The Netflix Report

Duma

2006-09-02T00:10:00.000-04:00

Disclaimer: I do not have children. Duma 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.

From that perspective, I have to say that Duma 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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 Jaws. The movie also features an offscreen human death (not gruesome) that might disturb youngsters.

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.

If you are looking for an alternative to silly comedies, superheroes, and cartoons for your kids, Duma 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.

Water

2006-08-31T12:35:00.000-04:00

In Water, writer/director Deepa Mehta finishes off the third part of a trilogy (with Fire and Earth) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Water 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.

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.

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.

Brick

2006-08-20T21:45:00.000-04:00

Rian 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. Brick 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.

To Johnson's credit, the movie does not play like a gimmicky Bugsy Malone 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.

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.

Brendan is played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt (the youngest of the alien family on Third Rock From The Sun), 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.

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 Witness. 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.

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 The Last Action Hero for reference).

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.

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.

Overall, it's an interesting academic exercise, but I can't recommend it for sheer entertainment value.

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.

Der Tunnel

2006-07-23T11:36:00.000-04:00

Der Tunnel 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In many ways, the movie is reminiscent of The Great Escape. 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Recommended.

Tristram Shandy - A Cock And Bull Story

2006-07-19T01:32:00.000-04:00

It's "English literary classics" week here at the Netflix reviewing labs. First we had Revengers Tragedy, based on a play from the early 1600's. Now we try out Tristram Shandy - A Cock And Bull Story, based on a nine volume serial written by Laurence Sterne in the late middle part of the 1700's.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Parents notes include sexual situations, a brief shot of a young boy's genitalia, and cursing.

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.

Riding Giants

2006-07-18T00:19:00.000-04:00

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.

Written, directed, and - most importantly - edited by the team that made the highly rated Dogtown and Z-Boys (a 2001 documentary about skateboarding), Riding Giants 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

The only parental advisory is some off-color language in the Greg Noll interviews.

Riding Giants 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.

Revengers Tragedy

2006-07-11T02:36:00.000-04:00

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. Hamlet 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.

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 The Revenger's Tragedy. 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.

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 Repo Man and Sid And Nancy. 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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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!

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.

Cox's setting feels slightly science fiction (think Blade Runner or Mad Max or Max Headroom). 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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

The Matador

2006-07-07T13:32:00.000-04:00

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Julian of course turns to Danny for help. Kinnear runs through the required sequence of disbelief, shock, revulsion, acceptance, and enthusiasm.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Parents will want to know that while all violence is implied and off-screen, sex and profanities are prominently featured throughout the film.

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.

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 The Memory Of A Killer (the professional assassin at the end of his career) or Walk On Water (the assassin forming an uneasy friendship with a civilian and involving him in his activities).

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

2006-07-01T17:11:00.000-04:00

An early shot in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang 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.

The setup is a direct reference to the famous opening sequence of Sunset Boulevard. 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.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 The Big Sleep, 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.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang 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.

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 Ellery Queen 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.

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!

I Love You, Alice B. Toklas!

2006-06-27T01:37:00.000-04:00

In 1968 the glow was starting to come off the famed "Summer of Love" a year earlier. Frank Zappa released We're Only In It For The Money, 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 I Love You, Alice B. Toklas.

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.

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 Dr. Strangelove, but with a touch more Jewish inflection that comes and goes as needs dictate.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Barbarella and then watch Mel Brooks lead Dick Shawn through an over the top caricature of a freakazoid hippie in The Producers (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.

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).

Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic

2006-06-18T00:40:00.000-04:00

Reviewing 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 Deuce Bigalow 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.

Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Parents, the topics and language in the movie are inappropriate for children or for anyone likely to be offended by inflammatory and derogatory jokes.

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith

2006-06-14T15:42:00.000-04:00

Watching Revenge of the Sith 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).

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.

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!

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!).

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.

Which brings me up to Revenge of the Sith. 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 maybe... 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I just looked at the tagline on IMDB. It says "The saga is complete." That pretty much sums it up. Revenge of the Sith 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 Revenge of the Sith and the Star Wars legend. Requiem.

