tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-259227722024-02-03T03:49:55.628-05:00The Netflix ReportMovie reviews from my Netflix queue. Highly personal and opinionated!Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1157170336275431682006-09-02T00:10:00.000-04:002006-09-02T00:12:16.293-04:00DumaDisclaimer: I do not have children. <em>Duma</em> is a "family film" -- one that is intended primarily for a youth audience, but with sufficient story and production quality to be acceptable to adults along for the ride. Since I can only guess at reactions from the target audience, I have to review the movie from an adult viewpoint on its own merits as a piece of filmmaking.<br /><br />From that perspective, I have to say that <em>Duma</em> is disappointing. The story involves a young boy (perhaps 12 years old) who adopts an orphaned cheetah cub, names it Duma, and raises it on the family farm in rural Africa. He lives a rather idyllic existence with his mother and father until circumstances cause him to make a fateful decision to take Duma back to the wild on an impulsive solo trek to the veldt. His journey is filled with small moments of tension and danger and forces him to accept the company of a man he does not trust.<br /><br />The story line plays out in a predictable, linear fashion. Again, I want to reiterate that the technique is probably appropriate for children to keep it easy to follow and connect with, but I am not qualified to pass judgment on that. For an adult, the complications and plot devices that are introduced in order to further the action seem arbitrary and too trivially dismissed. Each tension point is immediately resolved within a maximum of four minutes (usually much shorter) so that there is no danger of becoming involved or emotionally invested in the dangers, the interpersonal conflicts, or the apprehension that each should engender.<br /><br />The acting in the film ranges from inoffensive to melodramatic to amateurish. The best actor, hands down, is the cheetah (of course they used more than one). The boy, Xan, is played by South African newcomer Alex Michaeletos. Michaeletos reads his lines like a school exercise, never finding a delivery that invests them with believability or emotional integrity. Xan's parents are played by experienced actors Campbell Scott and Hope Davis. Unfortunately, both actors hail from the New York/New Jersey area and struggle with their South African accents. They start out sounding much more Australian than South African until they settle down a bit. They also are saddled with characterizations that are written as one-dimensional saints. They are perfect parents in every possible respect and I found them rather boring.<br /><br />The mystery man that Xan runs into on his travels is played by Eamonn Walker, another noted actor with plenty of drama under his belt. Walker affects a very strong tribal(?) accent that makes some of his line readings difficult to understand. And he tends to play some of his scenes as dramatics rather than drama. I occasionally felt that he was trying to compensate for Michaeletos' flat portrayal with a bit of overacting to pull a scene along.<br /><br />Director Carroll Ballard uses a style that harkens back to the old Disney nature films of decades ago. Shots of wild animals in different settings are strung together to create improbable continuous pans of interspecies diversity, while animal closeups are edited together to make it seem as though they are relating and reacting to one another. Ballard certainly has an eye for sweeping African landscape shots and I particularly liked some footage of Xan and Duma looking down into a river gorge.<br /><br />The best work is between Xan and Duma. The boy and cheetah interact closely on screen and they each seem completely comfortable with each other. If the filmmakers used any compositing tricks or matted-out tethers, there is no way to tell it. I got the feeling that the cheetahs were willing actors on the set.<br /><br />From what I can tell in my research on the web, the movie takes a great many liberties with the story as told in the children's picture book written by the real Xan and his mother. That's fine with me, as the two media are different art forms and can exist independently. But if you are a fan of the book and take the family's account of their time with the cheetah as gospel, prepare yourself to get angry with changes by the screenwriters (starting with what they call the cheetah!). In an interesting casting note, the producers apparently had to cast the boy as older than he was during real events because they were afraid that too small a child might be seen as prey by their cheetah "actors".<br /><br />It feels strange to add my usual parents' advisory to a movie made for the child market. There is no drug use or swearing and only minimal scuffling violence between some school children. Animal predation is shown in the wild and there is a shot of an eviscerated gazelle that could disturb very young viewers. Kids under the age of about 7 will probably find some of the "danger moments" too intense... For instance, there is a scene where Xan and Duma are threatened by very nasty looking crocodiles that has Ballard using underwater crocodile viewpoint shots reminiscent of <em>Jaws</em>. The movie also features an offscreen human death (not gruesome) that might disturb youngsters.<br /><br />The DVD transfer is quite adequate and the sound is clear and crisp. Special features are limited to a few extended scenes and the theatrical trailer.<br /><br />If you are looking for an alternative to silly comedies, superheroes, and cartoons for your kids, <em>Duma</em> will fit the bill. But don't expect to be drawn in as an adult. It's simply not deep or complex enough to merit much consideration.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1157042439530222822006-08-31T12:35:00.000-04:002006-08-31T12:44:52.303-04:00Water<p><br />In <em>Water</em>, writer/director Deepa Mehta finishes off the third part of a trilogy (with <em>Fire</em> and <em>Earth</em>) that examines issues of love, family, religion, and political upheaval in India. The backstory of Water is at times more interesting than the movie itself, so I will spend some time on the topic before getting to the film as an independent entertainment piece. The more you know going in, the more you can appreciate surprising aspects of the finished work. </p><p>Water examines a little-known (at least in America) aspect of strict Hindu religious observance. Widows have three options after their husbands die, according to the religious texts. They may be cremated along with the dear departed, they may marry their husband's younger brother (if available), or they may lead a life of strict asceticism, separated from and shunned by the rest of mainstream society. </p><p>Mehta is not particularly supportive of this traditional practice (although of Indian background herself, she now lives in the Toronto area). But she is quick to point out in one of her commentaries that the women who follow this life of religious observation and self-denial do not see themselves as oppressed and disadvantaged. They simply see it as the way things are. A Hindu philosophy of Maya says that any perception of ourselves as separate from the whole is an illusion, so that a sense of self as separated and somehow worse off than others is an error in perception. Mehta shows that the ideal of this concept is not necessarily embraced by all and that a subjective view of the conditions imposed upon the widows can be damning. </p><p>Because of her willingness to examine the "widow's plight" from a modern perspective and to have some of the movie's characters condemn these practices and flaunt the orthodox religious teachings, Mehta ran into serious trouble from Hindu extremists. As she began shooting the film in India in 2000, she received death threats, had her effigy burned in public, and eventually was forced to shut down the production due to mob protests around her locations. </p><p>It took another four years to remount the production, this time shooting in predominantly Buddhist Sri Lanka as a stand-in for India. She had to recast several roles and made some updates to her script. Because Sri Lanka does not have the same architecture and cultural background as India, the company created a massive full size set along a river, with temples, walkways, statues, and the like stretching on for nearly a mile. The scale of the construction is impressive and you never get a sense while watching the film that anything is artificial. </p><p>The plot of the movie follows an 8-year-old girl, Chuyia, in 1938 India. As still happens around the country (although technically illegal then and now) she has been married off at a very young age to a much older man. The movie opens with her father telling her that she is now a widow (which means as little to her as the fact that she was married). He has her head ceremonially shaved and takes her to an ashram (call it a religious retreat) for widows. There Chuyia will be expected to live for the rest of her life, eating one meal a day, praying, and begging in the street. It's not a prison... the women could leave whenever they want, but honestly, they have nowhere else to go. </p><p>Chuyia meets (and introduces us to) the other major characters in the film one at a time. There is the very large and very stern Madhumati, a widow from an upper class who has taken over the position of superiority and "management" of the ashram. Patiraji is an extremely old toothless woman who has been there since she was a child and now dreams of the simple pleasures of eating a forbidden sweet pastry. Shakuntala is a serious and quiet woman of great faith and devotion to duty. And living apart from the rest in a spartan wood shack is Kalyani. Kalyani is a shock. Unlike the rest of the women who have shaved heads, sunken cheeks, and are generally older than 40, she is a beauty in her mid-20's with flowing black hair and perfect skin and teeth. We learn later why Kalyani is special to Madhumati and the upkeep of the ashram. But the important point is that she becomes a girlfriend/older sister to Chuyia. </p><p>Chuyia one day is outside the ashram on the main city streets and runs into Narayan, a man also in his mid-20's and a progressive follower of Gandhi (who is just becoming publicly prominent and starting to promote nationalism to take the country out of British rule). Narayan and Kalyani find themselves attracted to each other and eventually they have to deal with their desire to be together versus religious and societal pressures to stay apart because of Kalyani's status. </p><p>Most of the movie is played out in a slow and measured progression of events. Information about the traditional Hindu customs, traditions, and practices are doled out in small bites to the audience. Character development is slow and studied as well. Mehta simply shows some of the religious activities without trying to explain them to the audience. There is no voice-over narration or explanatory dialog to help along an American audience, but it is never a barrier to understanding the dramatic story. </p><p>Dialog is in Hindi and the DVD offers subtitles in English and Spanish. Strangely, several of the actors did not speak Hindi. The astonishing performance of the young girl, Sarala, who plays Chuyia is more amazing when you learn that she was cast in Sri Lanka and learned the entire script as phonetic memorization! Lisa Ray, the fashion model turned actress who plays Kalyani, had to work on diction and facility with the Hindi dialog since she is another Toronto resident who only speaks Hindi as a second language after English. Both women turn in excellent performances. </p><p>The movie is shot as a visual art piece. Colors are filtered to subtly showcase watery blues and greens. Dark interior shots are always easily made out, with soft unobtrusive lighting on the actors' faces so you know exactly who is inside and can see what they are doing. The focus on the widows in the ashram means there is a preponderance of soft washed out colors, since they all wear white saris and live in stone and earth settings. When Mehta contrasts this with a scene showing the Festival of Color (the one day a year when the widows can indulge their visual senses), she super saturates the bright yellows and reds so they practically jump off the screen. </p><p>Although the movie is definitely not a "Bollywood musical," Mehta does insert one standard Indian movie sequence featuring a song and shots of the young lovers expressing their happiness in a music video style. It feels jarring and out of place with the rest of the movie to me, but I am not an Indian film fanatic used to seeing musical numbers in every film I see. <em></em></p><p><em>Water</em> delivers an important and dramatic story and message. It is visually sumptuous. Production values are of highest quality throughout. The acting is excellent. Thinking back on each aspect of the film, I find myself impressed with each component. And yet I found myself fidgeting at several points during the movie and looking at my watch. There is just something about the overall pacing that didn't work for me. I think it may be the way each sequence in the movie showcases exactly one small relationship or interaction or plot point as an independent concept. I felt like I was watching Mehta laying out the movie as a series of bullet points. The interplay between the various people and events is left as an intellectual exercise for the viewer rather than showing on screen as a cohesive whole. Still, the movie made me want to catch up with Mehta's earlier work. And that is the highest praise you can give a director. </p><p>The DVD transfer is very good. Subtitles are clear and easy to read. The English translation is never unintentionally humorous or mixed up. Sound quality is good, but not showy. The surround soundtrack is mainly used for atmosphere rather than effects (there is one thunderstorm with some good booms). Special features include a director's commentary, a four-minute short on the troubles of making the film, and a 20-minute featurette talking more about the production, with comments from several of the actors. </p><p>Parents should have no worries about any imagery shown in the film. There is no nudity or violence. But the subject matter is adult in nature and covers issues of sex and death.<br /></p>Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1156124858003051262006-08-20T21:45:00.000-04:002006-08-20T21:47:38.016-04:00BrickRian Johnson graduated from USC Film School in 1996 with a student film under his belt. Nine years later, he has written, directed, and edited his first theatrical feature. <em>Brick</em> is a curious nod to the classic noir films of the 1940's updated to contemporary settings. Curious, because the characters are modern suburban America high school students.<br /><br />To Johnson's credit, the movie does not play like a gimmicky <em>Bugsy Malone </em>novelty piece parodying or mimicking the source reference material. The story is written and played completely straight, with the potential for for serious danger and death in the characters' predicaments.<br /><br />The part of the hard-boiled, relentless private eye has been morphed to a loner at the schoolyard - Brendan - who eats his meals in private behind the buildings. He was once involved in the prevalent drug scene at the school, but seems to have straightened out and broken off from the kids who used to comprise his network. Brendan had a relationship with Emily, but she ended it as she got more and more involved with drugs and the underground hardcore pushers clique.<br /><br />Brendan is played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt (the youngest of the alien family on <em>Third Rock</em> <em>From The Sun</em>), and he does an excellent job portraying the proper world-weary resignation of a Philip Marlowe or Sam Spade as he digs himself deeper into danger while chasing after a mystery he knows he should probably stay out of. Gordon-Levitt effectively makes you forget about his long running stint as a silly sitcom lead.<br /><br />Brendan's arch-nemesis is the shadowy character known as "The Pin" (for Kingpin). The Pin is played by Lukas Haas, best remembered as the young boy in <em>Witness</em>. Haas does not come off as well in his Sydney Greenstreet themed characterization as the head of the local drug cartel. The Pin dresses entirely in black, sporting a flowing black cape, a duck-headed walking stick, and an oversized orthopedic shoe on one foot to compensate for a gimpy leg. He is meant to inspire fear and complete obeisance from all around him, but Haas does not have the right physical presence and his costuming seems like a joke.<br /><br />The rest of the cast members are pretty much stuck in roles that are more caricatures than characters. First there is the mysterious woman who might be in love with the detective or might be a duplicitous schemer. In Brick, the character is Laura, played by Nora Zehetner. She has the right Brigid O'Shaughnessy look for the requisite tender scenes with Brendan, but comes across as a weaker person than the part calls for. Brendan's partner behind the scenes in his investigation is Matt O'Leary as "The Brain" -- a wasted part established purely to let them share expository dialog when necessary to advance the plot. Richard Roundtree shows up in an extended cameo as the Assistant Vice Principal of the high school in a scene intended to reflect the standard noir run-in between the detective and the local police chief. Roundtree overplays it with unexplained malice and anger towards Brendan (see the scene between Schwarzenegger and his chief in <em>The Last Action Hero</em> for reference).<br /><br />The supporting player who comes off the best is Noah Fleiss as "Tugger," the main muscle for The Pin. What starts out as a cliched bruiser develops into something much deeper and more interesting as events progress.<br /><br />The problem with all these characters is not so much the situation and plot line as the dialog that Johnson has written for them. He seems determined to prove to the audience his encyclopediac knowledge of 1940's noir lingo. He has his high school students intersperse their standard realistic dialog with modern street/drug slang and 1940's gangster terms such as yeggs, bulls, and "taking a powder." It's difficult writing to deliver and Johnson has his actors speak much of it at rapid fire pace (going for a Howard Hawks approach). Many of the conversations are poorly miked and we find ourselves too often straining to understand what has been said. Add in a tendency to overpack plot points into short speeches and the film can be compared to a badly tuned stick-shift jalopy. It lurches suddenly forward, coasts for a bit, requires a moment in reverse to figure out what just happened, then lurches forward again. The problem is reinforced by Johnson's choppy editing (supposedly done on a home computer) and some dark scenes that are excessively grainy and difficult to make out.