Mike at the Movies

Idiocracy...

2009-10-05T20:58:00.000-07:00

There is a theory that people of higher intelligence tend to be unhappy. This is due to the fact that they are generally surrounded by people that they can't communicate with. They do, for all intents and purposes, speak different languages. This is why groups like MENSA have to be formed. Whereas people of lower intelligence can congregate anywhere (the mall) and talk about anything (sex).

Idiocracy is about a two people of average intelligence in 2005. They get put in a government hibernation program that is only supposed to last a year. Through a series of events, it lasts 500 years. When they wake up, they are the smartest people on the planet.

This movie didn't really do it for me. It wasn't subtle enough in its satire for me. It wanted to keep hitting us with "Wow! Look how incredibly stupid the world got! Am I right, fellas!" After a while, that wore thin. It also didn't spend enough time showing how the world got stupid. It made veiled jabs at the media saturating us with unimportant details while the big issues got swept aside. It started out strong by mentioning that we spent more time on hair restoration than curing cancer. But it didn't sink it's teeth in. This is perfect fodder for a biting, mean spirited attack on Western civilization! The fact that our protagonist comes across as only marginally smarter than the people he is surrounded by doesn't help. It doesn't sell the concept.

They also rushed it. They could have spent a lot more time developing characters, or just adding more dialogue to scenes instead of narrating over them.

I don't recommend this movie. It's got some laugh out loud bits in it, but there are better comedies for that. It makes some valid points, but there are better satires. Overall, it just didn't work.

Appaloosa...

2009-09-28T23:04:00.000-07:00

Westerns are a niche genre. Not so much in how many people like them, but in how they work. Any movie could be a good western, not every western can be a good movie. Not every western can be a good western.

Appaloosa is not a good western. It's an okay film, but it just doesn't work in the genre in which it's placed.

It's fairly standard fare as far as story line goes. Sheriff comes to a town that is being overrun by a vicious gang and he needs to restore law and order with his trusty sidekick...er...deputy. Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen play the parts of sheriff and deputy, respectively, fairly well. Renee Zellwegger is...certainly in the movie. I can't tell if it was her character, or the way she played her character, but something was very unremarkable about her role. Jeremy Irons probably played best as the villain, though his fake south western American accent was laughable the first few minutes until I got used to it. Or stopped paying attention.

Again, let me say that this isn't a terrible movie. There is certainly no reason not to see the film. But, if you're going for a western, there are certainly much better choices to be made. Because this isn't a western. It's a movie. It could have been placed in 1920's Chicago, Millennial New York, or 1600's Scotland and it would have played exactly the same. That isn't a praise of it's universality as a story, it's a dig at it's plainness.

Westerns are supposed to have some sense of grandeur. Some tension of man against man. They should have some grit, some dirt under their fingernails. Appaloosa certainly looked dusty, but I just didn't buy the characters as western. Viggo Mortensen probably more than the others. The relationship that develops between Ed Harris' Virgil and Renee Zellwegger's Allison hamstrung Virgil's character, which made everything else about him questionable. He couldn't have been as street smart as he was supposed to be and fall for it. And if he would fall for it like he did, then he couldn't have been as street smart as he was and would probably have been killed a long time ago.

If you're looking for a good movie, maybe just to kill some time, this would be your pick. If you're looking for a good western, this is not what you want. Re-watch The Dollars Trilogy, or How the West Was Won, or even Tombstone before choosing this.

Zodiac...

2009-09-10T22:21:00.000-07:00

I know that the Zodiac Killer murders have never been conclusively solved. Yet, there is one scene in this film that made me believe they would solve it by the end of the movie. This scene makes the whole film. Without it, nothing after it would work and everything before would lose momentum.

What made the film work was not just the acting or just the writing. It wasn't just the camera angles or lighting. It was all of those things. And if I had to say what makes Zodiac one of the best movies I've seen this year, I tell you it is exactly that. This film works on all levels.

The acting is superb. The writing is tight as a drum. The mood and tension created by the technical aspects like the lighting and camera work are not flair...it's part of the whole.

It's the story of a man who starts out as a cartoonist for the San Fransisco Chronicle. In the beginning, he's on the peripheral of the story. Both the news story and the film. The early part of the film focuses mainly on the early investigation. Soon however, we're back with our main character as he gets swept along into a maddening search. He wants to find the Zodiac. He wants to do what three police agencies and even the government were not able to.

The transition from one side of the story to the next is so smooth, I was hardly aware of it. That would be the second thing I would point to as what makes this film work so well. The pacing and flow of it is almost liquid. You float along in this movie. It's engrossing. Every frame, every line of dialogue has your rapt attention.

The Zodiac Killer is really a MacGuffin in this film. That was a term Hitchcock used to describe something that moves the plot without being crucial to it. The story here is about the madness that this kind of terror creates. Not just for the victims and their families, but for everyone that gets involved. No one is untouched by evil, this film tells us. No one walks away unscathed. It ruins lives, breaks up relationships, and even if there is a bright spot of revelation...there is always someone who was never completely healed.

If you love mysteries, this is your film. If you love great acting, this is your film. If you just want to experience one of the best films made in, I would say, the last two years...this is your film.

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas...

2009-09-06T19:28:00.000-07:00

I'm sitting here, and the only thing I can think is "how could the film end like that?" This truly had to be one of the the most heartbreaking ends to any film I have ever seen.

But, how could it have ended any other way? It would have been a greater injustice to end it on a happy note. A just note. Because to do so would be to banish all the realities of what the Holocaust really was.

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas is an important film. Not one to be taken lightly. Throughout, there is this underlying tension. It instantly reminds you of all those cold, tense silences that fell on adults when you were a kid. You didn't understand what was going on, but you knew it wasn't good. Even the score of the film is subtle. Just underneath the surface, as if it isn't there at all.

Indeed, that is how this film handles much of the realities it portrays. But again, that isn't a disservice to it. It helps you to connect with the bright-eyed innocence of Bruno.

Bruno is the eight year old son of a Nazi commandant. They have moved out to the country from their plush home in Berlin so that his father can be in charge of a farm. A farm, Bruno notices, where all the workers wear stripped pajamas.

He and his mother are unaware of what is going on. His adolescent sister is growing with pride for the Fatherland and the work they are doing to take care of the "Jewish problem". Bruno doesn't know what any of that means. When his mother finds out, she is horrified...yet helpless. What is she going to do? Move? Leave her family? Try to take them away from Herr Commandant?

Bruno is exposed to the propaganda. He also befriends a boy who lives on the "farm". He is also eight, his name is Shmuel. Shmuel is timid and frightened. Not of Bruno...in fact, he seems frightened of everything but Bruno. We know why Shmuel acts the way he does, and so does Shmuel. Yet Bruno never fully understands.

Until the end.

The acting in this film is so good, so engrossing, that Bruno's innocence is never played as willful stupidity. He's a smart kid. And that is the issue here...he's a child. The loss of innocence is a terribly painful process, and I believe the first thing it kills is our understanding of what it means to look at the world through the eyes of a child.

I want so badly to believe that the world is a good place. I want to believe, as Bruno does, that someday Shmuel will be able to come outside and play. They can go on fantastic adventures together.

Sadly, I am forced to see the world as Bruno's mother does. Fully aware of it's darkness, and perhaps by myself entirely powerless to stop it.

I wanted to stop this film from ending. I wanted one more frame to let me know that the laughter could continue. But I know better. I know that in this world, where corporations and governments have built their fortunes on the backs of the poor, that sometimes the only honest ending is the dark one.

And when this film ends, the gravity of it will take your breath away.

This is an important film. It is tense, so I would steer away from calling it a family film. While it is sad to say that parents will someday have to introduce their child to the realities of what Hitler did, I would say that when that time comes to use this film instead of something like Schindler's List. They are equal in craftsmanship, but The Boy in the Striped Pajamas is much more approachable as it sees the world through eye level and not in grand, epic strokes.

Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War...

2009-08-30T19:48:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite movies is Saving Private Ryan. I love it, even though it is a flawed movie. I love the war movie genre. I love it, even though it is a flawed genre. Francois Truffaut is quoted as saying that it is impossible to make an anti-war film. They are action movies, and they make the combat look fun and exciting. Roger Ebert, in his review of Platoon, said that movie would have made Truffaut "modify his opinion". If every war film were like Tae Guk Gi, he would never have formed that opinion.

For all of the war films I've seen, Tae Guk Gi is one of the first that truly showed war for the horrific experience it must be. Saving Private Ryan, for all of its grittiness, was symbolic and sentimental. Black Hawk Down was thrilling and immersing. Platoon and Apocalypse Now were edgy and rather high concept. Sure, they all showed that men in combat are in danger. Tae Guk Gi showed that men in war-whether in combat or sleeping at night-are in danger.

It takes place in Korea, and begins immediately before the Korean War breaks out. It focuses on two South Korean brothers, Jin-seok and Jin-tae. One is a humble cobbler, the other is ready to start college. Their father died some years ago, and they both take care of their mother. There's also a girl and a sub-plot about a love triangle.

When the war breaks out, the brothers are drafted. The older one Jin-tae wants the younger to get sent back home. He asks permission for them to remain together, which is granted. Jin-tae also works out a deal with his commanding officer. If he gets a medal, his brother can go home. Jin-seok, unaware of this deal, wonders why his brother continually volunteers for the riskiest missions.

They are also put into a unit that is supposed to be protecting an important, strategic area. They feel neither important nor strategic as they are hammered day in and day out by the "commies", while receiving little in the form of food or water from their own military. Soon, after many days of attacks, some become desperate. One wounded soldier begins shooting other wounded soldiers. I've never seen that in a war film before.

American war films, specifically, want to keep the glossy sheen on the brave fighting men. Don't get me wrong. I strongly support the military and believe those men are the bravest of the brave. But, they are still men. They have been asked (or volunteered) to take on one of the most emotionally and physically taxing jobs.

This movie, while graphic, does not display the gore. Saving Private Ryan made a point of showing the visceral horror of war in detail. Tae Guk Gi doesn't gives you a more holistic experience of battle. It sets your nerves on edge by not quickly cutting to a scene of violence, and then quickly cutting away. You sit there wondering, just at the soldiers themselves, when the next attack will happen. When the next bullet will strike. Who is the next to die?

It wraps this around a very powerful story of brotherly love and family connections.

It is a very powerful film, and I would highly recommend it.

The Watchmen...

2009-05-18T00:47:00.000-07:00

"Quis custōdiet ipsōs custōdēs?" That, roughly translated, is "Who watches the watchmen?" It is the phrase that we get the title of this film and the graphic novel it was based on. I throw that in there so everyone can feel smart. Feeling smart makes you feel good about yourself. After viewing this film, I did not feel good about myself.

I was very excited to see this film. I had heard negative reviews about it, but they mostly came from people unfamiliar with the graphic novel. Unlike Batman or Spider-Man, The Watchmen is a story set in the real world. It is an alternate history of the United States. Regular citizens take on vigilante roles as "masked men" in order to finish what the police couldn't. None of them have any real super powers in the books, except for Dr. Manhattan. He was a man who was basically blown apart in a particle accelerator and then pieced himself back together. This made him able to "walk on the surface of the sun" and "observe moments so small and fast it's as if they didn't happen at all." He can see his own past, present, and future simultaneously (only his, no one else's).

Yet, for all of the super human ability none of the other characters have...they sure can take a beating.

The story begins with The Comedian being killed. The Comedian, Edward Blake, was one of The Watchmen. His death is brutal. He is beaten and thrown out of his apartment window to the sidewalk several stories below. I have to say that, in all the films I've seen, I have never witnessed an attack as vicious as this one. I don't know what it was that made it so unsettling, but at one point I actually wanted to yell "stop it!" to the screen.

As the story progresses, there are several moments where I wanted to yell stop. Not because of what was happening, so much as the way it was being presented. And thus, my real problem with the movie comes out.

Zach Snyder did a good job, I thought, with 300. Simply because it was more or less meant to be cartoonish. It was graphic, but in a video game style that was juvenile, but not entirely offensive. Here, it was less cartoonish and more grotesque. I went in understanding that the characters are all pretty much depraved. But reading that in a comic book one single frame at a time and seeing it portrayed by people are two entirely different aspects. I wasn't expecting that. This movie is violent to everyone. Women, children, old, young. Nothing is sacred, nothing is pure. I understand that this is the point of the story to an extent. I also understand that better films have made the same point without reducing it's audience to the viewing of a nickle peep show. I was shown stomach churning violence, in patented Snyder-Slow-Down-Speed-Up-vision. Certain parts of the story that were shown in bold colors and left nothing to the imagination had been handled far more subtly in the comic. If I am making this out to seem very dark, it's because I believe it to be so.

I had recommended seeing this with some friends of mine when it first came to theaters. We never did, and for that I am grateful. I wouldn't feel comfortable having my friends watch this.

It is violent, soft core pornography and I feel dirty for having witnessed it. I almost walked out half way through. The only reason why I didn't was because I wanted to give the film a chance to redeem itself. Not it's characters...itself. I wanted it to become aware that it was dragging the audience into a world that it needn't view, and stop. The film never did this. It simply pulled us along, without remorse.

I would still recommend the graphic novel. This is based, again, on the fact that it handled many aspects of the story with more subtlety. It's also richer. It goes deeper into why these men are the way they are. The film simply lets them be that way, and makes us watch.

I can't recommend this film for any viewing, for any purpose.

Sunshine...

2009-03-08T22:26:00.000-07:00

I first heard about Sunshine from Wired Magazine. My sci-fi loving geeky heart was all a-flutter. Certainly, it is a good film. It's not a great film, but it could have been.

"Our Sun is dying." These are the opening words. And so it is. Our nearest star is dying and we have sent scientists up with a really big bomb (the size of Manhattan...why does everything in movies have to be the size of Manhattan?). The bomb is going to be flown into the sun to "restart it". They already had one mission go up, Icarus I, and it disappeared. So, a new group is sent up. Icarus II.

This film borrowed all the best from the best science fiction of the past. There is this ever present quiet that gives the sense of isolation. The claustrophobic interiors of a spaceship. The crew that slowly grows weary of each other. The ship looks freaking awesome. It's all there.

Along the way, they find Icarus I. In doing so, parts of their ship get broken, one crew member becomes suicidal because he blames himself for it, and they lose their only way of communicating with Earth. Then we get the mystery of what happened to the first crew. Psychological drama, ghost ships, science, space, a really cool holodeck thingy. This just keeps getting better and better!

Oh, but wait, let's throw the audience a curve ball.

Without going into a lot of detail, I'll just say that this appears to be another attempt at making two films for the price of one. I don't want to spoil the details, but I want you to be aware of it. It suddenly becomes some kind of mild slasher flick/whodunnit in space. They throw in a story line that adds nothing and detracts a lot. Characters die for no other reason than to kill them off. All the logic and psychology that has been building behind these characters gets deflated so that we can have some dude with a really bad sunburn run around with an X-acto knife (you'll have to see it).

I was really disappointed. The way they built up to it was still intriguing. If given it's own film, it would have been a really great concept. This film was already a great concept, but the two did not work together.

I still recommend this film just to experience the good parts. The good parts are very good. The effects work in the film without pushing it. The acting was okay. It could have been so much more than it was. I guess, perhaps, it just flew to close to the sun.