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).

Intacto

2006-06-07T19:59:00.000-04:00

Everybody sing along with Rod Stewart... "Some guys have all the luck."

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.

I loved this film for its cool, noirish style and for its intelligent and internally consistent examination of a hypothetical world view.

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 The Cooler, 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.

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.

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.

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!").

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mrs. Henderson Presents

2006-06-05T00:30:00.000-04:00

Mrs. Henderson Presents 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.

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.

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.

Hoskins and Dench perform a running Battling Bickersons 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 Swing Time and Top Hat), 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

SPOILER ALERT! The following gives away a revealed plot point in the movie. Do not read if you wish to preserve the surprise factor.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
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.

The Harmonists

2006-06-02T14:21:00.000-04:00

Netflix has this listed as The Harmonists instead of its original German name of The Comedian Harmonists. I assume the American distributors didn't want audiences unfamiliar with the group to mistake the movie for a comedy.

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.

The movie is a fairly straightforward biopic of the creation, success, and decline of the group. Think Ray or I Walk The Line 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.

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 Behind The Music.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Laverne and Shirley. 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).

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.

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.

Recommended in both film and soundtrack versions.

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.

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.

War Of The Worlds (2005)

2006-06-01T15:13:00.000-04:00

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.

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!"

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

SPOILER ALERT!!! The following paragraphs refer to revealed developments in the story line...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Here are my notes for those who have already seen the film:

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.

Rumor Has It

2006-05-29T23:32:00.000-04:00

Rumor 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.

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.

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.

The best I can suggest is to watch the trailer for the film. (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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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...).

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.

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.

Munich

2006-05-29T01:54:00.000-04:00

This 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 - Paradise Now (preferably within a short period of time, but in either order) to get the same ambivalent viewpoint from the Arab terrorist side.

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:

"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."

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.

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.

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).

Transamerica

2006-05-26T00:22:00.000-04:00

Well here I go again, being contrarian to the majority opinion. Honestly, I don't do this just to be perverse!

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 earnestness that you just want to tell writer/director Duncan Tucker not to try so damned hard.

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 earnest 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.

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.

But I digress.

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?

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

The Producers (2005)

2006-05-22T00:23:00.000-04:00

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?"

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.

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.)

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Parents note: There are swear words and leering references to boobs, butts, and sexual attraction. No nudity or drugs.

Hoodwinked

2006-05-20T00:19:00.000-04:00

This 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 "Chicken Little," 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 too much).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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!"

Suitable for all ages.

The Family Stone

2006-05-19T09:35:00.000-04:00

There 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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

The movie as a whole seems self-consciously crafted as an attempt to make it "A Perennial Christmas Favorite... A Tradition For The Whole Family!" 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.

The 1944 movie is 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.

As with so many of my reviews these days, I have to fall back on: This isn't a bad movie. It just isn't a very good 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!

Dark Blue World

2006-05-15T19:32:00.000-04:00

Many 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.

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.

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":

"I'm in love with Alexei.
He loves Alicia.
Alicia's having an affair with Lev.
Lev loves Tatiana.
Tatiana loves Simkin.
Simkin loves me.
I love Simkin, but in a different way than Alexei.
Alexei loves Tatiana like a sister.
Tatiana's sister loves Trigorian like a brother.
Trigorian's brother is having an affair with my sister, who he likes physically, but not spiritually.
The firm of Mishkin and Mishkin is sleeping with the firm of Taskov and Taskov."

In "Dark Blue World," the playbook would look like:

Kanka is in love with Hanicka.
She loves Franta.
Franta loves Hanicka, but is having an affair with Susan.
Susan loves Franta, but is married to Charles.
Karel loves Susan.
Franta loves Karel like a brother.
Jane is intrigued by Karel.
The Army of The Third Reich is ravishing the country of Czechoslovakia.

...and so on.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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!

The film is in Czech and English, with good clear subtitles.

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.

The DVD includes a good "making of" documentary that is not a puff piece for the publicity department to use on television.

