally Hawkins got screwed out of a nomination) roundtable from a talented group of stars: Langella, Pitt, Hathaway, Downey Jr., Hawkins, Rourke. If you've got the time, watch all 8 parts for a solid 45 minutes of entertaining talk. Perhaps NSFW due to some coarse language. Click on the big play button to start the vids.

Watchmen: Trailer

2009-01-27T15:03:00.001-08:00

Fincher Discussion

2009-01-27T14:46:00.001-08:00

For all the Fincher-heads out there, here's an excellent discussion of the guy's work. Stick around for the comments, which are nearly as interesting as the actual, formal discussion, and provide a stellar defense of Fincher's latest "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button".

Slumdog Thoughts

2009-01-27T09:52:00.000-08:00

Having seen Slumdog alittle over a month ago, I've had time to sit back and really think about it. Being a HUGE fan of Danny Boyle and his previous work (28 Days Later, for my money, is as good of a horror film as any other released in the past 25 years), I have to say that I continue to be disappointed with Slumdog. I can understand why people like, even love it, but I have to think that some of those people find the film overly original or fresh. I also have to think that those people have not seen City of God or City of Men (either the TV show or feature length film companion), both of which deal with extreme poverty in massive cities and the attempts to escape the harsh nature of live in poor areas.

Both of the Meirelles projects (he directed the former, produced the latter) seem to bristle with a constant vitality. This isn't to say that Slumdog doesn't feel alive at points as it most certainly does, perhaps as much as any other film this fall, but never does it match the sheer rush of either of the Brazillian films. City of God may be more violent in its drug trade narrative focus but it also features a greater range of emotion. The more gut-wrenching scenes in Slumdog (the torture and mutiliation scenes come to mind) don't match the sheer heart in the throat points of City of God (there is nothing remotely close to the power of this scene, apologies for the sound being off and in another language). Slumdog never wants to take the real horror of those situations to their logical endpoint. Rather, it wants to stay as an almost Dickensian fable about poor kids in the big city. However, the inclusion of these thin line walking scenes which are too in your face to label the film as an audience pleaser, too reserved to actually make a true impression. It seemed to me that Slumdog didn't know what it wanted to be.

For those who think of City of God as being only a violent exploration of favela life, there are more than enough moments of genuine joy and exuberance that break through the darkness. Yet, City of God's blend seems more cohesive and fleshed out. Where as the horrific moments of City of God seem earned and necessary to the film, those moments in Slumdog seem so much more forced, so much less a necessity.

It's unfortunate that, as I believe Boyle to be a true master, Slumdog seems to be the film he's most remembered and adored for. His previous works (28 Days Later, Trainspotting, Millions, hell, even Sunshine in it's flawed glory) struck a much deeper chord with me than Slumdog ever did. It's not to say that Slumdog isn't a good, noteworthy work that adds to Boyle illustrious filmmography but to have it sweep the major awards and dominate critic circles best-of-lists seems like overpraise of the highest order.

The Outsider's Oscar Nominations

2009-01-26T10:10:00.000-08:00

When the Oscar nominations were announced last week, there was a fair amount of crying about different categories. In the spirit, here are my own personal nominations for the Oscars. In the coming weeks, I'll mark down who should win my nominations, who should win the real nominations and then the night of the Oscars, who will win the Oscars.

Best Picture
The Dark Knight
Wall-E
Milk
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Best Actor
Sean Penn – Milk
Mickey Rourke – The Wrestler
Benecio Del Toro – Che
Clint Eastwood – Gran Torino
Frank Langella – Frost/Nixon

Best Actress
Meryl Streep – Doubt
Kate Winslet – Revolutionary Road
Anne Hathaway – Rachel Getting Married
Cate Blanchett – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Angelina Jolie – Changeling

Best Supporting Actor
Heath Ledger – The Dark Knight
Phillip Seymour Hoffman – Doubt
Robert Downey Jr. – Tropic Thunder
Michael Shannon – Revolutionary Road
Emile Hirsch – Milk

Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz – Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Frances McDormand – Burn After Reading
Viola Davis – Doubt
Taraji P. Henson – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Rosemarie DeWitt – Rachel Getting Married

Best Director
David Fincher – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Christopher Nolan – The Dark Knight
Gus Van Sant – Milk
Sam Mendes – Revolutionary Road
Steven Soderbergh – Che

Year in Review: Addendum

2009-01-25T10:40:00.000-08:00

I have just been able to see Che and The Wrestler, both of which feature tremendous, transcendent lead performances that jump off the screen. Both easily are some of the year's best, probably clocking in the top 10. With that said, consider my new top ten something like this.

10. The Wrestler
9. Rachel Getting Married
8. Che
7. Paranoid Park
6. Revolutionary Road
5. Vicky Cristina Barcelona
4. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
3. Wall-E
2. The Dark Knight
1. Milk

This knocks Man on Wire and Doubt just out of my top 10 of the year.

Che's brilliance lies in its refusal to play by typical biopic conventions. It may rub some the wrong way that it doesn't have the big emotional payoff that one typically likes after 4 hours and 20 minutes (no lie) but the depth of ideas pervade the film. It's first half (which details Guevara's role in the Cuban Revolution) works better than the second but both are wonderful returns to form for Steven Soderbergh and are easily his best work since Traffic. Benecio Del Toro is absolutely amazing, giving a soulful, intelligent performance that has been terribly overlooked due to the film's length, which has prohibited it from being shown outside of major cities up to this point. As someone who finds Che a fascinating figure, the film gripped me from the outset, with Soderbergh's guerilla style filmmaking beautifully complementing the narrative and themes.

For The Wrestler, its easy to see why everyone is so crazy for Mickey Rouke's performance which is wonderful in every way. Humorous, heartbreaking and entirely human, Rouke brings a vitality to the screen that was only matched by Sean Penn's work in Milk and perhaps Del Toro in Che. A resonant drama that holds something for many, this is much more than just a wrestling film and in many ways, is the Raging Bull for wrestling. In other words, one need not be interested in the sport (or entertainment depending on how you view it) of wrestling, only in in-depth examinations of human struggle. Rourke deserves every bit of his Globe win and Oscar nomination. If the Oscar ends up going to either him or Penn, consider this writer content.

Finalists for Oscar's Best Foreign Language Film

2009-01-14T11:49:00.000-08:00

After last year's disastrous snubbing of 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days by the Oscar Foreign Language committee, it seems like the group has done it again. Conspicuously absent from this year's finalists is Gomorrah, by director Matteo Garrone, one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year. The blogosphere is up in arms over this, as the Academy proves again that more often than not, their Foreign Language category isn't always the best barometer when truly determining the best Foreign film of the year. Here are the finalists, from which the five nominees will be selected:

Revanche (Gotz Spielmann, Austria)
The Necessities of Life (Benoit Pilon, Canada)
The Class (Laurent Cantet, France)
The Baader Meinhof Complex (Uli Edel, Germany)
Waltz with Bashir (Ari Folman, Israel)
Departures (Yojiro Takita, Japan)
Tear This Heart Out (Roberto Sneider, Mexico)
Everlasting Moments (Jan Troell, Sweden)
3 Monkeys (Nuri Bilge Ceylan, Turkey)

Courtesy of Variety.

Year in Review 2008

2009-01-12T11:22:00.000-08:00

2008 has come and gone and with it, another cinematic year is in the books. The Golden Globes were last night but I’ll get to that in a bit. We’ll start with a brief look back at the year that was.

Ultimately, my judge of a cinematic year is not only how many great movies were released, but also, the variety of the films released. Take, for example, 2007, a year that was jam packed with solid 10’s (or at least near 10’s). No Country, Zodiac, There Will Be Blood may lead the charge but not far behind you have This is England, Knocked Up, Control, Assassination of Jesse James, etc. Had it been released in 2008, Eastern Promises would be a solid contender for number 1. In 2007, its in a tight race for a solid second half of the top 10.

I don’t mean to say that 2008 was a bad year for movies, you certainly have your memorable pics, but in the wake of 2007, one of the best cinematic 365 day span of my lifetime, 2008 just doesn’t hold up. Still, there is a lot to be celebrated in 2008, as evidence by the video I posted a couple of posts back. Yet, when I watch that, I can’t help think that more of those work better at moments as opposed to whole works. Still, any cinephile who watches that and doesn’t feel their heart pumping needs to get their pulse checked and I think that really speaks to the power of cinema. In a 4 minute video, filled with 3 or 4 second clips, so many good memories are brought up, so many moments that will permanently be lodged into our brains. In many ways, we’ll forget some of these movies and the overall, final product. Yet, certain shots and sequences will forever be etched into our cultural fabric. This is the type of video that I would have watched as a kid, seen those scenes, identify the movie and want to see the entire film. Only now, I can identify every shot, every last second of the thing. Granted, I see more movies than most but I think it’s a powerful summary of what was. Fact is, I’m happy I saw everything in there, not because I want to be able to say I saw everything in there, but because I’m happy I was able to experience valuable (however minor) parts of the cultural output of 2008.

I think people forget that: that film is a major cultural output of our country, of our world in the present time. Those who decry film, its study or one’s love of film as inconsequential are short sighted and delusional. Those type of people would have been the same type who dismissed the popular fictions of the 19th century, the Mark Twain’s, the Edgar Allen Poe’s, the Jane Austen’s of the world, as inconsequential (read: idiots). In the current wave of cinema (which is woefully underrated), it’s easy to look at the cinematic garbage of the world and use it as an example of film’s unnecessary nature. However, if one sits down (really sits down) and closely watches the works of David Fincher, PT Anderson, Gus Van Sant, Clint Eastwood or Michael Mann, they’ll discover a grouping of artists making as intelligent of works as any other artist in the world today. These are the people who’ll influence what will come for the next 50 years. They’ll influence the music, the film, the art, the literature of our kid’s generation and of our kid’s kid’s generation in a way that Hitchcock, Ford and Godard has influenced the current generation. Cinema just represents the next step in art, the next logical progression from still paintings, from still images. One can look at Ford’s films such as The Searchers, Stagecoach or My Darling Clementine and not only see D.W. Griffith or but also the ideas of Frederick Jackson Turner or the themes of James Fenimore Cooper. Point is, to watch some big budget studio trash, be disappointed and then hold it against film as a whole is useless. You just have to have a sense of adventure, a sense of wanting to discover the culture of your generation to find the gems.

What’s 2008 have to offer for this? I’d say the epic and intelligent, yet accessible and entertaining moments of The Dark Knight, a perfect parable for a time when a major societal question is how should we combat evil? Perhaps Wall-E, with its strong warnings of environmental destruction and human health, all in an animated film about a robot, is more your cup of tea. Or is it Milk, the vibrant and inspirational look at one of the great social advocates of the near past with its themes of acceptance and human rights is for you. Maybe it’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Fincher’s second film in thematic trilogy about live, passion and the passage of time; or Revolutionary Road and its reminders to live your life to the fullest and to follow your passions or risk lifelong unhappiness; or Vicky Cristina Barcelona, a delicacy of a film about the spirit of the good life, of love, of food, of good drink. There’s something for everyone, just go and find it.

Still, 2008 can’t beat 2007. Fincher’s Button is great, even tremendous, and will probably be more liked by audiences due to its undeniable emotional effect but it doesn’t match up with Zodiac, Fincher’s 2007 release. Zodiac will never be remembered as fondly by regular audiences because of its methodical pacing and its steadfast refusal to give out simple emotional thrills but at its core, it’s a better film, a more complex film, a more complete film. Nothing matches up with the deranged nature of There Will Be Blood and there certainly isn’t a performance this year that tops Daniel Day Lewis’ Daniel Plainview, a performance that has to be watched 5 or 10 times to pull every bit of nuance from it.

Regardless, 2008 was better than some, worse than others but it does stand up on its own. Its films form a snapshot of our time, a capsule of sorts to remember our fears and hopes for the year. What will 2009 bring? Will a new presidency change the tone of Hollywood? Only time will tell but I’ll be happy to take the ride, whatever it may be.

Year in Review 2008: Best Films (73-51)

2009-01-11T17:25:00.001-08:00

73. The Happening
72. Semi-Pro
71. Funny Games U.S.
70. 21
69. Get Smart
68. The Other Boelyn Girl
67. Doomsday
66. Sex and the City
65. Leatherheads
64. OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies
63. My Blueberry Nights
62. Speed Racer
61. Mongol
60. The Incredible Hulk
59. Pineapple Express
58. Mamma Mia!
57. You Don’t Mess With the Zohan
56. Miss Pettigrew Lives for the Day
55. Hancock
54. Miracle at St. Anna
53. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
52. The Bank Job
51. Forgetting Sarah Marshall

Year in Review 2008: Best Films (50-26)

2009-01-11T17:23:00.000-08:00

50. Diary of the Dead
49. Cloverfield
48. The Hammer
47. Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist
46. Wanted
45. Flash of Genius
44. Zack and Miri Make a Porno
43. Cassandra’s Dream
42. Quantum of Solace
41. Redbelt
40. Be Kind Rewind
39. Body of Lies
38. Son of Rambow
37. In Bruges
36. Slumdog Millionaire
35. Stop-Loss
34. Joy Division
33. Joe Strummer: The Future is Unwritten
32. Bigger, Stronger, Faster*
31. Standard Operating Procedure
30. Surfwise
29. Chicago 10
28. Blindness
27. Valkyrie
26. City of Men

Year in Review 2008: Best Films (25-11)

2009-01-11T17:22:00.000-08:00

25. Gonzo: The Life of Hunter S. Thompson
24. Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired
23. Frost/Nixon
22. U23D
21. The Visitor
20. W.
19. Hellboy II: The Golden Army
18. Iron Man
17. Burn After Reading
16. Synecdoche, New York
15. Ghost Town
14. Shine a Light
13. Changeling
12. Tropic Thunder
11. Gran Torino

Year in Review 2008: Best Films (10-1)

2009-01-11T17:21:00.000-08:00

10. Doubt- John Patrick Shanley’s adaptation of his own stage play works so well thanks to its ability to ask the tough question while refusing the easy answers. It forces it audiences to think in all the best ways, with questions about faith, sexuality and gender. P.S. Hoffman, Meryl Streep and Amy Adams all contribute knock out performances, unflinching in their honesty.

9. Man on Wire- The year’s best documentary tells the unbelievable story of Philippe Petit’s attempt to walk the high wire between the two Twin Towers soon after their construction. It works so well due to the fact that its told like the best heist film you can imagine, filled with suspense and intrigue. Priceless documentary footage complement the new interviews to form one of the most entertaining films of the year.

8. Rachael Getting Married- Jonathan Demme’s view of a dysfunctional family’s wedding has a wonderfully improvisational feel to it and a stellar lead performance by Anne Hathaway. The rest of the cast is up to Hathaway’s challenge, as there are great performance sprinkled throughout. At first, I wasn’t sure how I felt about the musical interludes that pop up through the film but few films have stuck with me as much as this.

7. Paranoid Park- The year of Gus Van Sant started here with his small indie flick about a teen who witnesses a murder. Led by a stellar cast of virtual unknowns, it’s as beautifully shot as any true indie that you’ll see thanks to Christopher Doyle’s cinematography. A quiet meditative film that forms one half of the best one/two directorial punch of the year.

6. Revolutionary Road- A dark, searing and unflinching look at the soullessness of suburbia, Revolutionary Road marks Sam Mendes return to the neighborhoods of American Beauty, only 50 years earlier. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet lead a stellar cast that makes the best of the heavy, heavy, heavy material. Moving and disturbing, it hits close to home more than one may like but like all good art, it provokes considerable thought about the very being of your life.

5. Vicky Cristina Barecelona- Woody Allen’s best film since his heyday, Vicky Cristina Barcelona is achingly alive, glowing off the screen. Its vibrancy and sense of place allow you to get lost in a European vacation of your own without leaving the theatre. Tremendous acting all around, VCB is erotic and sexual without ever feeling dirty, its quick wit continually propping it up. Criminally under seen, this is a film that deserves a much larger audience. Absolutely lovely in every aspect.

4. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- Much like his previous work Zodiac, David Fincher’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button will only get better with each successive viewing. Epic in scope yet intimately personal at all times, Fincher’s newest masterpiece is an innovative technical marvel that raises questions about the very nature of life itself. Strikingly shot and filled with amazing performances, this is the perfect example of a film that nails its setting and atmosphere so well that I was checking my watch, hoping to spend even more time in this universe.

3. Wall-E- Just when you think that Pixar can’t top themselves, they go ahead and wow you once again, this time with Wall-E, which may be the finest animated film of all time, certainly of the year. Combining Chaplin-esque pathos with a timely message and timeless characters, Wall-E succeeds on every front. Adult in themes yet presented in ways that even a child could understand, Wall-E confronts a complex subject head on, with jaw dropping visuals and a bittersweet tone that impossible not to fall for.

2. The Dark Knight- THE movie of 2008, Christopher Nolan’s sequel to his Batman Begins is a startling, dread filled, modern masterpiece. Its pop filmmaking of the highest order, a deft combination of blockbuster action and indie smarts. At its core are questions vital to our current society, all neatly wrapped in a black cape. Ledger’s performance is already legendary, with good reason. It immediately takes it place among the greatest screen villains of all time.

1. Milk- A moving, exciting biopic from the immensely talented Gus Van Sant relies on a spectacular lead performance by Sean Penn to carry the considerable weight of the material. Vibrant to the end, Van Sant continues to prove he’s one of the most gifted filmmakers working today. Yet, this may be his masterpiece, a sound examination of a man, a movement, a city, hell, an entire time period.

Year in Review 2008: Best Performances

2009-01-11T15:27:00.000-08:00

(Haven't seen The Reader)

-Sean Penn, Milk
-Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler
-Benecio Del Toro, Che
-Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
-Penelope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
-Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon
-Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
-Cate Blanchett, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
-P.S. Hoffman, Doubt
-Meryl Streep, Doubt
-Leonardo DiCaprio, Revolutionary Road
-Kate Winslet, Revolutionary Road
-Clint Eastwood, Gran Torino
-Robert Downey Jr., Tropic Thunder
-Josh Brolin, W.
-Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married

Year in Review 2008: Best Moments

2009-01-11T15:25:00.000-08:00

-Wall-E’s initial trip to the Axiom, clinging to the side of a spaceship.
-Climatic confrontation between P.S. Hoffman and Meryl Streep in Doubt.
-Kate’s dance in Revolutionary Road.
-Brad and Cate hanging on the boat, watching the spaceship launch in Benjamin Button.
-Wanted’s Train Shootout.
-Be Kind Rewind’s Swedes.
-W’s run in W.
-The lot of U2 3D for inspired visual tricks.
-Iron Man’s first flight in Iron Man.
-Documentary footage from the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago 10.
-JK Simmons and the final scene from Burn After Reading.
-Robert Downey Jr.’s retard speech in Tropic Thunder.
-Debra Winger and Anne Hathaway’s slap fight and Hathway’s subsequent drive in Rachael Getting Married.
-Man on Wire’s Twin Tower Tightrope.
-Gran Torino’s barbershop scene with Walt, Toad and Martin.
-Penn’s “I know you’re angry” speech in Milk.
-The Joker’s Pencil Trick in The Dark Knight.

'08 Review

2009-01-02T07:23:00.001-08:00

Because, there isn't a better way to get back in the swing of things, to pique people's interest in another year of FilmOutsider, than to look back at '08. My best-of will be heading up on January 11, the day of the Globes. I'll have, unfortunately, not seen everything by then but I'm going to do my damndest to see as much as I can. The whatever-I've-seen to 1 countdown will be massive so get ready.

In the meantime, check out Neoavant's Matt Shapiro's recap of the year. 2008, in the wake of 2007, was a disappointing year for the movies but this'll still remind you of some of the magical moments cinema gave us in the year that was. Sit back, enjoy and I'll see you on the 11th.

Changeling: Trailer

2008-10-07T09:21:00.001-07:00

We're back!

2008-10-07T09:18:00.001-07:00

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

2008-08-01T07:02:00.000-07:00

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

2008-07-08T14:55:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-30T15:23:00.000-07:00

Trailers: Australia

2008-06-30T15:21:00.000-07:00

The Dark Knight

2008-06-30T15:10:00.001-07:00

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

2008-06-29T06:25:00.000-07:00

Trailers: Choke

2008-06-29T06:23:00.000-07:00

Trailers: The Dark Knight

2008-06-29T06:14:00.001-07:00

Trailers: Miracle at St. Anna

2008-06-29T05:58:00.000-07:00

Review: Wall-E

2008-06-28T21:47:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-28T20:34:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-28T20:29:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-25T18:29:00.000-07:00

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

2008-06-25T18:18:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-29T19:21:00.001-07:00

Trailers: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2008-05-29T19:02:00.000-07:00

Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2008-05-28T17:30:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-28T17:14:00.000-07:00

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

2008-05-28T17:09:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-23T17:33:00.000-07:00

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

2008-04-08T05:00:00.000-07:00

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

2008-03-23T19:18:00.000-07:00

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.

Be Kind Rewind: Review

2008-02-25T19:20:00.000-08:00

In a way that brings to mind such works as Cinema Paradiso, Michel Gondry’s latest offering is a joyous celebration of what film can do and ultimately what it can’t. Be Kind Rewind, the newest creation from the most inventive filmmaker working today, may not be his best work and in some respects, it may be his worst. However, this speaks not so much to the quality of Rewind as it does to the greatness of his previous works (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, The Science of Sleep and Dave Chappelle’s Block Party) and what Gondry has here is another seemingly effortless mixture of sentimentality and whimsy that is consistently entertaining and heartfelt. Buoyed by a charismatic cast and wonderful visuals, Be Kind Rewind hit the hearts of all those who ever took the family video camera and made a “movie”.

Jerry (Jack Black) and Mike (Mos Def) live in Passaic, NJ where Mike works at a small thrift/video store, owned by Mr. Fletcher (Danny Glover), called Be Kind Rewind. Jerry is something of a destructive personality, who deeply believes that the power plant located next to his camper is somehow manipulating the minds of the good people of the neighborhood. After an ill advised attempt to sabotage the power plant in which he is exposed to a massive magnetic field, thus magnetizing Jerry (which includes one of the many memorable visual gags in the film), he arrives at the store the next day, only to demagnetize every VHS tape in the store.

Unfortunately for Mr. Fletcher, who is out of town at what he tells Mike is a Fats Waller convention, his store only carries VHS. To try and hide the fact that every tape is destroyed, Mike and Jerry set off on remaking every movie in the store, via good old fashioned do-it-yourself filmmaking. They explain the process as “Sweding”, that is the importing of tapes from Sweden, hence the slight differences that one may see when watching it. Luckily for them, the neighborhood takes a liking to their work and off we go. If this seems far-fetched, it is but one must enter a Gondry film with a suspension of disbelief or else nothing will be gained. Gondry’s aim is not to create realistic depictions of life but rather, using outlandish setups, create in depth explorations of real human emotion. It is here that he succeeds wildly. With Eternal Sunshine and The Science of Sleep, he explored the nature of romantic love with a bittersweet melancholy that was equally heartfelt and inventive. With Dave Chappelle’s Block Party, he focused his lens on the meaning of community and he continues with that theme in Be Kind Rewind. Where he looked at the power of music in the former, in the latter, he looks at the power of film and in many respects, he displays an understanding of the power of cinema not seen since the late 80’s with Tornatore’s Cinema Paradiso.

As someone who frequently spent his free time in middle and high schools making movies on an old Sony camcorder, the sweding sequences were wonderful glimpses back to what it felt like to be making those short movies. What they lacked in subtlety and skill, they made up for in raw energy and a genuine love for the process. It isn’t much different in Mike and Jerry’s creations and when their versions of Boyz ‘N the Hood or 2001: A Space Odyssey are shown, I couldn’t help but reminisce of watching our own creations. They were our labors of love and whether my friends and I realized it at the time, the creation of a film was forcing us to collaborate to get something on that magnetic strip. For Mike and Jerry, they are the same emotions, until the process is complicated with news that the shop is going to close and be demolished to make way for luxury condominiums. Then, it doesn’t become just Mike and Jerry’s interest but the larger communities and it is here that the film truly takes off.

Mos Def, as Mike, is wonderful. He possesses an effortless charisma that is affable and charming. He serves as a perfect foil for Black’s manic, at times grating, performance, balancing out the film wonderfully. Equally as charming is Melonie Diaz, as Alma, the duo’s sidekick. Together, the three form the core of the film and without their work, much of Gondry’s intentions would have been lost somewhere in the journey from script to screen.

Gondry’s direction is a mixture of slapstick, melancholy and visual originality that all come together in a style that’s really all his own. Few directors in recent memory has been as consistently inventive and distinctive in their initial efforts but it seems like Gondry is truly one of a kind, an artist with an avant-guard eye but a mainstream heart. Even at its strangest moments, The Science of Sleep, easily his least accessible work, is emotionally grounded in moments that most will be able to identify with. Be Kind Rewind doesn’t come close to the bizarre sequences in its predecessor but it doesn’t lose a bit of its heart. It may be sentimental, but when its executed so joyfully, who can complain? I supposed that Miss Falewicz (Mia Farrow), one of the neighborhood elder states(wo)men, puts it best: “Here’s to movies with heart!”. I couldn’t agree more.

In Bruges: Review

2008-02-20T18:58:00.000-08:00

In Bruges, the film which opened 2008’s Sundance Film Festival is a mixed bag, a deceivingly morally complex thriller that is gleefully offensive and awfully violent, particularly in its last 25 minutes or so when it all comes flying off the rails. Up to that point, Martin McDonagh’s feature debut is an enjoyable thriller with a sharp script and a number of great performances. It is because the first two thirds are as enjoyable as they are that one is left confused and disappointed by the final act.

In Bruges tells the story of two hit men, Ray and Ken (Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson), who are told by their boss, Harry (Ralph Finnes) to hide out in the title city following a hit gone wrong. For Ray, as he quickly informs the viewer, the idea of hiding in Bruges is less than ideal. Ken, on the other hand, relishes the time off and the ability to explore the most well preserved medieval city in Europe. As the film progresses, Ray, continuing to ignore the advice of his boss, goes out for a couple nights out on the town, drawing the ire of both Ken and Harry.

Led by Colin Farrell, in his best performance in ages, and Brendan Gleeson, In Bruges is held up by the cast, who take McDonagh’s quick wit script and create a profane tapestry of Tarantino-esque dialogue. However, where Tarantino displays a tremendous knack for popular culture knowledge, McDonagh concentrates on his thematic constructions, a sure sign of his theatre background. Unlike Tarantino’s postmodern deconstructions of genre, McDonagh is more at home in traditional threads, relying on a fairly straightforward narrative.

The approach benefits In Bruges, which is surprising in its complexity. It is by no means a simple thriller, but rather one that poses a series of conflicted characters that will force the audience to consider its alliances. Farrell’s character, a first time hit man who accidentally kills an innocent bystander, is initially a dislikable killer but as In Bruges moves through its story, it becomes increasingly difficult to come to simple decisions about the characters. Much like Pulp Fiction’s iconic Vincent Vega and Jules Winfield, Ray and Ken are hit men with morals and feelings. While they are able to do their job, they aren’t always the happiest about having to do it. Writing it here seems ridiculous, but during the course of the film, McDonagh creates a difficult situation upon which to choose sides.

With all this comparison to Tarantino and his work, it is important to note one key distinction. While he may be an able, even downright talented writer and creator of characters, McDonagh doesn’t possess the same cinematic language and technique as Tarantino. Without his feverish referencing of other films, genres and even other mediums of pop culture, all wrapped in a neat cinematic bow, Tarantino’s films would feel much less fun and that is what we have here with In Bruges. McDonagh seems to be a capable director but when the action gets hot and heavy at the end of the film, In Bruges is at its worst, relying on a few shootouts and some out of place gore to carry it to the end.

Farrell, Gleeson and Finnes should all be applauded, as each put in memorable performances. Farrell, who seems to mix awful career decisions with brilliant ones, gives the film his all, taking McDonagh’s Ray and making him into a fully formed human being. Combine that with the reliable Gleeson and Finnes, who routinely turn in wonderful work and the cast is solely responsible from keeping this film out of the outright failure category. While the film’s finale is not enough to ruin the entire experience, it certainly puts a damper on the proceedings. In Bruges could have been something special, but instead, it joins the line of films since the mid 90’s who desperately want to match the brilliance of Pulp Fiction but come up short, time and time again.

Cloverfield: Review

2008-02-08T04:36:00.000-08:00

By the time of it's release, Cloverfield had become something more than a movie. Through brilliant marketing campaigns, viral and otherwise, producer JJ Abrams has crafted a monster movie that quite frankly, can't be ignored. However, with all the hype comes higher expectations yet, as Abrams has continued to do time and time again in recent years, he and his team have crafted a monster thriller that, while not entirely successful, is one of the first major reasons in 2008 to get out to your nearest multiplex. With a ferocious visceral intensity that feels pleasantly out of place for a wide January release, Cloverfield is a triumph of genre moviemaking that should please audiences looking for relief from the seriousness of Oscar season.

Directed by Matt Reeves, Cloverfield is not unlike its monster predecessors in its narrative but in its means of storytelling, it refreshing in its 21st century technique. Shot using handheld digital cameras designed to give the feel of a digital camcorder, Cloverfield tells that story of a group of mid-twenties who have their going away party for a friend interrupted by the arrival of a giant beast. At the group's core is Rob (Michael Stahl-David, who is supposed to leave for a new job in Japan the next day, yet thanks to the marauding fiend currently wrecking New York City, it appears as if those plans may be waylaid. In their place is a new mission, to rescue his semi-girlfriend Beth (Odette Yustman), who leaves the downtown party early and is caught in a building about 40 blocks away. Coming along with Rob are his brother Jason and his fiancée Lily (Mike Vogel and Jessica Lucas), his best friend Hud (T.J. Miller) and finally, a fellow partygoer Marlena (Lizzy Caplan, of Mean Girls fame).

If the premise sounds simple, it is. No one is going to accuse Cloverfield of being the most intellectual movie currently gracing movie screens across the country but what it lacks in narrative smarts, it more than makes up for in its thrilling set pieces. As mentioned earlier, these moments are glimpsed through the handheld camera work of Hud (really shot by cinematographer Michael Bonvillain), which gives the events a you-are-there intensity. However, this should come with a warning to those with a weak stomach or easily susceptible to motion sickness: Cloverfield makes The Blair Witch Project look positively stationary. Often times, there are moments where the camera is nothing but blurry motion as the characters sprint ahead, trying to stay out of danger. It will undoubtedly annoy some viewers but for those accustomed to watching videos on YouTube, the camerawork of Cloverfield will become practically invisible as the story heats up.

Throughout, the film takes on an impromptu, on the spot style that feels largely improvised and spontaneous. The strength of this film was never going to be and never will be its script or acting. In fact, the script is a combination of drab, predictable dialogue saved by a brilliant premise. The amazing part comes in that the audience didn't seem to mind the general lack of decent dialogue. The film, quite frankly, doesn't seem to mind either. It's focus is on putting as many thrills as possible on the screen in its short 85 minute runtime. This will, once again, cause some to complain but given the technical restraints of a camcorder tape, it is a brilliant move to keep the film at its length. As it is, it grabs the viewer after a meandering initial 10 minutes and doesn't let go for the 75 minutes. Its economical storytelling keeps the audience moving forward from scene to scene, from thrill to thrill. Even if the nihilistic ending doesn't fully satisfy everyone (but honestly, when has a JJ Abrams associated project had an ending that does?), its scene by scene intensity makes up for it.