P.S. The first gripe that came to my mind was the fact that Cillian Murphy is Irish. And there is no way you send a man with the complexion of an Irishman to the sun. Not without a tube of SPF A Billion.

Lord Save Us From Your Followers...

2008-12-04T21:24:00.000-08:00

"The Church is a whore, and she's my mother." - Tony Campolo.

This film is powerful. If you're open to it.

The Church is hurting. This is no mystery to a generation of believers who are beginning to look around and see the damage that has truly been done by the "Religious Right". The hurt that we have caused with our words. This film makes a good point in using the terms "us", "we" and "I". This isn't a Catholic problem or a Protestant problem. It isn't a Mormon problem or a Jehovah's Witness problem. This is a Christian problem. And throughout the film, we are introduced to one self-proclaimed godless heathen after another speaking the true heart of God. Because far too often it seems that the unbelieving world understands the power of what we believe better than we do. They just don't accept it.

The movie is a documentary made by Dan Merchant about the need for conversation. It's tag line resonates "Why is the Gospel of Love Dividing America?" It plays out very fairly. It does not mock non-Christians, and it does not mock hyper Christians. It simply lays them out there for us to view.

One shining example of this is Sister Mary Timothy, a "nun" in the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence based in San Francisco. He lets him speak. He does not argue with him. He does not cut his words out of context. He lets him stay on screen in all that gaudy makeup until you're not quite sure you're comfortable looking at it anymore. And soon, you begin to see Tim. Near the end of the film Dan Merchant asks "Would it change you're opinion to know that Tim's mother died when he was four? That his father and step mother were perpetual drug users? And that when he had his first sexual encounter, at age 16, he contracted HIV?"

The movie does concentrate a lot on the issue of how the Church has handled homosexuality issues. Dan Merchant even opens up a "confessional booth" at PRIDE, a gay and lesbian event, in Portland. He asks the attendants to step in and he proceeds to apologize to them for the Churches, and his own, role in helping to create such bitter tension. It isn't the only topic that the film covers, but that is such a hard issue. One that I myself have had to sit back and contemplate. From the Christian perspective, we don't like their lifestyle, but we love the people. The homosexual perspective, as Sister Timothy pointed out, is that "this isn't my lifestyle. This is my life." To their ears, how can we hate "it" and not hate them? Honestly, I don't know. I don't have the answer for that.

I appreciate that Dan doesn't try to give us one. He didn't make a movie that tried to wrap up all of our problems so that we can come up with a five step program to solve them. This film will be approachable for both Christians and non-Christians. It will be hard to get non-Christians to see it, I imagine, judging from the "I don't want to see a Jesus movie" comment that one person said as they stepped away from the box office. On the other hand, I feel that this film really serves it's purpose better to the Body. It's not a sermon, yet it is. It makes points that Christians need to hear. We need to be reminded that our faith is one of love. That we do not perform charity for charity sake. Any pagan can do that. We have, or at least should, have a purpose.

If you are a Christian, I ask that you watch this film. I was moved by it's honesty. I am the first to admit that I am sorely jaded by much of what gets passed around as Christianity, specifically in the U.S. So it was nice to see when they showed real Christians at work. Rebuilding after Katrina. Washing the feet of the homeless under the Burnside bridge in Portland. Apologizing to a gay woman for all the times he told gay jokes.

If you are not a Christian, I ask that you watch this film. I would hope that you would see that some of us wish that televangelists would shut up already. I would hope that you would see that we are not waiting to see you burn in hell, but quite the opposite. I would hope that the message of Christ's love...which is the Gospel...becomes more clear. And if you watch this, I would hope that you understand that I, too, am sorry. For the damage done in the name of my God. For the hurt caused under the banner of my Church. I am as guilty as anybody for not doing more to prevent it.

I would hope that this film stirs you, encourages you, and makes you think no matter which side of the debate you are on.

Edit: I would like to clarify that Tony Campolo is not the originator of the quote at the beginning of this article. It was said originally by St. Augustine.

Monster...

2008-11-17T14:05:00.000-08:00

I can tell you that the acting in this film is great. I am disappointed to tell you that in this case, it's to the films detriment.

This is the story of Aileen Wuornos. A hitchhiking prostitute who turned serial killer. She would shoot her John's with a .22 revolver. When she was eventually caught, she claimed that each of the seven men she killed had tried to rape her. That was true of the first one, not of the other six. During this time, she was running from the law with her lesbian lover.

It was a difficult film to watch, for several reasons. The main one being that the real Aileen Wuornos was very difficult to deal with. She hated people. Some might say that, due to her life long history of abuse, she was justified. Yet, in the film, she is so abrasive, so offensive, so off-putting that I couldn't find any empathy for her. I wasn't able to find any reason to care about this character, regardless of how well she was portrayed. Only in the scene where she is being raped (it's brutal, and I wished I hadn't seen it) did I feel sorry for her. The rest of the time, the wall was too thick. If I'm not invested in the characters, I can't stay interested in their motives. There was nothing to hold onto in this film.

Perhaps that is what the film makers were trying to accomplish. Perhaps they were trying to show her in her true light. In that case, they succeeded. However, I still wouldn't be able to recommend this film.

After watching it, I felt dirty. It made me contemplate what kinds of films I allow into my mind. No other film has done that before. This will definitely give you a glimpse inside the world of street walking. But to be honest with you, I don't need to see what prostitutes are going through in order to know their in a terrible situation. As I said, the rape scene is horrifying. The scenes where you see murder swelling in her eyes before she kills another victim, are chilling.

This film was simply to hard to watch. I would normally say that the acting was worth it, even if I didn't like the film (such as There Will Be Blood). But here, the film wasn't worth the acting.

Eagle Eye...

2008-11-10T16:53:00.001-08:00

Eagle Eye is not one of the worst movies you'll see. One of the most improbable? Yes. One that bears very strong resemblance to Enemy of the State? Yep. It even uses that exact term, twice. One that doesn't have the slightest idea how a computer works? You betcha. But is it any good?

Let's not talk in terms of good or bad with this one.

Like Enemy of the State, it asks you to be very paranoid and to suspend your disbelief. Other films with that premise are ones like Arlington Road. Terrorists, government, yada yada yada. The point isn't those things. The point is to enjoy the ride. This movie is a ride. I've heard it described as a two hour chase film. It's a little more substantial than that, but not by much.

Jerry Shaw is a copy jockey at Copy Cabana. Rachel Holloman is a paralegal with a dead beat ex-husband and an adorable son who's good with the trumpet. Jerry also has a twin brother who recently died in a car crash. Jerry's brother, Ethan, was in the Air Force. After Ethan's funeral, Jerry returns home and finds a whole mess of guns and bombs in his little apartment. His phone rings and a female voice tells him he's been "activated" and to get out before the FBI arrives in 90 seconds. He doesn't. They do. Soon, he's being interrogated by Billy Bob Thorton.

Rachel gets a call on her cell phone telling her to drive a car to a train station.

One thing leads to another and Jerry ends up in the same car with Rachel.

The chase, as they say, is on.

That's really all you need to know to get you in the theater (or DVD...which I would recommend). It has some more plot to it, but I'll let you watch it unfold. Like I said, it's a fun ride.

However, the degree to which I was asked to suspend my disbelief was almost disproportional to how much pay off I got from it. Unlike the Matrix or Dark City, this places real people in real places where these things couldn't really happen. It wants to be Die Hard with a sci-fi twist. But it forgets itself. It has a few good run-and-gun scenes then dips into computers-run-everything without a solid bridge between the two.

Does this detract from my enjoyment of the film? No, surprisingly it didn't. I don't know how, but it didn't. I had fun watching it. The acting was fair, the cinematography was good (relatively inspired with some shots). It's a couch and popcorn movie. Good for a rainy day.

Max Payne...

2008-10-26T15:10:00.000-07:00

As the lights came up and the credits started to roll, I turned to my buddy Christian and summed up my entire experience with this movie in three words.

"What the hell?"

What was that? I don't even know what I had just watched. Did I see a movie? Did I see a complete work that stands alone on it's own? Did I see a resolution or at least a contentment that these characters will continue?

No. I saw none of these things. I saw three thread-bare stories mangled together. I saw main characters with absolutely no backstory. I saw major plot developments fizzle to a muted cough. I saw scenes cut short. I saw actors speaking lines of no substance, with no emotion to fall back on (because even a stupid line and work if the actor punches it up with, like, humanity). I saw two less than stellar shoot outs.

Nothing I saw resembled a movie. What I saw was the first act of a movie. I call it one of the slowest action movies I have ever seen because it completely lacked momentum. When we were at the middle point in the film, I was thinking to myself "we can't be having a showdown between these guys yet, the movie just started." Turns out it wasn't a showdown. Showdowns are awesome. That was a playground hissy fit. So, when it did end, it just fell over and died.

Max Payne is based on a video game that I never played. The big claim to fame for it was the fact that you could manipulate time during gameplay. You could slow down a shoot out, dive through the air in slow motion, etc. It incorporated "Bullet Time" from The Matrix extensively. The film never once used that. It used slow motion, and some interesting effects with bullets, but not to the extent the game did. And since the Bullet Time effect has been so overdone, I'm sure the film makers didn't want to hear "you guys just ripped off The Matrix". But if ever there was a film that should have ripped off The Matrix...it's Max Payne! A film based on a game based on effects from The Matrix!

As for the plot...I don't know. Something about a drug, and the military...and something about demons. Or were they just hallucinations? Or were they real but you could only see them with the drug? Did the drug give you super powers? It doesn't matter, because none of it came together. It left all of those plot points laying on the ground. It so blatantly set itself up for a sequel that I am left to assume they didn't want to ruin any of the story with this movie. There was no climax to the movie, no suspense. I've witnessed more intensity in Disney films.

Don't get me started on the acting. Okay, fine. It sucked. It was the suckiest sucking that has ever sucked. And when it finished sucking, it blew. That's what I thought about the acting.

Don't watch this movie.

*Edit* It has come to my attention that the video game Max Payne was in production long before The Matrix came out. So, the game did not derive it's effects from The Matrix. However, it was still one of the games major selling points, and thus should have played a bigger role in the film, IMHO.

You can't just re-boot a re-boot...

2008-08-23T17:26:00.000-07:00

That's stupid.

They're talking about re-booting the Superman franchise again after the success of The Dark Knight. And! They want to make this Superman movie dark.

The only way to make Superman dark is to film in a closet. Superman ain't dark. Superman was created to lift the spirits of the American people and inject a little national pride into popular culture during WWII. Batman was not. Superman wears bright colors and flies. Batman wears black and kicks dudes in the nuts.

Look, people, seriously. Superman is a good character the way he is. You can't play up his bad side...he doesn't have one. That is where much of the Batman/Superman rivalry in the comics stems from. They don't like each others tactics. Superman is about "truth, justice, and the American way". Batman is about "justice, fear, and nut kicking". Not a direct quote, but you get the idea.

I didn't see that last Superman movie, and it's not a top priority for me. Superman as a movie character died with Christopher Reeves (more precisely, after Superman: The Movie. Superman II was cool, but silly and Superman III and IV don't exist as far as I'm concerned.) I have no intentions of following the development of this one.

Meanwhile, I want Fox to shut up already so that I can watch the Watchmen (and The Hobbit).

The Dark Knight...

2008-07-26T21:18:00.000-07:00

"Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector...a dark knight."
"Some men just want to watch the world burn."

This is an astounding movie. It goes so much deeper and farther than a "comic book movie" that I can't even call it a comic book movie. There is no way around it. This movie simply rocks.

I have to start with Heath Ledgers performance. It is brilliant. Oscar rumors are already starting to circulate about it, and I would be mortified if he didn't at least get nominated. The Joker character has been treated as a caricature in other films and shows. Even in the some of the later comics, he was a goofy clown. Here, as he is in the best of the comics, and truly in the Batman mythos, he is a psychopath. He is a human psychopath. There are emotions and issues that are running deep in this man. Deeper than this film, or perhaps several films, could hope to encompass. You have to see it, experience it, to really understand it.

This is the perfect storm of a movie. All of the elements came together perfectly. Technically sound, amazing story, great dialog, incredible soundtrack. I left the theater in shock. I won't say that new adjectives will need to be created to describe this film, but the ones I can think of don't quite say it.

Is this film dark? Yes. It is dark. It is brooding, and realistic. This is the first time I believe we've ever seen Bruce Wayne with scars. Though, I did appreciate the fact that while staying realistic it kept the violence subdued. Make no mistake, there is violence. Yet, most of the deaths occur off screen or are obstructed. Take the realism and tone of Batman Begins and turn it up, and you have The Dark Knight. Oh, and if you are at all squeamish, you may find yourself looking away once Two-Face shows up. It's grotesque to say the least.

My only complaint, and it is minor, is the length of the film. This is not to say that I was not in awe from frame one to the credits. Much of the tail end of this film could have worked for the next one just as easily. Once Two-Face is introduced, it starts to feel a little clunky. I kind of feel that The Joker's story line fizzled. This may have been because they expected Heath Ledger to be around for the next one. Sadly, he will not be. And no one else should ever play The Joker again. He so completely nailed it that they should simply retire the character from ever appearing in any film or television representation. There are the early comics, and Heath Ledger's The Joker. All else are second rate.

This is a finely tuned, well crafted work of art. Believe the hype.

The Incredible Hulk...

2008-06-20T09:07:00.000-07:00

Like with Ironman, I was never a huge fan of The Incredible Hulk comics. Which is why I was hoping to have the same reaction to this movie that I had with Ironman. I didn't. Not to say it's not a fun ride, it is. It just lacked heart.

The first Hulk movie by Ang Lee was considered by most to be long and too thick to muddle through. I have not seen that one, so I can't make any comparisons. And, as I stated before, I don't know the character that well. So, reviewing this purely as a stand-alone movie, it didn't do it for me.

Overall, it just lacked momentum. The story line was moved along purely because it had to be. I honestly didn't care if Bruce Banner and Betty Ross got together. Blonsky, as the bad guy, didn't come across as intimidating. He was like a twelve year old who wasn't getting his way. At some point you just wanted to say "ya know what, I'm tired of hearing you complain. Go to your room!"

Really, it comes down to two things. Action and acting. Action good, acting bad. The chase seen at the beginning and subsequent fight in the factory is good. The fight between Hulk and Abomination at the end, good. The fight in the middle was okay, but nothing to write home about. The acting was bad. It pains me to say that, because Edward Norton is a great actor. Liv Tyler used to be, and I don't know what went wrong. William Hurt played it too big, Tim Roth was phoning it in. The special effects were also less than special. The Hulk himself looked too much like a cartoon. I don't understand it. Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park were made well over ten or fifteen years ago and their effects still stand up. Let's get on the ball, guys.

A side note is that Edward Norton, who helped craft the script, and the director Louis Leterrier have both voiced dissent towards the final studio cut. Mr. Norton even went so far as to not participate in the publicity of the movie. If there is ever a directors cut, I'll check it out.

I would say, if you are a fan of The Hulk, you should see this movie. If you are not a fan of the Hulk, I would say maybe rent it on a Saturday night. The action scenes make it worth seeing it at least once. I liked it as a comic book movie, not as a movie.

Donnie Darko...