<br /><br />Overall, it's an interesting academic exercise, but I can't recommend it for sheer entertainment value.<br /><br />Parents notes include adult situations including drug references, violence, death, and implied sexual situations. Older high schoolers might be fascinated if they understand why the characters are talking so strangely.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1153669120833556162006-07-23T11:36:00.000-04:002006-07-23T11:38:40.850-04:00Der Tunnel<em>Der Tunnel</em> was created as a two-part television movie in Germany with a runtime of more than three hours. It has been repackaged with English subtitles for the American theatrical market and slightly cut down to two hours 47 minutes. That seems like a long time to be cooped up with a foreign language film, reading subtitles. But the time flies by and after a short time you hardly notice that you are watching a foreign film at all. You are simply caught up in the action of a well crafted suspenseful drama based on a true story.<br /><br />For those readers who immediately poo-poo the idea of watching a made-for-television movie, I urge you to keep reading. The production quality on this film is excellent and fully up to the standards of any major Western theatrical production. I was amazed when I read afterwards that it had been created for television broadcast.<br /><br />The action takes place in 1961 and 1962, starting with the shocking overnight construction of the Berlin Wall (which of course was not a wall overnight... It consisted of barbed wire and nervous soldiers watching nervous citizens). A champion East German swimmer, Harry Melchior, is known as a "troublemaker" by the East German police and party leaders. He has spent some time in prison in the past (for taking part in the June Rebellion of 1953) and they want to keep him on a very tight leash, representing the state in his athletic endeavors. He decides to make a break for West Germany, but is unable to take along his devoted and very close sister, Lotte, and her family.<br /><br />Once in the West, Harry sets about figuring out how to make good on his vow to get Lotte out. He and some cohorts finally decide to tunnel under the wall and sneak their loved ones under the border.<br /><br />The rest of the film chronicles the construction of the tunnel, a gradually building love interest for Harry, and the unrelenting attention of the Director For Illegal Emigration -- a state functionary who is fixated on making sure that Harry's loved ones don't foil him with another escape attempt.<br /><br />In many ways, the movie is reminiscent of <em>The Great Escape</em>. The suspense builds with the seemingly impossible construction of a long tunnel to escape, the possibility of detection by the guards, the elaborate planning for getting out a group of escapees, and a big showdown situation.<br /><br />The movie takes time to focus on the human aspects of the story. The relationship between Harry and his sister is clearly communicated with a minimum of exposition. The men who work together on the tunnel each have their own stories and people in East Germany that they want to help. The one female member of the group (Fritzi) has her own complicated story (hers seems the most sensationalistic and improbable, briefly sidetracking the movie from drama to melodrama).<br /><br />Star Heino Herch as Harry presents a strong-minded, strong-willed character. I wanted just a bit more depth and conflict in his portrayal. He seems so perfect and so unidimensional in his convictions that he eventually became uninteresting. Herch was 38 years old when the film was made, and he looks it. I had a hard time accepting him as a champion swimmer going up against athletes in their 20's. I have not been able to find any factual biography of the person to see how old he really was during these events. Harry's love interest is portrayed by 30-year-old Nicolette Krebitz, who has the good fortune of looking about ten years younger than her age. Unfortunately the disparity in the two stars' chronological appearances distracted me a bit. At times they seemed a bit creepy together, looking like an older man with a young impressionable girl.<br /><br />The other male members of the tunnel team are more complex and interesting to watch. Sebastian Koch as Matthis and Mehmet Kurtulus as Vic breathe life and emotional conflict into their characters. Kurtulus does a great job of sounding like an American speaking German, instead of the native-born German he is.<br /><br />I also enjoyed the performance of Uwe Kockisch as the East German functionary trying to thwart Harry's schemes. He could have played the man as a cartoon "bad guy," but instead gave him a quiet dignity. This was a man performing the functions of his job in a cold and professional manner.<br /><br />The action and suspense builds very well throughout the movie. The story is told linearly, without tricks, flasbacks, or voice-over narration (except for a couple of lines at the very beginning to establish that these are real events). The movie ends with a satisfying epilog to let viewers know what happened to the various individuals in later years.<br /><br />Tunnel scenes are appropriately claustrophobic and realistic, as the production team built a long self-contained dirt tunnel inside a movie soundstage and packed in cameramen, sound guys, and actors.<br /><br />Recreations of 1961 East Germany feel accurate and realistic, with the buildings, cars, soldiers, and costumes creating a sense of time and place. The company filmed in Germany and in Prague to recreate real locations.<br /><br />English subtitling is clear and there are no funny mistranslations. Parents will find no nudity, drug use, or gratuitous violence. People do get shot and die however, there are swear words, and there is one mostly-clothed sex scene.<br /><br />The DVD contains a "Making Of" featurette that goes into detail on the shooting techniques in the constructed tunnel, with commentary by the actors and director. Hasso Herschel also contributes some views about the actual construction of the tunnel. Herschel is the real swimming champion who made the initial escape and built the tunnel. The reason for renaming his character in the film is never given, but does support the theory that a viewer should always retain a bit of skepticism over any entertainment drama that is "based on" a true story.<br /><br />The only other feature is a trailer. The soundtrack is selectable for two-channel stereo or 5.1 surround. Music and sound effects are subtle and do their job of underscoring the action without calling attention to themselves.<br /><br />Recommended.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1153287313151721042006-07-19T01:32:00.000-04:002006-07-19T01:35:13.163-04:00Tristram Shandy - A Cock And Bull StoryIt's "English literary classics" week here at the Netflix reviewing labs. First we had <em>Revengers Tragedy</em>, based on a play from the early 1600's. Now we try out <em>Tristram Shandy - A Cock And Bull Story</em>, based on a nine volume serial written by Laurence Sterne in the late middle part of the 1700's.<br /><br />The book has been the object of both veneration and derision by reviewers over the centuries. It is exceedingly tortuous to read. The fictional narrator (Tristram Shandy) sets up to tell us about his life, starting with the circumstances of his birth. But he keeps getting sidetracked with background stories and information about the people and events leading up to his birth, so that at the end of almost 600 pages of text, he hasn't quite managed to get himself born in his autobiography.<br /><br />The author thinks nothing of breaking off a statement from a character such as his father or uncle in mid-sentence to explore the philosophical or experiential background that would lead to such an opinion, then returning to the scene and the quotation a chapter or two later. Chapters are filled with ellipses and em-dashes and asterisks, as well as quotations in Latin, French, and Greek. A couple of pages are solid black. One chapter has no content at all. The author engages in hypothetical arguments with his imagined critics as he writes his passages.<br /><br />Some people find the book a masterful piece of bittersweet irony at man's inability to achieve his goals because of the constant interplay of factors beyond his control and the myriad interactions between unforeseen events that create our existence. Others find it a vanity experiment that is basically an overlong one-concept gag... Constant digressions violate the expectations of linear narrative.<br /><br />The one thing everyone seemed to agree on in the last sixty years or so was that the work could not be turned into a film. Along comes British director Michael Winterbottom and a cast of British comedians to say "Pshaw" to that.<br /><br />They have created a movie that may be impossible to describe in a review. It is the story of the cast and crew making the movie we are watching. The lead actors are played by Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon, both well-known comedic actors in the UK who have not gained widespread notoriety in America. They play the characters in the Tristram Shandy novel, but they also play "Steve Coogan" and "Rob Brydon" - the actors making the film. But Coogan makes sure we also see him commenting that the character of "Steve Coogan," the character in the movie, is an exaggerated caricature of himself, the real person. But his real person commentator is also interviewed within the movie, making him just as much a character as the two characterizations he is commenting upon.<br /><br />Confused? It gets worse. By the end of the film, the movie shows us the film crew watching the final cut of the movie they have made, which seems to be the movie we are watching, showing them watching the movie. The self-referential layers get so thick that I can only believe we are meant to throw up our hands and surrender our adherence to the idea of an objective reality outside the frame of reference of the observer.<br /><br />There is a scene where Coogan in the character of Tristram Shandy comments on the actor playing him as a young boy and the boy actor steps out of his scene to have an argument with Coogan the actor before stepping right back into character and completing the scene.<br /><br />I offer these examples just to attempt to give you an idea of what you are committing to. In no way is this a straightforward telling of the Tristram Shandy story.<br /><br />Your enjoyment of the film will be enhanced by a bit of background on the real Steve Coogan. He had a very popular satirical fake talk show on BBC TV where he played a fictional host by the name of Alan Partridge. In Tristram Shandy, he keeps commenting on how people want to think of him as that character - or at least the actor who portrayed that character, which he continually discourages. But the real Coogan's exploits off-screen were also the subject of tabloid glee, as he was generally portrayed as an over-sexed ladies' man who had some serious problems with fidelity and single-partner commitment. The version of Coogan as the actor portraying Shandy in the film is a fairly despicable character... vain and self-promoting, pursuing a female crewmember while his girlfriend is upstairs with their new baby.<br /><br />The movie is filled with some very funny lines and bits of action. I laughed many times. It offers some biting comments on the inane details of film making. But it is also so convoluted and drily understated in the improvised dialog between the Coogan and Brydon actor characters that you may find yourself nodding instead of reacting.<br /><br />The movie was generally a critical success in America with a very small "art house" theatrical showing, but in reading through user comments on IMDB and Amazon I find that viewers are polarized in their opinions. Some think it a masterpiece and others find it dull and uninteresting. Sterne would probably be pleased by the controversy and argument. I quite enjoyed the film, but I understand that it is not for everyone.<br /><br />If you do rent the movie, make sure to let the end credits roll. For me, the funniest bit in the film comes at the end in a piece of improvised interplay between Coogan and Brydon as they comment on a line delivery in the movie.<br /><br />Parents notes include sexual situations, a brief shot of a young boy's genitalia, and cursing.<br /><br />The DVD includes a commentary track by Coogan and Brydon that did not hold my interest, deleted/extended scenes, behind the scenes footage, and the theatrical trailer. None of the special features added much for me.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1153196616537401042006-07-18T00:19:00.000-04:002006-07-18T00:25:42.353-04:00Riding Giants<p>This movie was a pleasant surprise. Neither my girlfriend nor I are surfing fans/participants/knowledgeable. But I saw enough good reviews on Netflix to make me want to give the filim a try. I'm glad I did. </p><p>Written, directed, and - most importantly - edited by the team that made the highly rated <em>Dogtown and Z-Boys</em> (a 2001 documentary about skateboarding), <em>Riding Giants</em> weaves together archive footage, new interviews, and explanatory narrative to tell the story of surfing and its evolution, concentrating naturally on riding the biggest waves. </p><p>Starting with an animated segment modestly labeled "1000 Years Of Surfing In Two Minutes Or Less" we quickly springboard from Polynesian natives riding boards before the arrival of Captain Cook to the late 1940's in Southern California. At this point we start to get involved not with the technical aspects of the sport, but rather with the groundbreaking individuals who defined milestones in its development. The concentration on the human story grounds the film and makes it interesting even to non-devotees. </p><p>The movie is structured in three distinct sections. The first is light-hearted, fun, and breezy as we meet the few guys who popularized surfing in its early days and discovered the majestic locations that would define Hawaii as a surfing mecca for decades to come. The most charismatic and outspoken of the group is Greg Noll, one of the first riders of a giant wave. His modern interview commentaries are so good that they extend all through the film, to the point where he acts as something of a Greek Chorus, counterpointing the actions of those who came after him in the sport. The archival footage in this segment is a joy to watch, including many aspects of the goofy hijinks that the boys would get into during the few hours they were out of the water. </p><p>The second segment is darker in color and tone as the scene shifts to Half Moon Bay (south of San Francisco) and some of the most dangerous big wave surfing available. This section covers the period from the 1970's to the 1990's. </p><p>Finally we are brought into the present with the current wunderkind and poster boy of the surfing world, Laird Hamilton. The shift to modern technology is evident not just in the surfing equipment and techniques, but in the quality of the footage, which is outstanding. The movie action climaxes with recorded footage of a Hamilton ride generally regarded (we are told) as one of the greatest rides in the history of surfing. </p><p>You may not notice it as you are watching, but the production techniques on the movie are simply superb. Modern interviews that were done for the movie use film stocks and color temperatures that match the archival footage the people are commenting on. So the "old men" talking about their exploits in the fifties are filmed in overexposed, punched colors that match the old Ektachrome stock. The 1970's segment uses interviews in black and white, that cut unobtrusively into the dark waters and black wetsuits of Northern California. </p><p>Music is a huge presence in the movie, and the production team includes a wide range of styles, from classic California surf instrumentals with their twangy guitars to modern rock from Linkin Park to classical pieces from Bach and Satie. It all fits in seamlessly with the footage, interviews, and narration. Sound editing on the wave action brings home the power of giant waves and the potential for danger and death that they offer. The movie benefits from a good sound system and a subwoofer. </p><p>There is a surprisingly interesting commentary track by the writer/director and the editor as well as commentary by the interviewed surfers. The DVD also contains a "Making Of " featurette, a disposable movie premiere special from cable TV, and deleted scenes. You could spend a long time with this disc! </p><p>The only parental advisory is some off-color language in the Greg Noll interviews. </p><p><em>Riding Giants</em> is recommended even for those who have no particular interest in surfing. It simply works as a good and interesting piece of documentary film making. </p>Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1152600010508545102006-07-11T02:36:00.000-04:002006-07-11T02:44:39.956-04:00Revengers Tragedy<p><br />I was an engineering major in college. This may explain why I had no idea there was a defined sub-genre of Elizabethan and Jacobean drama known as a revenge play. <em>Hamlet</em> is the best-known revenge play, with its theme of the son seeking vengeance for his father's death and eventually leading to the death of most of the characters directly and peripherally involved in the plot. But it turns out that Shakespeare was just an old softie when compared with the dramatists who concentrated on this form of tragedy in the early 1600's. </p><p>One of the big names in the field was Thomas Middleton. Many scholars now think that Middleton collaborated with Shakespeare on some plays, helping to write some scenes and revising others to get to the forms in which we now know them. But one of Middleton's juiciest works may be a play entitled <em>The Revenger's Tragedy</em>. It was published anonymously when it came out in 1606 and later was attributed to Cyril Tourneur. The people who study these things say the style is unmistakably Middleton's and he now tends to get the credit. </p><p>The Wikipedia listing for the play states that the work "was ignored