While it isn't the monster masterpiece it may have been made out to be, Cloverfield is an undeniable thrill ride from beginning to end. It may have felt more at home in an air conditioned July theatre but for a January release, it is a welcome change from the Rambo's and Untraceable's of the world. It will most likely annoy older viewers who will find its camerawork incomprehensible but quite frankly, that’s not the film's target audience. It knows what it wants to be and for that, it is all the more successful. Some critics have pointed out the obvious visual ties to 9/11 that are undeniable but they never hold the film down. This is a pure and simple, visceral genre film at its core and it works as that. But for those looking for something more, they best look at the abundance of thoughtful, intelligent films currently in art houses around the country because it isn't here. What is, however, is well worth the price of admission: a nail biting, fearless Godzilla for the 21st century.

Best of 2007

2008-01-13T08:07:00.001-08:00

For cinephiles the world over, 2007 was a very good year, certainly one of the better in recent memory. One need not look further than a collection of critic's top ten lists to see the vast variety and diversity of the year's releases. In fact, with the exception of No Country for Old Men, no one film has been universally adored but countless have large and passionate backings. More often than not, the films that end of lasting in the lexicon of classic cinema are those the most talked about/argued over. Surprisingly, the latter may have been Knocked Up, a fairly straightforward comedy with loads of heart, a smart eye and ear for popular culture and a male/female dichotomy that was positively stunning. Still, it was not without it's detractors (all of which seemed to be middle aged women), and they have been outspoken over their dislike of Judd Apatow's comedy. It will be the continued discussion that the film provokes (it hasn't seemed to die down since its June release) that will assure its place in the developing canon of the 21st century. If a film can stay in the public eye and discourse as Knocked Up has, it must be doing something right. In Knocked Up's case, it's doing almost everything right.

There seemed to be something for everyone at the multiplexes and arthouses alike this year and with a few exceptions, even the big budget blockbusters seemed to please. Even an avowed hater of Michael Bay, I found Transformers enjoyable and exciting, if not rigid and un-original. Still, it hit more than it missed. I loved the goofier tone that Spider-Man 3 adopted, even if the disco strut of Tobey Maguire irritated some to no end. It was a glimmer of the source comic's playfulness that I found lacking in the second installment. For the film geeks in all of us, Grindhouse allowed us back into the seedy second run theatres of the 70's with schlock galore, only this time, we could enjoy it with our $15 worth of food and not having to wonder what lewd acts were performed in your very seat, just a few screenings prior.

Most of all, 2007 seemed like a year where filmmakers felt able to take risks and in general, when that happens, the output tends to be exciting and rewarding. One has to feel grateful that even when a shelved film like The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford ends up being one of the year's best, one is enjoying a rare cinematic year. Directors and writers seemed to leave their inhibitions at the door and allow themselves the room to stretch out and really test themselves. For that, I thank them for a year full of entertainment.

While 2007 may have been overly inundated with Iraq pictures, there were enough worthwhile offerings that one could skip those films and still be able to find something to see. If one did choose that though, they would have missed out on Paul Haggis surprisingly level headed and even handed In the Valley of Elah or Charles Ferguson's stunning No End in Sight. While even I skipped Redacted, it has achieved its fair share of discussion and in a time like this, where the future looks increasingly bleak, talking about an issue can never be a bad thing.

All in all, it was a year in which each of us were hopefully able to see something that entertained or touched us. That taught us something or made us want to jump to action. Hopefully it made us alittle more human, with a greater understanding of what it means to be who we are. If 2007 did even a fraction of that, then a good year it was indeed. Without further ado, here are my top 20 films of 2007. So take a look, let me know what you think and try to see a couple of the films listed below. Many are still in theatres and the rest should be fairly easy to find on DVD. Enjoy, and here's to an equally good 2008!

20. Ratatouille- The best animated film of the year, Ratatouille is another smash for Pixar who churns them out at an unprecedented rate. A much stronger film than Cars, Ratatouille displayed the now expected innovative animation that Pixar frequently displays as well as their trademark heart and warmth.

19. American Gangster- Another Ridley Scott classic, American Gangster features a couple of tremendous leads in Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe and a strong sense of time and place, bringing Vietnam War era Harlem to vibrant life. Big budget award bait that didn't disappoint.

18. The Wind That Shakes the Barley- Ken Loach's Palme D'Or winning stunner packs an emotional wallop matched by few other films. While the finale rings slightly hollow, the rest of the film is so well conceived and executed, only the most hardened cynic would have trouble not being moved by the film's events.

17. Away from Her- A warm and humane look at the terrible affliction that is Alzheimer's, Away from Her works due to Julie Christie's masterful performance, which is sure to be in contention come Oscar nomination time in late January.

16. Grindhouse- It may have been a commercial failure but this Quentin Tarantino/Robert Rodriguez double feature was an artistic triumph, a film that worked to legitimize a genre of cinema that has been long overlooked. It may not be for everyone, but for those willing to go with it, there is an abundance of movie going joy to be found in the three hour runtime (not to mention the best chase scene since Bullitt).

15. Zwartboek- A return to form for Paul Verhoeven, Zwartboek (Black Book) is the type of war film that they just don't make anymore. In other words, filled with twists, turns and full out entertainment, but not without the type of subversion that one has come to expect from a Verhoeven feature.

14. Michael Clayton-A legal thriller that actually thrills both the mind and body, Michael Clayton is the type of morally complex discussion starter that will stick with its audiences well after the credits. Anchored by tremendous work from George Clooney and Tom Wilkinson, a must see for adults looking for an intelligent change of pace.

13. Hot Fuzz- Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg's follow up to Shaun of the Dead is even more spot on in its satire, to a point where if the audience is not overly aware of the subject matter they are spoofing, much of the film's comedy will be completely lost. A gleefully anarchic finale launches Fuzz into the comedic stratosphere and onto this list.

12. No End in Sight- A tremendous look at the folly that has become the Bush Administrations handling of the war in Iraq, Charles Ferguson's directorial debut is a stunning and welcome documentary in substance, not style. Unlike Michael Moore, who's recent work has fallen victim to his overblown public image and snarky narration, Ferguson's film is a quietly angry film that relies on first hand accounts and primary documents to make a decisive and completely believable argument that should be required viewing for every American of voting age. The best documentary of the year

11. The Bourne Ultimatum- If there is a better director of edge of your seat, you-are-there action than Paul Greengrass, I don't think I've found him. Easily the best installment of the superior Bourne trilogy, this is not only the action film of the year, but maybe the best since John Woo was working in Hong Kong.

9A/9B. Juno/Knocked Up- A two way tie from a pair of films that dealt with an unexpected pregnancy from different sides of the gender divide (and my oh my, what a divide this is), both illuminate their themes in ways that speak volumes about our society. At first glance, neither strike you as anything profound but both treat their subjects and characters with such humility and heart, its difficult not to fall for the one/two punch. Watch them in close vicinity to another and they reveal much about the nature of love and maturity, two things that may be closer at their cores than many want to admit. With fine work from each ensemble cast and wonderful scripts by Diablo Cody and Judd Apatow, these are the comedies of 2007.

8. Control-In a time where biopics desperately work to glamorize or mystify our musical heroes, Control harks back to the Kitchen Sink British dramas to tell the story of Ian Curtis in stark black and white. Rather than adding to Curtis' already staggering legend, it works to deconstruct it, painting the leader of post punk pioneers Joy Division as a man who desperately wants to retain a sense of normalcy in his life. The conclusion is as heartbreaking as one would expect, thanks to powerful performances from Sam Reily and Samantha Morton as well as magnificent direction from Anton Corbijn.

7. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford- One knows they are in a great cinematic year when even the films studios are hesitant of releasing end up being bona fide masterpieces. Despite sitting on the shelves for almost two years, Andrew Dominik finally was able to get his film released and the results are the best true western since Unforgiven. Breathtaking from its opening frame, TAOJJBTCRF is a magnificently shot stunner, with one sequence that drew audible murmurings of awe from audiences. At its center are Brad Pitt, Casey Affleck and Sam Rockwell, all of which carry the heavy philosophical and emotional weight of a two hour, forty minute film with ease and poise. Slow, meditative and unquestionably brilliant, this is a west that cinephiles can be proud of.

6. Atonement- When a romantic melodrama can legitimately moving, its reason to take notice. When the aforementioned moving romantic melodrama can be exciting, potent and profound, its a cause of unbridled celebration. Joe Wright imbues this adaptation of Ian McEwan's novel with a sense of danger that is too often missing from period pieces and in doing so, masterfully creates a film for the ages. The two stars, James McAvoy and Keira Knightly are wonderful together, as is Saoirse Ronan, who contributes the child performance of the year. Watch for a single stunning shot at the Battle of Dunkirk which last minutes and weaves through the mass confusion at the evacuation point. Add the emotional ending and one has a work of art that compliments the originally novel brilliantly.

5. No Country for Old Men- A potent meditation on mortality masquerading as a white knuckle thriller, few films this year glow with such uninterrupted intensity from start to finish as No Country for Old Men. A front-runner for a Best Picture Oscar, the Coens have a bona fide masterpiece on their hands here and in it, some of the best performances they have ever directed. Javier Bardem is terrifying as an ice cold killer and Tommy Lee Jones makes the absolute most of his limited screen time, giving his character a lived in gruffness that is equally defiant and resigned. Much has been made of the film's ending, some think it’s out of place and brings no closure. Those who say so are quite frankly wrong, the film's conclusion is haunting and perceptive. Come for the chase, leave with the message.

4. Eastern Promises- Just when I thought David Cronenberg couldn't match his last work (A History of Violence), he goes and does just that with this portrayal of the Russian Mob in London. At the film's core is a splendidly brave performance from Viggo Mortensen, who continues to surprise just about everyone. Not one to ride his role of Aragorn into the history books, Mortensen is compiling a challenging and rewarding filmography. Naomi Watts is his equal her, grabbing onto the involving material and running with it. Helming it all is Cronenberg, who is provocative yet humane. He knows how to push his audience's buttons but never to the point of alienation. Eastern Promises may be his greatest success yet, a moving and exciting thriller that is thematically rich, leaving the audience longing for more as soon as the final credits hit the screen.

3. Zodiac- On first viewing, David Fincher's look at the epic investigation around the Zodiac killer was too long, meandered too much and felt too mellow. On second viewing, the pacing was perfect, the story was tightly wound and the bed sheets needed changing. I stood up from that second time astounded that I had just watched the same film that had so bored me in the theatre. If there is ever a film that shows the power of multiple viewings, this is it. The acting is all around superb with Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey Jr. standing out in particular. Zodiac displays the traditional visual flair of other David Fincher projects but with a more restrained realistic quality that positively warps the viewer back to 1960's/70's San Fran without feeling overwhelming in 70's nostalgic camp. Zodiac is a landmark police procedural that I suspect will gain prominence with each passing year, as people go back to watch it a second and third time.

2. This is England- Shane Meadows' examination of Thatcher-era skinhead culture is a emotionally wrenching masterpiece, a small film that greatly exceeds its aims in every way possible. What could have been no more than a British American History X is instead a unique work, filled with spot on period details, a killer soundtrack and a series of performances that are nothing short of astonishing. Add on a powerful anti-racism message and the results are devastatingly successful, a film that was widely (and unfairly) ignored by American audiences but has the smarts, heart and attitude to stick around until it finally receives its just due. With the semi-autobiographical This is England, Meadows vaults to the upper echelon of working British directors and signals an emerging talent on the world scene that can't be ignored.

1. There Will Be Blood -I'll be the first to admit that There Will Be Blood snuck up on me. Last year, I compiled a list of the best working American directors and PT Anderson was a name that I toyed with but couldn't bring myself to put on there. While Boogie Nights is an undeniable classic, Magnolia seemed overly ambitious and Punch Drunk Love (while underrated) seemed too reserved. How wrong was I. With There Will Be Blood, Anderson storms back onto the scene with a magnificent look at turn of the 20th century oilmen. Greatly aided by Daniel Day Lewis' best of year performance, There Will Be Blood is discomforting and strange, yet compulsively watchable. Its difficult to find a character worth liking but even more so to find one that is not utterly fascinating.

From the groundbreaking score by Jonny Greenwood (of Radiohead fame) to the splendid cinematography, this is an ambitious work that feels like one of the better American films in a long while. While it may undoubtedly rub some audience members the wrong way (it is unashamedly bizarre at moments), those willing to allow themselves entry into its twisted psyche will find a film that is a period piece with a thoroughly modern feel. At the heart of its thematic clash of oil and religion are a number of questions that are not only relevant today but largely dominate political discussion. While watching it, I couldn't help but feel that this will be remembered as not only the film of 2007 but possibly the film of this, still young, 21st century.

Quick Update

2008-01-06T08:10:00.000-08:00

Hello everyone, I apologize for the lack of updates recently. It's been crazy around here with the holidays and all but fear not, the 2nd Annual Film Outsider Year End Extravaganza is on its way! I'm hoping to have it up sometime this week, certainly no later than next Saturday. In the meantime, there is a massive amount of incredible films out there today, so get out to the theatres before the abyss that is the January and February dump off of crap begins. I hope everyone had a great holiday season and I look forward to any feedback you might have on the Year's wrap up when it hits later this week. 'Til then, enjoy the flicks!

Juno: Review

2007-12-11T19:01:00.000-08:00

What is with 2007 and films about pregnancy? First, we has the sublime Knocked Up, as fine an American comedy that has recently come along, and now, here is Juno, Jason Reitman's follow up to 2006's Thank You for Smoking, a clever, if slightly over praised satire about a lobbyist and the cigarette industry. Well, whatever lesson's Mr. Reitman learned through his previous film are on display here as Juno is one of the most pleasantly surprising films of 2007, one that came from way out of left field to wow 'em at the Telluride and Toronto Film Festivals. While Thank You for Smoking certainly had its merits, it was a little too smirky for its own good and too often overtly revealed its satiric nature. In other words, for a film trying to be so subversive, it's pretty obvious as to what it’s attempting to do, a big no-no for the best of satires. What was welcome was its ruthless honesty and Juno continues that in spades. At its core is a whip smart script (maybe a bit too smart) by Diablo Cody, a slew of great performances and Reitman's steady direction, all of which add up to one of the best films of the year.

Unlike Knocked Up, which tried to touch on every aspect of a modern pregnancy (and wildly succeeds through most of it), Juno ambitions are, well, less ambitious. See, the title character Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) accidentally gets pregnant after, what she describes as, a boring night with her kind of boyfriend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera). After attempting to get an abortion without telling her parents and opting out when she finds that she isn't quite ready to go through with taking care of the situation, Juno and her best friend Leah (Olivia Thirby) seek out the Alt-Weekly's to find a set of suitable parents to adopt her ever growing child. They come across an ad placed by Mark and Vanessa Loring (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner) and after telling Juno's parents (J.K. Simmons and Allison Janney), they set out to meet the potential family. When she finds them suitable, the story continues on to go through the tribulations of the process, all handled with a sly sense of humor that leads to any number of wonderful scenes.

Page continues to be a revelation and while some are expecting big things from her after seeing her in 2006's searing Hard Candy, I don't think anyone figured it would come so soon. As Juno, Page is razor smart, a collection of real world instincts and pop culture savvy. In bringing Diablo Cody's character to life, Page may have created the character of the year, an independent and intelligent teenager who single-handedly carries the weight of the movie: not out of necessity (all the other characters and actors seem up to task as well) but out of sheer charisma. Juno is the type of eminently likeable creation that people will find themselves cheering for as the film goes on and fondly remembering long after they've left the theatre.