2008-05-30T14:12:00.000-07:00

There was a time in our film history when independent film makers really did want to make films so that regular people could see them. They made films that elevated consciousness, asked real questions, or made interesting observations, but for the purpose of exposing the world to art. That trend slowly died off when independent film became it's own business. When film makers stopped thinking they could move on to bigger projects and decided that art house crowds on film festivals were "sure things" for their quirky gems to play for. Now independent film is too independent, and has by and large lost it's relevance to film goers as a whole.

Donnie Darko is a film that can't decide which camp it wants to be in, and suffers for it. That, and the writing sucked.

So there is this kid named Donnie Darko (that's his name...seriously) and he and the Darko family (no kidding, that's their name) live in suburban bliss in the late 80's. Donnie happens to be a paranoid schizophrenic who sleep walks at night and has visions of a giant rabbit that tells him to do things, like flood the school. He goes sleepwalking one night and is told, by the rabbit, that the world will end in 28 days 06 hours 42 minutes and 12 seconds. Then Donnie falls asleep on the golf course where his little vision quest took him. Meanwhile, a jet engine falls off an airplane and crashes into his room. It would have killed him had he been there. Logic would dictate that the impact of the crash from a jet engine that had reached maximum velocity before hitting the house would do slightly more damage than the single bedroom. But if logic played into this movie at all, it would have ended after the opening credits. There's also a plot about school and a motivational speaker...or something...who cares really.

Honestly, this film sounded like it had been written by a fourteen year old who had just gotten out of a semester psychology class. This kid also really liked sci-fi and movies made in the late 80's. He also probably read a lot of philosophy books (or the Cliffs Notes thereof) on his free time. Such is the highly pretentious, pseudo-intellectual drivel we are subjected to here. The characters are laughable caricatures that spout only what the writer wants them to say, only when we wants them to say it. The teachers at his school are some of the worst representations I have ever seen put to film. They don't act or sound any better than the adolescents they're teaching.

The plot is very convoluted and never really resolves anything. It starts out giving you little bits and pieces that you know are supposed to fit together somehow. They don't until the end, and even then some are left behind. The ones that do fit together have been so strained to get there, you almost feel like you need to stretch afterwards to keep from being sore in the morning.

It doesn't work. It doesn't work as a movie that casual movie fans will enjoy because it makes too many hip allusions to movies that only art house crowds or major film geeks would get. Sadly, these same allusions are so tirelessly overdone by amateur film makers that we really don't care anymore.

I really can't see any group that would really latch onto this movie. It's too artsy for casual viewing and it's too pathetic for artistic cred. Maybe if you're an angsty suburbanite kid who thinks you're hot crap because you can quote Nietzsche.

Iron Man...

2008-05-03T19:29:00.001-07:00

In the Pantheon of superhero movies there are few that can satisfy both the comic geek and the art geek. In fact, only three spring to mind. Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins. Both of these films were made as films to explore the human behind the mask. The third, I am pleased to say, is Iron Man.

Now, I will be the first to admit I was never a big Iron Man follower. For years I didn't even know it was a guy in a suit, I thought he was some alien robot or something. I only found out it was even a Marvel comic a few weeks ago. So, forgive me if I don't compare this to the cannon of the Iron Man mythos. However, this movie has made me want to go and see what I see in the Iron Man world.

We begin by watching Tony Stark in a Humvee with some U.S. troops. He talks fast with a sharp wit. They're obviously in a combat area, judging by the gear the troops are packing. And the fact that their caravan gets attacked. Tony stark is separated from the group and is left alone. We are then introduced to Tony Stark and what brought him there. He is the man behind Stark Industries, leading manufacturer of weapons technology. He has a new weapon that he goes to personally demonstrate for the brass. The Jericho missile makes big boom, and the military love it. So do the terrorists in that part of the world. They attack the caravan and hold Stark captive until he makes them one. They give him an assistant. He and the assistant work instead on a giant metal suit so Tony can get out of there and get help. It works, sort of.

When he gets home, he sees the error of his ways in producing weapons that will only end up in the hands of the enemies. He wants his company to concentrate on this thing called an arch reactor, which is a really powerful electro magnet that basically powers itself and whatever it's attached to. Through a series of events, Tony has one surgically implanted in his chest. Tony, however, wants to work more on the suit. So he designs and designs and designs.

With comic book movies, I generally like the sequels better because I know the origins. With Batman Begins, that was different because I was seeing the origins of Batman as I had never seen it before, as an evolution of a character. Here, I enjoyed it because, again, I didn't know them. Watching Tony, here much like Bruce Wayne, build this modern day warrior piece by piece was fascinating. Watching as the iconic traits unfold. Sometimes out of necessity, sometimes out of bravado. Sometimes out of both. I think there is something there that any man who has worked on or built anything from the ground up can relate to.

He uses the suit to fight crime, yes. But we aren't really introduced fully to Iron Man here. We're introduced to Tony Stark, the guy in the suit. Tony Stark is played by Robert Downey Jr. A man whose notable talent has sadly been overshadowed by his sorted past. Forget the past, my friends. He is a great actor, and here his skills are razor sharp. The supporting cast is also good. Terrence Howard is another fine actor who plays his part perfectly. Gwyneth Paltrow is also good and plays off Downey Jr. very well. As does Jeff Bridges.

This movie was a fun ride. It's not a deep character study, but it isn't a fluff action movie either. Jon Favreau has come into his own as a director. He also made Elf, a movie that surprised me. In each of these movies he takes an honest look at what regular men might do in extraordinary circumstances.

While long for a comic book movie at 126 minutes, it doesn't feel long. It's well paced, well acted, and well worth it. If you are looking for a movie to kick start summer with, let it be Iron Man.

Young Frankenstein...

2008-05-02T09:28:00.000-07:00

The story. Gene Wilder plays Dr. Frankenstein. Well, actually it's pronounced "Fronkensteen". Because as Gene Wilder explains, his grandfather, that other Dr. Frankenstein who reanimated dead people, was a nut. So, he prefers to disassociate himself and simply teach science, real science. Eventually, he ends up in Transylvania, leaving his fiance, to visit his grandfathers old castle. Hilarity ensues.

Young Frankenstein comes right out of my favorite era and style of comedy. It's sarcastic, kind of screwball, kind of slapstick, and slightly crude. This film has a lot of my favorite comedic actors. Gene Wilder, Madelyn Kahn, Teri Garr, and Cloris Leachman. It also stars Peter Boyle as Frankensteins "Monster" and Marty Feldman as Igor.

There are two problems with watching classic films that have inspired countless references and allusions in other films. The first is when you watch the original, some of the spark is lost. Not that you can't appreciate the spark. It just doesn't grab you the way you know it should have, or would have if you had seen it before all the imitators. The second problem is the hype. The longer you go without seeing a classic film that "everybody has seen" the more apt you are to assume the absolute best from it.

Young Frankenstein is no exception. While it is still funny, it's not the uproarious tale I had expected. Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder are two of my favorite comedic talents, and what they have done here is brilliant. But there were just too many points where I said to myself "oh...that joke again." Which is paradoxical, because when this movie came out, many of those jokes were brand new. I really enjoyed this movie. I just feel that some of the wind was taken out of it's sails by the countless quotes, clips, and references.

I would probably appreciate this film more on a second viewing. Or, in the manner in which all comedies should be seen, with other people.

Pi...

2008-04-17T22:23:00.001-07:00

There was a time when truly creative films came out of the independent world. Men who bucked the system in every way and made radical cinema. Pi is a shining example of what raw, eager, free-thinking minds can produce with a story and a film camera. We'll call it, unique.

Pi is weird. It follows the exploits of a man obsessed with numbers. He can rattle off complex equations, he is constantly looking for patterns in everything. He carries a pencil with him and is at all times writing numbers, patterns, symbols. His goal is to crack the stock market. Find a pattern that will enable him to predict every jump and dive. He's helped by a computer named Euclid. This is not the HAL9000. This is a mis-mash of computer hardware, tubes, racks, and funky keyboards. The whole thing, including those keyboards, looks like it was glued together piece by piece. It's a dream machine for anyone who has ever wanted to know what it would be like to actually live inside a computer case.

Oh yeah, he's also slightly insane. He has these nuerotic episodes and blacks out. He tries to self medicate with such things as "...Beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, adrenalin injections, high dose ibuprofen, steroids, Trager Mentastics, violent exercise, cafergot suppositories, caffeine, acupuncture, marijuana, Percodan, Midrine, Tenormin, Sansert, homeopathics. No results. No results..." He hallucinates, and we get to experience that with him. They aren't stereotypical Hollywood hallucinations. This is the stuff you hear actual addicts describe. Right down to the physical abuse he puts himself through. It's harsh at times.

In the meantime, while he's trying to break the code of the stock market, some Kabbalah Jews come up to him. While working at his computer one day, he stumbled across a number 216 digits long. They believe this to be the true name of God and that intoning it will bring about the Messianic Age.

It gets a little murky here and there with the plot. The characters are well written, and the story feels complete. Just...murky. The acting is good. Nothing spectacular, but good. Some of the characters are pure cheese, but they aren't in it for long so you can get over it.

From a technical standpoint, it's everything late '90s independent cinema had to offer. It's filmed in this high contrast black and white with middle of the road microphones. You can hear everything, but some of it sounds like you're listening through a tube. The cinematography is good, considering what they had to work with. You're left with the impression that these guys had a film they really, really wanted to make. And make it they did. It was produced for $60,000 dollars and went on to be bought at Sundance for $1,000,000. The director, Darren Aronofsky would go on to make Requiem for a Dream and The Fountain.

If you like edgy, low-budget, independent films I recommend this.

Once...

2008-04-05T20:00:00.000-07:00

I can't really describe this film to you. It's so personal, so real, so intimate that for me to tell you what it spoke to me would almost be bringing you behind my bedroom doors. It works on a personal level that few, few films have done before, and I dare say will do again.

The story is fairly clear cut. Guy (the characters "name" as one isn't mentioned in the film) meets Girl (same deal). He's a musician, she's a musician. They are played by actual musicians Glen Hansard and Markéta Irglová. Together, they make beautiful music. Literally. He writes songs with such raw emotion behind them, it almost feels like an intrusion to listen to them. They are both broken in a sense, and they complete each other in a sense. Yet, they can't really complete each other because they both still have other relationships they're working on. This isn't an affair, it's a friendship. A friendship that could be more, if only...

Watching this as an artist, I realized how hard it is to really express an emotion until you've felt the full power of it. You can't write a love song until you've actually been in love. You can't write a sad song until you've actually been really sad. This is why poetry and art created by youth is usually good on a technical level, but missing real emotional substance. A story I once read said that a famous pianist called forth child prodigy to perform a song. The child played a difficult piece with speed and accuracy. The pianist said to the boy "You can play all the notes, someday you will play the music". Here, the music is loud and clear. The emotions so real and thick, you can almost look past the technical issues.

Really, though, there are no technical issues. It uses a style called"cinéma-vérité". It uses hand-held cameras. It takes places on real street corners, where real people are. It goes on the bus. The cameras stay back with long lenses, shooting through traffic. It uses video cameras, but this was the first time I didn't care. It didn't look like video, it didn't look like film. It looked like life. While it is a difficult style to use without making it look like a home video, John Carney seems to have hit all the right notes (pun intended). Even in the choice to use actual musicians instead of actors. They don't feel stiff in their acting, because they are doing what they're really talented at...music...all the time.

Highly recommended. On a side note. This film re-affirms my desire to have an Irish accent.

City of Lost Children...

2008-03-28T21:56:00.000-07:00

This is a weird movie. Weird in a good way. Well, weird in a good way, if you like weird. If you don't like weird, you should stay away from French cinema in the first place.

City of Lost Children is about a mad scientist who can't dream, so he takes the dreams of children. At least, I think that what's it about. I've seen it twice now, and still don't quite grasp the entire plot. Not that the plot is confusing, just that it's really secondary to the film. In most films, the visuals are there to enhance the story. Here, the story is there to enhance the visuals.

That doesn't work in a lot of films. You often hear the complaint made that the story is just a thread to tie all the super-duper special effects together. That's not entirely the case here. The story would still work if this movie were a novel. Even then, however, it read more like Alice in Wonderland than The Great Gatsby.

So I'll stick with my original synopsis of the plot, adding the bit about our hero Mr. One who is trying to save his little brother from the mad scientist. I want to move on to the visuals.

Stunning, odd, quirky, trippy, and inspired. You have characters that look like slightly exagerated versions of people so that you believe they're people. But the kind of people you might meet in, say, your dreams. They used different lenses and odd camera angles to manipulate the physical space. The sets look like the love child of steam punk and Gothic styles. One of the characters, Uncle Irvin, is a brain in a vat. He speaks through phonograph horns and sees through a vintage camera lens. There are levers and pulleys, buttons and switches galore.

This is a film that defines cinema as an art form. Who cares what a Cubist painting is really supposed to be. In it's own style, in it's own way, it works for what it is. Same principle here. It's not that I didn't care about the story or the characters. I did care. They were so a part of this world, that they wouldn't have worked in any other film in the same way. Just like the vase in a Cubist painting. In any other painting, it's just a vase. In the Cubist world, it's a vase with a little more charm.

I recommend this film if you like art house cinema, or are wanting something different. It is in French with English subtitles. Which makes it awesome. Side note on the French thing. Ron Perlman, who plays the main character, doesn't speak French. He learned all his lines phonetically and delivered them perfectly.

Beowulf...

2008-03-07T22:18:00.000-08:00

"Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence including disturbing images, some sexual material and nudity."

Okay. Let me start off by saying that this was one of the most graphic films I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot. I can handle a lot when it comes to violence, but this was just gross in some parts. The "disturbing images" they speak of? How about a guy getting his head bitten off, and then we watch the monster chew. This movie, more than most, should be a good excuse for revamping the movie ratings system. But that's a soapbox for another time.

The film Beowulf doesn't work. It would have worked if they had decided what they wanted it to be before they made it. From where I was sitting, however, they couldn't decide if they wanted a violent skin-flick or a Herculean style epic. They got neither. You can't have mass market appeal and try to push the envelope. The two are mutually exclusive. If you want to push the envelope, then for Odin's sake, push it. Just let me know so I can choose to skip it. Don't hide it behind computer graphics.

While the animation here is cool, it's pointless. This could have been made just as easily in live action with CGI stunt men. Oh, wait. It was. It was called Lord of the Rings. There was nothing in all three of those films that wasn't doable with real people that Beowulf did any better with fake people. In fact, Beowulf probably did it worse because the whole time I was watching it, I was thinking "wow, that computer animated guy sure looks like the guy doing his voice...sort of." The real problem with this style of photo-realistic animation is that any movement or shudder that looks fake makes the whole thing look fake. This movie was good in the wide angles, terrible in the close-ups.

While it's fairly ridiculous to talk about the acting in an animated film, I'm going to. It sucked. I can only blame the writers, because for all the motion capture the actors did they were really just voice talent. The fact that the screen persona's had all the emotional expression of a first year, C average, high school drama student is the animators fault. The one exception is Grendel the monster "played" by Crispin Glover. He's only the exception because most of his dialog consists of screaming and speaking incomprehensibly (turns out most of his lines are in Anglo-Saxon...but he's missing half his face so who can tell anyway?).