for many years and viewed by some critics as the product of a diseased mind." Fast forward a few hundred years and Alex Cox enters the picture. Cox wrote and directed cult favorites such as <em>Repo Man</em> and <em>Sid And Nancy</em>. Supposedly he tripped across the text of the Middleton play and decided it was his kind of story. But of course, he would want to update the play with his punk sensibility and defiance of conventional genre categorization. </p><p>The 2004 DVD release of the 2002 film contains a commentary track, a "making of" documentary, and four extended interviews with people involved with the film (including a professor of English Literature at Oxford). These let me figure out that Cox has taken some serious liberties with the original work. He has introduced new characters, tacked on an ending not found in the play, and had a writer create a completely new script. The screenplay mixes Middleton's tongue-twisting 1600's language with modern slang and profanities. Since I'm not familiar with the original, it's easy for me to review the film as its own entity, rather than having to make a mental comparison with the source material. </p><p>Cox has set the story in the near future of Liverpool, England (He made the film on location in the city and employed all local labor for the crew. Most of the actors have an association with the city as well.) An establishing shot opens with a satellite orbiting a strangely altered Earth. We see the UK decimated and missing large chunks of land, while France seems to be gone completely. We move down to a rubble-filled, rundown street. A city bus comes around a corner and slowly crashes into a derelict car in the middle of the street. The camera enters the bus and we see that everybody on board, including the driver, is dead. Flies buzz over the bloody corpses. Then a single survivor raises his head, gets his bearings, and jumps off the bus. Thus the dramatic entrance of the main avenging character, Vindici (All Middleton's character names are Latin/Italian references to their characters.) </p><p>Unfortunately this memorable scene is never linked to anything else in the film and the mystery of the bus and its occupants (as well as the perfect entrance around a corner while being driven by a dead man) is never explained. Cox admits in a featurette that the scene was shot well before the rest of the movie as a standalone piece to help get funding for the picture. The visual impact and style is so strong, I'm mostly willing to let the practical questions slide. </p><p>We quickly learn that Vindici is out for revenge upon the cruel ruler of the community -- the Duke. The Duke killed Vindici's new wife ten years earlier on their wedding day. Unlike Hamlet, Vindici never hesitates or questions his moral justification. He is a completely driven man and nothing is going to stand in the way of his vengeance. </p><p>During the course of events, we are treated to corrupt government leaders, corrupt civil servants, corrupt familial relationships, rape, prostitution, incest, murder, random acts of violence, and some foosball games. I said it was juicy! </p><p>The movie is not designed to work as an easy piece of passive viewing entertainment. The language is thick and filled with old English words and phrasings that have long passed out of common usage. Add in the heavy English accents and you may find yourself turning on the subtitles for assistance. Scenes and character conversations often end with rhymed couplets in a Shakespearean fashion. But just when you think you are settling in to the flow of the language, you are yanked back to modern times with a contemporary slang term or greeting. </p><p>Cox's setting feels slightly science fiction (think <em>Blade Runner</em> or <em>Mad Max</em> or <em>Max Headroom</em>). The downtrodden masses watch and are watched over by giant video monitors. Cox uses three different film techniques to emphasize different points of view, mixing digital video with handheld film with classic widescreen set pieces. Costumes, sets, and makeup are a hodge-podge of found elements, all taken to over-the-top extremes. Derek Jacobi as the Duke has a ghost-white face and a dark lipstick enhanced mouth. The Duke's sons include one who dresses like a wanna-be urban cowboy/pimp and another who is extravagantly and exaggeratedly gay. The others exhibit various forms of punk/thug accoutrements, such as facial piercings and loud tattoos. </p><p>The movie refuses to present a consistent take on the proceedings either. Some scenes are played absolutely straight with dramatic intensity. Others are presented with a wink at the camera and an obvious comedic bent. Others are set up for shock horror/thriller surprises to unsettle the audience. While not everything works perfectly, one can't help but remain fascinated and drawn in to Cox's world. The plot is so astonishing in its collection of unredeemable acts and contemptible characters that you can't wait to see the next revelation. It's like a soap opera on methamphetamines. And the visual richness keeps your eyes fixed on the screen. </p><p>Most of the leads are excellent in their portrayals. Christopher Eccleston as Vindici is a raging force, straddling the line between cold-blooded determination and outright madness. Eddie Izzard as the eldest son and next in line as ruler is very strong, making his character a real person when it would have been easy to play a stereotype villain. The three younger brothers are caricatures as written and the actors playing them chew every piece of scenery in sight. I thought it worked within the context, but some people will be turned off by the clownlike performances. </p><p>A few of the supporting actors are not up to snuff. Carla Henry as Castiza gives a particularly lifeless performance and Margi Clarke as her mother plays it too broadly. Some mention should be made of the lovely Sophie Dahl as Imogen. Cox envisions her as a Princess Diana analog and Dahl carries it off beautifully, using her large doe-like eyes to make up for a lack of dialog. </p><p>This is a big, bold and audacious movie from a director who refuses to fit his work into pigeonholes. It is not a general audience crowd pleaser, but rewards those who are up for an experiment and something seldom seen. Fans of David Lynch should make the crossover to Cox easily. One thing is for sure... After watching this, you'll yawn at the manufactured dramatics of battling housemates on your favorite reality TV show! </p><p>The swearing, blood, and violence in the film make it inappropriate for small children to be in the room. There is simulated sex, but no nudity. Mature teenagers should eat this stuff up. It might give them an increased interest in English literature. </p>Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1152293697656859132006-07-07T13:32:00.000-04:002006-07-07T13:35:43.086-04:00The MatadorThe Matador is a heartbreaker. It is so very close to being a very good movie, and yet it falls just shy of the mark. Good intentions and earnest effort are evident everywhere, but ultimately the film is sabotaged by a lack of plot development.<br /><br />The history of the film is a Hollywood Cinderella story of the type that fuels the dreams of thousands of small filmmakers. Independent small-budget writer/director Richard Shepard sent the script of the movie to a production company owned by Pierce Brosnan. He wanted to show them an example of a script so he could be hired as a writer. Instead, the office staff showed the script to Brosnan with a recommendation that he consider it as a starring role. Brosnan called Shepard and expressed interest in not only starring, but co-producing the film. Suddenly Shepard found himself putting together a big screen major release. They scrounged money from every source they could find (the pre-title production company credits go on forever, and IMDB lists 17 producers!). They scored Hope Davis and Greg Kinnear for the other two leads.<br /><br />Shepard on his enthusiastic commentary track confesses that he knew nothing about shooting in wide screen and constantly learned tricks of the trade from his production crew. They shot for 40 days entirely in Mexico City (as a cost saving necessity). Taking the film to Sundance, they got bought up quickly by the Weinstein Company, which promoted it for major theatrical distribution. With favorable critical reviews and modest box office success (it just equaled its $12 million budget in box office revenues), it should do all right on video rentals, based mainly on Brosnan's name recognition and popularity.<br /><br />The plot of the movie can be summarized quickly and easily. A professional assassin (Brosnan) is suffering a combination of midlife crisis and job burn-out. He meets a nondescript straightlaced suburban husband and small businessman (Kinnear) and forms a tenuous friendship -- or at least an acquaintance. The two eventually find strength and support in the qualities of the other as they attempt to overcome their own insecurities and fears.<br /><br />Much of the "buddy picture" aspect relies on a familiar juxtaposition of opposites. Kinnear is one of the "mass of men [who] lead lives of quiet desperation" with his faithful and supportive wife in their little Denver suburban home. Brosnan plays his assassin as a free-living and almost completely amoral iconoclast, doing what he likes to whomever he likes.<br /><br />Getting Brosnan for the role (remember, it wasn't written for him) adds an automatic layer of fun to the part because of the audience's knowledge of the actor as Remington Steele and James Bond. Both of those characters exuded class and sophistication in their investigations and dealings with "bad guys." Brosnan's Julian Noble in The Matador is the antithesis of class. He wears gold chains and open-necked shirts, looking like a half-shaved lounge lizard. He picks up random women, hookers, and young girls. He is a slovenly drunk much of the time and laughs too loudly while telling vulgar jokes. Kinnear's Danny Wright is justifiably appalled by the man in short order.<br /><br />But Julian has deeper psychological issues that are eating away at his one area of expertise and functional competence. He is lonely, paranoid, tired, and beginning to suffer from repressed feelings that killing his victims is in effect killing himself. When the bigwigs who call the shots (oops, no pun intended - but I like it!) get nervous about the stability and effectiveness of an asset like this, it can be dangerous for that asset's continued health and welfare.<br /><br />Julian of course turns to Danny for help. Kinnear runs through the required sequence of disbelief, shock, revulsion, acceptance, and enthusiasm.<br /><br />All the above works. It's a fine, comfortable story with good competent actors. Brosnan throws himself into the pathetic unlikeable aspects of Julian Noble. But Shephard doesn't go anywhere with it. Scenes play out too long and too repeatedly. We keep being shown how mousy Kinnear is, how brazen Brosnan is, and how unlikely it is that they would ever partner up. After a while, you find yourself looking at your watch and wondering when they'll get to the inevitable crisis point that brings them together. In a film that is only 96 minutes long, that is a problem.<br /><br />The later scenes in the movie seem to recognize this problem and attempt to inject additional drama, pathos, and intrigue as a way to shake things up. But they feel artificially imposed by a scriptwriter rather than a progression of the story. Hope Davis as Kinnear's wife has about three lines and 15 seconds of screen time in the first half of the movie. Then suddenly we get a focus on her making a long, teary, emotional speech to her husband that sounds like movie writing rather than character-driven dialog. This is a couple who has been married for something like 14 years, and she suddenly unburdens herself with a long expository recitation about her youth and how they met and what it meant to her. Davis delivers it well, but it doesn't feel like a real conversation that a long-married couple would have.<br /><br />From there, we go to a long scene of revelations and implied secrets between all three characters. Did something happen between Danny and Julian in Mexico that we didn't see? Then we finally get the big payoff where the two men need to work together. What feels like an ending is extended with more revelations that set up and toy with audience expectations. As before, each piece is fun, but it's not cohesive.<br /><br />From a technical perspective, the movie works. There is a little bit of intrusive cut editing, with inserts that don't quite mesh smoothly enough with the coverage shots. The artistic director did a good job of incorporating colors into the story, so that the Mexico scenes use the bright yellows, pinks, and blues found throughout the country, while locations doubling for Budapest, Denver, and the Philippines feel correct and plausible. The score by Rolfe Kent does a nice job of evoking James Bond theme music for the action sequences while supporting the drama and comedy appropriately elsewhere.<br /><br />Parents will want to know that while all violence is implied and off-screen, sex and profanities are prominently featured throughout the film.<br /><br />Bullfighting critics will want to know that all shots of the bullfights were made at regularly scheduled bullfights at the giant arena in Mexico City and no bulls were harmed explicitly for the production of the movie. Brosnan and Kinnear supposedly refused to even attend or shoot during a real bullfight, so all their scenes are matted in and recreated. This may be publicity talk for political correctness or not, but they make a point of it in the end credits and in the commentary. No bullfight violence is shown, only passes.<br /><br />The movie is enjoyable enough for a home rental. You'll laugh several times and enjoy the performances. But like me, you may be left wishing there was a little more "oomph" to sink your teeth into. If you are looking for other takes on some of the same themes, you may want to take a look at <a href="http://nfreport.blogspot.com/2006/04/memory-of-killer-de-zaak-alzheimer.html">The Memory Of A Killer </a>(the professional assassin at the end of his career) or <a href="http://nfreport.blogspot.com/2006/04/walk-on-water.html">Walk On Water </a>(the assassin forming an uneasy friendship with a civilian and involving him in his activities).Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1151788534240061342006-07-01T17:11:00.000-04:002006-07-01T17:36:13.553-04:00Kiss Kiss Bang Bang<p>An early shot in <i>Kiss Kiss Bang Bang</i> is filmed from the bottom of a large Los Angeles swimming pool looking up through the ripples at Robert Downey Jr. staring down into the pool and just dipping his toe tentatively into the water as he starts a voice-over narration describing himself and the setting and promising to tell you how he got there. If that doesn't trigger immediate reaction and recognition, then this movie might not be for you.</p><p>The setup is a direct reference to the famous opening sequence of <i>Sunset Boulevard</i>. In that film noir classic from five decades ago, we first see William Holden's corpse floating face down in a Los Angeles swimming pool, filmed from below, as he begins a voice-over to explain how he got to that point. </p><p><i>Kiss Kiss Bang Bang</i> keeps the noir references coming, both explicitly and subtly. Characters comment on the action, comparing it to the nonsense found in Hollywood fantasies, even as they go through all the paces, counted off by the numbers. The voice-over monologue by Downey is restaurant-quality cheese in the best/worst hard-boiled private eye B Movie style, occasionally interrupted by his own criticism of his presentation. </p><p>Writer/director Shane Black sets up the difficult task of having it both ways... He spends the entire movie spoofing the film noir genre and its established conventions, while simultaneously telling a convoluted murder mystery straight out of the 1940's playbook, complete with 87 separate plot twists, rapid-fire overlapping dialog, and a romance that never seems quite able to consummate itself. </p><p>While the movie is a comedy and has many laugh-out-loud lines, it is not a wacky farce in the Mel Brooks tradition. The central story line is tense and deals with troubling, adult-themed issues. Film noir conventions such as the hero getting beat up or tortured by the bad guys are updated for the modern screen and there are scenes that graphically depict nasty physical injury and death. Profanities and vulgarities abound, along with female nudity... this is definitely not one for the kiddies. </p><p>I love the way it all comes together. I laughed heartily at the knowing, self-referential lines while trying my best to figure out the mystery and rooting for the good guys. The movie is a solid slug of good old fashioned entertainment, both visceral and intellectual. </p><p>Downey (as a well intentioned, but hopelessly dense wanna-be actor, private detective, and tough guy) and Val Kilmer (as a macho, super-competent private eye who happens to be gay) play their leading men roles with tongues firmly planted in cheek. They are joined by Michelle Monaghan as Harmony Faith Lane - another implied reference, her three-word character name echoing Vivian Sternwood Rutledge, the Lauren Bacall flirtatious dame bantering with Humphrey Bogart while trying to help her younger sister in <i>The Big Sleep</i>, just as Monaghan's character does here. If that last sentence seemed convoluted, read it again. It will eventually make sense, and it's good practice for watching the film. </p><p><i>Kiss Kiss Bang Bang</i> is divided into chapters, each with its own title card. Fans of the genre will recognize each title as the name of a Raymond Chandler story. </p><p>For all its strengths, the movie ends a bit on the weak side. It sets up the big revelation to the central mystery with a device I used to love while watching <i>Ellery Queen</i> episodes on television... Downey's narration suddenly addresses us in the audience and tells us we have all the clues -- can we figure out the answer? Then they proceed to solve the mystery with a leap of intuition and a connection so tenuous and ludicrous that I still can't figure out if it's supposed to be another joke or simply an act of desperation and expediency by the script writer. There is also a disappointing payoff to a long-standing injustice and a wrap up that just veers over the line into too cute territory. </p><p>But these are minor imperfections in a thoroughly enjoyable film. Highly recommended, particularly (and possibly exclusively) for fans of film noir. Extras on the disc are limited to the theatrical trailer, a short gag reel, and one of the weirder commentary tracks you are likely to hear. Robert Downey Jr. and Shane Black attempt to hold their own against a manic Val Kilmer, who starts a contest to count the number of celebrity name drops he can pack in during the course of the commentary. For all his reputation as an impossible person to work with, Kilmer sure comes across as a guy who likes to have a good time!