As mentioned above, the rest of the characters are universally strong. From Paulie's quiet charms (magnified by Cera's otherworldly delivery) to Mac MacGuff's tough love (Juno's father, wonderfully brought to life by J.K. Simmons) are all eminently likeable yet lifelike characters. With one minor (and disappointing) exception, the people who inhabit Juno's world bring vitality to the story that seems like a perfect melding of actor and script. Bateman and Garner, who have been shaky in the feature length performances, are both up to the task here with Bateman getting some screen time and making the most of it. So much of a comedy's success relies on the cast's ability to deliver the material in not only a believable but also funny manner; Juno's cast knocks one of the park here.

With the exception of the first 10 minutes or so, the script by Diablo Cody is remarkably assured for a debut. Those first 10 minutes are too jammed with over stylized dialogue that just feels way too out of place but wisely, as the narrative takes over, Cody tones it down a bit. That’s not to say that the dialogue suffers for the rest of the way, it is merely more bearable; it is still wildly clever and hip and while it may not be the most realistic bit of dialogue for teens, neither was the tough guy banter from the 1940's noirs but no one seemed to mind them. The film is a stylized comedy, any way you cut it and it works well. As a collection of lines, there a number of memorable ones that I could see easily being adopted by the teens of today as their lines du jour. However, single lines do not a screenplay make. Thankfully, Juno has a generous heart to go along with its razor sharp dialogue. The film radiates warmth and humanity, a sense of magical realism that feels real and palpable while simultaneously taking on a light, airy quality. It will win over even the most cynical audience members.

Jason Reitman is a talented director, now putting out what I would venture to call a potential classic in just his second feature. The film has a distinct visual theme to it, one that is unique and interesting while not as overt as a Wes Anderson film or say, Napolean Dynamite, a film that Juno has questionably been compared to. As to what exactly people find in common between that horrific piece of garbage and this hysterically funny comedy is beyond me. Wisely, Reitman doesn't rely on the visuals for gags, rather choosing to compliment Cody's wonderfully amusing script. When pared with Page's incredible performance at the film's heart, Reitman has crafted one for the ages, a complete charmer that I imagine will be remembered for years to come as one of the crowning comedic achievements of 2007.

*****

Paris Je'Taime, Rescue Dawn, A Mighty Heart, Hairspray: Reviews

2007-12-11T18:49:00.000-08:00

Another bunch of quick hits to save some time:

Paris Je'Taime

A charming collection of shorts (18 to be exact), each centered around love and Paris, Paris Je'Taime is up and down at times but leaves you on such a high note that its difficult to leave upset. Not all the shorts work (I found Vincenzo Natali's "Quartier de la Madeleine" to be one of the more disappointing portions) but if they don't, they're only on screen for 5 short minutes or so before they are swept away for the next entry. The ones that do work (the Coen Brothers, Alfonso Cuaron, Alexander Payne, Wes Craven (!), Tom Twyker and Walter Salles all contribute great moments) are splendid, quick meditations on the nature of love in the City of Lights. By the end of the film, a portrait of the city has been formed subtlety before your eyes, leaving one not only with a strong feeling in their heart but a desire to get to France as quickly as possible.

****

Rescue Dawn

Werner Herzog's re-telling of his documentary Little Dieter Needs to Fly is a war epic that lacks a war, but thankfully has Christian Bale. Based on the true story of Dieter Dengler (played by Bale), Herzog tells the story of an American Pilot shot down and captured in Vietnam. What follows is an epic journey of escape and survival but, oddly, the film never felt truly gripping. As always, Bale is electric, carrying Rescue Dawn, but the true surprise comes from Steve Zahn, who contributes a moving and measured performance. Unfortunately, Bale's performance is wasted on a character that quite frankly doesn't come to life, instead feels too contrived. For such an optimist, whom Dengler supposedly is, I had trouble finding much reason to care about the characters involved. While the story is impressive, all the more so for
being true, its flaws are too much to keep this from going into Herzog's catalog of classics.

***

A Mighty Heart

Angelina Jolie turns in surprisingly effective work in Michael Winterbottom's examination of the Daniel Pearl kidnapping and execution. The film works best as a seat of its pants thriller, smartly eschewing the larger politics of the situation and focusing on the human element involved. Through its use of digital cameras, A Mighty Heart jumps off the screen with a you-are-there realism that pops. *SPOILERS* The performances are strong all around but Jolie's work is especially worth noting, never overacting except for the scene following her discovery of Daniel's death. Up until that point, Jolie keeps everything in check but her explosion here feels too over the top and planned, which breaks the realistic feel of the film. Winterbottom's direction is excellent, pushing the film forward with quick pacing and tightly constructed narrative. At times, the film is reminiscent of some of Paul Greengrass' best work in Bloody Sunday and United 93 and while it never quite peaks like those do, there is a complete absence of valleys that make it all worthwhile.

****

Hairspray

The critical surprise of the summer is an overrated musical send up of race integration in
1960's Baltimore. An adaptation the stage musical which was adapted from the 1988 John Water's film, Hairspray never feels like a fully formed cinematic musical. Where as the classic musicals of the past (even up to 2002's Chicago and last year's Dreamgirls) have utilized the space allotted to them by the medium of film, Hairspray too often feels like a stage show being filmed. On top of it, there is no real show stopping number until the finale, which feels too late to salvage the rest. There are some good performances in here (first timer Nikki Blonsky and Christopher Walken are great) but there is nothing to distinguish itself from the rest of the Hollywood musicals of the past. Had this been released 50 years ago, it would be nothing more than a B rate production but with the minimal number of musicals being released nowadays, this is what passes. A disappointing entry into the genre.

**

It's a Wonderful Life

2007-12-04T17:13:00.000-08:00

As December rolls in, so does the holiday season and with the holidays, so comes It's a Wonderful Life, Frank Capra's 1946 meditation on the little things in life, that has become less a part of American cinema as it has become a part of the American consciousness. Few films come to mind that are so instantly recognizable by so many, it's images seared into the minds of multiple generations, touching the hearts and minds of most everyone who is lucky enough to experience it. However, with its overwhelming holiday presence, too many people have begun to overlook the film's true accomplishments and view it strictly as a schmaltzy Christmas favorite. In reality, it is a tremendously dark view on the harsh realities of life, a work of art that masks itself as pop entertainment. While its conclusion, with all the singing and bells ringing, is undeniably optimistic, its first two hours are undeniably not. It is truly magical that Capra can so quickly and effectively switch the film's mood in a way that quite frankly, very few directors were/are capable of.

It's not difficult to see the intentions of the film. By setting up every memorable and positive event with a direct negative foil, Capra carefully engineers a life that one could look back on and see a minus for every plus. For example, George wants to travel the world yet his father dies unexpectedly, leaving him stuck in Bedford Falls while his brother is able to go off and live George's dream. He receives the news of his father's untimely demise during a romantic interlude between him and (unbeknownst to him) his future wife. His wedding day is offset by a financial crisis, leaving his honeymoon in jeopardy after he has to use his own money to keep his father's building and loan in business. Even events like his Uncle's forgetfulness and loss of a great sum of money, offset the optimism and promise of a new year on the horizon, of Christmas Eve. When it comes time for George's monumental decision of whether or not to take his own life, it is not difficult to place yourself in the poor man's shoes. His life has crumbled before his eyes and on top of a terrible day, he's having a worse night. Suicide and debt doesn’t exactly strike me as holiday season material.

The skill in which Capra pulls all of this utterly depressing material together, yet keeps the film compulsively watchable is never short of astounding. One is never turned off from the struggles of George Bailey (a great deal of acclaim must be given to Jimmy Stewart here, as he contributes one of the great everyman performances of all time). Instead, you desperately pull for this completely likable character to pull through, to recognize that his life is not as hopeless as it looks. Capra, utilizing a bleak, film noir-ish look for the night of George's great decision, brings everything to an almost unbearable peak, and with everything crashing down, one is left to ponder the worth of life in that brief moment on the bridge.

It is the redemption filled final 30 minutes that gives It's a Wonderful Life it's reputation as the holiday favorite it is. With a unabashed enthusiasm, Capra flies through an alternate reality that truly feels noir-ish, the small town charms of Bedford Falls replaced by the near urban decadence and decay of Pottersville. This sequence is oddly what feels most in step with the cinema of the day, a postwar view of the world that is cynical, dark and difficult. Seemingly borrowing from the noir masters of the time, Capra's sequence in Pottersville is also the most un-Capra like moment in the entire ordeal (maybe in his entire filmography) and it is what makes the film the classic it is. Had Capra not delved so deeply into the misery that dominates Pottersville, the entire film would have come to a grinding halt at its conclusion, its final moments feeling unearned and trite. They still may feel sappy and overwrought but certainly not unearned. Bailey has gone through hell and back to arrive at this point of jubilation. He has seen the world without his life, he has experienced the suffering and hardships and the moment with friends and family is earnest and moving. Its an ultimate triumph of the everyman over the evil Potter and in many ways, it is a celebration of community wealth, a near Marxist victory over the capitalistic Potter. In many ways, it seems almost anti-American in an economical sense, yet oddly American in its embrace of community.

To say that Capra was un-American is quite frankly absurd: his work in WWII and even Mr. Smith Goes to Washington negate any claims. However, it is curious that such a sentiment is able to creep into the ending of It's a Wonderful Life. In fact, despite the sudden influx of money into the Bailey household, the lasting line in the film is from Clarence, Bailey's guardian angel, and its message is undeniable: "Remember that no man is a failure who has friends." No where is their a mention of money or wealth. Instead, the film celebrates the community helping each other, not the money the community help provides. Its anti-capitalistic sentiments can be overlooked upon first viewing but with each subsequent, it becomes more difficult. For an American Christmas classic, the film tends to go against the stereotypical American ideologies in its conclusions. Yet it perseveres still. Perhaps it is the American's public willingness to overlook the politics in the weeks leading up to a day spent celebrating all that is worthwhile in life. It is a throwback to the real celebration of Christmas, an anti-commercialist, anti-capitalist fable about the true power of friends. Perhaps that is why the American public keeps on bringing back this wonderfully deceptive, yet completely entertaining and life affirming film.

Point is, to call It's a Wonderful Life just a holiday film is short sighted and lazy. While it undeniably fits the time of the season, there is a great deal more to Capra's work. Sure, it may be corny at times (it is, after all referred to as "Capracorn") but if there is ever a time of year to allow for nostalgia and good-natured celebration, now is it. I don't mean to say that It's a Wondeful Life is not a holiday film, too much says that it is, but one must look further. At its heart, there is a dark, postwar view of life, filled with desperation, heartbreak and hate. It hits notes as bleak as anything being made at the time and often times, is slyly and masterfully subversive. Most Christmas films don't touch those feelings, relying on good nature alone to exist. That is why It's a Wonderful Life is so much more, and that is why it is not only the finest of the Christmas films but one of the finest of American cinema, as well.

*Note here the almost Film Noir composition of this shot. The extreme close up of a face, just off center. A look of woe, a shadow being cast of part of the hero's face. Or here:

Doesn't exactly shout Ho Ho Ho, does it? Excuse the poor quality but the anger and grief in Stewart's face here is amazing, a man who has hit the end of his rope.

No Country for Old Men: Review

2007-12-04T17:02:00.000-08:00

The Coen Brothers have always been a duo that I have respected and enjoyed but would never claim them as bona fide favorites. Sure, Blood Simple and Fargo are wonderful films that I have thoroughly enjoyed and while I enjoyed The Big Lebowski, I've never quite found the complete and utter genius that I must be missing, given the film's rabid following. However, when I heard that the brother's newest film in development happened to be an adaptation of a Cormac McCarthy novel, my interest was raised. When No Country for Old Men was wildly praised at Cannes, I was skeptical as to whether it could live up to both McCarthy's magnificent prose and the massive hype. Thankfully, it does that and more. The hype is more than warranted. For No Country is a full on masterpiece, a brooding thriller that is part noir, part western and all classic.

It should come as no surprise that given my appreciation of their like-minded previous works, that No Country, for me (ending and all, but I'll get to that later) is a masterpiece. From frame one to the last roll of the credits, the film is a nail biting, thoughtful modern western, filled with a palpable grittiness and three characters that are so well crafted and acted, one can't help but think that this may end up on the top of many year end lists as the Best American Film of 2007. Led by a positively fearsome performance by Javier Bardem, who immediately vaults to the top of the Best Actor category, and supported by tremendous work from Tommy Lee Jones and Josh Brolin, No Country never sags, a picture perfect representation of what a thriller can and should be. It'll make you think while simultaneously bringing you to a quivering heap of jelly through its masterful set pieces.

At the film's heart is the story of a simple man, Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) who, while out on a hunting excursion, stumbles upon a drug deal gone wrong. In place of the dust and tire marks that should represent a successful transaction, are a few trucks, a load of bodies, a bunch of drugs and finally, a satchel case full of money. As he stumbles around the area, Llewelyn finds a sole survivor who asks for water, a minute detail that later becomes the cause for the rest of the film. Unfortunately, Llewelyn is clean out so he leaves the scene with the bag of money and returns home. However, as the night drags on, Llewelyn can't cope with the fact that he left the man there to die, so he ventures back out to the site, leaving his wife Carla Jean (Kelly MacDonald) to wait for him.

Brolin, who truly came out of nowhere to have a wonderful acting year, is, once again, great here. While I feel like I continue to say that, the facts don't change. Here he contributes a gruff performance as a prototypical Texan, light on the talk, heavy on action. Upon arriving back at the trucks, he is noticed by a group of men in a pickup truck and, like that, the film takes off into one bone-jarring chase after another. Throw into the mix a bounty hunter, Anton Chigurh (Bardem), hired to track down Brolin and one has all the trappings of a great chase film. What elevates No Country is that Chigurh, brought to terrifying life by Bardem, is the most memorable psychotic to hit the screen in years. The character is so terrific, so scary, so ferocious that one can't shake the images and sounds that will be seared into the brain. Bardem completely inhabits Chigurh, taking a good McCarthy character and making him into something otherworldly, a type of role and performance that comes along once in a decade. In a year with a number of great performances, Bardem stands at the top of the heap. This may be one role that'll follow him the rest of his life as the obvious highlight of an otherwise sterling career.

On the outskirts of it all is the local, aging Sheriff, Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), who is merely trying to keep up with it all. As the film progresses, the body count continues to rise, leaving Bell with nothing to do but shake his head at the carnage and it isn't out of a feeble inability to get things done, but rather, the complete destruction that seems to follow Chigurh around becomes all enveloping. Jones, in the autumn of his career, has been revitalized recently, in a way that is reminiscent of Clint Eastwood, men who seem to get better with age. As the chase nears its end, Bell desperately tries to stop the killing despite his age and tired soul.

Guiding everything here are the Coens as they mix virtuoso sequences with moments of quiet dread. While their cinematic eye has never been in question, it is with No Country that they should forever prove themselves. At the helm are true masters, veterans who have honed their craft to a fine science. Their ability to handle action and theme equally is astonishing, never leaning too heavily on one or the other. Instead, the two settle into a comfortable mix that only a cinematic genius could concoct. The themes never feel heavy, almost John Ford-ish in their subtle nature, and the suspense sequences are stretches of filmmaking that even the most jaded critic will find gripping and enjoyable. This is easily the brother's best work since Fargo, maybe the best of their career.

Much has been made about the film's final third, and while I won't spoil anything here, I found the conclusion to be fitting and satisfying. It injects the film with the type of mythical, almost biblical food for thought that McCarthy wields with grace and ends the narrative on a high note. I can certainly see why some audience members will walk out feeling slighted by the general lack of a tidy conclusion, but that type of disappointment strikes me as short sighted. No Country for Old Men is so much more than just a simple thriller and the film's finale cements that fact. One isn't meant to leave the proceedings feeling comfortable and satisfied. Instead, with a film as violent and dark as this is, one should leave feeling unsettled, wanting to question the actions of the characters in order to understand the themes in a better light. The Coens' wisely leave the ending as it is, refusing to settle for a Hollywood conclusion: it works wonderfully and in the process, solidifies this as one of the best American films of the year.