I really wanted to like this film. I really, really did. I wanted to like it's animation. I wanted to like the story. But I didn't. It is a deflated mess of a film. It has no heart, no brain, and no style. It is the most wham-bam, thank you ma'am film I have seen in a long time in terms of storytelling. It tries to be everything to everybody and forgets where it stands. If you haven't figured it out by now, I cannot, in good conscious recommend this film. Frat boys and Neanderthals may get a kick out of Jolie's partially obscured digital boobies, but for the rest of us there is no reason you should see this film. Even as a joke.

There Will Be Blood...

2008-02-23T19:20:00.000-08:00

There Will Be Blood is a movie that I wish I could have liked better as a whole. I liked it's parts, but really the sum of those parts.

It starts with Daniel Plainview in a one-man operation silver mine. He uses the money he gets from his findings to start a small oil drilling company. After the death of one of his fellow workers, he more or less adopts the mans son as his own. All of this happens in the first 11 minutes of the film, without a word of dialog spoken.

Soon, he's an "oil man" with 19 wells running. He takes his son everywhere and is teaching him the business. They go out looking for land to buy or lease to drill, promising to bring oil money to whoever will work with him. Since it takes place in the early 1900's, oil is the business to be in and men like Plainview are getting very rich with it. That's all some struggling towns need to hear.

One night, Plainview is visited by a stranger from just such a town. He says that on his family ranch, there is so much oil in the ground it's seeping up to the top. Plainview goes to check it out, and sure enough. "There's an ocean of oil under our feet, and I'm the only one who can get to it".

We had a fairly straightforward story going up to this point. For me to truly explain this movie, I would have had to understand more of it than I did. I could follow the plot, and it's not that it's incomprehensible. There are just moments where I found myself confused.

The majority of the tension comes from Plainview dealing with the stranger who brought him here. He's the preacher at the church in town. One of those early century fire and brimstone/faith healing joints. Every malady is caused by a devil that must be cast out. Plainview, a man who by his own words sees "the worst in people", doesn't trust him. Doesn't like him. Doesn't need him. After his son becomes deaf after an accident at the oil derrick, Plainview becomes angry and disheartened. Something he doesn't know how to fix.

There is something about Daniel Plainview that is unnerving. The whole movie is his slow descent into madness, bitterness, and loneliness. He only needs people for business. Yet, there are moments of genuine tenderness with his son and levity with his associates. He's angry, but is that because he doesn't know how to deal with people, or doesn't want to deal with people? There isn't necessarily an underlying tension when he's in the room. But you can see his anger towards others build up in him, little by little, until you are afraid of the man.

I wanted to like this movie more, as a whole. However, over the course of the film, the only thing keeping me interested was Daniel Day-Lewis' performance. He is, without a doubt, one of the greatest living actors we have today. While his performance here does allude to Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York (his previous film), it's also entirely new. His look and persona seems to have stepped right out of the early 20th century.

The major drag on this film were two things. It's running time and Paul Dano the preacher man. I can take long movies, but this one had moments that seemed to drag just a little for me. Paul Dano, who was terrific in Little Miss Sunshine as the brother who refused to talk, here just got on my nerves. He would get into this high pitched voice when yelling (which he does a lot) that was just flat out annoying. He had good moments, but not enough.

The end of this film is one you are not likely to forget for a while. It's brutal, but in a way that, again, builds up until you're in the thick of it. The final image says so much about Daniel Plainview, the man. It's right where he wants to be perhaps. Sitting in his expensive house, with his back turned to the world.

I can't really say "skip it" because Day-Lewis did such an amazing job in it. However, I know some aren't into the slower, quirkier films. To those people I say...suck it up and make a night of watching one of the greatest performances of the year.

The Assassination of Jesse James...

2008-02-10T22:00:00.001-08:00

The full title of this film is The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. It's a long but interesting title, much like the movie it's attached to.

The film opens with a narration about who Jesse James was. It tells us how he moves from town to town under an alias, how he's missing the first two knuckles of his middle finger, and how he has a medical condition that makes him blink more than usual "as if Creation itself is more than he can take in". We are then introduced to his gang with a new recruit, Bob Ford.

Okay, the title pretty much gives away the ending. But so do the history books. The history, the story of that murder isn't the focus of this film. It's about the dynamic, sometimes volatile relationship between James and Ford.

Jesse James is played by Brad Pitt. Robert Ford is played by Casey Affleck. While both are actors of noteworthy ability, here they are playing roles few actors could pull of in such a way. James has this brooding tension that lies beneath every word he speaks. You can feel it in the atmosphere when he's in the room. Yet, deep underneath that is a soul that doesn't quite understand itself. He would probably be a good man if he weren't such a cold blooded killer. There is one scene that is very intense, unnerving and down right cruel and at the end of Jesse James cries because of what he had just done. This isn't showing him as a sap or a murderer with a heart of gold. It's showing a complex man. A man of layers, and moods.

Robert Ford is a man who is honestly believes he is "destined for great things". He has read everything ever written about Jesse James since he was a kid. Jesse James is his idol, his ideal, his hero. But there is something just a little off about Robert. You can't put your finger on it. Jesse remarks "I can't figure if you want to be like me, or if you want to be me." We can't either. Just what is Robert's angle? He doesn't come into the scene wanting to kill Jesse. He isn't calculating, overly smart, or even mean. Maybe he is one who had greatness thrust upon them, so to speak.

While the performances are perfect examples of low-key, character driven acting, the visuals give the film another dimension all together. The cinematography here is surreal, but not dream like. They use lighting and filters that isolate characters in the frame. It beautiful and poetic. The colors are muted and cold. You feel that, just by the look of them, none of these men have much going for them. They are all drifters, killers, lonely.

It is a fairly long movie, but it's absorbing. After the murder of James, Robert becomes infamous. It's not the glory he wanted. Jesse James was a folk hero. Robert probably never thought about how he would feel at 11 if he had found out his idol had been killed.

The ending is sad, conclusive. It goes out, not with a bang, but with a sigh.

Highly recommended. Just one quick note. This is to the Western what The Thin Red Line is to the War Film. If you walk in expecting Once Upon A Time in the West, you'll miss it.

A man of vision...

2008-01-30T21:53:00.000-08:00

Guillermo del Toro is currently in talks to direct The Hobbit movies, with Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh producing. I really hope this goes through.

Guillermo del Toro is one of my favorite current directors. His vision in films such as Hellboy, which was leaps and bounds better than I thought it would be, and Pan's Labyrinth are as unique as they are awesome. Visually stunning without losing the story. He can make things that you know aren't real terrify you. The Pale Man from Pan's Labyrinth is easily one of the greatest creations to ever hit a movie screen. So original, so creepy, so cool!

From what I've seen for Hellboy II, his now characteristic eye for the fantastic and imaginative worlds is at the forefront. This is a man I want in a place like Middle-Earth. To think of what he could do with the creatures, the places, and the mood of The Hobbit is very exciting.

A man brimming with his kind of creativity will serve these films well. I truly hope he is the final choice.

If you have not seen Hellboy or Pan's Labyrinth, please do yourself a favor and watch them.

Rambo...

2008-01-27T19:52:00.000-08:00

I'm going to keep my initial review of this film brief, because there is a bigger issue here.

There isn't much story. A group of Christian missionaries are going into Burma to bring medical supplies to the Karen (pronounced Kah-Rehn...not like the name Karen) people who are being killed by the Burmese army. Coincidentally, John Rambo has taken up a sort of retirement in Thailand, just down river from the Karen State where the missionaries are headed. He's initially reluctant to take them in, but Sarah, one of the missionaries, talks him into it. So, into Burma they head. Rambo drops them off, they get kidnapped by the army, Rambo brings in some mercenaries to get them out. The rest of the film is pretty much army dudes getting shot with very large caliber weapons. There is much blowing off of heads, severing of limbs, and a disembowelment.

We are introduced to the Burmese situation with news footage at the beginning of the film. Then we are shown just how cruel these soldiers are to the Karen people. The play a game with them where they throw land-mines into a field and make the Karen run across it. Whoever makes it across gets shot. They invade villages and kill everyone. Everyone. Men, women (after raping them) and children.

It would be so easy to say "they're making it look worse than it is" or "why do we need to see stuff like that". Because this is actually, really, happening. And it really is that bad. And Rambo isn't there to fight them off. I do not say this from the standpoint of someone who watches the news and is really bummed out that this is going on. I say this from the standpoint of someone that is neighbors and friends with Karen refugees. Before I even heard about this film, I heard about these events.

This is not given much of the Hollywood treatment. According to the three Karen men I saw this film with, everything on screen is pretty much how it goes down. The soldiers really are that wicked, that cruel, that inhumane. And the only people going in are pretty much Christian missionaries and ex-soldiers (though, not all are the Soldier of Fortune types shown in the film) who are training Karen rebels.

While I went in for a fun ride, and wanted to see much kicking of Burmese Army ass, this wasn't a popcorn movie for me. The other Rambo's are, because I don't know any Viet Nam POW's or refugees from a Soviet controlled Afghanistan. But I do know these people. I have helped them with their computers and played card games with their kids. The ones lucky enough to not be shot and killed before their 10th birthday.

As far as the movie goes, it is intense for other reasons as well. The violence is graphic. We are shown, very bluntly, some wicked things done to human bodies. Some have described it as "violence porn". I steer away from that description only because I consider that to be more fitting for movies like Saw or Hostel where the violence serves no purpose other than to entertain. The violence here is brutal, because real violence is brutal. When you shoot a man with a .50 caliber machine gun, he really will blow apart like that. That is actually what a leg looks like when it has stepped on a land-mine.

My only real gripe about this as a Rambo film is the lack of his more stealthy tactics. Not a lot of knife work, no clever traps. I'm guessing that Rambo, at 60, was just wanting to get back home. Kind of like how your grandpa carves the ham at Christmas with an electric knife. That's like Rambo in this movie. Only instead of a ham, it's Burmese soldiers. And instead of an electric knife it's an M-60. Just get the job done so we can eat. Which would explain it's rather short running time of about an hour and a half.

If you can stomach it, see it. If you can't stomach it, but still want to know what is really going on with the Karen people, or Burma at large, please visit FreeBurma.org, Free Burma Rangers, and Front Films. My church, Jacob's Well, is the home church of over 50 refugees from the Karen state. You can read more about our efforts to support those in our city and those still in Burma fighting with and for the Karen here.

Sometimes it's just a good story...

2008-01-21T20:04:00.000-08:00

As a Christian and film lover, I have been part of a conversation that's been going on for the better part of four or five years now. It addresses the need for more meaningful, honest, and real stories to be made by Christian film makers. It also speaks about the need for Christians to have a better understanding of the power of story to not only share the Gospel, but to understand it better. Jesus often spoke in parables to convey His message.

Well, that's all well and good, but I've noticed a problem arising that also needs to be tended to. In the zeal to express Jesus' message, some Christian pontificators and media savvy commentators are starting to split hairs. I honestly believe that while many films have an element of the quote-un-quote One True Narrative (mans need for a savior and the message of salvation through Christ), I honestly do not believe that every film or character carries an aspect of that message.

I cringe when reading some film reviews or comments when they try to pull a redeeming message out of a story where one does not exsist. Or they try to use it as a method of showing mans depravity without Jesus. The danger there is that films are not supposed to be windows into the human condition. They can be, but it's not what their design is. Their design is to entertain, perhaps with a message behind it. To try and pull the message to the front of every story often hinders a deeper discussion. Parables are for those who have ears to hear, and Jesus often left the truth to be found by those willing to search.

I'm not saying that we can't point out the "Christian" elements of films. I'm just saying we can't manufacture them to prove that they can be displayed in film.

My mother was made aware of the message of Christ through Jeremiah Johnson. Not because that film has over-arching Christian elements, or even a redeeming story. What brought her to the message was a friend of hers that used it as a starting point. The film didn't have the message, her friend did. The film was, to use a church term, an point of intercession. That means that it was a bridge, a meeting place. Much like the parables.

I often don't point out the Bible-centric messages in the films I review because I honestly don't see them. To put them there is dishonest, and to stretch to find them is pretentious and, frankly, like straining a gnat.

For more on the this discussion, some good sites to visit (and judge for yourself their content) are Christianity Today - Culture and Media, Cinemagogue, and Dick Staub.

Cloverfield...

2008-01-18T22:42:00.000-08:00

My friends, the monster movie has been reborn.

Synopsis. A group of people are having a good-bye party for one of their friends. They talk about how nice he is. There's some yuppie drama about how "I loved her but she hurt me" and then BOOM! The crap starts hitting the fan. You are given about twenty seconds from "get over it, dude" to "oh my gosh we are all going to die!"

A nameless monster from, where? The sea? Who cares. It's big, smashes buildings, and has little critters that will mess you up hardcore falling from it. Which is awesome, because you can go underground in New York. The big thing can't...but the little ones can go anywhere.

The film is shot from the point of view of the character Hud. He was in charge of taping the party and decides to document the utter chaotic destruction of mankind as we know it...for sentimental reasons I suppose. Me, I would have dropped the camera as soon as the Statue of Liberties head went rolling by me. Not Hud. He films everything. Everything. Now the shaky cam is no where near a new technique, but this seemed more natural than other attempts. The obvious allusion that springs to every one's mind is The Blair Witch Project. This was more effective than that film, because this seemed more natural. As in, if a guy does decide to videotape everything as a giant monster eats the Chrysler Building while swatting away Blackhawk helicopters like their mosquitoes, this is what it would look like. There are some rather gaping holes in logic with some scenes...but then again a giant monster is rampaging mid-town Manhattan. You let it slide.

As far as the monster, high marks in originality. I can't spoil what it is, because it's like nothing you've seen before. It has elements of some of the best monsters, but small elements. It's big, it's scary, it's awesome. The small things that fall off of it are a stroke of genius. Again, the big monster you can avoid. Just run away from the sound of destruction. This little critters can run, jump, bite and follow you.

The other brilliant move on the part of the filmmakers is they give us no information about the monster. When our main characters eventually meet up with the military I was expecting a scene of exposition about what it is, why they can't stop it, how Russia is involved in some way or another. None of that. One military dude tells basically tells them that it's big, vicious, and Manhattan is toast if they can't kill it. The film ends without us even getting a name for it. All you have is what the characters in the film have. A giant something making a big mess of things.

This film is what the theater experience is all about. I implore you to go see this in a real theater, with a real sound system, and big screen. I don't care how good you're Wal-Mart brand surround sound system is, or how pretty your plasma screen is. You will not get the same experience. It packs a lot of punch in a relatively short amount of time. This is an epic film on a small scale.

The Salton Sea...

2008-01-14T21:09:00.000-08:00

The fist image we see is Val Kilmer's character sitting in an apartment, playing the trumpet with cast strewn about the floor. Oh, and the apartment is also burning down around him. Is he an avenging angel, or a Judas? We are asked to decide.

Val Kilmer plays Danny Parker, or is it Tommy Van Allen? He doesn't have split personalities. He's a speed freak as he describes himself. We journey with him into the world of speed freaks, meth heads, tweakers. The all night parties where people have very philosophical conversations about quantum physics or spend countless hours organizing and re-organizing sock drawers. When they run out of cocaine, Danny and his friend Jimmy the Finn go to meet a dealer Jimmy knows. Jimmy knows everybody. After meeting the dealer, who partakes of his own product and is flipped out of his gourd when we meet him, they go back to the party. Danny heads out to a pay phone and makes a rather cryptic call. Next he's sitting in a car with two police detectives telling them about the dealer. Oh yeah. Danny is also a rat.