</p>Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1151386881463741022006-06-27T01:37:00.000-04:002006-06-27T01:43:54.750-04:00I Love You, Alice B. Toklas!<p>In 1968 the glow was starting to come off the famed "Summer of Love" a year earlier. Frank Zappa released <em>We're Only In It For The Money</em>, his brutal put-down of hippie pretension. Both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy were assassinated. The Democratic Convention in Chicago showed television viewers a different face of the "question authority" ethic and response. But there was still hope and optimism that society could find a different and more peaceful path to existence. Many people were still searching for alternative answers. In the middle of this confusion, Warner Brothers released <em>I Love You, Alice B. Toklas</em>. </p><p>The movie reflects the cultural uncertainty of the times startlingly well. It doesn't seem to know whether it wants to put down and make fun of the straight-laced squares attempting to hang on to beliefs, styles, and behavior patterns little changed from the good ol' structured 50's or to expose and decry the pretensions and ineffectuality of a flower child subculture caught up in its own mindless conformity of nonconformism. Eventually it settles for the easy route, making fun of everybody and taking no stand.<br /><br />Peter Sellers stars as Harold Fine, a Jewish lawyer living in Los Angeles and accepting of a rather passionless engagement to Joyce (Joyce Van Patten). Sellers puts on much the same American accent he used for President Merkin Muffley in <em>Dr. Strangelove</em>, but with a touch more Jewish inflection that comes and goes as needs dictate. </p><p>Joyce is played as an irritating, exasperating, insistent woman fixated on the idea of their marriage. It comes as something of a relief when various events cause Harold to chuck his staid lifestyle and take up with a free spirited hippie chick (Leigh Taylor-Young). The movie is heavy on stereotypes throughout (a family of 11 cheery Mexicans jammed into a car; a shrill Jewish mother; stoned hippie friends of Harold's counter-culture brother), but Harold's transformation trumps them all. Suddenly we see him with long flowing hair and headband, waxing rhapsodically over the ankh he wears around his neck and following a nonsense-spouting guru in white robes on the beach. </p><p>That guru is a strange character. He seems to have a position of prominence in the screenwriters' minds, setting up a proposition of action to his young disciples at the beginning of the film to go out and use love to change the establishment mindset, then popping up in a scene midway along as he leads his charges on a field trip to look at downtown office buildings, then showing up again as a spiritual guide for Harold. Yet he is strangely disconnected from any of the plot or other action in the movie. </p><p>At the end of the movie, Harold has managed to lose faith in both his initial conservative lifestyle and values and in the alternative hippie existence. There is an extremely confusing montage of film snippets that bounce between the steps that were leading him to the altar with Joyce and the steps that were leading him to a burnt out hippie abandonment of all responsibilities. We last see him running down the street, shouting that he doesn't know where he is going or what he will do, but there must be something out there. It's a clarion call and a desperate plea that probably went unanswered and unfulfilled for many people as they moved into the 1970's and a gradual stabilization of society again. </p><p>The movie can be hard to watch for a new millenium audience. It is a period piece, stuck firmly in and of its time. The wackiness of the characters (both "straight" and "free") seems overplayed and cartoonish. Leigh Taylor-Young fares best in a natural and honest performance as the young woman Harold falls for. She seems completely content with life as it is at each moment, and is the only character in the film not searching for something different, better, or designed to meet artificial expectations. Sellers and the rest of the cast give it their all, but are ultimately sabotaged by the writers' contempt for all of these characters. </p><p>The movie fits right in with two other films released the same year, showing a similar big studio take on the silliness of the youth's "flower power" movement. You can watch this along with Jane Fonda's loopy title role in <em>Barbarella</em> and then watch Mel Brooks lead Dick Shawn through an over the top caricature of a freakazoid hippie in <em>The Producers</em> (a part that was expunged from the recent Broadway and film remakes). As a trilogy, these movies speak volumes about the establishment strategy of showcasing and exaggerating the challenging viewpoints, as the films simultaneously lampoon and profit from their "enlightened" subjects. </p><p>Parents: The film contains numerous references to sex and drugs. One sequence features people getting ridiculously high and zany after eating a batch of the namesake "Alice B. Toklas brownies." There are scenes of people in bed together and obviously involved in sexual situations, although there is no nudity or graphic coupling. Swearing is very mild (of the "damn it!" variety).<br /></p>Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1150605788382541052006-06-18T00:40:00.000-04:002006-06-18T00:43:08.393-04:00Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is MagicReviewing movies is a tricky business at the best of times. The reviewer ultimately ends up with a choice of stating whether s/he "liked" the film or simply deconstructing it and going through an examination of technical production techniques. Reviewing a comedy is that much harder because of the tremendously subjective nature of humor... For every person who enjoys the humor of a <em>Deuce Bigalow</em> movie, there is someone else gnawing his own leg off in an attempt to escape the theater. Reviewing a film primarily documenting a live standup comedy performance takes the problem to its logical limit, as there is precious little left after deciding whether the comedian made you laugh or not.<br /><br /><em>Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic</em> is first and foremost a straightforward recording of Ms. Silverman performing a live stage performance of her solo comedy routine. Production technique consists mainly of edits that jump between the three cameras that filmed the event. I laughed heartily at some of the gags, smiled knowingly at others, and waited for the remainder to fade into an uncomfortable silence.<br /><br />For those unfamiliar with Sarah Silverman's style, her humor is based primarily on shock value. She is a thin, attractive, unimposing brunette with a youthful voice. But her monologue deals with politically incorrect insults, racial slurs, sexual references, and other socially taboo subjects - all delivered with a litany of vulgarities. The presentation comes out funny because she does not emphasize the vulgarity... her delivery is matter of fact and conversational, as if her warped viewpoints are natural observations and reflections on her life and ours. The incongruity of the words issuing from the mouth of this seemingly "nice girl" cause the disassociative laughter response.<br /><br />According to my trusty stopwatch, the recorded standup performance resulted in about 44 minutes of usable footage. That's just not enough to release as a feature film. So Silverman and director Liam Lynch furiously pad with enough filler material to bring the runtime to a barely acceptable minimum of 72 minutes. The extra material is painfully obvious as tacked on afterthought rather than an integral part of a cohesive film.<br /><br />The movie opens with Sarah sitting in her apartment, listening to (fictional) friends talking about their success in professional comedy. She attempts to save face and match their stories with a lie about a new performance she is giving that very night. As she leaves the apartment, she begins a soliloquy in song about putting together a show to match her lies. The song is shot as a deliberately cheesy early MTV music video, with bad rear projection and obvious lip synching.<br /><br />The song is the first of four or five similar such music video interruptions penned and sung by Silverman. The comedienne is not much of a composer, lyricist, or singer. Both chords and lyrics tend to be highly repetitive and don't advance much beyond the stated central concept of the song - usually set up in the first line. The concept of singing "You're gonna die soon" as part of an amateur entertainment visit to a rest home may be funny (if you like that kind of shock gag), but it doesn't go anywhere. She basically keeps singing "You're gonna die soon" to each member of her elderly audience.<br /><br />After the standup performance comes to an end on a high note that gets a good response from the live audience, we are treated to the closing half of the surrounding bookend story with Sarah and her comedy buddies pulling the energy level back down to zero in another scene of tacked on dialog. Then Silverman carefully ends the film with a coda designed to show herself as a loathsome and pathetic character. I am sure the idea was to make her preceding insults "acceptable" by showing us that while she may have talked about hating other races, political persuasions, or individuals, it is all right because she hates herself more. It's a cop out that robs her own material of its impact.<br /><br />I have enjoyed watching Silverman's caustic and vulgar deliveries on the Comedy Central celebrity roasts. The bits are funny, they stand on their own, and she doesn't apologize or explain away what she says. Either the audience gets the comedic intent or it doesn't. That kind of brevity and courage would have greatly benefited this movie. My recommendation is to watch it with remote control in hand and to fast forward over anything that is not Sarah standing alone at a mike on stage.<br /><br />Parents, the topics and language in the movie are inappropriate for children or for anyone likely to be offended by inflammatory and derogatory jokes.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1150314275065760172006-06-14T15:42:00.000-04:002006-06-14T15:44:35.080-04:00Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the SithWatching <em>Revenge of the Sith</em> I got the feeling that writer/director/producer George Lucas was a very tired man trying desperately to just get this whole marathon over with. The movie feels like a stitched together collection of obligatory set pieces, each presented in its own neat little wrapper and connected with randomly inserted wipes (the editing process, not a personal hygiene product).<br /><br />In atypical style for a review, I feel I should start with a brief description of my Star Wars background, Coming in to the sixth movie in a series stretching over nearly thirty years, we each carry a massive personal history and pre-bias before ever starting the film. I was in high school when the first (fourth?) Star Wars movie came out in 1977. I saw it in a first run theater of course (no videotapes, laserdiscs, or DVDs, kiddies!). I enjoyed the spectacle and sense of fun, but honestly, I wasn't that big a fan. I was a "hard science" science fiction fan, raised on Asimov, Heinlein, and Niven. Star Wars may have been set in space, but it hardly gave a passing nod to the "science" part of the genre.<br /><br />I was in college in Los Angeles when the sequel burst on the scene. I was lucky enough to score passes to an exclusive pre-screening in the fancy theater 20th Century used for such events on their studio lot. I was mostly blown away by the sound editing -- I still remember the shock and awe of the initial pod audibly flying over our heads from the back of the theater to the screen in front. I thought the storytelling was a little richer and more dramatic this time, with grander action sequences. And the big Darth/Luke revelation was so fun coming completely out of the blue. But I still had trouble figuring out why it was such a massive pop culture phenomenon. It wasn't that great a movie!<br /><br />The third film in the series was the turning point for me. With the introduction of fuzzy little Ewoks, silly one-liners, and cheese pouring out of every line of dialog, I simply stopped caring (great steadycam forest speeder race though!).<br /><br />I have watched the "prequel trilogy" of the past few years with little enthusiasm or sense of urgency. As they came out on home video, I eventually added them to my viewing list and noted that each release was still seen as a pop culture event even though all aspects of quality cinematic production had been dropped in favor of a single-minded concentration on digital effects work.<br /><br />Which brings me up to <em>Revenge of the Sith</em>. Here we see Lucas furiously tying up loose ends to bring us up to the starting point of Episode IV, all those years ago. His amazing tin ear for romantic or realistic interpersonal dialog has been well documented, and all I can do is throw up my hands and point at gems such as: "Hold me, like you did by the lake on Naboo; so long ago when there was nothing but our love." Perhaps... just <em>maybe</em>... a great Shakespearean actor could bring this off, but Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen are so far out of their depth you want to throw them a life preserver.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, I can't help but feel concern when the best, most expressive acting in the cast is done by a puppet. I'm completely serious when I say that Yoda manages to show the most authentic emotional resonance with his lines. Maybe it's because a puppet and puppeteer aren't bothered by the need to act realistically while standing in front of a green screen, reacting to their imaginary surroundings.<br /><br />The movie has three distinct phases. The first is simply the standard Lucas space battle sequence featuring spacecraft behaving like WWII fighter planes. Fair enough. It's not any worse than any of the other similar sequences in each of the other films. It's all rather "been there, done that" - but it gets things going with a bang. Of course there is a certain lack of tension when you know that the three primary characters in the action all survive into ripe old age from your knowledge of the existing storyline, so you can't feel much anxiety over their health and well-being.<br /><br />The second and longest phase of the movie is the transformation of Anakin Skywalker to the dark side. Since we have already spent two entire movies exploring his relationship with Padme, his relationship with Obi-Wan, his relationship with the Jedi council, and his relationship with the Chancellor, I got a bit antsy waiting for the inevitable to play out. All the truly terrible script writing and emotionless emotions come during this phase, along with some embarrassing throw-away lines and gags for the bumbling droid warriors, seemingly modeled after the Keystone Kops. I'm not even going to mention the cringe-inducing and out of context Tarzan yell thing. Oh damn... I just did.<br /><br />Then magically we hit the final thirty minutes of movie time, which is really the only reason Lucas made the film. Suddenly there is a sense of drama and purpose again as we get rapid-fire developments leading us full circle in the story arc and we get the creation of Darth Vader along with the back story making sense of the original introductions of all the main characters we came to know and love in Episode IV. As John Williams' original Darth Vader theme music and the original Star Wars suite sweep over the soundtrack, there is a great sense of warm familiarity and "rightness" about having made the entire journey and come out exactly where we expected to be.<br /><br />I just looked at the tagline on IMDB. It says "The saga is complete." That pretty much sums it up. <em>Revenge of the Sith</em> is not so much a movie as a required coda to a giant project. I don't suppose the last pointy stone placed on the tip of the Great Pyramid of Cheops was all that much more difficult or technically important than the other stones under it. But that final shove into place and ability to stand back and admire the work as a whole must have been tremendously satisfying. So it is with <em>Revenge of the Sith</em> and the Star Wars legend. Requiem.<br /><br />Parents: The movie has comic book violence and death. I assume very small children might get overly invested in the characters and distressed when people die. But even with limbs being chopped off right and left (what is this strange fixation for Lucas?) there is no gore, no realism to the events, and people mostly get patched up effortlessly. There is no swearing, sex, nudity, drugs, or anything else to offend (other than a few lines of dialog that might easily be taken as a snide dig at George Bush and the Republican party... But I'll leave that to the political commentators and reviewers to discuss).Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1149724957836143492006-06-07T19:59:00.000-04:002006-06-07T20:02:37.850-04:00IntactoEverybody sing along with Rod Stewart... "Some guys have all the luck."<br /><br />This startlingly original thriller from Spain posits luck as a tangible, real commodity. Some people have more, some less. But a few lucky souls have the gift of accumulating luck from others, sometimes through as simple a device as a touch or a hug. First-time writer/director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo refers to them in his excellent commentary as "vampires of luck." He creates an underworld of gifted individuals who gamble the luck they have collected to see which of them is the luckiest. And always, sitting far removed from the petty concerns of the common world, is the supreme master of luck, Samuel "The Jew." Few challengers dare go up against him, for good reason.<br /><br />I loved this film for its cool, noirish style and for its intelligent and internally consistent examination of a hypothetical world view.