*****

American Gangster: Review

2007-12-04T16:55:00.000-08:00

Ridley Scott, already an accomplished director by any measure, can confidently mark another notch in his belt with the recent release of the brilliant American Gangster. Featuring ferocious performances from Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, American Gangster fires on all cylinders, working almost impeccably for its full 2 hour and 40 minute runtime. In doing so, it can rightfully claim a place alongside the other classics of gangster cinema, no mere feat given the abundance of films released in the genre. While it may not reach the levels of the first two parts of The Godfather trilogy, it is a worthy heir to their legacy, a gritty, blood soaked epic that's as entertaining as can be.

Based on the true story of Frank Lucas, who more or less controlled the Harlem heroin trade in the late 60's/early 70's, the film spans about a decade but never feels too big for its own grasp. Rather, the screenplay, by Steve Zaillian, is a model of narrative efficiency, telling the expansive story while keeping the focus intimately on the characters at hand. Instead of allowing the film to spiral out of control, it sticks tightly to Washington and Crowe, moving the film quickly, without unnecessary diversions and tangents.

Washington, as Lucas, is tremendous, contributing a charismatic yet terrifying portrait of a man with almost infinite power. Its not like Washington's talent has ever been questioned, but here, he is particularly exciting, inhabiting the role with a reckless abandon. While Lucas may be an larger than life figure known equally for his quiet cunning as his violent outbursts, Washington never oversells the part, resisting the urge to overact his scenes. Rather, the pitch and energy of his performance is perfect, reminiscent of his best work in Spike Lee's vastly underrated Malcolm X. He envelopes the screen, stealing every scene he is in.

That claim is truly saying something, given the pedigree of the supporting cast here. Lucas' opposite on John Law's side of the drug conflict is Det. Richie Roberts, who is brought to life by Russell Crowe. Easily one of the most consistent and reliable actors/stars in film today, Crowe nearly matches Washington's work, only falling short due to the fact that his character is given less to work with. Compared to Lucas' conflicted life, Roberts is given the role of a noble cop caught in a corrupt system. To say that this type of character has been done before is obvious. It is a testament to Crowe that the character feels as fresh and new as it does.

It could be said for the rest of the cast here. No character is an eye popping original, all have been covered before in the extensive history of the American gangster film. However, the cast gives themselves entirely to the material, molding the parts into something worth watching for another two and a half hours, despite the fact that they may seem familiar. Legendary Ruby Dee, as Lucas' mother, is splendid, pushing the doubts out of her mind despite knowing her son is providing her with the riches through illegal means. She is a strong woman who has raised a family full of independent, ambitious boys that are strongly devoted to her. The film also continues Josh Brolin's massive year, with a strong performance from the son of James. He has turned into a able character actor that brings a certain vitality to each of his roles.

As most gangster films do, American Gangster has a tendency to over empathize with its criminal heart but its use of dueling protagonists in Washington and Crowe move the heart of the film closer to a moral center. As a result, it is never as over the top in its criminal depictions as, say, Scarface, nor as notably reserved as The Godfather trilogy. Instead it splits it in the middle, a gleaming terrifically entertaining piece of pop filmmaking, something that has become a Ridley Scott signature. As professional of a commercial director as one can get, Scott has also become of the most reliable workers in Hollywood today. Even his underrated (see the Director's Cut instead) Kingdom of Heaven has moments of spectacular filmmaking. His resume continues to grow and with American Gangster, he can add another hit to his work.

American Gangster is probably not for everyone. Many will find it too violent, claiming that it glorifies the lifestyle that Lucas took part in and to an extent, those critics would be correct. However, that type of shortsighted vision completely looks over the obvious talent and skill on display here, making the 2 and a half hours fly by. Sometimes, a film only needs to offer an escape to another world, and in this case, maybe escape isn't the best case; descent may ring closer to the truth. Either way, American Gangster gives a glimpse into a life that none of us will live, bringing a vibrant and entertaining look at 1970's Harlem to the big screen with a vicious, daunting and unforgiving energy that is, quite frankly, impossible to deny or overlook. Mark this as a must see if you live for the seedier side of life.

****

The Hoax, The TV Set, Longford, Reign Over Me: Reviews

2007-11-12T19:21:00.000-08:00

Hi everybody, sorry for not keeping up with posting! I've been busy with life recently but haven't stopped watching. In the interest of saving my and your time, I'm going to compile my recently viewed into a quick hit series of reviews. Enjoy!

The Hoax

Clifford Irving's life has been nothing short of amazing and it is with a sense of frustration that audiences are left with The Hoax as the cinematic representation of this existence. The Hoax isn't necessarily bad, just disappointing in its sometimes outrageous alteration of the facts of the case at hand. Despite two wonderful lead performances by Richard Gere (as Irving) and the vastly under appreciated Alfred Molina (as his assistant/steadfast friend) and capable direction from Lasse Hallstrom, the story's flaws end up diminishing what could have been an otherwise exemplary work. While still entertaining, the utter fabrications of some plot points are too difficult to completely shake for someone who has done even the slightest research into the subject at hand. One might be better viewing Orson Welles experimental film essay on forgery F for Fake, which is not only a much better summation of the spirit of Irving but also a mesmerizing, messy yet brilliantly innovative documentary from one of cinema's true masters. It requires a great deal more of the audience but also is infinitely more rewarding.

***

The TV Set

One of 2007's quiet surprises, The TV Set is Jake Kasdan's (Lawrence's son and director of Orange County and the upcoming Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story) assault on the television industry's pilot season. Anchored by a wonderful performance from David Duchovny, who has been experiencing a much needed career revival, the film starts brilliantly, slicing through the inner workings of Hollywood. However, as the film rolls on, it becomes less and less interesting, bringing in too many side plots and losing focus. The final scenes are particularly lackluster, an unfortunate end to a promising film. However, Duchovny is a must watch here (as he is in Showtime's Californication) adding an extra kick to a film that runs out of laughs surprisingly quickly given its minimal 88 minute runtime. Still, there is enough here to interest people involved in/fascinated by the Hollywood machine but those who only care about what shows up on the silver screen's smaller cousin, not what happens behind it, will most likely find little to grip onto.

***

Longford

HBO's drama is a stark yet slow examination of Lord Longford, a British politician who fought for prisoner rights, most famously for Myra Hindley, one half of the duo who committed the atrocities that became known as the Moor Murders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors_Murderers). Jim Broadbent masterfully inhabits the lead role, nailing both the physical and emotional tribulations that his character is put through. Equally as impressive is Samantha Morton, who plays Hindley, and in doing so, creates a manipulative character that is equally likable and frightening. While the film poses a series of interesting moral questions and dilemmas, it never quite reaches the emotional heights that seem possible given the involving source materials. Peter Morgan's screenplay is sharp witted and intelligent, equaling his great work from 2006 (The Last King of Scotland, The Queen) and signaling that it wasn't just a great year for the scribe who may be coming into his best years. A intelligent, though not particularly involving, look at an otherwise fascinating subject.

***

Reign Over Me

Mike Binder's ode to those suffering from the loss of loved ones on 9/11 is a sometimes moving, too often not, look at one man's inability to cope with the death of his wife and three daughters. The sole bright spot here is the work of the ever-memorable Don Cheadle, the rest of the film is overly heavy handed and wandering to really work. Adam Sandler, who plays the aforementioned widower, begins the film as a shut in, unable or unwilling to cope with the struggles of everyday life after the death of his family. Sandler is adequate but too often toes the line between a heartfelt performance and overacting, creating a frustrating performance that really hampers the film. Binder's nods to the events of the day are overt despite rarely even mentioning the day by name. Rather, he recognizes that is so deeply engrained in the American psyche that one needs to know the name to know the event. That being said, this strikes me as the worst of the high profile 9/11 films and if it wasn't for Cheadle's moving work, this film would be dead in the water, sunk by a wandering narrative and a general inability to create believable and moving characters.

**

Michael Clayton: Review

2007-11-12T19:10:00.000-08:00

Michael Clayton is a slow burning legal thriller, A Civil Action with a pulse that surges throughout the entirety. As the film moves along, it slowly builds in tension and effectiveness until the appropriate finale which solidifies the George Clooney vehicle as one of the better thinking man films of the year. Anchored by an intelligent and efficient script, able direction and some great performances, Michael Clayton is the type of work that will long be remembered as one of the minor memorable films of 2007. Led by Clooney, as the title character, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton and Syndey Pollack, the film maneuvers along with grace and intelligence, asking interesting and important questions throughout but never disrespecting the audience enough to give clear, sure fire answers. In other words, it requires its audience to meet it halfway, an action that most will gladly undertake.

Written and directed by Tony Gilroy (best known for the Bourne screenplays), Michael Clayton starts with a bang and then slowly retreats to four days earlier where we find our protagonist being forced into an obviously difficult situation. Clayton, who can best be described as a fixer for a major Manhattan law firm, has been called out to Minnesota to bring back one of the firm's partners, Arthur Edens (Wilkinson), who has had a mental breakdown due to his stopping of his self-medication. Edens has been working on a major case for the firm, a class action lawsuit against the created corporation U/North. While it is initially unclear as to the cause for Edens breakdown, Clayton soon finds that there may be more than initially thought. It seems that Edens has had enough of defending corrupt corporations and has decided to sabotage the case, much to the chagrin of U/North's lead counsel, Karen Crowder (Swinton).

As the film progresses and the facts roll out, the case becomes more morally complicated, not only for Clayton and Crowder but the audience as well. Michael Clayton is at its best due to its steadfast refusal to condemn anyone for their actions, passing judgments in only the subtlest means. As with most legal proceedings, there is a fair amount of moral ambiguity and grey areas. Unlike some other legal dramas, which too cleanly and clearly take sides, Michael Clayton stays level headed and thoughtful, never riding one side too heavily. Rather, it asks some fascinating questions that are not easily answered. In doing so, the film is able to create a dramatic tension, not just from the narrative twists and turns but also from its thematic complications. As the film increases in intensity, its thematic concerns become more apparent, providing the audience with the valuable facts and dilemmas but never clear-cut answers.

The film ultimately is as successful as it is largely due to Mr. Clooney's performance, which balances honor and an ambiguous moral code into something painfully human. The narrative here isn't focused exclusively on the legal case at hand, but also on Clayton's personal struggles, particularly those with his son and family. Without Clooney's charismatic yet never flashy performance, many of the films subtleties may have been lost to overacting. However, Clooney's performance is reserved and understated, much like his work in Syriana and Good Night and Good Luck, the other two recent classics he's been involved in. Slowly but surely, Clooney has become one of Hollywood's great actors, not to mention stars. Its always been obvious that the man has been blessed with tremendous looks and personality but with interesting and adventurous project he chooses, his seemingly natural acting ability becomes more readily apparent.

Clooney is matched here by a wonderful supporting cast, particularly those I have mentioned above, all of which who are as reliable as Clooney has become. Wilkinson is one of the great character actors of modern cinema, creating a bold and brave body of work, filled with both memorable performances and films. Here, as a man on the edge of a complete breakdown, Wilkinson gives a brave and edgy performance, creating a character that may be crazy like a fox, a man who knows too much but has had enough of the deception.

Gilroy's script shines, an intelligent examination of the subject at hand. The dialogue is sharp and incisive, cutting lines spewing from each characters mouths with a zestful abandon. Equally as impressive is Gilroy's directorial skills, which despite Michael Clayton being his debut, are refined and steady. Too many debuts are ruined by an overzealous director throwing every trick at the screen hoping something sticks. Michael Clayton does not suffer from that ailment with Gilroy's work providing nuance and depth to his screenplay while remaining largely invisible. He has crafted a steady thriller that will satisfy most everyone who has the pleasure of seeing it. While younger audiences may find the films general lack of action to be dull, those willing to take the film at its own pace will be amply rewarded with a thematically ambitious thriller that will, hopefully, ignite its viewers into a fruitful and worthwhile discussion of the film's topics.

****

Control: Review

2007-11-12T19:00:00.000-08:00

Joy Division resides in place somewhere between fan admiration and cultish devotion. For a band that released only two proper albums (and a handful of singles), the Manchester quartet have become known as the purveyors of post punk doom and gloom, a band both before its time yet also oddly, an integral part of it. However, what Control , a biopic of JD lead singer Ian Curtis (Sam Riley) so efficiently and effectively delivers through a stark realism is a potent reminder that while their legend may have grown into something larger than their music, at their core, they were four regular guys just trying to make it through the music business as well as their everyday lives. Curtis may now be looked at as a prophet, of urban alienation and decay, but in reality, he was a greatly conflicted young man who was desperately searching for his place in life and unfortunately, was never able to find it. Based on the memoir Touching from a Distance of Deborah Curtis, Ian's wife, Control is the best biopic to come along in a long while, an invigorating and enlightening look at the struggles of a pioneering band and artist.

Directed by Anton Corbijn, who is better known for his photography and music videos, Control is assured and evocative, mysterious yet humane. It takes place in northern England (Manchester and the like) over the course of ten or so years, a decade of music that would become arguably the most important span of music in British (and world) history. At its heart is Ian Curtis, who begins the film as an everyday teenager who spends his afternoons in his bedroom, smoking and listening to Bowie. Before long, he meets Debbie (Samantha Morton) and as the two quickly embark on a whirlwind romance that ends with their marriage prior to them hitting 20 years of age.

It must be noted that Riley and Morton are nothing short of astounding. For those lucky enough to have seen footage of Curtis will quickly recognize the clarity and precision of Riley's performance. He seemingly mimics Curtis' every step without missing a beat. The nuance and subtlety of Riley's work is tremendous as he captures Curtis' persona perfectly. Considering this is Riley's feature length debut in a starring role, his performance is an announcement of a new talent that electrifies the screen. In fact, Riley's intensity and screen presence reminds me of another export from the British Isles, Cillian Murphy. Like Murphy, who has the star power to match his acting chops, Riley fully embodies his role with a breathtaking effectiveness.

Meanwhile, Morton, who has been consistently excellent in her roles, is every bit his match as his wife, Debbie. As the film continues on and their marriage begins to disintegrate, both performers bring a depth of emotional pain and suffering that jumps off the screen, enriching the overall film in ways that cannot be quantified. If these performances had been any less than spectacular, the film would have had trouble escaping a cult audience. However, with Riley and Morton providing wonderful leads, there is potential for this to reach a wider group of people. You can't take your eyes off their riveting and explosive performances, no matter how pained they might be.

The rest of the cast is wonderful as well. Alexandra Maria Lara and Toby Kebbell particularly stand out as Belgian journalist Annik Honore, with whom Ian embarks on an affair with and Joy Division manager, Rob Gretton, respectively. Kebbell often acts as the film's comedic relief, a necessary addition given the darker nature of the material. His performance is a combination of business smarts and real concern for the band members. Never once does it dip into parody, instead relying on a quick wit and biting sarcasm to provide some laughs while the world seems to be crumbling around. Lara, who can also be seen in Francis Ford Coppola's upcoming Youth Without Youth) is perfect as Curtis' foil and outlet. She allows him entrance into a world that Debbie doesn't and his inability to choose between the two quickly becomes one of the film's main conflicts. Lara brilliantly portrays the pain and concern of Honore, who must deal with a man who she loves, crumbling before her eyes.