Pretty soon, the detectives tell him he needs to skip town because there are some guys wanting to hang a "Colombian necktie" on him (if you don't know what that is, it's described rather bluntly in the film for you). Well, having no money, Danny decides to make a drug deal to raise the funds to leave. This brings us to Pooh-bear.

Pooh-bear (played by Vincent D'Onofrio) has done so much "gack" they had to cut off his nose and he now has a prosthetic. When we first meet him, he and his buddies are recreating the JFK assassination with pigeons duct-taped to a remote control car. He is a very excitable man and you never quite know what his next move is.

Eventually, you never quite know what this movies next move is either. Turns out that Tommy Van Allen, a professional trumpet player, watched his wife get murdered by drug dealers and he's been trying to hunt the killers down. How he figures out who did it is a bit of a stretch, but, given what we've witnessed already in this movie, why not? There are twists and it plays with logic more towards the climax of the film.

Overall, the film works solely on the performances of Kilmer and D'Onofrio. D'Onofrio especially turns in a character you are sure to never forget. He really made this character his own.

The other strong aspect of this film is it's visuals. Films with drug use as a theme always have great, non-conventional, camera work. This is no exception. The entire film isn't filled with astonishing images, but the director does know how to use the frame.

While nothing here really blew me away, it was worth watching, again, just for Kilmer and D'Onofrio.

I Am Legend...

2008-01-05T19:22:00.000-08:00

"Light up the darkness." -Robert Neville.

We start with a news broadcast. Dr. Alice Krippin is being interviewed about her exciting new discovery. They have found a way to cure cancer by genetically mutating the measles virus. Three years later, Robert Neville (Will Smith) is hunting deer in Time Square, which has been taken over by nature. He has to hunt during the day only, because at night, these vicious things called Darkseekers come out. See, the virus caused a rather unexpected turn when it started turning people into pale, bloodthirsty, rabid creatures of the night. According to Neville, everybody is dead, except for the 1% of the population that is completely immune to the disease. Obviously he is one of the immune. But being immune just means you can't catch the virus. It doesn't mean these guys can't eat you. So, as far as he knows, he's the last man on earth.

How is he immune? We don't know. The virus is both communicable through the blood and air, and he's immune to both. It doesn't explain why. Why should it? We don't really care. All we really care about is Robert Neville, and his best (and only) friend Sam the dog.

Will Smith turns in a great performance in what could be a so-so movie. It echoes Cast Away in the fact that all this loneliness is driving him just a bit crazy. It echoes 28 Days Later in that the creatures are infected humans out for blood. They aren't zombies, they aren't vampires. They aren't quite human, not quite animal. They're some horrific blend of them all. And Robert Neville is all alone. Again, expect for the dog. There is a special kinship between Robert and his dog. It's a friendship better developed between most humans in films. Though I still say Tom Hanks takes home the prize for acting with a volley ball.

He's also a scientist, and a soldier. So he knows how to use guns and make stuff blow up. He also knows how to alter the virus to try and make a cure, using his blood (because he's immune, see). All of these elements could add up to a mess of a film. Oh how convenient that the last man on earth knows chemistry and weapons tactics. Oh how convenient that the creatures can only come out at night when he is safe in his house. Though there is one nerve racking scene when he has to chase the dog (who chased a deer) into a dark, empty warehouse. Again, Will Smith's performance sold it. He wasn't playing against anything except fear of what could be in there, and concern for his friend. It was chilling, it was gut wrenching, it worked.

Honestly, I don't know how they did it. I don't know how they made this film work, but it does. It has moments that will break your heart, make you jump, make you laugh, give you hope and yes, it even has a pretty good message to it. I would be surprised to see a sequel come out of this. I think it said everything it needed to say. Not that that has stopped them before, I'm just saying.

If you see this film for no other reason than for Will Smith's performance, it will be worth it.

Top Ten of 2007...

2007-12-29T16:36:00.000-08:00

Okay, first, a brief explanation. This is a top ten list of films I have seen in 2007, not films that were necessarily released in 2007. Until I get my full time job reviewing films and get mailed screeners or passes to opening films, this will have to do. Secondly, these are not in order of importance, relevance, etc. I do try to reserve the number one spot for the film that impacted me or excited me the most, but numbers 2-10 are pretty much randomly selected. We cool? Cool. Okay, drum roll please.

10) Into the Wild
9) The Darjeeling Limited
8) The Night of the Hunter
7) Stranger than Fiction
6) Seven Up (I have not yet written that review)
5) This is England
4) Thank You for Smoking
3) The Bourne Ultimatum
2) No Country for Old Men

And my pick for the number one movie of 2007 is........

1) 3:10 to Yuma.

Rescue Dawn...

2007-12-28T16:39:00.000-08:00

One thing really dumbfounded me about this film. I'll tell you what it is in just a moment.

This movie wasn't what I was expecting. I thought it would be more Rambo-esque, or at least more Behind Enemy Lines. It wasn't quite either of those. It wasn't quite an adventure, not quite an escape film, not quite action, not quite drama, not quite survivalist. It was just, not quite. It had good moments. It started out well. It even kicked into action fairly quickly. Yet, it felt like the gears were slipping into place more than clicking.

It opens with us meeting a lot of people who aren't in 99% of the movie, and then we are casually introduced to Deiter Dengler (Christian Bale). They are all Navy pilots who are about to undertake a secret bombing mission in Viet Nam where the war hasn't "officially" started yet. At this point we're just napalming villages for...kicks and giggles? I digress. There is a scene that is much longer than necessary showing the fly boys making snide remarks at a "how to survive in the jungle" training film. At no point in this opening scene, does our hero speak. He's just in the crowd. Sure, we see him laughing along. But if we didn't know he was played by Christian Bale, would we be able to know he was our lead?

They take off on their mission and Dengler is promptly shot down. It is impressive, but technically awkward. I wasn't overly concerned with him because I knew if he got hurt one of the guys standing off camera, throwing debris, could run out and help him. Afterwards, we get an early taste of a chase scene where V.C. (Viet Cong) run after Dengler into the jungle. He manages to evade escape in a way that seemed overly scripted but I bought it for the sake of the film.

He is eventually caught and tortured before being moved to a POW camp (a patch of cleared forest with a bamboo fence and watchtower) where he meets two other Americans who had been shot down, and three Thais who were working with Americans who were also shot down.

The scenes in the camp are by far the best. The way the characters interact with each other leads to some good moments. But, yet again, I never felt any real click. Except for one pair. Steve Zahn who plays Duane Martin and Christian Bale's Dengler seemed to have a real connection. This would play well later in the film. Jeremie Davies plays a character named Eugene McBroom. He looked a lot like Charles Manson. I'm not sure if I was supposed to be intimidated by him, impressed with him, think he was kidding or what. It was a good performance, I just wish I knew what I was supposed to be seeing. Which leads me to what dumbfounded me:

I'm not sure I dug Christian Bale's performance in this film. He did well with the accent, the look, the speech, and everything. But his overall performance felt phoned in. We're talking about a man who humanized a man who dresses up like a bat. It was a good performance, it just wasn't a Bale performance.

Escape comes and the group splits. Duane and Dengler take off together into the jungle. While providing no details what-so-ever, I will say there is one moment that I really wanted to feel something for. But, again, it happened so fast and we were moving on so quickly that I didn't have time to register it.

This had so much potential to be a great film, but it's just a good film. Werner Herzog has made better films. The editing on this seemed sloppy, the dialog was missing something. A few more tweaks and they would have had it tight as a drum. My chief complaint is that I just wasn't engrossed in it, which disappointed me. I do recommend it, but not for the reasons I wanted to. I wanted this film to say something about the strength of the human condition or the ability of man to survive when faced with great uncertainty. Or I wanted to see Christian Bale slice through Viet Cong like a hot knife through butter. Instead, I got a nice Saturday afternoon movie. I'll take it, but it's not what I asked for.

On a side note. There is a some controversy about the accuracy (or lack thereof) in this film. Much of it is spurred by one of the Thai survivors, and the family of Eugene DeBruin who is very very very loosely portrayed by Jeremie Davies. If you are interested you can read more here.

Helvetica...

2007-12-25T22:03:00.000-08:00

If that name looks familiar, it's because you scan past it every time you open your fonts menu in Word. Yes, this is a documentary about that very typeface.

Okay, look around the room you're sitting in. There is a high probability that there is at least one, if not two or more, items that have this particular font on it. Corporations use it, films use it, books use it. If it has a name, there is a good chance it's in Helvetica. Everything from The Gap to The Office uses it. This documentary succeeded in showing that fact. But it didn't make me care.

After about 20, okay 30, minutes I was bored with this film. I like visual design and all, but this just bled the life out of it. I would have watched it with much more enthusiasm on the History Channel, but as a feature it just doesn't work.

Now, to be fair, there are some interesting characters. One guy who proudly declares himself a font nerd. Another who walks us through the history of corporate font usage in advertisements with a lot of gusto. There is the woman who has a "moral objection" to Helvetica for reasons having to do with corporate greed and the Vietnam (and Iraq) war. It has a handful of interesting characters set against the backdrop of an inherently uninteresting main topic. Helvetica isn't the point here. The point is that how we read words is just as important as the words we are reading. That point is made during one segment where they discuss the "grunge typeface" movement of the mid to late 90's. We hear from one magazine editor who basically never used the same font twice. When he received one article that was "boring", he printed it in Dingbats (the font that is just symbols).

If the film had focused more on the people who make the fonts, or the myriad of different fonts and how they mean different things, or even the history of fonts themselves, it would probably have been more interesting. Maybe.

Between interviews, there is scene after scene of Helvetica at work. You just want to tell the director "we get it". Pretty soon the framework of the film starts to drift into obscurity and you just want it to hurry up already. The lack of a narration hurt this film as well. It blended the scenes between the history, modern use and future of this typeface too succinctly. I wasn't sure what they were talking about until they were almost finished with it. If not narration, a guy holding a sign (typed, naturally, in Helvetica). Anything to let me know where I was in the film. By the 2/3 point I was lost. Or I would have been, if this thing actually went someplace.

I'm sure somewhere in here is a very fun documentary, or even an educational one. But what this film wanted to say, it said in the first half hour. The last hour was pretty much just filler to make it feature length. I admire the director taking a look at a rarely observed topic. But as we see, it's rarely observed for a good reason.

Unless you're a graphic designer, font nerd, or are in the printing industry, skip it.

The Kingdom...

2007-12-18T18:46:00.000-08:00

I first saw the preview for this movie while in the theater for The Bourne Ultimatum. My friend commented "Why would I pay to see something I can watch on CNN?" Well, the obvious logical flaw that CNN is on cable and therefore not a "free" network aside, it's a good point. However, CNN isn't designed to get into people's gut the way this film was. That is something this film did well.

I cannot truly describe the intensity of the opening moments of this film. It shows a terrorist attack on an oil workers town in Saudi Arabia (after giving us a brief history of how Saudi oil and American industry/war machine got into bed together). By "shows a terrorist attack" I mean it was filmed to look like cameras were rolling as they sprayed bullets driving up and down the street and then as a suicide bomber takes out a softball game. I was in tears by the end of the sequence. The brutality shown was so in your face, you couldn't ignore it. It sets the rest of the story up that you get the sense there is no feeling of security.

Jamie Foxx plays Ronald Flurey who wants to get an FBI team into Saudi Arabia to investigate the attack, as it's explained wherever American citizens are attacked, the FBI gets involved. He does get into Saudi Arabia, but under the Saudi's terms. He must be accompanied at all times by a Saudi officer Faris Al Ghazi (an incredible performance by Ashraf Barhom). His team includes the likes of Chris Cooper, Jason Bateman, and Jennifer Garner. When they get into the investigation, all hell breaks loose.

The middle of the film, while paced well, doesn't do a whole lot. It shows the terrorists preparing for it's next act and shows the FBI getting closer to them. It's rather standard fare. The acting is done well, and the characters are developed just enough that we care what happens to them. The middle isn't the point of this film though. It all leads up to the last twenty or so minutes.

The convoy of SUV's that have been shuttling around the FBI is attacked, and one character is kidnapped. The chase leads into a "bad part of town" where bullets, and grenades are flung at, and by, our team. The action moves inside an apartment complex to rescue one of our heroes and ends with possibly the most intense fight scene I have ever witnessed on film (I literally, I mean literally, became airborne out of my chair at one point).

Now, here's the crux of it. If it were not for that scene, I don't know if I could recommend this film. The final scene after the dust settles from the fight scene, while I thought it a bit hammy, was so fatalistic, so depressing, and carried such a weight of an endless hopelessness that only the adrenaline from the previous scene got me out of my chair. If they had cut out all of the action and focused on the psychology of the terrorists or made it more character driven (therefore emotionally intense), I probably would have put a gun to my own head just so the terrorists wouldn't have to bother.

I felt, at moments, manipulated into fearing everything. Every corner could spell certain doom, doom I say! While I get that that was the point, it was so well established in the first moments that I couldn't shake it anyway. When the camera drifted to every shrouded passerby or dude in Saudi Arabia that wore a keffiyeh (which, by the way, is all of them) we were being told to be suspect of them. It just felt like too much intensity for too much of the film. I never felt a moment that I could relax to really get to know the characters. Every time there was the slightest bit of exposition about any of their personal lives, I was getting ready to watch them die.

The last shot says it all. There is not peace in sight. Terrorism has not logical end. It is a beast that is ever hungry yet never fed. As long as hate for any person exists in the world, the threat of terrorism hangs over our head like the glinting blade of an executioners ax. I'm not asking, nor was I expecting, a happy end to the film. I just wanted one that didn't make me feel so overwhelmed.

The action scene is one of the best, ever. Unlike similar scenes in films like Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan where there is close fighting, we never have a moment of "hey, where are our people?" The intensity is palatable and once it starts is does not stop. I will buy the DVD just for that scene. I do recommend it, but it will leave a mark.

The Last Temptation of Christ...

2007-12-10T21:00:00.000-08:00

"This film is not based on not based upon the Gospels but upon this fictional exploration of the eternal spiritual conflict." So says the crawl at the start of this film. The "fictional exploration" of which it speaks is the book by Nikos Kazantzakis.

Before I get any further into my review, let me say this for all the readers who may not know me (i.e. have not read my other blog). I am a Christian. I am a very dedicated Christian. I am not a Christian that makes blanket statements about art or artists and prefers to let the work stand on it's own. I will be honest in saying that it was hard to watch it objectively. This is Jesus, my God, they are talking about here. However, I feel I was able to view the film from an objective, and yes, Christian perspective and am still able to judge it for what it is. Here is my review.

As a story, it works. It shows us that we are all capable of both love and murder and perhaps we can be swayed more easily by outside influence than we would care to admit. I like that what it does get right about the nature of Christ, that He was a man subject to all of man's temptations yet was able to resist them, it gets very right. As a film, on the other hand, it seemed a little murky.