<br /><br />As the movie opens, in a great fluid mini story played underneath the credits, we see one of the gifted individuals, Federico, who works at Samuel's casino. When someone gets a little too lucky at the tables, Federico can take care of it with a casual touch. But unlike William H. Macy's character in <em>The Cooler</em>, Federico keeps their luck for himself. Federico gets a little too cocky, though, and soon finds himself seeking an ally to gather a long delayed vengeance.<br /><br />Fast cut to seven years later and we are introduced to Tomas, the sole survivor of a commercial jet crash. We also meet Sara, a hard-boiled detective with some obvious drama hinted at in her past who is determined that Tomas should go to jail for his part in a robbery. There is also a lucky bullfighter that the characters meet along the way. The lives of all these people intertwine in what could be a conventional cat-and-mouse detective story if not for the capricious and combative nature of their luck coming into play. By the time we get to the climactic showdown, the audience has no clue as to whose luck will prove to be the strongest.<br /><br />The story plays out at a measured, unhurried pace. Debbie sitting next to me got impatient at times, but I was always engrossed and caught up in the tale. The director of photography uses shadows and rain to underscore the dark world that the "players" are caught up in. Their addiction to the pursuit of luck dooms those around them, by design or by accident and several characters feel guilty at the luck they undeservedly carry with themselves.<br /><br />I heartily recommend sitting through the movie a second time to listen to Fresdnadillo's commentary track. He brings additional insight to his thoughts about the story, the characters, and the production. It is not a technical commentary, although he references specific shot setups occasionally. He also stays well away from the puff pieces that have become so common on modern DVD's ("Oh, now Sally was great. I loved working with her. We all had a marvelous time on the set and just listen to the way she delivers this line!").<br /><br />The commentary is useful because there are a few points that are confusingly presented on screen. They are usually cleared up later, either explicitly or by context, but I had two instances where I simply didn't "get" what the director was trying to show until I heard him explain it. The glitches in storytelling are probably symptomatic of a first-time writer/director and didn't detract from my enjoyment of the movie overall.<br /><br />Other special features include a demonstration reel put together by the digital effects company to show what they composited in (It is very short and to the point... just before and after shots. A nice eye opener for people who think that what they see on the screen actually happened somewhere!). And there is a good "Making Of" documentary that talks about the setup and the technical side of the work while creating the film.<br /><br />The dialog is predominantly Spanish (from Spain, not Mexico -- and there is a world of pronunciation difference for you Texans and Californians who think you can follow along!). But the first few scenes throw in French and English as well. The English is not subtitled and the accents are so thick you may have difficulty understanding the dialog. After that, the subtitles are clear and easy to read. The dark composition and use of shadows means that you will want to watch this on a well calibrated set in a dark room. Bright LCD and DLP sets that crush black and gray levels together will lose much of the detail and make it extremely hard to see the action.<br /><br />Parents note: There is violence, blood, and death portrayed on the screen, but they are not lingered on nor exploited for shock effect. This is not a gore-fest... It's more of a suspense thriller. There is also one brief shot of female breasts in a non-sexual context.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1149482013583458962006-06-05T00:30:00.000-04:002006-06-05T00:38:56.916-04:00Mrs. Henderson Presents<p><em>Mrs. Henderson Presents</em> is notable for accomplishing a feat rarely seen on screen in the last 15 years... It showcases Judi Dench in a role where she doesn't constantly look like a constipated woman sucking a lemon. Oh sure, she still gets that trademarked snippy, frowning, squeezing-the-cheeks expression a few times, but she also manages to have fun and even giggles at one point (!). I went through rather the same interplay of emotions while watching this movie on DVD. There were times when the energy and ebullience of the lighthearted music hall numbers had me happily tapping my toes and going along with the filmmakers. Then they would throw in a piece of heavy-handed dramatic conflict or have a character launch into a "significant" monologue and the fantasy world would come crashing back down into a harsh realization of people reading lines from a script.<br /><br />The story is one of those "inspired by true events" things, reinforced by the final disclaimer in the credits that characters and events were heavily fictionalized and should not be taken to represent true historical people or situations. Mrs. Henderson finds herself suddenly widowed at the start of the film and starts wondering what a moneyed, privileged dowager is supposed to do to amuse herself in 1937. In short order she finds herself buying an old theater, hiring Bob Hoskins to be the artistic manager and creator of a new musical revue, and opening the doors to a waiting public.<br /><br />One thing leads to another, and suddenly Mrs. Henderson announces that she wants to present her revue with naked women on stage (emulating the Moulin Rouge shows in Paris). The rest of the drama stems from the tensions involved in trying such a daring theatrical idea in stodgy old England. Then there is the small matter that events take us into the early years of WWII, when London was a rather tenuous place to live, much less attempt to put on a glorified girlie show.<br /><br />Hoskins and Dench perform a running <em>Battling Bickersons</em> routine through the film, where they argue while secretly respecting and liking each other. The script manages to mix in the saucy female friend of the leading lady (a role perfected by Helen Broderick in films of the 30's such as <em>Swing Time</em> and <em>Top Hat</em>), wartime romance, family secrets, WWII newsreels, death, patriotism, and a lot of really nice period music. Oh yes, and Christopher Guest is along for the ride in a top hat and on-again, off-again British accent. </p><p>The soundtrack and the on-screen musical numbers are the most enjoyable things about the movie. Well, at least for me. But I'm a complete sap for the music of the war years and just before, so they had a willing audience here. There are a few cute and witty gag lines delivered with appropriate verve and eye-twinkling. The historical period sense felt right. And there are some gorgeous period automobiles on display.<br /><br />On the negative side we have one spit take; one cliché moment where an audience sits in silence until one person claps, followed by two more, then more, until a thunderous swell emerges; some really cheesy matte painting scenes; a contrived and extraneous plot concentration on a minor character that pulls focus from the main story; and some real clunkers of (as one reviewer nicely put it) "for your consideration" speeches by the leads.<br /><br />There are plenty of female breasts on display, but it is all done in an "artistic" and non-sexual context. Prurient interests will be better served elsewhere. Ladies, you get one brief consolation shot of male full frontal for balance. </p><p>I don't think this film will stick with me. It boils down to another in the long line of studio movies (it's a BBC Films production) that is neither notably good nor maddeningly bad. Just something to pass a little time, make a short theatrical run, pick up some more money on the home video market, and quietly disappear into the IMDB archives. </p><p>Parents: The main cautions are obvious from the nudity advisories above. There are also a few swear words (mainly slang terms for female anatomical features, but the F-bomb does make an appearance). No drugs, sex, or violence - although people are shown to have died in the German bombings of London.<br /><br />SPOILER ALERT! The following gives away a revealed plot point in the movie. Do not read if you wish to preserve the surprise factor.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />Was anybody else uncomfortable with the sincerity evinced in Mrs. Henderson's big teary speech about her son and her reasons for opening the theater and showing nude women? When she came up with the idea for buying the theater, Britain was still steadfastly maintaining a non-involvement policy in German affairs. When she started showing nude women, there were no hordes of servicemen needing to catch a glimpse of breasts before going off to potentially die. It was a society show at first, until the war came along. Either Mrs. Henderson was remarkably prescient and a brilliant long-range planner, or she was spinning a revisionist history on the spot in the street in order to callously take advantage of wartime sentiment and patriotism. Not very nice.<br /></p>Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1149272660069204822006-06-02T14:21:00.000-04:002006-06-02T14:24:20.083-04:00The HarmonistsNetflix has this listed as <em>The Harmonists</em> instead of its original German name of <em>The Comedian Harmonists</em>. I assume the American distributors didn't want audiences unfamiliar with the group to mistake the movie for a comedy.<br /><br />The Comedian Harmonists was a real German singing group that was wildly popular for a short time in the late 1920's to early 1930's. They appeared in concerts, radio, and phonograph recordings. Their greatest success was in Germany, but they also had international appeal and traveled to other countries, including America. The group was made up of five singers and a pianist. They sang complex multi-part arrangements of pop songs, jazz, traditional folk tunes, and original novelty pieces. They also threw in a gimmick of vocally imitating musical instruments on some of their numbers.<br /><br />The movie is a fairly straightforward biopic of the creation, success, and decline of the group. Think <em>Ray</em> or <em>I Walk The Line</em> focusing on an ensemble instead of a single star. There are the usual dramatic subplots of romantic difficulties and entanglements, internal disagreements between the members, and struggles to achieve early success.<br /><br />What makes this movie different is the fact that the group included several Jewish members and they hit the peak of their popularity coincident with the rise of Nazi Socialism in Germany. This creates dramatic conflicts far greater than you'll see on an episode of VH1's <em>Behind The Music</em>.<br /><br />The film is primarily carried by its extensive use of actual recordings of the group's music. The old hissy recordings have been digitally cleaned and enhanced to provide remarkably clear audio quality. You are never taken out of the movie by a sudden change in audio dynamics as the group starts singing. It is a bravura feat of sound editing. Add to that the fact that the music is still catchy and involving after all these years. It's the kind of thing where many modern viewers will be surprised and spurred to buy a CD of the group's work.<br /><br />The look of the film is very pretty. 1920's/1930's Germany is reproduced with bright colors and vibrancy. Enough so that at times I felt it was a little too "sound stage." But the cars, the buildings, the costumes, the hairstyles, and the music halls are represented so lovingly that it simply feels fun to enter into that world.<br /><br />Even when the Nazi party starts to emerge as a presence throughout the country (first in the background and later as an omnipresent symbol in all facets of life), the filmmakers keep up the vibrancy and aesthetic appeal of the mise en scene. There is no sudden symbolic darkening of the color palette or dark clouds to foreshadow and underscore the horrors that will follow.<br /><br />The actors are fun to watch. The central character, Harry, who comes up with the concept for the group he wants to form is played by Ulrich Noethen. He reminded me a little bit of a young Jack Gilford. Frizzy haired, often with a wry smile and a ready joke, he nevertheless has a serious side and a deeper understanding of the emotional depth of the troubles around him than people give him credit for.<br /><br />He is paired up with a tall, good looking, confident blond haired, blue eyed Aryan named Robert (Ben Becker). If you are of a certain age, it is impossible to look at Becker without being reminded of a young Michael McKean on <em>Laverne and Shirley</em>. The two characters have the closest and most tempestuous relationship as the earliest members of the team (and for other reasons that are revealed later).<br /><br />The remaining members of the group are more or less developed as individual characters. They all have their own little mini-dramas and personal stories, but the only one that really stands out is fun loving ladies' man Ari, played by Max Tidof.<br /><br />I enjoyed the film. It pleases the ear and the eye, while providing the right amount of humor, drama, and historical background. Naturally this kind of story has its predictable elements, but they are played out with a commitment to the melodrama from everyone involved. I also felt at times that the actors didn't do a very convincing job of lip synching when singing some of the strange sounds that the original group would come up with. But that's just nit-picking.<br /><br />Recommended in both film and soundtrack versions.<br /><br />Parents: The only areas of concern are references to "ladies of easy virtue" (the group rehearses at a friendly bordello), and some brief flashes of female breasts. And everybody smokes constantly.<br /><br />The dialog is in German with English subtitles. The titles are clear and readable, but there is a font error that makes the letter u with an umlaut show up as an N with a tilde. Very strange. The DVD contains no special features.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1149189544266171342006-06-01T15:13:00.000-04:002006-06-01T15:19:04.993-04:00War Of The Worlds (2005)War of the Worlds is a one-note movie. And that note is a 30 Hz rumble tone. I have never had a film drive my big, bad subwoofer so hard for so long. For the first time since I have owned the thing, I heard it bottom out on a long cone excursion. That's a major push.<br /><br />In my listening room with the DTS digital sound cranked up to "enjoyable" levels, the movie vibrated my internal organs quite noticeably and at times literally shook the house (Debbie, sewing in another room, confirmed this). This movie is the modern version of 1974's "Earthquake", where the gimmick was that they mounted big bass speakers on the floor in select theaters and announced the new effect: "Sensurround!"<br /><br />So much for the fun part. The rest of the movie is sadly one-note as well. Alien machines kill humanity for an hour and a half while Tom Cruise runs from them with his two annoying children. The internal logic gaps are enough to make you cry, while the palpable sense of impersonality sucks any sense of concern out of you.<br /><br />The story line is a remake of the 1953 classic "alien invasion" movie that served as a touchstone for science fiction action pics for many years. And of course they both derive from H.G. Wells' 1898 novel. The movie opens and closes with voice over narration largely taken from the 1953 movie (and a weird musical interpretation that was released on record featuring Richard Burton's silky tones as the narrator). It's an updating of the (now rather florid) language that Wells wrote in his story. Naturally, voice over duties now go to Morgan Freeman, who seems to have a rock-solid arrangement in Hollywood giving him first right of refusal on any voice over narration work (and he seldom refuses).<br /><br />We are introduced to stock stereotyped characters in the first 15 minutes of over-familiar setup. Tom Cruise plays Ray, a self-absorbed lousy father with partial custody of his kids from an earlier marriage. Mom is pregnant and happily involved with a new great-guy boyfriend/husband(?), but still finds time to meddle disapprovingly around Ray's house and act like a martyr. Dakota Fanning is the precocious little girl who has taken on the role of serious practical one (she orders takeout hummus from the neighborhood natural foods store, because that's what most American 9-year-olds would naturally gravitate to by choice, right?). Justin Chatwin plays the surly and rebellious teenage son, who resents his dad's inattention.<br /><br />Soon enough, though, things start rumbling and the aliens show up to wreak arbitrary havoc. Ray grabs his kids and attempts to avoid the aliens while journeying to find his ex. That's about it. Naturally, Ray will come to understand his children a bit more along the way. But mostly it's just lots of scenes of running away from alien death rays.<br /><br />The key fault of the movie is that all the characters are unsympathetic and are passive participants in something that doesn't really involve them personally. Ray is made out to be something of a jerk from early on. His daughter turns out to be a screaming, whimpering, hyperventilating panicky kid -- but not in a way that makes her seem vulnerable and in need of protection. She is too calm, cool, and precocious for that, so that the screaming feels like a spoiled brat's tantrum. The son is an obnoxious teen with no common sense. And the aliens are arbitrary killing machines that sometimes hit and sometimes miss in their wide, sweeping attacks. You don't get the sense of personal menace and directed chase that made "The Terminator" so effectively suspenseful.<br /><br />Spielberg must have realized this somewhere along the way, as he throws in a hide-in-the-cellar cat and mouse game with an alien probe and the family. The scene goes on WAY too long and defies logic, as the aliens have been covering massive amounts of ground and wiping out humans en masse and then suddenly take all kinds of time to stop and carry out an extended, detailed examination of an old farmhouse cellar. They also have some of the worst detection gear you can imagine on an incredibly sophisticated machine probe.