Curtis' life takes a dramatic turn (for the better or worse is entirely up to the audience's own perceptions) when he joins the small band Warsaw, which would quickly become known as Joy Division. As the band experiences a quick rise from obscurity to cult following, Curtis is thrown through a variety of emotions. As his marriage crumbles, he embarks on an affair with a Belgian journalist (Alexandra Maria Lara) and battles an epileptic condition that continues to worsen with the increasing stress of his life. The film never once passes judgment on Curtis, allowing its audiences to make their own decisions on his struggles. Without this, the film would feel manipulative. However, Corbijn keeps his subjects at arm's length, allowing the story to play out to its inevitable end (which is fairly common knowledge to those who are familiar with JD, for those who aren't I won't spoil it). Even the final act of the film is left unresolved and unexplained, leaving the audience with the same questions as the characters. What happens is often inexplicable; a painful conclusion that leaves issues open.

Corbijn's direction in his feature film debut is incredible. The black and white cinematography by Martin Ruhe gives the film a realistic look, a natural feel that allows the characters and settings to feel lived in. Corbijn obviously has considerable experience in framing pictures and shots but as a culmination of all his skills, Control is a massive success. The clarity of his vision is striking in its assured completeness. Never once does the film feel like work of someone trying to piece together their first feature. Admittedly, I was worried that a first time director would mishandle a story that needs a delicate touch but Corbijn proves all my doubts wrong. He was completely up to the task, creating a biopic that is enthralling and emotionally devastating. From the opening shots to the heartbreaking conclusion, Corbijn is in complete control (no pun intended) of what is on the screen.

A biopic revolving around a musical figure plain doesn't work without good music, which completely unsurprisingly, Control has in droves. Joy Division was unequivocally one of the most innovative and important bands of the 20th century, taking the raw energy of punk and harnessing it into a carefully measured emotional shell. Joy Division was a band that pushed the envelope constantly, through Curtis' lyrics and the bands pulsing, hypnotic yet abrasive grooves. At the time, no one else quite sounded like them and the film captures that initial excitement, both of the band and audience, perfectly. The soundtrack features many of the band's best songs, perfectly utilized throughout the narrative. Rounding off the music of the film are JD's key contemporaries and influences: Bowie, Iggy Pop, the Sex Pistols and the Buzzcocks. This all adds up to a perfect way to enter the decidedly difficult sounds of post-punk's origins. For those interested in bands such as The Killers, Bloc Party and the like, this music will sound fresh and otherworldly, tunes crafted by men that were working on a different plane than those around them. Now, my opinion may be slightly skewed, due to my familiarity with the bands work but I have no qualms in saying that this film is a complete triumph, regardless of your views on the band. As a cinematic work, it is nearly flawless in its depiction of Curtis and his struggles. As a supplement to the band's work, it exists as a document for all of us who were never lucky enough to see this tremendous band in person. It doesn't offer answers, only questions. It doesn't offer Curtis salvation or martyrdom. It doesn't even offer him forgiveness. What it does offer is a chance for his story to be told, no matter how otherworldly it might be. Thankfully for Anton Corbijn and the rest of his collaborators, Curtis' otherworldly story and work get an otherworldly film to match, a moving portrait of a man who could not escape his demons, which took him before he could fully show the world what he was capable of.

*****

Gone Baby Gone: Review

2007-10-29T19:52:00.000-07:00

Few people, if any, expected much from writer/director Ben Affleck in his directorial debut but with Gone Baby Gone, Affleck seemed to pull a rabbit out of his hat, charming critics during its initial screening and building a steady buzz prior to its release. Perhaps thats why the film's middling success is a disappointment, since how can someone truly be disappointed by a film directed by Affleck that has moments that are dazzling. Starring the director's younger (and more talented) brother, Casey, Gone Baby Gone suffers from a story that feels uneven, fractured and finally, unbelievable. However, this is no fault of the Afflecks, who give it their all and come out on the other side in much better standing than they could have imagined.

Gone Baby Gone concerns a private investigator Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck) and his partner Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan) who is hired by a family of a missing young girl to help with the police investigation. Kenzie is a guy from the block, who knows the ins and outs of the dialect and way of life, allowing him access into a world that the cops aren't priveleged to. He is attached to two detectives, Remy Bressant and Nick Poole (Ed Harris and John Ashton), who, at first, reluctantly accept his help, until it becomes clear that Kanzie has something to bring to the investigation, which quickly turns sour. Turns out that the missing girl's mother Helene McCready (Amy Ryan) isn't the best mom, dabbling in booze and drugs and may have even been involved with some shady dealings with a local drug dealer. As the narrative progresses, twist upon twist upon twist is heaped on, which ultimately leads to the film's downfall.

Ultimately, a film with too many surprising narrative turns is going to test a viewer's patience, perhaps even negating the effect of the final, gut punch twist and unfortunately, such is the problem that befalls Gone Baby Gone. While I can't comment on Dennis Lehane's source novel since I have not read it, the screenplay could have probably simplified the film a little and had more of an effectively paced and told story. There a few jarring shifts in time and story that Affleck and his fellow writer Aaron Stockard attempt to camoflauge with voiceover narration but it comes up short and the audience is left trying to piece together the story. There are a few sidetracks, most notably a shootout in a house, that while wonderfully directed, is an unnecessary narrative device. What is determined and told in that sequence could easily have been discovered in a few lines of dialogue. Instead, it feels like Affleck wanted to get some kicks in, including an unnecessary tangent that damages the flow of the film. What the script lacks in narrative prowess, it almost makes up for with its spot on dialogue, which perfectly captures the dialect of the Boston metro area. The conversations between characters zip back and forth with intelligent and realistic speak that greatly enhances the realism of the film.

In fact, as a film that captures the look and feel of a particular city, there are few works in recent memory that even rival Gone Baby Gone, in terms of authenticity. While it may be nothing more than a near miss as a thriller or morality play, it is a slam dunk as a film about the lives of people in a particular city. Unfortunately, setting does not guarantee a good film. It is obvious that Affleck knows the city that he grew up in and is able to recoginze its quirks and failings. His direction brings the city and characters to life, allowing them to feel life like and formed. Choosing to shoot the film in a sort of stark realism, Affleck's gaze is unflinching and admirable. If this is just the beginning for Affleck, one can only hope that he is able to follow in the footsteps of other actors-turned-director and take a floundering career, reviving it on the other side of the camera.

The acting here ranges from adequate to great, with the other Affleck more than holding up his end of the bargain. It strikes me that, after seeing Casey in featured roles in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and now this, he is a star on the rise. His performances are gracefully understated, possessing a gift for dramatic acting that Ben has only flashed before (see: Hollywoodland). While he may have gained some minor attention in the Ocean Eleven franchise, these two films seem like the films that announce his presence as someone to take serious note of. Ed Harris and Amy Ryan both stand out as well. Harris' performance is unsurprising, given his ability and track record while Ryan, on the other hand, sneaks up on the viewer alittle more. Some may recognize her from the smattering of television she has done but her work here is spot on and noteworthy.

Gone Baby Gone is not a great film, I'm not even sure if its a good film but it certainly a film of promise for the Affleck family. With it, Ben has given notice that he may be more talented than the general public gives him credit for, delivering a film that misses in spots due to its narrative but never feels like a complete failure, largely due to his direction. It is steady and assured, looking more like the work of a veteran than a debut feature. On the other side of the camera, Casey Affleck is really emerging from his big brother's shadow and making a name for himself. He now has two wonderful performances in 2007 and don't be surprised if you hear his name come more and more come year's end. Gone Baby Gone may appeal to some but for me, something was lost on the way to the screen. Regardless, it signals the arrival of a potentially talented director and that, is never, ever, truly a bad thing.

**

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

2007-10-29T19:45:00.000-07:00

Westerns regarding Jesse James are not a rarity. Like Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday, the legend of James has been revisited often, with countless cinematic adaptations resulting from its rich legacy. It is then a cause for celebration when one comes along that is so innovative and interesting and The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is just one of those occasions. Andrew Dominik's riveting adaptation is a startling display of skill and ingenuity, a film that immediately brings to mind many of the masters who have visited the great legends of the west. While not for everyone, TAOJJBTCRF is a tremendous achievement that simultaneously dispels and rewrites the myths of James.

At the film's core is a story that has been told over and over again in just about every medium imaginable. For those who have missed it up to this point, Jesse James (Brad Pitt) was arguably the most notorious and infamous outlaw in the American West, a man known for his high wire robberies and ruthless nature. Jesse and his brother Frank (Sam Shepard) terrorized the railroads and banks during the last half of the 19th century with reckless glee. The film opens with what Frank thinks will be their last robbery and as their new gang waits in the woods for the targeted train to arrive. What immediately becomes clear is the odd obsession that Robert Ford (Casey Affleck) has with Jesse, eagerly trying to please the outlaw. He is initially ignored but after the robbery (the most breathtaking scene of the film), he is able to get into the good graces of James and with that, the film is off and running (well more like walking).
As the film continues and members of the gang begin to crack under the increasing pressure from the law's search to locate them, James begins to methodically track the men down, in order to get an impression of their mindset. In doing so, it becomes clear that James is suffering from the same pressures as the rest of the men and like them, his grip on sanity (already dangerously slim) is beginning to slip. He concocts a plan for another robbery and enlists the Fords, Robert and Charley (Sam Rockwell) to help. As the group moves along the frontier, tensions increase and by the time the title action takes place, the tension is almost unbearable. It slowly builds and builds, however, when the act occurs, it doesn't release. Dominik magnificently keeps it at a high level, right until the final frame.

The tensions exist largely due to the wonderful characterizations and performances. Unlike many of the studio-era westerns about James, Dominik's film centers on the drama between the characters, largely eschewing the set piece gun fights that characterized the westerns of yore. In fact, TAOJJBTCRF is really a western by setting only, rather choosing to be an in-depth character study and drama. With this choice, Dominik is able to distance himself from the previous incarnations of the legend far enough that the film is able to succeed. Throughout TAOJJBTCRF , the film works to subvert the well known versions of the legend by depicting James as a father and family man, albeit one with an interesting profession. In doing so, the film seems less concerned with Jesse James, the outlaw, than Jesse James, the man.

However, in the way that Dominik (and his cinematographer Roger Deakins) chooses to shoot the film, in a realistic style that is interspersed with breathtaking surrealistic moments, he ends up not destroying the legend of James but merely re-working it back into a new myth. In that sense, TAOJJBTCRF is unlike the great revisionist westerns of the 1970's, with their elimination of the stereotypical western heroes in place of a realistic look at what the West really was. Instead, the film takes the myth, destroys it and quickly rebuilds it back up in the final post-assassination 30 minutes, which may be the best stretch of the film, thanks to Affleck's tremendous performance. Between this and Gone Baby Gone, it strikes me that there is a legitimate star on the rise, an actor with enough chops, intelligence and charisma to become a true legend. Affleck's work here is nuanced and subtle, making Ford's emotions evident not through painful overacting but through the great texture he brings to it. It is a great understated performance that deserves viewing and consideration as one of the year's best.

The rest of the star-studded cast is more than up to the task, with Pitt and Rockwell bother delivering great work. Both take a hold of their characters and imbue them with more than enough vitality to warrant the film's length. With Dominik's choice to make a long, methodical brooder, it was pretty much a requirement that the performances are able to sustain the length and they definitely do. Like Affleck, Pitt is more than capable of taking James and crafting him into a character that is difficult to get a hold on. James is equally charismatic and dislikable, a man who is an enigma to the audience, his family and in many ways, himself. It is unclear as to how James feels about his own character, as Pitt portrays a man who is greatly conflicted by his actions. There are moments when he shows no remorse, others when he breaks down into tears following an act of violence. This muddy ground lends itself to Dominik's ability to re-craft the myth in his own way. The audience, despite their look into the life of James, is left much like the people of the day, without a firm grasp of who James was. It is a brilliant stroke by Dominik that adds an air of mystique to the film.

TAOJJBTCRF is not for everyone, I'll admit that. It is a intentional slow, 2 hour and 40 minute epic that focuses more on character and mood than action and narrative. As a result, I would not be surprised for some to call it boring and overlong. But to say that is to miss the point. By using the length that is does, the film feels epic and mythical, a story that is so great it can't be told in any other way. It is filled with larger than life legends that demand a larger than life film. It is amazing that it can feel so epic, yet be so focused on character. Almost every scene takes place between two characters and the film is mostly dialogue. Yet it just feels huge and important. Its masterful exploration of the themes of celebrity and the classic western dichotomy of good/bad or hero/outlaw are done with subtle, graceful movements. It’s a small film in large trappings and it works wonderfully. It is filled with great performances and a great story; it features great cinematography and great direction; it is, quite simply, a great film, surely one of the year's most interesting, different, difficult works and also surely, one of its best.

*****

The Darjeeling Limited and Hotel Chevalier: Review

2007-10-16T19:22:00.000-07:00

Few filmmakers have as devoted a cult following as Wes Anderson, best known for films such as Rushmore, The Royal Tennebaums and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and in a sense, I may be included in that group. I adored each of the aforementioned films and I suppose it is with a sense of disappointment that Anderson's latest effort, The Darjeeling Limited feels like something of a step back, or rather a step to the side when one keeps hoping for a giant leap forward. The Darjeeling Limited looks and feels like a Wes Anderson movie and that is precisely why it isn't as successful as his previous works (Yes, even the divisive The Life Aquatic which is criminally underrated). It seems that Anderson, who is an undeniably talented filmmaker, is either unable or unwilling (here's hoping it is the latter) at this point to make that step. As a result, The Darjeeling Limited, while still an entertaining excursion, feels incomplete and rehashed.

That’s not to say the film is not worth your time or money; I would say it still is, for a disappointing Wes Anderson film is still as good as most everyday releases. The Darjeeling Limited possesses a homemade feel to it, a lovingly crafted story about a journey three brothers, Francis, Peter and Jack (Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartzman respectively) take across India. This plan, hatched by Francis as a way to reunited the brothers, who have not seen each other since their father's funeral over a year ago, is for a spiritual journey; a way for the brothers to come back together and be a family again. However, when the brothers board their train (which shares the name of the film) for their trip, the group is met with hostility and hesitation. None of brothers want to fully open up to each other, strategically telling each other their true plans for the trip. Of course, since the negative feelings run throughout the group, everyone else's secrets are quickly known to everyone else and the trip degrades into a brawl, a shot of pepper spray to the face and the train (humorously) getting lost. Before they know it, the brothers have been thrown off the train, forced to experience a true journey, not one safely undertook with modern transportation.

The cast here is stellar with each of the leads nailing their roles with equal parts comedic gusto and reserved melancholy. Brody is particularly good here, reminding the audience what a unique talent he is, able to easily morph to fit whichever role he takes. Despite being often times forgotten, he continues to contribute some of the best cinematic acting of the times and deserves any praise he receives. Wilson is is fine form here as well, giving a strong performance that one would expect from the Anderson veteran. Wilson has been intricately involved in every film Anderson has made and the two work together particularly well, with each of Wilson's best performances coming in Anderson's work. The rest of the cast is stellar as well, with highlights from Angelica Huston as the guys' mother and Bill Murray, in a short cameo, of a businessman trying to catch a train. Anderson fans will recognize most of the faces here, as Anderson continues to use a stable of actors that work well with his style.

However, it is that style that could use a kick in the pants. With Rushmore, Anderson built on his debut Bottle Rocket, by adding a hefty dose of melancholy into the proceedings. He expanded his emotional pallet in The Royal Tennebaums, deliciously skewering family dynamics. Finally, The Life Aquatic has enough frenzied chaos to pull itself along. None of his films are perfect (Rushmore comes closest) but each possess a certain quality that allow the audiences to overlook the films flaws and enjoy themselves. However, with The Darjeeling Limited, Anderson returns to themes he has previously covered without much to add. Never does Darjeeling reach the heights of Tennebaums examinations of family, nor the inspired creativity of Life Aquatic. It strikes me closest to Rushmore, only with less heart and more existential ponderings. While its geography is a bold step away from anything he has done before and it certainly adds to Darjeeling, it is not enough to pull it away from the rest of his work.