The acting was fine, the writing was good, the camera work and sound was terrific considering the budget they had to work with. But I just felt that they spent too much time leading up to what I think was the real meat of the story, the last temptation of Christ. Bear in mind all ye who have not seen it, that this is a 20 year old film. I will discuss the end of the film, without giving away too much. The end of the film is where Jesus is crucified and while on the cross he is offered the chance for a human life. He is taken from Golgotha by a young girl calling herself his guardian angel. He gets to marry Magdalene and have children. He gets to grow old. He gets to raise a large family. But he also gets to see the heartache, not only for the people of Israel, but for his own family, that his not being sacrificed would bring. He chooses the cross. I applaud that.

Even the Scriptures say that Jesus, in a fashion, was tempted while on the cross. The thief on his left and the mockers below each asked Him to save Himself if He really was the Messiah. He even said (though i can't remember if this was from the cross or not) that he had legions of angels at his beckon call but refused to call them. So that part of the story isn't a stretch for me.

It also worked well in showing his other temptations. When he was in the desert and the devil kept trying to lure him away. It showed them in a unique perspective, showing the devil as everything from a cobra to a lion to an apple tree.

I got lost with the portrayal of Jesus in every other way it tried to portray him. I admit I had to keep turning off my theological mind and reminding myself of the opening crawl. However, this Jesus was just hammy, and confused, and sometimes too naive for his own good. The first part of the film is Jesus trying to discover if he is the Christ or not. When he decides he is, he goes from a fairly well written character to one who is at times a loose cannon and at times a goofy philosopher. I really wish they had kept to keeping some conflict in him. After he decides he is the Christ, he becomes not so much conflicted as much as confused. He constantly reminds everyone that he has no idea what's coming next. I would be fine with that if he seemed to care. But he doesn't. He's half hippie, half soldier without the dedication of either.

Was this a good portrayal of Jesus? Not in the least. It doesn't pretend to be. Was it a good portrayal of mans inner conflict? At times. Does it say anything good about Jesus choosing the cross? Yes, ironically that's it's redeeming quality.

Is this a good film? It is not, in my opinion, Scorsese's best work. I can't really call it a bad film because it's not a bad film. I can't call it a good film, because it's not a good film. It's an okay film. Scorsese fans would love it, but I would take Taxi Driver any day over this.

No Country For Old Men...

2007-12-08T19:52:00.000-08:00

Let me put it to you this way. I have never sat in a theater full of such an attentive audience. Every frame of this film carries a weight to it that you cannot ignore. Under any circumstances.

The film takes place in the desolate Texas desert in 1980. We begin by being introduced to Anton Chigurh. He's arrested and taken into custody to the local sheriff's department. At the station, he strangles the cop with his handcuffs. The look on his face seems to say he is almost enjoying the act. He is cold, he is ruthless, he is very good at what he does. He kills people.

Next we meet Llewelyn Moss. He's doing target practice on some animals out in the desert. While walking back to his truck he notices a blood trail and an injured bull dog walking away. He follows the blood trail to some trucks all parked in a circle. When he goes down to the trucks he finds a mess. There has been a good ol' fashioned gunfight, with lots and lots of bullets. He walks past at least five dead men, and one dead dog. In the back of one truck he finds a large (very large) stack of drugs. Llewelyn isn't an idiot. There are drugs, dead people, and no money. He figures the last man standing would be on foot, would head out the way he came in, and would probably be near shade. And that's where he finds the money. The last man standing isn't any more, so Llewelyn takes the cash and goes home.

What follows is a taught, razor sharp thriller. But it's not a loud, in your face, chase-a-minute thriller. It is a subdued, eerily quiet, what-happens-next thriller. I have seen a lot of thrillers, a lot of chase films, a lot of suspense films. I was stunned that I actually had a moment in the theater where I thought to myself, "I don't see where this is going". I wasn't confused by the plot. I was so engrossed in the plot that I was just going with it. Scene by scene, it just takes you along, and you willingly follow.

The dialog, written by Joel and Ethan Coen, but taken almost word for word from the book the film is based on by Cormac McCarthy, is spell-binding. You grasp onto each sentence. Even the plain, everyday speech is somehow transformed into something interesting.

The acting! Oh, the acting is so good in this movie. Anton Chigurh, played by Javier Bardem, is one character that you will never forget. He is merciless, surgical, and relentless. He has an air about him that when you see him, you are almost certain doom follows him.

Llewelyn, played by Josh Brolin, is personable, smart, and in his own way relentless. The directors chose wisely not to reveal much about Llewelyn through dialog. Before we ever learn his history, we begin to pick out things through the way he thinks or the way he reacts. I won't tell you his history, because I want you to see the beauty in the way his character unfolds.

Probably my favorite character in this movie though is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell played by Tommy Lee Jones. He is a career lawman who isn't calloused although he's seen everything. His eyes are full of history and compassion. He is also smart, honest, and trustworthy. You feel safe with him.

Let me state that one genius stroke of this film on the directors part was to limit the use of music to almost nothing. I don't recall any ambient music through the entire run of the film, except a character was in a restaurant or something, and even then it was a radio in the background. Any scene where a character is thinking, or waiting, is deathly quiet. There is a scene where Llewelyn is in his hotel room and suspects Chigurh is on the other side of the door. He turns off his light and watches for shadows from the light in the hall. We sit in the dark, quiet room with Llewelyn, and just wait, wait, wait. It is spine chilling.

This is a very, very, very good film.

Thank You For Smoking...

2007-12-02T17:31:00.000-08:00

Satire is a tricky mistress. As Jason Reitman, the director of this film put it in an interview (paraphrased) "You take to far one way, it's schmaltzy. Too far the other way, it's silly." Thank You For Smoking hits just the right notes. It is satire done right.

The movie centers on Nick Naylor. He's a lobbyist for the tabacco industry. As he puts it "Michael Jordan plays ball. Charles Manson kills people. I talk. Everyone has a talent." He's also a divorced father of a fifth grade son. I'll get to that play in a minute.

I like the way this movie didn't make any apologizes for it's characters. It presents them and lets them be themselves. No pretense here. Just sit back and let the show go on.

That plays so well in the relationship between father and son. Nick is a good father to Joey. Joey loves his father. It was incredibly refreshing to see this representation of father and son in a movie. They could have just as easily made Joey a little older and a health freak who hates his father's business. But they didn't. They made him a young man wanting to know who his dad is and what he does for a living. Their discussions are centered around moments of bonding, not tension. And that, more than anything, shows the true face of how this film treats is characters.

They aren't bad people. Nick meets regularly with lobbyists for alcohol and firearms, which provide some of the funniest scenes in the film. But none of them really spend any time talking about what they do, they talk about how they do it. They each happen to like the product they work with, but it isn't about the product. It's about the spin. They truly like to b.s. people. They are people who do their jobs well. The film doesn't try to make them any more than that.

Now, when I say this film is funny, I don't mean funny in a real laugh out loud way. Satire never seems to really do that. Sure, it has it's moments. But this film, like any good satire, really just takes what it's presenting and shows it honestly. The natural absurdity of what they're talking about is what makes it funny. So many satires are written around politics and big corporations because it is just so much hot air. People have long polysyllabic speeches where all they really say is, nothing. That's the beauty of Nick in this film. He says so little in such a convincing way. If he were the alcohol lobbyist, he could convince you the way to prevent fetal alcohol syndrome is to not get pregnant. And you'd think he's got a point. And then you'd pour a drink.

This film won't convince anyone to smoke, at least not anyone who hasn't already thought of it. This film will probably not convince anyone to stop smoking, again, unless they've already thought of it. What I got more out of it is, you really shouldn't listen to lobbyists. Which, in a way, is kind of Nick's point, oddly.

The acting was great all around. The dialog always sounded conversational and easy to listen to. Nobody really seemed like they were trying to eat up the scene. I mean, we have Robert Duvall in some scenes and you almost take his presence in passing. He just fits. They all just fit.

It is a well made film. If you like satire, I'd say this is a good one.

Another look at Spider-Man 3...

2007-11-29T19:44:00.000-08:00

This isn't a review. I was just considering this.

Much has been said about the villain overload in this film. All accurate. After mulling this over, though, I started to feel cheated.

Here we have a film directed by Sam Raimi. Freakin' Sam Raimi. Army of Darkness, Evil Dead series, Darkman. We give him a story that has Venom. Freaking Venom! FREAKING VENOM! And what does he do with it? Uses it to turn Peter Parker into a cross between John Travolta from Saturday Night Fever and the lead singer of My Chemical Romance for half the film. And he spends more time on Sandman. The man is sand. Freaking sand. Sand isn't scary, unless you get it in your eye when your six at the beach. But then Grandma carefully gets it out and buys you ice cream. I'm not the least bit frightened by sand.

Think of that scene in Spider-Man 2 when the Doctor Octavian is in surgery and they're trying to remove the arms. What follows is a sequence just as good as any zombie or creature attack in a honest-to-goodness Sam Raimi blood soaked Evil Dead movie. Suspenseful, scary, and awesome. Think of the possibilities he could have had with Venom.

But no. It was not meant to be. Perhaps it was the choice in casting Topher Grace. He's the lovable Star Wars nerd from "That '70s Show". He doesn't exactly sell "demon spawn from space".

In short, I demand a do over. It probably won't happen.

Stranger Than Fiction...

2007-11-19T19:47:00.000-08:00

There is a misconception in the film world (at least the big budget one) that a comedy has to be gaudy, over the top, and laden with sophomoric humor to get laughs. That misconception, sadly, prevents more films like Stranger Than Fiction from being produced. An honest, witty comedy that has a real heart beating in its chest.

Will Ferrell, best known from Saturday Night Live, gives us Harold Crick. He's an IRS agent with a very rigid life. For instance, he only ties his tie with a single Windsor, because the double Windsor would take forty-three seconds too long.

He has to audit Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal) who runs a bakery and may, or may not, be an anarchist.

Things are going fairly routine for Harold until he starts hearing a voice. A narrator to be precise. A narrator describing everything he is doing, like a writer.

Enter Emma Thompson as Karen Eiffel, a writer with writers block. Currently she's working on a story about an IRS agent named Harold Crick and she can't figure out how to kill him. Killing her characters is sort of a trademark, and it's really frustrating to her that she's stuck on this one.

So is this a movie about us seeing fictional characters as the story is being written, ala Lemony Snicket? Nope, Harold Crick is quite real and has overheard that his death is imminent. Oh, and he has a mad crush on Ana.

There is a certain absurdity in the logic of this film. We could ask how Harold is hearing the narration, how all the lines are being crossed and so on and so forth, but there is no need to. The film doesn't play on the fact that Harold's life is being written. It plays on the fact that he is a real person in the midst of this...whatever it is. The fear of his imminent death has made him want to "live his life". We take a journey with him. He learns to play the guitar. He learns to brush his teeth without counting strokes. He eats some really good cookies.

As he nears the time of his...or, the characters...or is it really his?...anyway. As the time approaches for "the death" he begins to contemplate his life. We, in turn, are asked to contemplate ours. If you knew that you would die soon, what mark would you want to leave on the world. What would you want to try? Who would you want to meet?

While, yes, it is a comedy there are not a lot of 'laugh-out-loud' moments. But when they come, they are pure. There wasn't a moment where I felt something was happening that I had to laugh at. There were just moments that were funny.

Will Ferrell is a genius comedian. Here, he shines not only in his comedic role but in his human role. If you liked what Jim Carey did in Liar, Liar you will appreciate Ferrell's work in this. The only difference is even Liar, Liar had Jim Carey doing the "big arms" comedy thing. Here, Ferrell's work is subdued, low-key, honest. Gyllenhaal is perfect in her role. My only real complaint with the film is I didn't always buy the spark between them. They are coming from two different worlds, I realize that, but there was still something missing. Like I said though, that is my only real complaint.

The performances are as solid as solid can be. Dustin Hoffman as the literature professor who is trying to help Harold figure out what kind of story he's in is brilliant. Queen Latifah provides one of the better truly supporting roles I've seen in a while.

I actually felt good after seeing this film. There is a joy in this film that bubbles up from it's soul. If you like art, literature, music, laughing, cookies or anything in this world that is worth thinking about, see this one.

This Is England...

2007-11-14T22:17:00.000-08:00

To experience this movie is to really experience something. You are almost literally moved into the living room with the characters here. It is at once impressive and terrifying.

Shaun, 12 years old, has just lost his father to the Falklands War. His mother is trying her best to make ends meet. Shaun is picked on all the time and has this tension in him that is just below the surface. He gets in fights, swears like a sailor, and isn't afraid to stand his ground. He is harder and gritter than a 12 year old boy need be. But he's vulnerable. He misses his father and feels betrayed by his death.

One day, on the way home from school, he meets a gang of skinheads. Now, little history lesson. British skinheads were not always akin to American skinheads with neo-Nazi sentiments and white power rhetoric. They were gangs, yes. But mostly made of up of adolescent and post-adolescent boys who had a lot of testosterone, usually from broken homes and needed a buddy system. That's what we see here, at first. Shaun is inducted into this gang. They provide a surrogate family to him. One shot that had a powerful impact on me is when Woody, the gang leader, gives Shaun a piggy back ride just as any older brother would do.

Then enters Combo. The former gang leader, fresh out of prison and with new ideas. Ideas like racism, violence, and powder-keg aggression. He is a time bomb waiting to go off. He tells the group about his new ideas, about how "they" (Pakistanis specifically, but any foreigner) are taking "our" jobs, "our" homes. The group splits. Woody, and those who are in the gang for friendship and camaraderie leave. The ones who stay with Combo want power, identity, pride. Among those who stay is Shaun.

What follows is, at times, hard to take. We watch Combo lead the new gang to a National Front (neo-Nazi) meeting. That more or less symbolizes the turning point for British skinheads. But here, it's personal. We see the, at one time light-hearted vandalism of abandoned property, become spray painting racial epitaphs on homes and robbing a Pakistani shop owner at knife point. We see Combo spiral farther out of reason and Shaun become a sort of protege to him. Now, instead of just a big brother, Shaun has a surrogate dad. Combo takes him under his wing, seeing himself in the boy.

The director choose to use tight, tight shots of the actors faces. He choose to shoot on locations. We are in the flat with them, in the car with them, in the streets with them. The dialogue is almost conversational. I would bet that the actors were encouraged to improvise, and would be very surprised if they didn't. This creates both invitation into their world, and tension once you're there.

Combo, as stated, is a cord wound too tight. Every moment he's on the screen you have no idea what he's about to do. I don't feel that the movie lost it's focus on Shaun, but for us to better understand his peril, we had to feel it ourselves. As we see Shaun on a downward slope that he is too young to understand, you feel almost helpless.

Shaun does, as we would expect, see to much. Yet, at the end, there is a glimmer of hope. The last shot is Shaun looking straight into the camera which echoes the end of Francois Truffaut's The 400 Blows, another story about a young man forced to grow up too quickly. We see that here. We see, even in Combo, a little boy that had to come of age before he was ready. In Combo is the broken heart of a little boy who's father wasn't there. Who had a lot of energy but no release. Who just needed a family.

As Roger Ebert points out, this film could take place in any American city. We have a generation of lost youth, wanting desperately to belong to something, anything, as long as it gives them a family. A refuge. An identity. As a young man who had lost his father at 12, and with a bit of a anger issue, circumstances were right that I could have easily ended up like Shaun, maybe even Combo. I was lucky in that I did have a loving support system that kept me out of trouble. But for every me there are a dozen Shaun's.