<br /><br />The film is shot in a strangely grainy and washed out style. Everything feels cold and lifeless, including the initial "normal" city life of the characters. John Williams' score reflects and contributes to the monotonous, repetitive feel of the movie. It never develops the sweep and grandeur of a typical Williams soundtrack piece.<br /><br />I can't recommend this movie unless you have a serious sound system and want to impress friends and neighbors with a bass demonstration disk. I may have to pick up a copy for that purpose when they start showing up in discount bins at WalMart (which shouldn't take long).<br /><br />Parents: The film is too intense and scary for young children. There is a lot of death (although nothing gory and gross is shown onscreen, it is strongly suggested). No serious swear words, no nudity, no sex, no drugs (one rock 'n roll reference though).<br /><br />SPOILER ALERT!!! The following paragraphs refer to revealed developments in the story line...<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />.<br />Here are my notes for those who have already seen the film:<br /><br />1) I hoped against hope that they wouldn't have the son show up safe and sound at the end. Ridiculous, but I suppose it's inevitable for Spielberg. Is there a reason why the son is suddenly so loving and wants to call Ray "Dad?" Nothing magical happened between them. When last seen, the son was scrambling to get out of his father's angry clutches.<br /><br />2) Grandpa and Grandma standing silently behind the mother in the Boston brownstone at the end are played by the original leads from the 1953 movie. That's why they have that stupid smirk on their face.<br /><br />3) And while I'm thinking of them, does it seem strange that they are dressed and made up for an evening at the theater when supposedly there has been wild panic and destruction going on for days?<br /><br />4) And while I'm still thinking of them, why the heck are people streaming INTO Boston from the outlying areas? Wouldn't the aliens (with "minds immeasurably superior to ours" who have been "studying us as we would study bacteria under a microscope") have picked the largest population centers for the bulk of their destruction? Why do they spend so much time stomping around the countryside, terrorizing small towns, and looking in creaky farmhouses?<br /><br />5) These immeasurably superior beings with technology so advanced we can't even imagine it have been studying our planet and planning their attack for untold centuries (they must have buried their machines before our recorded history and waited for the total Earth population to get big enough to supply all the blood they would need). And in all that time they never conceived of the risk of bacterial infection? They didn't notice the plague, or smallpox, or other pandemics that have wiped out large portions of humanity from time to time?<br /><br />6) Isn't it interesting how the electromagnetic pulses fry every electrical circuit for miles (even Ray's wristwatch stops working), but the locals are taking digital pictures and movies of the initial alien machine?<br /><br />7) Didja notice how the soldier goes up to the alien hatchway at the end, lifts up the one limp alien arm sticking out, and immediately yells back "Clear!" to his buddies? That's some judge. We see in a moment that there is still a live alien inside when he yells that. And apparently he's never seen any movie where a person uses a dead comrade as a decoy and a lure to trick the enemy. What are they teaching these guys?<br /><br />8) The much more interesting movie is what happens to humanity after this supposed "happy ending". There is human blood sprayed all over the place. Refugees have been scraped and scratched from all kinds of rubble. The spread of blood-borne pathogens (including HIV) should be rampant. There is massive destruction of infrastructure, transportation, and communications on an international scale. How are people going to eat, get supplies, get medical treatment? Massive planet-wide looting should begin almost immediately. There are dead bodies floating around in public water supplies, in collapsed buildings, and throughout the countryside and cities. Cholera, dysentery, and other contaminant spread diseases should wipe out huge numbers of additional survivors (where do you think refugees have been going to the bathroom on their long marches?) Specialists needed to repair all those fused electrical circuits are either dead, dealing with their own family survival, or stranded without effective transportation. And there is no transportation to get replacement parts to where they are needed. Getting any semblance of modern urban society running again should be interesting. And what are people going to use for commerce? They sure aren't going to process credit cards or withdraw money from ATM's. We have the makings of the finest post-apocalypse movie since "A Boy And His Dog" here.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1148963778850333602006-05-29T23:32:00.000-04:002006-05-30T00:36:18.976-04:00Rumor Has ItRumor Has It would be a good airplane movie. If you were in a middle seat on a long flight with lousy airplane sound, watching this on a little screen with terrible color fidelity, and there was a fat guy snoring next to you, it wouldn't be a bad time filler at all.<br /><br />On the other hand, if you had paid $8.50 to see this on the big screen in a theater during its first run, I can understand how you would hate it as much as the critics did.<br /><br />The home environment being somewhere between those two extremes, I end up falling between them in my enjoyment and recomme ndation level as well. It's not really good enough to recommend, but it's not bad enough to write a scathingly funny and vicious attack piece.<br /><br />The best I can suggest is to watch the <a href="http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/rumor_has_it/" target="_blank">trailer for the film</a>. (Newbies, "trailer" is the term for a coming attractions ad made up of edited together snippets from the film.) The trailer for Rumor Has It pretty faithfully tells the entire movie in 90 seconds, including ALL of the good gag lines. You can save yourself a time investment of some 112 minutes and 30 seconds and not miss much. It's a masterpiece of editing.<br /><br />For those of you still reading instead of watching the trailer, the plot (there are no surprises to spoil) starts with Jennifer Aniston fairly closely reprising her Rachel character from the first season of "Friends." She is insecure, unsure about her recent engagement, and terrified of having to face her family because she doesn't feel she fits in. In short order (again, telegraphed before the opening credits, so I'm not ruining anything for you) she finds out that the book and movie of The Graduate seem to have been based on actual events in her family. She sets out to find the real life version of Benjamin Braddock and find out if he is her biological father. Romantic complications (which aren't very complex) ensue and there is a warm-hearted moral at the end, as there must be in this kind of fluff piece.<br /><br />Aniston does what she needs to with the part, which isn't really very much. It's written like a TV sitcom and she plays it like a TV sitcom... emotions pouring out as called for by an arbitrary writer and then switched off in time to hit a joke punch line that isn't quite as funny as you feel it might have been in more capable hands.<br /><br />Shirley MacLaine plays Jennifer's grandmother (the alleged Mrs. Robinson) and brings a lot of life and vitality to her sitcom lines (Isn't it funny to hear old ladies use dirty words? Ha ha.) She manages a trick of chewing the scenery without doing much overtly, which is fun to watch. I had the vague feeling that she knew the writing was garbage and decided to just go for it anyway, which is admirable.<br /><br />Kevin Costner as the putative grown-up Ben surprised me with a very naturalistic and quietly competent performance. I was quite taken with his character and his reading of the guy. I don't know if it's because Costner is older and wiser, or if he just does better when removed from post-apocalyptic scenarios and historical period pieces, but for the first time I saw him as a good actor.<br /><br />Mark Ruffalo plays Aniston's fiance in a thankless role that he cannot salvage no matter how hard he tries (And he tries all over the place. It's almost painful to watch him trying so damned hard.) Richard Jenkins gives a nicely understated performance in his role as Jennifer's dad. You'll notice I refer to almost everybody as "Jennifer's something"? That's how the movie frames the story. It's all Jennifer, all the time. Other characters exist only as foils to give her something to do. By the way, she dresses divinely throughout.<br /><br />In typical sitcom fashion, we are presented with a contrived problem that seems more troubling to the protagonist than it does to us. She then compounds the problem by acting in an inexplicable manner to cause more troubles for herself. A lesson is learned and everything wraps up neatly and quickly before the final commercial (or in this case, end credits).<br /><br />I absolutely hated the first twenty minutes of the film, as they set up the incredibly obvious situation with clumsy voice over narration and contrived, unrealistic dialog and behaviors. Then as MacLaine, Costner, and Jenkins came in to lend a more mature and controlled hand I warmed up to the story. Finally as they moved to the requisite happy ending and more voice over, I remembered why I hated it at the beginning.<br /><br />Technically, the movie is something of a mess. Director Rob Reiner has cameras shooting the actors from several points of view and keeps cutting abruptly back and forth, often with continuity problems or tiny mismatches that make it evident the scene is assembled with bits from multiple takes. Writer Ted Griffin has trouble creating believable human dialog because he is always busy setting up the next joke or dramatic revelation and lesson.<br /><br />My readers in California will enjoy the photography of Pasadena, San Francisco, the Napa wine country, and the Peninsula coast (they say it's Half Moon Bay, but I have my doubts...).<br /><br />Save this one for a day when you are home sick with the flu and want some easy material to keep you company and not force you to think.<br /><br />Parents: There is some light comedic swearing by MacLaine, plenty of references to infidelity, an implied sexual tryst (oh yeah, one implied and one unsuccessfully tried), and some "kicking the balls" jokes. No nudity or violence.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1148882209754950892006-05-29T01:54:00.000-04:002006-05-29T02:01:00.943-04:00MunichThis movie takes a certain amount of dedication from a viewer. First of course is the 2 hour, 45 minute run time. Strictly speaking, that's more time than they needed to tell the story and is indicative of the several slow spots you will hit during the course of events.<br /><br />Second is the fact that while the bulk of the movie is in English, some of the accents are thick and difficult to understand, and several conversations take place in other languages with subtitles that could have been clearer (the script is dialog heavy, and writing out the long sentence structures, delivered quickly, means small type flashed more briefly than you might like. And sometimes the white font on light backgrounds is a bit difficult to read).<br /><br />Then there is a disconnect between action-adventure and intellectual detachment in the story. In other words, there is something to annoy both types of audience. And finally, there is a strong sense of ambivalence from Spielberg that communicates itself through the plot and leaves one feeling inevitably ambivalent about the movie as well.<br /><br />The DVD from Netflix very simply contains just the film, without special features save for an optional "introduction" by Steven Spielberg. I put introduction in quotes, because it is more of a standard studio publicity short that shows some making-of scenes and snippets of commentary from Spielberg. It's not really an introduction, but more of a self-justification leveled at early reviewers who attacked the film from one side or the other. Spielberg talks about how "this isn't a documentary, it's a movie" and "we used the most complete source material we could find, which has been attacked, but never discredited." (More on this later.) He also discounts attacks that the film is anti-Israel (although I have also read reviews calling it Zionist propaganda!). I recommend watching the "introduction" after the movie, if at all.<br /><br />The basic plot line is easy to relate. The film starts with the factual terrorist incident at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Germany, when the Israeli team was taken hostage and eventually killed. It was a major media event and Spielberg uses some real TV clips from the time, combined with re-creations of the action.<br /><br />Israel, and particularly the Mossad - their secret service and counter-terrorism agency - decided to sanction assassinations of the terrorists involved in the Munich incident. The rest of the movie follows a small team of non-professionals as they track down and kill the killers. Some attempts go smoothly, others not so well.<br /><br />We keep lurching unevenly from slow speeches and meditations on the morality of the assassination response and the personal doubts and changing viewpoints of the hit squad to suspense and action sequences complete with driving bass lines, graphic and bloody death scenes, and loud gunfire/explosions. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.<br /><br />Some of the expository dialog is rather clunky. An early scene with Golda Meir deciding to authorize the operation suffers from "script language" as she voices her entire thought process to a room full of people who don't react or respond in any way. It is obviously just a piece of narrative aimed straight at the audience. Similar scenes pop up from time to time as Mossad agents chat amiably and loudly about the details and justification for their incredibly secret and illegal operation while walking along crowded public sidewalks.<br /><br />I thought the acting was generally good. Eric Bana as the leader of the hit squad occasionally looked a bit wooden - especially in early scenes, but made up for it with some good emotional depth in later scenes. Daniel Craig played a hot-headed member of the squad and I thought he was a little over-the-top. He is matched in overambitious intensity by Geoffrey Rush as Bana's Mossad case handler and contact. The rest of the supporting cast acquitted themselves well. I particularly liked Mathieu Amalric as a mysterious French intelligence source.<br /><br />The movie starts with a bang, showing us the Munich hostage situation. Then it abruptly slows to a crawl as we set up the mission. It shifts in and out of gear with the first two assassinations and the prelude and epilogue to each. Then there is a long build up of tension as the team starts running into difficulties and higher stakes. We abruptly come crashing back down to a finish, only to find to our surprise that there is more movie still to come! Steady pacing is not a strong point of Munich.<br /><br />There is a very important scene towards the very end that most reviewers seem to have completely missed the significance of. I can't discuss it here, as it is spoiler material. All I can say is that when you are feeling fatigued and losing interest in the long slow wrapup portion of the film, try to keep your concentration up during a flashback sequence (vituperously derided by many reviewers) and subsequent talky bit between the two main characters. It is very important and summarizes Spielberg's unanswered proposition about the events portrayed in the film.<br /><br />That unanswered proposition is the heart of the movie. Spielberg wants to humanize all the participants and examine justifications (real or as imagined by the players) from both the Arab and Israeli point of view. This movie should be seen as a direct counterpoint to - and in conjunction with - <a title="Paradise Now - Review" href="http://nfreport.blogspot.com/2006/04/paradise-now.html" target="_blank">Paradise Now</a> (preferably within a short period of time, but in either order) to get the same ambivalent viewpoint from the Arab terrorist side.<br /><br />I mentioned the source material up near the front of this review and said more about it later. I think it is interesting to note that George Jonas, the author of "Vengeance" (the book on which Munich is based), said in the L.A. Times in January of 2006:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Munich" follows the letter of my book closely enough. The spirit is almost the opposite. "Vengeance" holds there is a difference between terrorism and counterterrorism; "Munich" suggests there isn't. The book has no trouble telling an act of war from a war crime; the film finds it difficult. Spielberg's movie worries about the moral trap of resisting terror; my book worries about the moral trap of not resisting it." </blockquote><br /><br />That's an important distinction and one that defines Spielberg's vision and what he was trying to communicate. Audiences should take note that his movie is not necessarily representative of other takes on the same material.<br /><br />There's enough good stuff in Munich to warrant a recommendation for renting the film. But be warned that it has some significant flaws and demands a lot from you.<br /><br />Parents, this is not a film for children to be in the room with. Deaths are frequent and very bloody. There is nudity and sex (not pornographic, but obvious).Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1148620165290673852006-05-26T00:22:00.000-04:002006-05-26T01:09:25.403-04:00TransamericaWell here I go again, being contrarian to the majority opinion. Honestly, I don't do this just to be perverse!<br /><br />I didn't think much of Transamerica. It sets up a big, juicy, unconventional story concept and then plays it out in as banal and conventional a manner as possible. The movie is written and directed with such incredible <em>earnestness</em> that you just want to tell writer/director Duncan Tucker not to try so damned hard.<br /><br />The story introduces us to a transexual one week away from the final surgery to go from physical manhood to womanhood. Felicity Huffman plays Bree (who used to be Stanley) as an uncomfortable and somewhat unsure person who only has her <em>earnest</em> desire to be a fully-formed woman as the touchstone in her life. She'll do or say almost anything to reach her goal. Suddenly she finds out she has a 17-year-old son she never knew about.