I really don't mean to say that this is a bad film, far from it. For Anderson devotees, they will enjoy it (I did) but may find themselves wanting a little more. Anderson is obviously a unique and interesting talent, an individual who makes films that stand out from the pack with their narratives and style. This may be a misstep for Anderson, but its a small one at best, one that feels like he is treading water when he could be moving forward. There is no reason to think that it is anything else than that and judging by his track record, I eagerly await Anderson's next film as a full out return to form. For those who felt like Darjeeling was incomplete, The Darjeeling Limited is thankfully accompanied in tone and narrative (but not in theatres) by Hotel Chevalier, a short that acts as the prologue to Darjeeling. Chevalier, starring Schwartzman and Natalie Portman is Anderson at his best, a master stylist with an exquisite eye for color and composition. The dialogue is sharp and quick and the short's plot of the tail end of a relationship is a must for viewers who want the full Darjeeling Limited experience. Chevalier is available as a free download on the iTunes Music Store (and probably, at this point, on YouTube as well). Check it out.

*** (The Darjeeling Limited)
**** (Hotel Chevalier)

EDIT: Apparently, for its wider release, the two films will be shown together so for all you lucky bastards who have not seen it yet, you'll get the full experience for the $10.25 you're paying.

In The Valley of Elah: Review

2007-10-16T19:10:00.000-07:00

With Crash, Paul Haggis crafted an overblown, heavy-handed diatribe about the issue of race in America. The film felt painfully simple, dumbing down its complex and difficult subject in order to appeal to the everyday moviegoer. To some, it worked brilliantly, to others (including myself), its inability to present the topic in a three-dimensional and in depth way was frustrating and insulting. By meeting the viewer completely, requiring almost nothing out of his audiences, Haggis created a film for people who felt like race was a dead subject. Thankfully for the rest of us, Haggis rebounds nicely with his latest film In the Valley of Elah, which demonstrates a great deal more restraint, possessing (for the most part) a quiet anger that bubbles to the surface gracefully as opposed to Crash's blatant emotional manipulations.

At the heart of Elah is Tommy Lee Jones' wonderful performance as Hank Deerfield, who goes on a search for his son Mike, who has returned from the war in Iraq but has gone missing from base following his return. Hank is greeted by an early morning call informing him of his son's absence and quickly after a check of his voice and emails, he heads to his son's base in an attempt to find him. After an initial investigation, which turns up nothing, Hank is notified that a body has been found in a field near the base and positively identified as his son. What follows is a series of investigations, by Hank, by the local police (spearheaded by Charlize Theron's Det. Emily Sanders) and the base police, led by Lt. Kirklander (Jason Patric). As the investigation gets deeper and deeper, it becomes clear that the horrors of the current war have followed its veterans home and by the film's heartbreaking finale, it is clear (maybe too clear) that sometimes even the combantants of war should be counted amongst the victims.

Jones' leads the strong cast with a mesmerizing performance that holds the film's emotional weight with grace and a quiet determination. Wonderfully understated by still emotionally powerful, Jones is a seasoned veteran and shows it throughout the film. Jones' intensity is always apparent, yet his performance never turns into any sort of a caricature, allowing Haggis' sometimes one dimensional character to feel realistic and lived in. Crash lacked a performance like Jones' work here and as a result, Haggis' flaws as a director became more noticeable when his dialogue and characterizations suffered in the hands of lesser actors such as Sandra Bullock and Brendan Frasier. While Haggis crafts efficient and memorable screenplays, his direction is often times too heavy handed and over the top, allowing his actors to spiral into a ridiculous simplicity; Haggis' writing soars under the steady hands of more assured directors such as Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby, Flags of our Fathers) and suffers in the hands of lesser (Tony Goldwyn with The Last Kiss and himself with Crash). However, thanks for Jones, Haggis has found an actor with the chops, experience and imagination to breathe live into his characters, which makes up for his shortcomings as a director.

Haggis is one of the few superstar screenwriters in film today and its easy to see why. His work over the past five or so years, has been both memorable and successful (maybe not always together) as noted by the films mentioned above. He is adapt as utilizing the strongest of emotional situations and efficiently, heavy handed or not, wringing the maximum feeling out of them. In the Valley of Elah is no different and from start to finish, resonates deeply with the viewer like the best of Haggis' work does. At the base level, it is a story about the horrors of war and how it affects it participants, reminding me of films such as Michael Cimino's The Deer Hunter (although not quite on that level) or Hal Ashby's Coming Home. The viewer doesn't spend much time in Iraq, only in small flashbacks and video clips, but rather back on the soil of the United States, trying to make some sense of the actions that the country is taking part in. Wisely, Haggis avoids the answers, merely content with posing the questions. As a result, the film hits the viewer a little harder, both intellectually and emotionally and it really isn't until the ham fisted final shot that the film feels at all forced. Haggis is obviously an immensely talented filmmaker who knows how to manipulate his audiences. My only complaint is actually more a feeling of frustration that he doesn't allow his audiences to make up their own minds, instead of hearing his preaching.

That being said, Haggis makes some strides here as a director, as the film is never as intellectually and emotionally simplistic as Crash. As an avowed hater of that film, color me pleasantly surprised that In The Valley of Elah turned out as it did, an emotionally gut wrenching look at the emotions that a father must go through as he uncovers the secrets of his son's past. Jones shines here, as does Susan Sarandon as his wife, helping Haggis' writing achieve its natural grandeur, uninhibited by his simple direction. In the Valley of Elah is a defiantly angry film yet despite what some conservatives have suggested, is never anti-troop, merely anti-war.

It works well as a murder-mystery, perhaps better than it does as a political essay, but for fans that wish to watch it strictly as that will probably have difficulty. There is more here and it is not difficult to find, especially with the film's finale. If you haven't picked up Haggis' message by that point, it immediately becomes clear with a single image that will probably draw as much criticism as it will praise. For me, its over the top and manipulative but none the less powerful. In a time where our country continues to be dragged into a destructive situation that we unnecessarily began, sometimes it take such an obvious statement to make people stand up and notice both what we're involved in and what we've become. In the Valley of Elah is a memorable, at times searing investigation into our times and what it means to be a veteran of a conflict opposed by over half the country. See it with an open mind and you may find (regardless of your feelings about Crash) surprised and moved. I, for one, am glad that I did.

****

Wild Hogs: Review

2007-10-16T18:59:00.000-07:00

Wild Hogs has been the commercial surprise of the year thus far. Despite being a film featuring a number of stars that appeal to middle America, few could have guessed its steady climb up and above the 100 million dollar mark. For a film that is as homoerotic as it is homophobic, this is surprising, not for the homophobic aspects but certainly the homoeroticism. In fact, I can't tell which was more offensive: the phobia that permeates the film or the fact that the country so flocked to see such a film. Filled with awful performances, a worse script and juvenile direction, Wild Hogs is a complete failure and an utter waste of the talent involved.

Directed by Walt Becker, the brains behind Van Wilder, the film is laughably bad from start to finish. In fact, with the exception of the horrific Mark Wahlberg vehicle Shooter, may be the worst film of the year. Becker displays almost no talent, his direction amateurish and dull. However, I can't entirely fault Becker here as any comedy must begin with a good script, and to be completely frank, I'm not quite sure a "script" every existed here. Brad Copeland's (who wrote for Arrested Development!) "script" is so dull, I don't know where to begin. Imagine every cliché moment from every road movie of all time, throw in the worst slapstick gags imaginable, add in another biker gang and presto. Blockbuster! Copeland and Becker tell the story of four middle aged men who are tired of their lives and decide to go on a cross country motorcycle trip as a way to find themselves. Their self anointed gang is the "Wild Hogs", as lame a biker name as I've ever heard. During their trip, they experience a closeted police officer, a good skinny dip and a town besieged by the "Del Fuegos", a fearsome road gang led by Ray Liotta.

Now I can understand the appeal of John Travolta, who has made his fair share of great films and usually possesses the type of affable charm that makes for an easy performance to like. Here, however, Travolta is terrible. His overacting, from facial expressions to everyday body movements are so over the top, one can't help but sit there and wonder what went wrong here. Travolta's performance here makes the worst of Pacino's work look understated and reserved. And they aren't even good facial expressions but rather the type one would imagine inhabiting the performances of a middle school video project. Martin Lawrence and Tim Allen are themselves and are about as I expected. If you like or hate either coming in, nothing in Wild Hogs will change your mind. Which brings us to William H. Macy, as reliable an actor as Hollywood has to offer. All I can say is why Billy why? Macy is the type of character actor who could pretty much score a role in any big dumb movie he wanted with his eyes closed. A naturally talented actor, he is so out of place in this film, it is painful. If I were Mr. Macy, I would fire my agent. If I were Mr. Macy's agent, I'd fire myself.

Normally, a good road movie (Vanishing Point, Easy Rider, Thelma and Louise) relies on panoramic shots of the beautiful surroundings this country has to offer as a way to situate the film, both thematically and narratively. The road and undeveloped expanses generally represent a cleansing force, a way for the protagonists to rediscover the beauty of life and realize what they have going for them. If nothing else, it provides some major eye candy for the audience who is having to sit through shots of a car/bike going down a long road (generally) to nowhere. Once again, Wild Hogs must have missed the memo as Becker decides it would be much better to use shots of the clan doing cool ducks and lean forwards on their bikes to pass the time. The results are a massive squandering of what could have been a semi-redeeming factor. Unfortunately for the viewer, we're treated to shots of John Travolta and Martin Lawrence giving each other fist pounds and laughing. Sweet.

The most perplexing part of the whole ordeal is the rabid clash of ideological values that occurs throughout the film. One would think that the filmmakers involved would be at least half way aware of what the film is implying yet it doesn't appear to be that way. Now, a cross country trip with four guys, in close quarters is, at the very least, a homosocial situation. Skinny-dipping with three guys is somewhat of a homoerotic situation. Making jokes about gays while skinny-dipping is homophobic. Anyone with half a clue can see the ideological clash here: male bonding is something of an idiosyncratic process. A good comedy would point out these facts and joke about them. Wild Hogs never quite reaches that level. It just makes more gay jokes. Needless to say, its a frustrating and insulting experience.

To add salt to the wound, none other than Peter Fonda shows up at the end, which made me hate the film even more. Not because I don't like Fonda, in fact, quite the opposite. For a guy who was a legitimate counter-culture icon, responsible for the greatest of the counter-culture films, Fonda shouldn't be within 100 miles of this film. Unfortunately, he shows up at the end as some kind of Dalai Lama of bikers, remind Liotta's character what the road means. Needless to say, I was disappointed that Wild Hogs managed to ruin that as well. In all seriousness, I can't recommend this film to anyone. If I was a biker, I would annoyed that this is the best Hollywood has to offer me. Anyone would be better off renting (or buying) Easy Rider and re-watching that to get a true idea as to what the road really means.

*

Away From Her: Review

2007-10-16T18:49:00.000-07:00

Away from Her is a quiet film, filled with love and life but also a great deal of sadness; in fact, I can't remember the last film with such a melancholy feel to it all. The film announces the arrival of Sarah Polley who, in her directorial debut, has crafted a subtle and moving work that will stay with the viewer long after the final credits have rolled. Despite a methodical pace and straightforward storyline, the film is particularly involving and never dull. Featuring a number of wonderful performances, Away from Her is one of 2007's great small surprises.

Gordon Pinsent and Julie Christie play Grant and Fiona, an aging married couple, who must confront the realities of the horrific effects of Alzheimer's. Fiona, played by the ever stunning Julie Christie, begins the film at the onset of the condition and throughout the film steadily degrades, with Polley's uninterrupted gaze providing the audience with a clear view into how the conditions affects not only the victim but their family as well. Pinsent is spectacular as Fiona's husband Grant, an ex-college professor, who reluctantly places Fiona into an assisted living community under her instructions. Grant is conflicted, as any loving husband would be, but realizes that it is Fiona's wish. One stipulation is that Fiona must live at the community without visitors for a 30 day period, so she can better adapt to the environment. Once again, Grant reluctantly agrees and much to his horror, when he returns to visit Fiona 30 days later, he is unrecognizable to her, just another in long line of faces that move around the grounds each day.

Without Christie and Pinsent providing such strong performances, the film would have fallen flat on its face. However, the two take over the material and imbue the emotional and intelligent script, adapted by Polley from a short story by Alice Munro, with undeniable humanity. The emotional strain that they undergo is palpable and heartbreaking, not only to each other but the audience alike. Guided by Polley surprisingly steady direction, the film soars, telling its intimate human story in an un-manipulative and plain way. Stylistically, the film is plain, which fits the story and setting perfectly. Had Polley been more daring in her style, the narrative would have had to take a back seat. Thankfully, the restrained stylistic mood fits the emotions perfectly, allowing them to move to the forefront, uninterrupted by distracting visuals. This is not to say that it is visually dull, far from it with Polley moving the camera with grace and confidence. It really is a near perfect blend of look and feeling, with neither taking away from the other.

Equally as good is Olympia Dukakis, as Marian, the wife of one of Fiona's fellow patients. During their stay Fiona and Aubrey (Michael Murphy), Marian's husband, develop a relationship as neither have any recollection of what amounts to their previous lives. As a result, Marian and Grant begin a friendship out of Grant's desire to have Marian bring Aubrey back to the hospital (she brought him home due to cost concerns). Without Aubrey, Fiona is miserable, essentially reduced to a bed ridden state. Pinsent brilliantly illustrates the emotions that Grant goes through, toeing the line between anger and frustration.

To call Away from Her a surprise would be an understatement. I don't think anyone would have thought that Polley, who was previously best known for her small role in Zack Snyder's remake of Dawn of the Dead, could have made such a masterful debut feature. It's apologetic honesty, bracing emotions and subtle performances all contribute to what may be the best true indie film of the year, one that will heavily impact viewers, the older and closer to the situation they are.

****

Eastern Promises: Review

2007-10-16T18:37:00.000-07:00

David Cronenberg's films are something of an acquired taste and in most aspects, Eastern Promises fits what it means to be a Cronenberg work to a T. Excessive violence and sexuality fill out the film's narrative and his unflinching gaze forces the audience to bask in the more lewd moments. However, also like the rest of Cronenberg's work, the film is steeped with dense thematic concerns that force the film onto another plane, one in which the audience is forced to examine human nature in a profound and moving way. Eastern Promises is a film that will not soon be forgotten: a riveting crime drama with a heart and a brain, a perfect genre picture that simultaneously entertains while making us think. Built on the mesmerizing performances of its leads, Cronenberg's follow up to 2005's superb A History of Violence, is a sure fire contender for year's best.

For most mainstream moviegoers, Viggo Mortensen will forever be remembered as Strider/Aragorn, his now iconic roles in Peter Jackson's epic Lord of the Rings trilogy. Unfortunately, many will be missing out on his truly classic performances that, unsurprisingly, have both come under the steady direction of Cronenberg. Soon after the climatic chapter of LotR was released, so was A History of Violence, a picture that largely crept up on people, surprising many who had no clue as to Cronenberg's work. Gone were the days of Scanners or The Fly, in their place was the work of a seasoned cinematic master who followed David Lynch's lead in Blue Velvet and crafted a suburban thriller that begins as a small town drama until layer upon layer are stripped away to reveal the town's violent and seedy core. At that core was the wonderful Mortensen, who led with a quiet confidence that perfectly suited his character. Amazingly, his work in Eastern Promises easily trumps the performance from History.

Here, Mortensen plays Nikolai Luzhin, a low level member of the London Vori v Zakone, the Russian Mob. He begins the film as one of his family's drivers/clean up men. Basically, he's doing the dirty jobs of Mafia life, jobs that Cronenberg depicts gleefully. What may seem like a simple performance is deceptively deep, as his Luzhin's steely, tattooed exterior contradicts his relatively good nature. He is nowhere near as vicious as the gang's boss, Semyon (Armin Mueller-Stahl) or his increasingly unstable son, Kirill (Vincent Cassel) and often times, his compassion clashes with their more hardened mindset. Mortensen is truly stunning, giving an emotionally (and physically, but we'll get to that later) naked performance that is quite simply one of the bravest acting jobs that I have ever seen.