This film accomplished something in making us identify with the characters. You listen to Combo and can see why a young impressionable Shaun would go along with him. You will probably hate what Combo has to say if you are a reasonably intelligent person. But, you will understand why he has come to think that way. You will see him as a person buried underneath a lot of crap. It will make you hope that maybe Combo can come to the same place Shaun does at the end.

It is a very effective film. It says a lot about the nature of needing family, surrogate or otherwise. It's only flaw I would say is it's tension. There are scenes where you are almost on edge the whole time expecting something to happen, that never does. Whether that was a cultural thing or by design I actually want to address in another post.

For what it says it says well. I would encourage anyone to see it, with one caveat. It would qualify for a strong R rating for the language and violence. And the occasional drug use. And maybe that scene where Shaun makes out with his girlfriend, which I feel went on about 20 seconds too long. Still though. Great film.

Metropolis...

2007-11-11T19:52:00.000-08:00

The classic 1927 film is the godfather of many others. Considered the last Expressionist film, but the first sci-fi film. It has many iconic elements that have been used a thousand times elsewhere. It innovated many special effect techniques, some still being used today (either conceptually or in actual practice). It is, perhaps, one of the most loved films of all time.

Sadly, much of it is lost. About one quarter of the original footage shot, including the negatives, have never been found. They are considered lost forever. Many have tried to re-cut the film with what was available. Some disastorous, some fair. The current one, as of 2001, is perhaps the best.

Still, it's a fascinating film. The story is, in the future the world has been split into two classes. Workers who live and work underground, and men and women of privilege who live in grandiose towers that reach into the sky. When one of the men from above meets one of the girls from below, he begins to feel for the workers plight. When a mad scientist makes a robot clone of Maria (the girl), he uses her to create a class struggle.

Because of all the lost footage, the story really takes a backseat. It's very hard to follow logically. The best reason to watch this film is for the imagery. You have the mad scientists labratory, the glass towers that reach into the sky (one actually being called the New Tower of Babel), the multi-levels of streets and trains. Then you descend into the depth for the gears that run the machines. The workers trudging to and from work. The dark catacombs. If you have an artistic eye you'll find plenty to like in this film just on a visual basis.

One thing I hardly ever hear talked about, but is obviously a pretty important theme in the film, is that of religion. Not spirituality, not even faith really. But you have the mad scientist who has an idol to the Norse god Hel. He has a pentagram painted on his wall (which may or may not have had anything to do with it's modern implications in 1927, but is certainly interesting that it's there). Then we have our hero who finds Maria in a sort of spiritual leader role to the workers. She teaches them stories from the Bible (notably, the Tower of Babel). She speaks of the coming of a mediator between those below and those above. Our hero is seen almost exclusively in the skyscrapers before he descends to the workers. Then he is always seen on, or under, the ground with the workers (even doing one's job for a while).

While I would like to live in a utopian society where everybody likes silent films and considers good cinema something to be cherished, I don't. I live in a world where classics like this are left to "film snobs" and "art geeks", which I proudly proclaim myself to be. However, I would like to see more people join the fold so to speak. So if you have never watched a silent film, try this one first.

Hopefully, a new world will be opened to you.

Just one note. While it is made in 1927, it is not a family film. Nothing worse than what you would see on prime-time TV, but some of the images are still fairly mature. Remind me to tell you someday about the Hayes Code.

Into The Wild...

2007-11-09T08:27:00.000-08:00

There is a pleasure in the pathless woods,
There is a rapture on the lonely shore,
There is a society, where where none intrudes.
By the deep sea, and music is its roar.
I love not man the less, but Nature more. -Lord Byron

Here we have Christopher McCandless (Emile Hirsch). An idealistic, impetuous, adventurous young man who has a singular drive. To go live in the wilderness of Alaska. Away from materialism, his parents, his school. Everything. To just go and live. And go he does. After graduating from Emory University he donates the $24,000 left in his college fund, burns all his identification and drives away. Away from his proud if overbearing parents and his sweet, quiet sister. As we learn throughout the film though, his relationship with his parents plays a large part in his leaving. Yet, the parents are never shown as monstrous. Just broken.

Christopher abandons his car, takes the name Alexander Supertramp and starts heading west, where all roads lead. He travels through the southwest, down to Mexico and up through California on his way to Alaska. He (illegally) rafts down the Colorado River. He hops trains. He hitchhikes. He walks. Whatever it takes to get where he's going. I sense that he didn't view the destination as greater than the journey. He wanted to see as much as he could.

Along the way he meets several people. A couple of hippies still living free and happy in their motor home. A friendly farmer with a "side business". Finally he meets Ron (Hal Holbrook), a warm hearted veteran who lost his family many years ago. The two hit it off. Ron teaches Christo...uh, I mean, Alexander how to work leather. Alexander teaches Ron how to appreciate life again, after all these hard lonely years. That, perhaps, is the most touching story in the whole film. When Alexander and Ron part ways, it is a very emotional scene.

Early in the film, we see Alexander's arrival in Alaska and journey into the wilderness. He winds up in a derelict bus that seems to have been used as a cabin at times. It has a stove, a bed. He has a .22 rifle and hunts small game. He forages for food. He lives off the land.

As it builds towards the climax it intercuts between his journey and his parents dealing with the disapearence. While this film could have easily been a simple travelouge of a vagabond college student, Sean Penn wisely chose to focus on the emotions of the characters throughout the journey. There is a scene where the dad, played by William Hurt, walks down his street and watching him I felt both desperate, and helpless. Just as he must have. Marcia Gay Harden plays the mother with such a quiet earnestness. You can see in her eyes that her mind is filled with thoughts of her boy lost in the world.

I will stick with the film reviewers creed and not spoil the ending for you. If you have read the book or even Googled the name "Christopher McCandless" you know how it ends. But you won't hear it from me. I will say, however, that the last moments of this film are as bittersweet as they come.

This film is inspirational. Perhaps not in wanting to run away (though, yeah, that too) but in wanting to seek something bigger. At the same time though, we see Christopher come to realize that the world is a big place, and it can get lonely. It is bitterly ironic that he took his journey relying on the kindness of strangers, making beautiful friendships with people and impacting their lives deeply, while being formed by them himself, with only the thought of going away from them.

This is a journey worth taking.

The Darjeeling Limited...

2007-11-02T17:00:00.000-07:00

You either like Wes Anderson movies or you don't. I have met few people who feel lukewarm about them. Not that they hate them, it's just "not their type". Well they are exactly my type. Quirky, awkward at times, but always with heart.

The Darjeeling Limited is no exception. Staring Owen Wilson (as Francis), Adrian Brody (Peter) and Jason Schwartzman (Jack) as three brothers who have had a distant relationship with one another since their father died. Francis gets them all together on a train in India to take a "spiritual journey and become brothers again". Francis is compulsive, having an itenerary written for the trip. Peter is a kleptomaniac (sort of) and is expecting a baby with his wife, which ruins his plans of eventually getting divorced. And Peter is, hard to nail down. He makes long distance calls to check in on his "ex"-girlfriends answering machine. He also has sex with the "stewardess" (Rita) on the train. You get the sense he feels rootless. Rita asks him what's wrong with him. He answers "let me think about that."

The film does take place in India, and you certainly do see a lot of the culture. It's not a living Places to See in India book though. It doesn't make any attempt to show us the India of 'Gandhi', or the India of 'Seven Years in Tibet'. It shows us the India of India. The characters walk among people, not around them. They buy trinkets (and a cobra) at the street market.

The film does weave, as Anderson films are prone to do, and arrives at the credits. Maybe not a solid point, or end. You do get the sense that through this journey, something deep has happened to these men. If it was spiritual or not, we are not told. Maybe the brothers don't know themselves. But there is healing, there is redemption in a way. The men at the end of the film are not the ones we meet at the beginning, but they are the same. The last shot is a train going to a new destination. Fitting, because that is the story of these brothers. At the end of the film, the next chapter in their lives is just starting.

This is a very nice film. It's not overbearing, but not listless either. It does meander, but knows that not all who wander are lost.

Evan Almighty...

2007-10-28T20:32:00.000-07:00

I did not think I would like Bruce Almighty. In fact, I was prepared to hate it when I saw it. I didn't hate it and felt it dealt honestly and compassionately with it's material (for a Jim Carey movie). I didn't think it needed a sequel though. I was right about that.

In this movie, Evan Baxter from the first film (who Bruce, using 'his' powers, made say things like "I do the cha-cha like a sissy girl" on the news broadcast) has been elected to Congress. And God has asked him to build a new Ark. There's also a subplot about John Goodman being a money hungry Congressman who wants to commercially develop on national parks.

Yeah, I laughed a few times during the first ten minutes or so, then it kind of got redundant. There are some pretty good points about faith, being good to God's creation, not letting material things get in the way of true happiness. It handles those well. But in the Gestalt of this film, they don't justify it's overall ineptitude.

The acting is merely one-liners between double-takes and men screaming like sissy girls. The supporting cast, more than anything, is what kills it. None of them can act. None of them. They can't deliver a funny line. In fact, they seem to suck the funny out of every line they're given until it's just words. Wooden, lifeless words.

Steve Carrel is extremely talented. Morgan Freeman is a great actor, and was good in Bruce Almighty. But in this, the material cripples them.

This movie is not memorable. Not funny. Not good.

Nacho Libre...

2007-10-28T19:46:00.000-07:00

Jared Hess is either a quirky genius the likes of Wes Anderson or a talented hack the likes of Roland Emmerich. Only time will tell. But out of the two films he's made, I have sincerely enjoyed both.

Nacho Libre is about a friar in Mexico (played by Jack Black) who dreams his whole life of being a wrestler. He does cooking duties in an orphanage. He doesn't have any money for fresh ingredients so he can only make one thing. I don't have a clue what it is, but I would sooner eat my own foot by the looks of it. So, when he sees a poster for a wrestling competition, he jumps at the chance. He chooses as his tag team partner a street urchin who stole his chips. Oh, and he's in love with the orphanages new nun.

The humor in this movie is about as sophomoric as it gets. Maybe that's what Jared Hess was going for since this is his second film (quirky genius). Or maybe he just thought he'd get more profitability by reaching out to the junior high/high school male demographic (talented hack). Either way, it's a nitch comedy that knows it's nitch well.

There are moments of plain stupidity, like the "training" that Nacho and Esqueleto go through. It consists of throwing cantaloupes and bee hives at each other, taunting a bull, and something involving fresh cow poop and archery that I'm still puzzled about. There are glimpses of these characters genuine humanity, but they are sort of veiled behind the goofiness of the characters. It doesn't prevent us from knowing the characters have heart, but it doesn't let us really experience that heart. Then again, this is hardly a movie where I care deeply about the deeper intentions of a Mexican friars long held dream of being a wrestler.

As far as the acting goes, what can you really say? Jack Black has shown that he can handle acting in films such as King Kong and School of Rock. But he is so much better and seemingly more comfortable playing the goofball. Here, if there was a over-the-top-but-lovable-character Oscar, Jack Black would have a gold statuette. I don't know if Jared Hess can really direct acting, since non of the characters in his movies ever really act. He directs dead pan spot on, and has a good sense of comedic timing. I'd like to see him stretch his legs a little bit. Or maybe I wouldn't. He seems to have a formula that works.

Overall, if you liked Napoleon Dynamite you'll like this. If you didn't like Napoleon Dynamite, what the hell is wrong with you? See Napoleon first if you can. They are not at all related, but between the two I still see it as Hess' Citizen Kane. This would probably be his, I dunno, Happy Gilmore.

Million Dollar Baby...

2007-10-19T22:27:00.000-07:00

Let me give you some brief 'historical' perspective on this film. Not on the story, the actual movie itself. When it came out in 2004 it received critical praise, and did well at the box office (as well as anything could do against The Passion of the Christ). And then stepped in Michael Medved and gave away key points, every key point, of the movie on the 700 Club. The world of movie critics blew up and all but asked for Medved's head on a silver platter. Roger Ebert, my film critic hero, wrote had a lot to say about it. If you want to read more about the controversy go here, here and here. But I'll just give you the heads up that the whole controversy was about spoilers, so it's got them all. Maybe best read after you see this film.

Which, by the way, you should. But I won't jump ahead of myself.

This movie proves two things. Clint Eastwood is a remarkable director, and a legendary actor. It proves another thing, Hillary Swank is a phenomenal actress. So it has that going for it.

Going against it is that, on a technical level, it is flawed. I'll expand on that more in a minute.

Clint Eastwood tells stories like a grandpa. That's not a jab at his age, it is about his technique. He takes awhile to get into the story, but he's not giving you information you don't need. He's building his characters. He's drawing you into his world. He's making these characters people. You see people with heart.

The story is thus: Clint Eastwood is a boxing trainer who is considered the best. Hillary Swank is a girl. Quote Frankie (Eastwood) "I don't train girls". Well, she wants to learn, and comes to his gym everyday. Whether he'll train her or not, she's going to train as a boxer. Finally, he relents and takes her on. She becomes one of the best, going on to win, a lot, usually by knockout. There's an accident and---nope, I'm not Medved.

Among the main story there are a couple of side stories. Frankie has a long-lost daughter that he writes to. He attends Mass everyday mainly to ask annoying questions to the priest (leading to one line of dialog by the priest about the Trinity that I laughed at and then repented for). There's his long time friend 'Scrap', played by very well Morgan Freeman. He's the narrator of the story.

Okay, this is where it starts to unravel. The narration was, as most narrations are, largely useless and annoying. Unless it's the internal monologue of a character narration just seems like your watching a book on tape. Also, the narrators seem to know a whole lot about situations they were never, or logically should have been, a part of. So that's part one.

Part two is, this film is overall clumsy. The editing is sloppy. The acting, while good, seemed ill timed and slightly melodramatic. There were more than a few times I got the sense that there was a camera in the room with these people with some guy standing behind it saying "move to the left". Even the scenes in the boxing ring were uninspired. The first hour and a half of this movie is largely redundant. They could have trimmed a lot and not made the characters any less sympathetic.

Then we come to the last hour. This is where the rubber meets the road on this film. When we see the situation that Maggie (Swank) and Frankie are faced with, you can not help watch intently. I was transfixed during the last half of this movie. It dealt with a heavy issue, and not lightly. It looked at it through the eyes of characters with heart. There is one scene where Frankie cries, and you just know that if you were in his shoes, you would be crying twice as hard.

For all of it's flaws, this is a great film. I won't say it's one of the best films, or even a great piece of art. It would have been such if the sculptor had just chipped a little more away and fined tuned the form just a touch. I saw these characters as people with heart, I just wished I could have shared that heart with them a little more.

One last thing about Hillary Swank. She is, bar none, the best part of this film. She deserved every accolade, and award. If you see it for not other reason, see it for her work. Yes, all the things I said about the acting are true for her too, but she plays it well enough that you can forgive it.

The Night of the Hunter...

2007-10-13T19:00:00.001-07:00

If I were to pick one movement in the film world to completely dedicate myself, not only in the look and feel of my own, but also in a more critical, "academic" sense it would be Expressionism. Sadly, the Expressionist movement never really caught on in Hollywood (probably because it was interesting) and so there are few American films that really utilize it, except in the occasional homage. This is one reason why The Night of the Hunter stands out.