<br /><br />Her therapist/counselor decides for reasons of plot convenience that Bree must go and confront/resolve this part of her past on her own before the counselor will approve the final surgery. This despite the fact that there is a one-year waiting list for the operation, it has taken Bree ages to get everything lined up with the money, the arrangements, and the other sign-offs needed, and the therapist was about to happily sign the consent form. Apparently it is more important to attempt a major emotional confrontation with someone who had no influence on or participation in Bree's adult life in a time-constrained, pressure-filled situation when her emotional and hormonal fragility is at its worst. Sounds like a recipe for success and happiness to me. I can see why the counselor didn't want to have anything to do with it herself.<br /><br />But I digress.<br /><br />Bree goes off to see the boy, Toby (played by Kevin Zegers) in an attempt to get him safely tucked away out of her life so she can continue on with her plans. Everything that follows could pretty much have been played out in a commonplace movie of the week plot: "Wounded mother in self-denial and wounded estranged son in self-denial find each other and through conflicts and shared experiences discover the importance of accepting each other... and themselves!" You can just hear the deep voiceover on the movie trailer, can't you?<br /><br />Things play along at a slow, steady, and inevitable pace as Bree hides the fact that she still has male plumbing and that she is Toby's father (whom Toby has idealized and idolized in his fantasies). Then suddenly the two find themselves at Bree's childhood home, confronting her TV-sitcom family in situations that try for pathos but end up as farce, as the acting, writing, and direction crank up the volume to 11. The main catalyst for this is Fionnula Flanagan as Bree's monstrous mother. Flanagan wouldn't know an internalized emotion if it crawled up her leg and bit her. She shows her extensive roots in decades of network TV character roles with histrionics and scenery chewing that left me open-mouthed in amazement.<br /><br />Anyway, at the end we all learn the little moralistic homily expressed above and the screen fades to black. I doubt I will ever spend another moment thinking about this film.<br /><br />Acting kudos go primarily to Graham Greene as a friendly native American they meet on their journeys and to Zegers, who plays a number of quickly changing and conflicting emotions and needs realistically for a screwed up, rebellious 17-year-old. I'm going to get in a lot of trouble for this next comment, but I thought Huffman (who I admire and have greatly enjoyed as an actress on Sports Night, Frazier, and other TV fare) did mainly a stunt job here. It's all very "Victor/Victoria" as she is a woman playing a man playing a woman (yes, I know that is not politically correct for the transgender populace, but I'm talking about my perception of how the character came across. I felt like Bree was portrayed like "a man playing a woman" ... and it felt false to me.)<br /><br />The photography is hit and miss. There are some gorgeous scenic shots and some very poor, grainy scenes. I liked the soundtrack, which uses a lot of different cultures and styles to move things along musically.<br /><br />Parents: This is an adult-themed movie that talks frankly about transgender issues. There is male and female frontal nudity, sexual situations, themes of prostitution and pornography, underage smoking, drinking, drug use, and sex. There is no blood and some minor violence of the fistfight variety.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1148276716640186682006-05-22T00:23:00.000-04:002006-05-22T01:51:23.980-04:00The Producers (2005)This review covers the December 2005 movie, released on DVD in 2006. Your loyal reviewer is a die-hard "Producers" fan. I own the original 1968 film and consider it one of the great film comedies. I probably know every line, facial expression, and camera shot in the movie. I also saw the musical version on Broadway in the first round with Lane and Broderick. So you can bet I had plenty of baggage to carry into my viewing of this filmed adaptation of the stage show.<br /><br />Not to keep you in suspense, I was disappointed. The movie fails to capture both the sharp cynicism of the original and the buoyancy of the stage musical.<br /><br />If you are still unfamiliar with the plot after all the various versions and popular hype, here it is in a nutshell: A has-been Broadway producer who went from making hits to making flops meets a mousy, nebbishy accountant. They decide they can cook the books and make money by overselling shares in a new show, spending little on it and having it flop, and pocketing the difference. They go about the tricky task of finding the worst play, the worst director, and the worst actors to ensure the play's instant demise. The play they choose is entitled "Springtime For Hitler (A gay romp with Adolf and Eva at Berchtesgaden)." You can guess the rest.<br /><br />The original film was written and directed by Mel Brooks. It starred Zero Mostel as the crooked producer and Gene Wilder as the accountant. Wilder was coming off a bit part in "Bonnie and Clyde" and this was his first co-starring role. Mostel was a theater legend at the time, coming off smash hits with "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum" and "Fiddler On The Roof." Brooks was writing and directing his first feature film, but had no shortage of self confidence and chutzpah. He and Zero had famous fights during the making of the film and each ended up saying the other was a talentless hack who had ruined their vision of the comedy. I loved the contributions of all three.<br /><br />Given the availability of the original movie as a very specific reference point on the characters, the setup, and the gag lines, you can't help but make comparisons when watching the new movie. Nathan Lane as the producer is a gifted comic actor, but he doesn't have the bulk and wild-eyed menace that Mostel had. When Gene Wilder was hysterically screaming that Mostel was going to jump on him and kill him, you could make a case for his panic attack. Zero badgered and bullied him with real anger in the opening setup meeting scene. This was a man seemingly capable of anything. Lane on the other hand seems like a jokester, a conniver, but not somebody you would ever be afraid of. When Broderick goes into the panic attack, you sit there with a confused look on your face. What's he so worried about? Why does he have to ask Lane to smile in order to calm down?<br /><br />Broderick was even more of a problem when compared to Wilder's portrayal of the accountant. Wilder played the character as a man-child, rubbing his face with his baby blanket and unsure of himself in a world of adults. He was a case of unfinished development, a small boy in an adult's body. When he whimpered, you wanted to pat his head and tell him everything would be all right. He evoked sympathy. Broderick on the other hand plays the character as simply a nerd. He affects a nasally voice and makes strange facial expressions. Despite his always youthful face, there is no trace of youthful mannerisms or emotions in Broderick's repertoire. He has spent his entire acting career trying to overcome the impression of himself as a child and he can't seem to recover the innocence of youth. When he acts up in the role, you want to slap him and say "Snap out of it! What's the matter with you?"<br /><br />In the theater, the two had great chemistry together and with the audience. It was a winking collaboration between themselves and us in the seats that we were all going to overlook the little things that didn't quite gel because it was all so much darned fun. They made asides and knowing glances at the audience and threw in topical ad libs to make sure we were all in on the joke.<br /><br />On screen, they can't do it. Lane keeps looking like he desperately wants to break the fourth wall, but can't find the audience to talk to. Broderick simply looks uncomfortable and can't figure out where he should focus his gaze (The outtakes on the DVD show that the two cracked each other up constantly and often had trouble completing a scene - collapsing in laughter. The problem is that they were internalizing all of this interactivity between themselves instead of letting it flow through the camera to the viewer - or even to the other actors around them.)<br /><br />Susan Stroman directed and choreographed the stage musical and was given directing duties for the film. This was her first directing job behind the lens and it shows. She doesn't have the sense for pacing and continuity on film, and shots look haphardly set up from multiple angles. Many of the interior scenes are shot as if she was doing a documentary of the stage show, with jumpy edits that bounce you between points of view. Then she'll suddenly remember that it's a film and go outside to a street scene to "open up the stage play." Then we're right back to obvious set work on a soundstage.<br /><br />It's not a complete disaster. The gag lines are still there and still funny (mostly). The supporting cast features a mix of actors from the Broadway musical and Hollywood film stars thrown in for name value. I waited with a sense of dread for Will Ferrell's interpretation of Franz, the Nazi author of Springtime For Hitler, but he turned in a surprisingly likable performance. It turns out that the part is so over the top that even Ferrell can't overplay it. And Uma Thurman as the Swedish secretary/receptionist the boys hire does a commendable job (even though she can't belt a signature vocal number the way a real musical theater professional could).<br /><br />Gary Beach and Roger Bart reprise their stage roles as the gay director of the show within the show and his "common law assistant." They steal most of their scenes with the most politically incorrect mincing, lisping, over-the-top gay stereotypes since, well, ever. The gay community should be up in arms over the way the parts are written except for the fact that it's so obvious they aren't based in any reality other than parody.<br /><br />The songs from the stage show were all filmed, but some didn't make the cut into the final print. The deleted ones (and snippets cut out seemingly at random for time purposes) are all available in Bonus Features on the DVD.<br /><br />The movie contains far too many in-jokes referring to early Mel Brooks comedies (especially Blazing Saddles, which must have five direct line references). It also features Brooks's requisite dub-in of a single line in the musical number "Springtime For Hitler" (fans know that he dubbed the line in the original movie and the stage musical). It also contains Brooks's less known signature sound effect as a screeching cat. Listen for it. You'll also hear it in several of his other films and comedy albums. After a while I get a little tired of Mel Brooks effectively telling us (subtly) how wonderful Mel Brooks stuff is.<br /><br />If you want to get an idea of what the show was like on Broadway, this is a pretty faithful re-creation. Unfortunately you won't understand why it felt like such a breath of fresh air and made audiences so giddily happy (and won an unprecedented 12 of the unprecedented 15 Tony awards it was nominated for... It would have won the other three, but they were actors competing against other actors in the same show!). The freshness and connection is missing in the film.<br /><br />If you want to see it for the comedic story, go back and watch the 1968 version instead. Even with a terribly dated and now unfunny hippie sub-plot (that they wisely threw away in the remake), it's still better than the current version in all the talking scenes. Just compare the first meeting scene of the co-stars in each film. Night and day, baby.<br /><br />Parents note: There are swear words and leering references to boobs, butts, and sexual attraction. No nudity or drugs.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1148101500030684602006-05-20T00:19:00.000-04:002006-05-20T01:05:00.150-04:00HoodwinkedThis is another in a long line of computer animated features designed to give both kids and adults something to keep them occupied for 80 minutes. Like "<a href="http://nfreport.blogspot.com/2006/04/chicken-little.html" target="_blank">Chicken Little</a>," it starts from the premise of a simple fairy tale and expands the story. Unlike Chicken Little, Hoodwinked stays within the approximate boundaries of the Little Red Riding Hood story, not venturing into alien invasions or morality tales of familial trust (well... not <em>too</em> much).<br /><br />In this 2005 film (produced completely independently from Disney, Pixar, and Dreamworks! I know... I didn't think it was possible either!) Little Red Riding Hood is a bicycle delivery girl for her grandma's baked goodies business. It seems that the woodland critters love sweets and that baking cakes and muffins is the major economic activity for budding entrepreneurs in that area.<br /><br />When the fairy tale gets to the stage where Red, Grandma, the Wolf, and the Woodsman are all in the house -- right before anybody gets killed or eaten -- we stop the events and the police show up to conduct an investigation. In walks super sleuth Nick Flippers (an obvious amphibian analog to Nick Charles from the Thin Man movies) and starts interviewing each participant. This sets the movie up for an entertaining "Rashomon" homage (or more recently, "Hero") as each person tells the story from their perspective and we learn that things are not always as they first appear.<br /><br />On the positive side, the script is sharp and witty. It moves along at a brisk pace, choosing to keep momentum rather than wait for audience reaction after each laugh line. The voice talents are quite good, especially Patrick Warburton as the Wolf. There are lots of movie references, but for the most part they are subtle and an added treat rather than the justification for a scene (the exception is a long reference to "xXx"). Some of the scenery animation is very good and the "camerawork" is not choppy and overly frenetic, as it was in Chicken Little.<br /><br />On the negative side, the character animation is creepy. All the faces and bodies are blocky and abnormal. The backgrounds and sets are very detailed and realistic, so I assume this was a conscious choice. But it didn't work for me. The central character of Red is particularly weird. Then there are the abominable musical numbers. I don't know why animated filmmakers have decided their films have to be musicals, but if they don't have the right talent available they should cut the singing. The movie pretty much stops dead each time a character sings one of the instantly forgettable songs.<br /><br />Still, I laughed and enjoyed the story. The positives outweigh the negatives and I'm guessing that kids down to a very young age will enjoy the film (although they may get a little lost with the retellings and alternate looks at the same scene from different perspectives).<br /><br />Do play "spot the movie reference." I found Mission Impossible, xXx, Wizard of Oz, The Thin Man, White Heat, The Matrix, and Fletch. There are others. Probably the most obscure is a reference to the writers'/directors' earlier movie, "Chillicothe." I'll give you that one. In that movie, Travis says, "Three words: Happy... Endings... Suck." So of course at the end of Hoodwinked, Red says "I love happy endings!"<br /><br />Suitable for all ages.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1148049348521013502006-05-19T09:35:00.000-04:002006-05-19T10:35:48.646-04:00The Family StoneThere are some genuine moments of dramatic realism and true emotional connection in this movie. And when they show up, they are in such stark contrast to the rest of the contrived, predictable scripted play-acting that it strikes you like a cold splash of water to the face.<br /><br />The movie is the second creation of Thomas Bezucha, a man who previously wrote and directed only one film, 2000's "Big Eden." Before that, he had been an executive in the fashion industry. Now he has written and directed two films without ever having been involved in any other aspect of the film industry. Some people live a charmed life!<br /><br />Not only did he get to create a full-budget Hollywood mainstream movie, he got a bunch of very good actors with name recognition to fill the roles. This is an ensemble movie with way too many characters. You get Dermot Mulroney, Sarah Jessica Parker, Claire Danes, Rachel McAdams, Luke Wilson, Craig T. Nelson, and Diane Keaton.<br /><br />Nelson and Keaton play the parents of a giant brood of kids and their partners who descend on the house for a warm and loving traditional family Christmas. (I say kids, but they range from old teenager/young 20's to full adults.) Nelson and Keaton get most of the genuine drama from their parts with quiet, realistic performances (when allowed by the script). Keaton is particularly mesmerizing and memorable in her role as the mother.<br /><br />The central catalyst for the action is the grown son (Mulroney) who brings his serious girlfriend to meet the family for the first time. The girlfriend is played by Sarah Jessica Parker, looking absolutely terrible in every closeup they give her. She plays a tightly wound business overachiever who dresses impeccably in expensive business suits and seems to have a fear of personal closeness or touching. Her character talks too much and too fast, and the director uses this as the primary vehicle for telling us that her driven, manic single-mindedness is anathema to the relaxed, sharing, supportive behavior of the family. Of course they all hate her. Of course the son plans to propose on Christmas at the house. Of course they all try to talk him out of it. Of course various complications arise.<br /><br />The problem is that the complications are taken out of the first chapter of the traditional Hollywood screenplay writers' manual and are played out so linearly and predictably that there is almost no reason to watch the movie develop them on screen. I told Debbie at the 20-minute mark how things were going to play out and then sat there praying that the movie would surprise me and throw an unexpected twist on convention. It never did. As a matter of fact, in a pivotal climactic moment of tension to see whether a love story would end happy or sad, they almost played against expectations and my hopes were momentarily raised. Then they ruined it by falling back on one of the most hackneyed, cliched movie tricks in the book. It was straight out of a 1937 potboiler.