Luckily, Mortensen's counterpart Naomi Watts, who plays Anna Khitrova, a midwife at Trafalgar Hospital, is completely up to the task. As the story begins, we find Anna working the ER, attempting to save a young pregnant teenage girl who has come in with bleeding from her abdomen. The girl, who we later know only as Tatiana, gives birth but dies in the process, leaving Anna with a newborn and Tatiana's diary as the only remaining clues as to this girls life. As Anna sets out to translate the diary and discover a location to bring the baby to, she finds herself being drawn deeper and deeper into the London criminal underworld, involving prostitution and the sex trade. Watts imbues Anna with a strength and determination that makes her an utterly likable character, an important part of the puzzle here. Without Anna's moral purity, the film's harsh tones could quickly have overwhelmed the narrative. However, with Anna as the center, the film takes on a humanistic slant, and despite the violence, there are glimpses of hope scattered sparingly throughout.

The dark alleys and gray, raining skies of London add to the film's grim tone that truly gets under the skin of the viewer. While its difficult to discern what exactly is so lingering about this film, the lasting impact is definite and unquestionable. People left my theater shaken and quiet, as if they had just seen something troubling and unforgettable. Often times the gore is a bit much, causing audience members to shield their eyes and cover their gaping mouths as if to stifle a yell. The audience's shock came to a climax in the film's main set piece, a knife fight in a steam bath. Throughout the nearly five minute sequence, Mortensen is completely exposed, losing his towel covering seconds in and the scene is quite frankly stunning. As an acting performance, it is a brave sacrifice to lend the film realism. Many actors would refuse to do this, but Mortensen gives it his all. Not only does he handle the emotional aspects of the performance with subtlety and grace, he gives his body to this important scene. While it is unlikely due to the graphic nature of his work, Mortensen deserves serious consideration for end of the year accolades.

Eastern Promises is a completely involving masterpiece, Cronenberg's second in a row. The cast is superb throughout (I've only mentioned Cassel and Mueller-Stahl in passing but their performances are amazing as well), Steven Knight's script is intelligent and suspenseful, Howard Shore's score complements the film perfectly and Cronenberg's assured direction brings every piece together. The results of it all are breathtaking, leaving Eastern Promises in a small group with The Departed and Miami Vice as the pinnacles of recent crime dramas. As I mentioned earlier, Cronenberg is an acquired taste and there will be those that will be put off by the violence and subject matter. However, for those who sit through this film will be amply rewarded with a modern examination of life in immigrant London, filled with death and suffering but never lacking life and vitality.

*****

The Kingdom: Review

2007-10-03T17:10:00.000-07:00

The current Iraqi conflict has been jumped on quickly by Hollywood, who has produced a number of films, almost all being critical of the war. It is then with some fanfare that The Kingdom arrives, being the first First Blood studio film for the conflict in the Middle East and despite all its political leanings, it avoids the Iraq War completely. That conflict, so rife with controversy, is not even mentioned and as a result, the film feels like a bit of revisionist history, its odd tones borrowing from the current political climate but never actually acknowledging it. The film, directed by Peter Berg, produced by the masterful Michael Mann and written by Matthew Michael Carnahan (brother of Joe), unfortunately never takes off and instead of being the in-depth actioner it could have been, it feels more like a neo-con fantasy that never wants to ask, much less answer, the tough questions.

Right from the roaring, in your face opening sequence, it is clear that The Kingdom is not trying to be a subtle political piece but an action flick with some political thought. This opening sequence, of a terrorist attack on a compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, is a gripping and violent jolt, launching the audience into the film's narrative almost immediately. After the attacks, the FBI sends a small group of investigators, led by Ronald Fleury (Jamie Foxx). Fleury, who initially is denied permission to travel to Saudi Arabia to investigate, utilizes some back door connections to slide his way into the assignment, bypassing the people who initially forbid his request. In doing so, Berg and Carnahan position Fleury in the long line of freedom fighting mavericks inhabited by Rambo and just about every character Chuck Norris has ever played. Thankfully, they also imbue Fleury with a great deal more of intellectual saavy and never let him reach the mindless depths of the aforementioned characters. Upon the groups arrival in the Kingdom, they begin their investigation into the attacks, which they quickly link to a Bin Laden like cell leader.

The rest of Fleury's group are something of a motley crew, two of which seem to be completely useless, Special Agents Adam Leavitt and Janet Mayes (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner) and the third being a grizzled old veteran with a few tricks up his sleeve, SA Grant Sykes (Chris Cooper). For Leavitt, his only reason for being there seems to crack jokes and take up space. Mayes spends most of the film either crying or cowering in a corner until the last moments when she kills some baddies and then gets thrown around a room. Sykes is a bit more useful (i.e. someone an American Citizen might actually want to have in the FBI), pulling his weight throughout the film. Cooper is his usual reliable self, if not somewhat disappointing due to the general lack of depth in his character. While Bateman and Garner have almost nothing to work with, neither do much with their scraps with Bateman just feeling generally out of place. Maybe its the fact that he was so good in Fox's alt-sitcom Arrested Development but I couldn't help but shake the feeling that it was Michael Bluth getting dragged around the Saudi streets.

The best character is probably the unit's Saudi contact, a state policeman named Col. Faris Al-Ghazi, wonderfully played by Ashraf Barhom. Without this character to counterweight the unit's American jingoism, the film might be construed as a fully anti-Muslim statement. However, Barhom's humanistic and believable work stops that from being the case as he is an undeniably likeable and moral character, in fact, maybe the most so in all of the film. His character is given the most depth and Barhom really runs with it, turning in a wonderful performance and is a major highlight for the film.

Unlike Mann's directorial work, which features a great deal of mood and feeling while still handing out riveting action, Berg loses his narrative steam during the action sequence, regardless of how effective they are. For Mann, the acts of violence that inhabit his films are horrific enough as they are. He rarely relies on over the top blood and gore, rather using the speed and precision of the moments to give them their power. Berg chooses an alternate, inferior route to take, utilizing the aforementioned gore to drive home the horrific nature of the acts the film portrays. As a result, where Mann's work never feels like a generic action film, Berg's sometimes does albeit with some exotic trappings. Throughout the film, I couldn't help but wish that Mann had stepped into the director's chair and taken over as the film would have probably been better off. That being said, there are some memorable sequences

The Kingdom is not entirely without merit, far from it. For all its shoot first, speak second ideologies, the film displays a remarkable awareness of the more complex issues that infuse the middle east with such volatility. Take, for example, the opening credits (some of the best I've ever seen) that briefly but effectively sum up the past 70 years of history in the Middle East as it relates to the film's narrative. Unlike Syriana, which required a rather intimate working knowledge of the situation in question to fully comprehend its more complex moments, The Kingdom is easily accessible, largely thanks to the opening moments. For a country that is quickly tiring of the constant bombardment of media coverage regarding the war in Iraq, The Kingdom despite its setting, allows for some simple escapism. I would not be surprised if the film found a strong neo-con following, as its the type of American go get 'em hard body actioner that dominated the Reagan-led 80's. The violence is never really personal, most of the victims are faceless Muslims who serve no purpose other than to get in the way of our heroes bullets. Think of The Kingdom as Live Free or Die Hard, with half the edge of your seat thrills and a 50% more intelligence and you'll leave impressed and entertained. If you go in expecting anything more, expect disappointment.

***

The Wind That Shakes The Barley: Review

2007-10-03T16:54:00.000-07:00

The Wind That Shakes The Barley was something of a surprise winner of the 2006 Palme D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, a film that people enjoyed but no one raved about it. With its release in the UK, it was met with great controversy over its story of Irish Revolutionaries in the early 20th Century. For Britons, Ken Loach's film was a stab in the back of the director's own country. For others, it was a brave artistic achievement that was an emotionally devastating as billed. When it saw release in the US early this year, it passed with nary a yawn, critically admired but commercially ignored. It didn't seem to spark the kind of controversy, which is understandable. What isn't is why this film wasn't more heralded by audiences in America, as The Wind That Shakes the Barley is an undeniable success that has masterful moments of emotional disturbance. If not for its somewhat disappointing ending, we could be looking at a sure fire contender for film of the year.

Loach's film tells the story of two Irish brothers, Damien (Cillian Murphy) and Teddy (Padraic Delany), who join the burgeoning Irish Republic Army to fight the infamous English Black and Tan's, a paramilitary group that was unleashed into Ireland in an attempt to subdue the Irish. The film carefully and successfully mixes in the larger picture with the more intimate portrayal of a family facing upheaval. As a result, the film feels like it is tackling a huge subject from a very personal entry point and its success must be attributed to the wonderful performances all around. Murphy is especially excellent and its with each passing performance that he strikes me more and more as one of the finest actors of his generation. He brings a humanity to the role that forms nuanced contradictions throughout the film, presenting his actions as conflicts for him as well as the audience. Never once does Murphy allow his character to become anything less than completely believable and as his grief over his actions rises, his performance grows into a ferocious command of the screen. This man is a special, special actor and if he continues to make smart artistic (nothing suggests he won't), he'll go down as one of the more talented people of this era.

When viewing The Wind That Shakes the Barley, it is apparent that Loach is a seasoned veteran behind the camera as he provides the film with bracingly realistic feel. While it isn't quite as rough as Paul Greengrass' Bloody Sunday, Loach's film possesses a similar feel with its in your face violence that is never glamorized and really even altered. It is shown as is and that is bracing and startling. Sometimes a film such as TWTSTB comes along and shakes the viewer to the soul in its depictions of humanity's cruelty to each other. Unlike a Hollywood action flick, where the violence is so over the top, it is almost comical, Loach prefers to utilize simple images that are powerful and to the point. I defy anyone to watch the film with the volume raised and not find themselves grimacing at the intensity of certain scenes, at the chaos that erupts from nothing.

The film, regardless of political slant, is a well told, effectively realized drama that blends in romance, action and political intrigue with a envious subtlety that is usually lacking from politically fueled, historical epics (Braveheart, I love you but you're guilty here). For those who are unversed in the events being depicted (such as myself), you'll find yourself quickly researching the film's claims and depictions, to see if what Loach puts on screen is actually true. Unfortunately, much of it does seem accurate. As a result, The Wind That Shakes The Barley is an important documentation of times and events that are too often neglected due to their barbaric nature.

Had it not been for the final sequence of the film, which seems like its first obvious pull at emotional manipulation, TWTSTB would be a masterpiece. However, those concluding moments seem to betray the rest of the film. Where the events that lead up to the ending seem logical and realistic, the conclusion doesn't feel as organic as the rest of the film. These points of the film are not outright failures (in some respects, they are quite good), but it was the first point where I wanted to claim cop out. Its unfortunate, as Loach had hit on all cylinders up to that point. It isn't enough to ruin the film, far from it, but it is enough to dock it a point or two. That being said, this is a film to be viewer and cherished. It is filled with wonderful acting and strong direction. The cinematography by Barry Ackroyd is splendid, giving the film a majestic look, capturing the gentle rolling greens of Ireland with a restrained grace. Its politics may be off putting to some but as a piece of cinema, it is a solid success that will appeal to audiences looking for a historical epic with a strong dose of intelligence and emotion.

****

3:10 to Yuma: Review

2007-09-24T17:48:00.000-07:00

Give credit where credit is due and honor James Mangold (Walk the Line), who, in his latest effort 3:10 to Yuma, has revitalized the American Western, as important a cinematic genre as ever has existed. 3:10 is a hard-bitten, potboiler of a film; a masterful frontier story that feels like a Deadwood inflected High Noon. Mangold, who is becoming a wonderful filmmaker, wisely guides the story along, slowly building tension until the breaking point, in which the first hour and 40 minutes of story comes to a nail biting finale that ranks with some of the best Old West celluloid shootouts. Featuring two spectacular performances by Christian Bale and Russell Crowe, 3:10 to Yuma feels like a classic in the making from start to finish.
In this remake of the 1957 original, Bale plays a family man and farmer, Dan Evans, who following the conclusion of the Civil War, packs up his family and heads west. However, the allure and promise of the west quickly becomes hardship and suffering. Faced with enormous debt and a complete lack of water due to a massive, continuing drought, the Evans family begins the film awakened by the burning of their barn. The next day, Evans and his sons, William and Mark (Logan Lerman and Benjamin Petry respectively), ride out to herd their cattle back to the farm. However, their witnessing of a violent and gruesome stagecoach robbery, which quickly degrades into massacre, quickly disturbs that innocent task. The band of outlaws responsible for the attack are led by their fearsome leader, Ben Wade (played by Russell Crowe), and upon realizing that they've been seen, take the Evans' horses but leave them untouched. Dan finds Byron, a survivor of the attack (Peter Fonda), and helps him back into town.

Little does he know that Wade had headed in the same direction and after another chance meeting in a saloon, in which Wade is arrested, Dan finds himself enlisted in a posse whose mission is to deliver Wade to the 3:10 train to Yuma Prison. Unfortunately for Evans, Byron and the rest of the men, Wade's band is close on their tail, now led by the equally dangerous Charlie Prince (Ben Foster). The rest of the film centers along this quest and with each inch traveled, Mangold pushes the audience closer and closer to the edge. The race to the train is a dangerous 24 hours in which many of the members of Wade's escort perish in unfortunate ways. As the group traverses across the unforgiving landscape, which is beautifully shot by Phedon Papamichael (of Sideways fame), the group is physically and mentally punished by the increasing pressure of getting Wade to the station, not only in time but in one piece.

The cast, as a whole, has no real weak points, with everyone more than pulling their weight. The principles, Bale, Crowe, Fonda, Foster and Lerman, are all spectacular, giving their characters complex moral compasses that characterize the great revisionist westerns. Bale and Crowe, in particular, contribute show-stopping performances, something we've come to expect from two of the best actors working today. In Bale's capable hands, Evans possesses not only a physical toughness but a mental and emotional one as well. His continued perseverance really drives the film and serves as the basis for much of the thematic exploration. Crowe's Wade immediately takes his place amongst the pantheon of classic Western villains, a ferocious killer that has the undeniable charisma that reminds one of Wayne's Ethan Edwards. While Crowe's performance isn't quite on the same level as Wayne's (which I consider to be one of the greatest roles in history), it is undeniably powerful and ranks as one of Crowe's better jobs.

It should be noted that this film never truly feels like the classic Peckinpah and Leone examinations of the 1960's and 70's. In other words, the cynicism that was evident in the work of those two masters isn't readily apparent here. Instead, Mangold seems to be concerned with Ford's critiques of masculinity and civilization and while 3:10 to Yuma never attains the full majesty of a Ford epic, it never quite delves into the psychological depravity of Peckinpah. Actually, if pressed and as mentioned earlier, the most notable touchstone here seems to be High Noon, not only in its narrative structure (the continuing march of time) but in its themes as well. Much like Gary Cooper in Zinneman's classic, Evans is forced to deal with a situation that few others want to be involved in.

As this point in the life of the genre, it is almost impossible not to notice the hallmarks of films past. Mangold seems to realize this and continually harkens back (both narratively and thematically) to the great westerns of the past, guiding his film down familiar paths, yet in new and exciting ways. If you have a strong bias against westerns, it is unlikely that 3:10 to Yuma will cure that unfortunate affliction. One might be better off starting with Stagecoach or one of Leone's Dollar Trilogy films to fully get into the genre. However, for those who enjoy a solid western, certainly the best American entry in the genre since 1992's Unforgiven and if not for last year's The Proposition maybe the best since Eastwood's classic period, 3:10 to Yuma is one to check out, a near masterpiece and certainly a worthy remake of the great original.

****