If you have never heard of this movie, I would not be surprised. It came out in 1955 and was a critical and commercial failure. It stares Robert Mitchum, Shelly Winters and Lillian Gish. All of whom were big stars at the the time. It was directed by Charles Laughton who was a respected and well known actor both on stage and film. This was the only film he directed. The failure of the film is credited as the reason he never stepped behind the camera again. It's a shame, too. This is a great film.

Robert Mitchum stars as a "preacher" who winds up in prison. He was arrested in a burlesque show. He drove there in a stolen car. Even if you have never seen or are at all familiar with the movie itself, he sports one of the most iconic movie images ever. He has "love" tattooed on the knuckles of his right hand, and "hate" on his left. He carries a switchblade knife, and at one time quotes "I came not to bring peace, but a sword" as he holds it up. In prison, his cell mate asks him what religion he professes. "One the Lord and I worked out betwixt us!" is his response.

His cell mate, by the way, is a man who killed two people and stole $10,000. He's hidden the money and sworn his children, John and Pearl, to secrecy. While in prison, the preacher finds out about the money. When he gets out, he finds the family. Chaos ensues.

Robert Mitchum plays this guy as a very slick, ruthless dirt-bag in a nice suit. All the appearance of honorable person, no heart. Shelly Winters plays the wife (and widow) of the thief/murderer and doesn't have a clue what he did with the money. She doesn't have a clue about a lot of things. Shelly Winters, as good an actor as she was, was never a personal favorite. In this film, she plays aloof a little too well. Her dialog even seems to kind of just appear in her mouth instead of seeming to be processed in any fashion before it gets there. Which is why John, is really the head of the house. He takes good care of his little sister, Pearl. Billy Chapin, who played John, was only 12 at the time of this movie, but he had the chops to carry the lead role.

The visuals is really what makes this story. The black and white photography by Stanley Cortez is eerie, stunning, and smooth. The sets all seemed to be designed just a tad small to give everything a claustrophobic effect. Like the whole world is crushing in on John and his family. Expressionism lends itself to a dream-like look. This is no exception. Some moments are like something you'd see in a nightmare with stark shadows and odd angles. And, I promise you, after seeing this, you will never be able to hear the hymn "Leaning on Everlasting Arms" the same way again.

If you are a lover of classic cinema, top-notch acting, good story, or just want to see a pure example of Expressionism in all it's spooky glory this film is a must see.

Welcome to the Dollhouse...

2007-09-22T20:29:00.000-07:00

I had heard about this movie a couple of years ago when I was really into the independent film world. It came out in 1995 when independent film was still for the hardcore guys.

This film was made by a hardcore film maker. Not in a deviant sense, but in the sense that he really knew what kind of story he wanted to tell, and worked really hard to tell it.

The film centers on a young seventh grader named Dawn Wiener. Now if you went to junior high, you can already tell where she fits in the social pecking order just by her last name. And you would be correct. She is the target of much ridicule at school. She's the middle child at home. Her younger sister is adored by everyone and her older brother is 'the smart one'. Already concerned about what college he'll go to. Her mom is overbearing and unfair and her dad is a cuckold who says approximately five lines in the whole movie.

She has a lot against her, and not much going for her. We witness her first crush. A high school guy her brother is tutoring. We watch as she's mercilessly teased in her school by everyone, including one kid who she helped from getting beat up by some bullies. Even her teacher, who I personally wanted to reach into the screen and backhand, is unfair and cruel to her. She only has one real friend, a boy who lives on her street. Although one of the bullies likes her and is hurt when she says she can't be his girlfriend because she's in love with "another man".

The story is well told. It accurately depicts the living hell that is junior high/puberty. As has been stated in several other reviews, that time of life is so often portrayed as some fantastic time of first loves and the excitement of growing up. I still remember my first really real crush, and not fondly. I've been hard pressed to find anyone that actually liked that time in their life, for whatever reason.

The acting is good. The score fair and the writing decent. However, somewhere in the middle, there's a subplot involving the little sister that just seems to come out of nowhere and leads, really, nowhere. Are we supposed to see that the family cares for little sister more than Dawn? Got that in the first paragraph. It's also supposed to be a good satire, but I wasn't exactly...uh...laughing. At all. Maybe the memories where just too close. I can see where they were going for laughs, but they weren't getting them from me.

Overall, I would say this film accomplished one big thing in that it got made. It won the grand prize at the Sundance festival in 1996. That was a bigger deal in 1996. It's a good film to watch if you are a) interested in independent film or b) interested in early to mid-90's independent film. Otherwise...eh.

more on 3:10...

2007-09-17T19:20:00.000-07:00

I've read a couple of reviews that are less than favorable to this film. I feel that I need to clarify some points in my review, and basically run defense.

First of all. At least one review called it slow. This movie is only slow if you go into it expecting Black Hawk Down or Die Hard. This is not an "action film". It is a western. People always complain that the good westerns (Unforgiven, Open Range, any spaghetti western) are slow. That's because they think that any movie where a guy has a gun strapped to his hip has to have him shoot it every 10th frame. Westerns are not so much about the guns as much as they are about the guys carrying them.

3:10 to Yuma is the best western since the last great western (which was Unforgiven, but I think Open Range was also a far superior film than people give it credit for). It does not transcend it's genre, it lovingly drinks in it's genre. This was made by a film maker who, I'm assuming, loved westerns as much at Quentin Tarantino liked kung-fu films and exploitation flicks. The nuance of the western is there. Everything I expected from a western, I got in 3:10 to Yuma.

The men were men. Their faces were dirty with...dirt. They didn't change their clothes. They liked their women. And, yeah, they carried big guns that fired big bullets and made big messes. What more do you need from a western?

Another reviewer said that it had problems staying consistent. This movie was nothing but consistent. The characters never waver in who they are. I think his complaint comes from the fact that these characters have depth. We don't want movie heroes with multi-layered personalities like real people have. We want them shallow and one dimensional so that for two hours we can forget about the human condition and just watch cardboard cutouts poke holes in each other with those big guns. Screw that. The western has always been about real men in situations. The situation is irrelevant most of the time. In Open Range, he just wants to keep his range, uh, open. So he fights against those who want to build fences. The point in that film is, what are you willing to sacrifice in order to gain something? In 3:10 the question is how far are you willing to go if there may be no reward for you in the end?

Honor plays a big part in the western. Moral codes are real, tangible things. A concept that is quickly becoming lost in our culture, but it did once exist outside of westerns. This film, the characters do have a code to uphold. Even the criminal know something about honor. Charlie Prince, Wades second in command, would have just taken over the operation and left Wade to die in any other movie and perhaps in the real world. But no, the drama is driven by the fact that this evil man has scruples and is willing to sacrifice something to maintain it. A villain with a conscience! Watch out! You might make him seem human! Then what would the good guys fight?! He might have to fight another human. Which is what happens when true morals and twisted morals collide. Our fight may not be against flesh and blood, but sometimes you have to drive out the money changers with a whip and a shout.

I stand, wholeheartedly, by my original assessment. 3:10 to Yuma is a masterpiece. If I had to nitpick at something it would be that Evans is pretty agile for a guy with only one and half legs. But then again, we are talking about a time before wheelchairs and crutches. If you had to run cattle and raise crop with one leg, you learned how to walk with one leg. It wasn't a stretch for me. And as far as the argument that it had cliches...IT'S A MOVIE! Movies have been around for a long time, and one of the first ever made was a western (Great Train Robbery). Get over it. I admit, I love westerns. But I was not blinded by genre infatuation (a term I just made up). This is all around a great film. In both the technical and craft of film making, it excels.

I reiterate. Do yourself a favor and see this film.

3:10 to Yuma...

2007-09-14T17:54:00.000-07:00

My friends, the western as a genre has been reborn with this film.

I had walked into this film more or less blind. I knew Christian Bale was in it, and any movie staring him automatically gets 2.5 stars from me. I knew Russell Crowe was in it so that gave it another fighting chance. Something about a outlaw...a train.

I left awe-struck. This is a masterwork of film making. A triumph of story. The best westerns show men with something worth living, or dying for. This film epitomizes that concept.

In this film we have Russell Crowe playing Ben Wade, the most wanted outlaw in the southwest. He's killed a lot of people, stolen a lot of money and in his own words he is as "cruel as hell". We also have Christian Bale as Dan Evans. He's a Civil War veteran with one leg, a wife, two boys (the youngest has tuberculosis) and a dying ranch. He's behind on payments for the property and the bank is all to willing to snatch the land from under him and sell it to the railroad that's coming through.

We are introduced to Ben Wade when he robs an armored coach. Dan Evans and his two boys witness the event. One thing leads to another and Ben Wade gets caught. The sheriff of the town can't take Ben to the next town to catch the titular 3:10 [train] to Yuma [prison]. So a group is thrown together on the spot to take him there. Among them, Dan Evans who says he was the best shot in his regiment and will help for $200. Off they go.

Between the two towns we have a very solid story. One full of humanity at it's frailest. Each man has something to gain and a lot to lose over the course of the journey. If one of them succeeds his goal, the other will fail. But will either man really win? And what will they lose in the process?

These are both deep characters. Wade, while cold-blooded, is also very savvy. In much of his dialog I was reminded of the serpent in the Garden of Eden. A tempter. A man looking to gain your trust even though you know there was nothing at all to trust about him. This is especially well played when Evans' oldest son, Will, catches up to them. He's read all the pulp novels about Wade and seems to be in awe of the man. Wade knows how to talk to the boy, how to stroke his ego.

Dan is a hero, but one out of necessity not design. He is not a law man, a bounty hunter. Just a veteran trying to be a good husband, father and rancher. His family is his highest concern. He's not a reluctant hero either though. He volunteered to be a part of this. But not for nobility, honor, or adventure. He needs money to buy his son medicine and pay the bills. He needs to keep his ranch so he can feed his family. He is determined to see this thing through to the end so that he can finally make some decent money, fairly. Come hell or high water, Wade will be on the 3:10. Hell, by the way, is not far behind.

My favorite character in terms of the iconic western villain is Charlie Prince (played by Ben Foster), Wades second in command. He is ruthless, vile, cold. He is everything Wade is, without the philosophy behind it. You get the sense that he loves Wade as a father. He wants to protect him and follow him the way Will wants to protect and follow Dan.

The dialog is what makes this film. The way Wade and Evans speak to each other. The actors aren't simply reciting words to each other. They seem to be actually thinking, carefully planning their next response. Both characters have brains in their heads and they are equally matched. There is one scene between Wade and Evans that I will briefly mention. No spoilers, it's okay. Early on their voyage, Wade asks Evans how he lost his leg. Evans doesn't tell him then. Later on, while they are fighting, Evans tells him. I will tell you no more than this. After Evans is done speaking, I wept.

Most exciting about this movie are the questions one finds asking themselves during it. This film is a study of real humanity. How far would you go for your family? How far would you go, if all the odds seemed against you? Can a man truly be completely bad? Or good? Are you willing to risk your life for justice?

I could go on and on about this movie. It is perfectly executed. There is not a moment that I felt like checking my watch. There is not a moment that I saw through the performances. There is not a camera angle or line of dialog out of place. As the credits rolled, I sat in awe. I had just witnessed one of the greatest films of this year, if not of the last ten years. Those are big words, I know. This is a masterpiece. It is a film with a heart, a mind, a soul and a conscience. It is a film with real, iconic characters. Words fail me, which is a good time to stop a review. Please, please do yourself a favor and see this film.

Primer

2007-09-13T21:00:00.001-07:00

I chose this review to follow Premonition because I want you to see that even with a confusing plot, a good time can be had by all.

I'll be the first to admit I don't know what was really going on in this movie either, but it didn't detract from my enjoyment of it. It actually added to it.

Four engineers are trying to get a small start up company going. Two of them decided to build this thing that they have plans for but have no idea what it does (the other two fall off the face of the earth, so don't worry about them). As any good engineer would think, what better way to find out than build it and turn it on. So they do. What is it? That's a pretty darn good question. First of all, it secretes protein. Second of all, it grows that protein really fast. How fast? They determine that one minute outside the box is the equivalent of 1,347 minutes in the box. Viola peeps, we have a time machine on our hands.

Not your average Hollywood time machine. No flux capacitor here folks. It will only move a person inside the box back to the time the box was turned on. So, you turn it on at 5:00 and stay in there for six hours, when you get out you will be back at 5:00. That means that as soon as you turn it on to get in, you're ready to get out. Logically, this means that there would be two of you. And there are! Yep, our heroes also have doubles. But they don't interact with the doubles. They can't. It'd be risky. So they rent a hotel room.

Are you lost in the review? Me too! I love this movie! You have to see it to know what's going on and even then you'll want to see it again to make sure you caught it all. My favorite part of this film is the dialog. All the dialog is very "geeky". Like, we're talking uber-geeky. Which makes a whole lot of sense because the characters are uber-geeks and the director/writer/star is a former engineer. It takes no time to slow down and let you catch up on what is said. Only one diagram is written for us and it consists of the letters A and B with an ellipse drawn between them. But when you see that diagram, it makes sense.

Don't let me scare you. When you do see the film you can follow it, but you have to pay attention. This film is for people who like to follow a story. Who like to see characters actually involved in the story. If you have seen it go here for cliffs notes. If you haven't seen it, let it surprise you. This is a well crafted film.

Interesting to note. This film was made for $7,000.

Premonition

2007-09-13T20:26:00.000-07:00

I had a funny feeling I might not like this movie. I surprised even myself. This film could have been so much better if only it had been made as a different film entirely. Not that this one shouldn't have been made. It just shouldn't have been made as the film it was. It should have been made as a absurdist comedy or a farce. Maybe a cut up into tiny bits and had the Monty Python fellas patch it back together with Spam. It might have made more sense, though I doubt it.

Sandra Bullock plays a women who is having dreams that her husband has died. Or is she having flash-backs to when her husband was alive? She's going crazy. Or is she crazy? In all reality, I don't know what the hell was going on in this movie. I got it. I understood how it ended. I followed the beginning. The middle was a train wreck.

Not an entertaining train wreck either. The biggest problem with it was that it provided us no frames of reference. Is it today and she's thinking of tomorrow? Or is it tomorrow and she's remembering yesterday?

One scene has her trying to figure out the sequence of events. A scene that is only necessary because the audience is lost at this point. So our hero writes out on a big piece of paper all the events thus far. She makes a calendar and puts on it 'Jim Dies' with a big red circle around it under Wednesday. Which is sad because it's Tuesday and if the police find that big piece of paper this will be a short film. And had someone actually found that paper, it might have added something to the "she's going nuts" subplot. But no one found it. It was never seen again. Another dead end. This film is full of dead ends.

I have often accused directors of not knowing what kind of film they wanted to make. This is not the case here. The film makers knew exactly what kind of film they wanted to make and failed miserably at reaching their goal. They were shooting for a Sixth Sense, Memento or any other much better film that plays with linear time. What they got was a convoluted mess of a thing.

With the other films mentioned you discussed all the connections and how the plot wound up perfectly. At the end of this film you discuss why you didn't rent Sixth Sense again. You have nothing to say about the plot, because you missed it completely. You don't know what connections to make, because nothing connected. The ending was supposed to be dark and moody but it ended up just sad and pathetic.