<br /><br />But while you are kicking yourself for sitting through this tribute to conventionality, suddenly at the halfway point of the movie they introduce a subplot that lets Nelson and Keaton carry some scenes with quiet dignity and humanity. This story is played so well it almost makes up for the rest of the film. (I'm being deliberately vague... Watch out for reviews with spoilers.)<br /><br />The movie as a whole seems self-consciously crafted as an attempt to make it <em>"A Perennial Christmas Favorite... A Tradition For The Whole Family!"</em> From the music to the snow covered white house out in rural suburbia to the important symbology of the Christmas tree to the Christmas references in nearly every scene, it feels like it is trying too hard. In one scene, a woman watches her videotape of "Meet Me In St. Louis" with Judy Garland singing "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas." The source music is used to good effect to underscore an emotional section of the film, but it showcased for me the difference between the two movies.<br /><br />The 1944 movie <em>is</em> a perennial Christmas classic (thanks mainly to that song), but it did it by not trying so hard. Both films have families dealing with relationship issues and little personal crises. But Minnelli's film had a strength of realism in the script (pulled from the source novelist's actual childhood memories) that doesn't seem as contrived and packed in for the sheer sake of creating and resolving "plot points" in a single weekend.<br /><br />As with so many of my reviews these days, I have to fall back on: This isn't a <em>bad</em> movie. It just isn't a very <em>good</em> movie. That seems to be the way the studios like it. Keep everything nice and bland, satisfy expectations of the great moviegoing public, and make even new stories seem as safe and predictable as a sequel so the audience knows what they are getting before they ever enter the theater. Come up with a way to promise that to your production company and you too can write and direct a major Hollywood release with no experience or qualifications behind you!Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1147736066451100402006-05-15T19:32:00.000-04:002006-05-15T19:34:26.463-04:00Dark Blue WorldMany people in writing about this movie have compared the central plot complications to those in "Pearl Harbor." Two fighter pilots both fall in love with the same woman. Their friendship is tested.<br /><br />But the idea of fighter pilots falling in love with the same woman goes back at least as far as the 1926 "Wings." And heck, the idea of the two warriors falling for the same woman goes back to Greek tragedy.<br /><br />To be perfectly honest, father and son writing team Zdenek and Jan Sverak stir up the pot a bit in this 2001 Czech film. They don't so much create a romantic triangle as a hexagon. In trying to lay out the whole thing, I was reminded of Sonia's soliloquoy in Woody Allen's "Love and Death":<br /><br />"I'm in love with Alexei.<br />He loves Alicia. <br />Alicia's having an affair with Lev.<br />Lev loves Tatiana.<br />Tatiana loves Simkin.<br />Simkin loves me.<br />I love Simkin, but in a different way than Alexei.<br />Alexei loves Tatiana like a sister.<br />Tatiana's sister loves Trigorian like a brother.<br />Trigorian's brother is having an affair with my sister, who he likes physically, but not spiritually.<br />The firm of Mishkin and Mishkin is sleeping with the firm of Taskov and Taskov."<br /><br />In "Dark Blue World," the playbook would look like:<br /><br />Kanka is in love with Hanicka.<br />She loves Franta.<br />Franta loves Hanicka, but is having an affair with Susan.<br />Susan loves Franta, but is married to Charles.<br />Karel loves Susan.<br />Franta loves Karel like a brother.<br />Jane is intrigued by Karel.<br />The Army of The Third Reich is ravishing the country of Czechoslovakia.<br /><br />...and so on.<br /><br />Anyway, suffice it to say that the basics of the plot development won't break any new ground. You've seen this kind of movie many times. But you haven't seen it with this particular cast of characters with this particular back story.<br /><br />The movie tells us about the Czech airmen who left their country when the Germans marched in unopposed in 1939. They signed up to fly with the RAF in England, trying to cope with a different language, different customs, and different planes. When the war was over, they went home to try to return to a normal life, only to find themselves rounded up and put in forced labor camps by the Russians, who feared that if the fighters could rise up against an occupying oppressor once, they might just try it again.<br /><br />The second part of that story is the more unusual and interesting to me, but it gets short shrift, with the movie occasionally jumping from the main storyline of the war years to only offer glimpses of the survivors in their constrained existence after the war.<br /><br />The three main romantic triangle protagonists all do a good job. The heroic lead (Ondrej Vetchy) looks eerily like a young Robert DeNiro. His youthful protege is a fresh-faced kid straight off the farm (Krystof Hadek). The object of their affections is English actress Tara Fitzgerald. Charles Dance struts around as the stereotypical stuffy British Senior Officer at the air base. Oh yes, and I should mention the hero's dog, which does as good an acting performance as any human in the film (and that's not a dig at the humans).<br /><br />The film is shot lushly, with nice aerial dogfight and strafing sequences, beautiful English and Czech countryside shots, and realistic recreations of period homes, clothing, and cars. And then there are the planes. Those gorgeous Spitfires cost $10,000 an hour to use for the flying shots. Worth every penny. Including the time they strafe and blow up a full size train. The filmmakers didn't use a model for that shot... they really blew up a train!<br /><br />The film is in Czech and English, with good clear subtitles.<br /><br />It's conventional and it won't stay with you as a great epic. But while you are watching it, the movie is engrossing and you care about the characters. War is hell. So is the aftermath.<br /><br />The DVD includes a good "making of" documentary that is not a puff piece for the publicity department to use on television.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1147576792639518342006-05-13T22:49:00.000-04:002006-05-13T23:58:02.776-04:00Bunty Aur BabliA Bollywood musical.<br /><br />I was debating just leaving it at that. Either you are familiar with modern Indian filmmaking and can read a lot into that summary line, or you aren't and I'm unlikely to sway you with a review here. But let's give it a shot.<br /><br />Firstly, a little background for the neophytes. The Indian film industry is absolutely huge. It churns out movies at a rate that dwarfs the American studio machine. Actors often make several films at once, moving from set to set. The sell to the audience is almost exclusively based on name recognition and star power. Indian movie stars are lionized to an extent that would amaze even the most avid American reader of Entertainment Weekly.<br /><br />Stars can make so many movies because they don't have to work very hard on getting into character or figuring out deep motivations. Plot lines and basic structure tend to follow familiar patterns. A young man and young woman are protagonists. They have some tension in their family life. They eventually fall in love. Complications ensue. The young man is usually in some danger from pursuing bad guys and has to endure several action sequences. The film may end on an up-note, with everyone living happily ever after, or as a tragedy.<br /><br />Along the way there will be several musical dance sequences shot in an 80's MTV style. The singing is often dubbed by a few very well known voices in the industry. Audiences know and expect this... Singing stars are the exception. One dance will feature the boy and show his effervescent and mischievous personality. One dance will feature the girl, and at some point she will be dancing in a downpour (real or artificially created). One dance will feature the couple happily discovering their love for one another. Then there will be some feature or ensemble dances, usually with bright flashy costumes and big soundstages.<br /><br />The other point of commonality is that the actresses in these movies are freakin' gorgeous. Not that I would ever notice such a thing (Debbie).<br /><br />With that out of the way, we move on to the specifics of Bunty Aur Babli (a 2005 release). The plotline has the disaffected male youth itching to break out of his common little existence in his small town. Mom and Dad want him to stop dreaming and follow in his dad's footsteps as a career ticket taker on the train. The role was written so that you'd figure the character is in his young 20's. The actor playing the part (Abhishek Bachchan) was actually 40 years old. You can't help but notice.<br /><br />The girl (Rani Mukherjee) is a young attractive thing who seems to be rather spoiled and dreams of becoming Miss India and going on to a life of fashion modeling (little nod of the head to Aishwarya Rai?) Her parents have arranged for her to be married off to a guy she doesn't like. Sometimes her character seems to have been written for a 17 year-old. The actress is 27.<br /><br />The two run away from their families to pursue their dreams. They meet and find they are somewhat kindred spirits. Plot developments occur and they end up teaming as con artists, pulling bigger and bigger scams. The media takes note and they end up capturing the public's admiration for their audacity and for the fact that they often give part of their loot to poor people along the way. Their alias names (which they publicize at the scene of each crime) are Bunty and Babli. Thus the literal translation of the title.<br /><br />After about 80 minutes of film time, they finally admit their love for each other and decide to get married. The camera swoops up in a crane shot and the movie ends on a big happy note. But wait! There's a sign for intermission and then we come back to a second half of the movie that is just as long as the first! I think they filmed it this way so it could be cut and shown as two separate movies if a theater owner wanted to charge extra admissions. But on the DVD it is all one movie... two hours and 45 minutes long. Better put aside a chunk of viewing time!<br /><br />In part two, we are introduced to a detective who has taken on their case as a personal fixation. The actor (Amitabh Bachchan) looks and tries to act like Al Pacino in "Heat" or "Insomnia." He's the wily, grizzled vet who will stop at nothing to track down these scumbags.<br /><br />I won't complete the plot, as you have to wait to discover the outcome of the chase. But I didn't realize I was missing a major focal point of the film until I watched the closing credits and saw the names of the actors. Did you notice the names when I wrote them a few paragraphs ago?<br /><br />The detective is played by (according to IMDB) "arguably India's greatest ever superstar." He has 163 films in his filmography, has hosted India's version of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" on TV, has his statue in Madame Tussaud's, etc. etc.<br /><br />The young man is played by his son. And the entire first half of the film is an homage to scenes from his father's well-known film career. Near the end of the film, the two are talking and the young man says to the detective, "You could almost be my father." Hah hah... A big obvious joke for the audience that sailed right over my head.<br /><br />The other in-joke you need to know if you are not a follower of Indian film is that there is a feature dance in the film. You hear a female voice from off-screen say, "Hey, handsome!" The guy turns around to look at the speaker and falls to the floor in surprise. It's Aishwarya Rai, a spectacularly popular Indian film actress proclaimed as one of the world's most beautiful women (THE most beautiful by some).<br /><br />"Enough, already!" I hear you cry... "Is the movie any good?"<br /><br />Yeah, it's pretty fun. The Bonnie And Clyde angle is played very lightly, without the danger and violence you would expect in an Americanized version. The beginning is a bit rough, with over-hyped acting by both young (?) leads. I think they were trying too hard to play young and it felt phony. Later they stopped worrying about it and just decided to act the parts as themselves. The acting picked up quite a bit.<br /><br />The music and choreography are not top notch for the industry, but they are watchable. Aishwarya can really dance. Mukherjee gets a scene where she is wearing the shortest suit skirt I have ever seen. One sneeze and this would have gotten an R rating.<br /><br />There are a couple of outlandish plot points as the couple's scams get bigger. You really aren't supposed to care. The movie is quite sexually progressive for the Indian market, as the two leads get married and then kiss on the mouth, and are even seen in bed together in a sexual (non-graphic) situation. VERY unusual for Bollywood!<br /><br />I don't know as how I'd recommend this for first-time Indian movie watchers, but it's cute and inoffensive and not a bad entry in the overall pantheon. Knowing some of the back story helps.<br /><br />Parents would have no concerns about letting their kids watch along. Young children should like the bright colors and bouncy music of the dance sequences. Dialog is in Hindi and although the DVD has no special features, it does have the longest selection list of subtitle languages I've ever seen. You can watch it translated into English, French, Arabic, Spanish, Dutch, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Gujarati, or Bengali.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25922772.post-1147057349152003882006-05-07T22:58:00.000-04:002006-05-07T23:04:12.130-04:00CapoteThere is a point late in "Capote" where Truman is lamenting the fact that the killers keep getting stays of execution. "It's harrowing," he says. "All I want to do is write the ending, and there's no fucking end in sight." Amen, brother. That's how I felt about the film.<br /><br />In a special features clip on the DVD, the director (Bennett Miller) says he wanted a very simple film where the camera didn't take you out of the story. Usually a viewpoint I completely agree with and applaud. But Miller's recipe for simplicity is simply plodding literalism and a lack of dynamism in his storytelling.<br /><br />Far too many shots in this movie consist of setting up the camera in place and letting it film whatever the actors happen to do. Sometimes they switch to a cameraman holding the camera as steady as possible and filming an actor in extreme closeup. Every so often they throw in an outdoor establishing shot with a wide view of a bleak countryside highlighting the isolated setting of a house or a prison. It's all so studied and unimaginative you could scream.<br /><br />The director said in his interview that he doesn't like storyboarding or framing out how a scene will play. It shows. This is cinema of the moment, with no feel for how the pacing will play out over the course of almost two hours. Every beat of dialog is played out slowly, methodically, deliberately. Sometimes it seems as though the actors are thinking about how they want to play the next line with each pause after the most recently delivered one.<br /><br />For those who don't know, Capote deals with the period from the time Truman first reads about the killings in Kansas to the execution of the killers and publication of "In Cold Blood." Along the way, we get glimpses of Capote's high-living social whirl, his friendship with Harper Lee (as she writes, publishes, and sells film rights for "To Kill A Mockingbird"), and a few subtle small allusions to his implied gay personal life.<br /><br />We see Capote as a conflicted man who both cares for/about the protagonists of his novel and as a ruthless manipulator who will say anything and lie bald-facedly to get what he wants. Phillip Seymour Hoffman carries the movie with his performance, as he is the focal point of every scene. He does the requisite portrayal of the outrageously flamboyant Capote with the high pitched, lisping voice and the showman's mannerisms. But I never felt like we learned a lot about Capote the man. In one segment on the special features, Capote's biographer says that Truman had a captivating ability to focus his attention upon people, truly listening to them, and that this was part of the charm that made him such a desirable party guest. But in the movie, Capote is more of a blowhard, always talking, always holding the center of conversation, and angry when someone else tries to steal focus or challenge him.<br /><br />I was also aware of the physical discrepancy in using an actor who is five and a half inches taller than Capote was. Admittedly it is hard to find great actors who can pull off a huge role like this and who happen to be 5'4" tall. But Truman's diminutive size was a significant factor in how he related to people, how they saw him, and his need to make his mannerisms bigger than life to compensate. At more than 5'9" tall, Hoffman looks like just another guy who happens to like nice coats and scarves. To get around the problem of Hoffman not being properly dwarfed by his companions and settings, the director films up at him a lot of the time. I am now much more intimately acquainted with Phillip Seymour Hoffman's nostrils than I ever wished to be.<br /><br />Catherine Keener and Chris Cooper both turn in good workmanlike performances as Harper Lee and investigator Alvin Dewey. But they aren't given very much to do. Their main use is to act as a foil for Capote and to remain as impassive as possible in the face of his theatrics.<br /><br />The supporting actor who really caught my eye was Clifton Collins Jr. playing Perry Smith (one of the killers). He seemed to have an emotional core to his characterization that went below the surface level portrayals of everyone else around him. You could sense why Capote was drawn to Smith.<br /><br />The music by Mychael Danna is unintrusive and uninteresting. It has the same lack of life and vibrancy that the rest of the movie shows.<br /><br />Parents, there are a few curse words (well obviously, from my opening paragraph quote!) and a few bloody images surrounding the killings. No sex or nudity.Kenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17534529204543131504noreply@blogger.com0