Bunty Aur Babli

2006-05-13T22:49:00.000-04:00

A Bollywood musical.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

"Enough, already!" I hear you cry... "Is the movie any good?"

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Capote

2006-05-07T22:58:00.000-04:00

There 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Shopgirl

2006-04-28T23:57:00.000-04:00

Steve Martin wrote an introspective fictional novella called Shopgirl (published in 2000) about relationship difficulties. I didn’t read the book, so I didn’t have any preconceived ideas about the characters or the story when I saw this film. I really had no idea what it was about.

Claire Danes plays the shopgirl of the title. Mirabelle works in an under-visited department of Saks Fifth Avenue in Beverly Hills, selling overpriced gloves to rich people. A young Vermont transplant trying to make it in exotic Los Angeles, her personal life is depressing and lonely.

As things develop, two men come into her life. One is a complete goofball slacker with barely a dime to his name and little idea of the niceties of social conventions. Mirabelle takes a chance on Jeremy (Jason Schwartzman) because he is her age, he seems interested, and honestly, she’s desperate. But it is a dissatisfying hookup in almost every possible way.

The other man is Steve Martin playing Ray -- a wealthy, cultured, distinguished businessman with oodles of money. He is everything she was hoping for. Except for his reluctance to develop closeness and openness with her. He can’t confess any emotional ties to Mirabelle and views their relationship as a temporary convenience.

[A brief pause here for a personal note to my past girlfriends who might be reading… Yes, I get it.]

All three characters learn and grow in their understanding of each other and themselves through the events of the film.

This isn’t a standard Hollywood romantic comedy and it isn’t a standard Hollywood romantic tearjerker drama. Some parts are funny, some are sad, some are fairly boring, and much is bittersweet in the way that imperfect relationships can be.

The movie has many things going for it. The three main actors truly inhabit their parts. I never thought of them as acting. Jason Schwartzman is hilarious as Jeremy and adds much needed comic relief and lightness to every scene he is in. He exudes energy and life. Martin is quiet and reserved and dignified as Ray. Danes shows the uncertainty, hopefulness, and emotional vulnerability of a 24-year old naïf on her own in LA.

The score is by Barrington Pheloung, whom I had never heard of. I looked him up and he has scored some 45 movies, so he’s no newcomer. Played by the London Metropolitan Orchestra, it has elements of classical symphonic, chamber music, and that plinky-plinky stuff from “American Beauty.” I really liked it and felt it helped underscore and define the unspoken aspects of the characters’ interrelations.

The art direction, camera direction, lighting, and photography are topnotch and subtly effective and evocative. Mirabelle draws charcoal sketches and we often see her shading in the black edges of her paper subjects. Much of the film is shot this way, with centrally lit characters in a frame edging gradually to black on the edges. It is a style reminiscent of the Dutch Masters school of art, where the central character is lit within a dark surround. There are a few subtle effects shots (I loved the flower petals blowing around Mirabelle at the gallery parking lot) and only one short trick shot that pulls you out of the story.

The movie opens and ends with Steve Martin reading a voiceover narrative as if he is reading the opening and closing pages of his book. And for all I know, he is. The third-party omniscient exposition of the characters’ feelings clashes terribly with the rest of the film, where they communicate with the audience through their expressiveness in natural dialog and emotive abilities. I think the film would be better with the voiceover removed (hey, if they did it to “Blade Runner” they can do it to this!)

Shopgirl isn’t a perfect movie. There are some slow bits that could have been tightened up. The Steve Martin character seemed a little creepy and menacing to me in early scenes where he should have been more likable and appealing to Mirabelle. But I liked the intelligence and wistfulness of the script, I loved the technical artistry of the movie, and I admired the acting. Recommended.

Parents note: I don’t recall any swearing. There is no violence. There is suggested sexuality, but nothing graphic. Nudity is confined to one female backside shot. Kids will be bored silly by this, but they can safely be playing in the same room.

A History Of Violence

2006-04-24T22:57:00.000-04:00

If nothing else, David Cronenberg still has the power to put some prostheses and fake blood on people and gross out viewers to the point where they stand up and leave the film in tears. It worked on Debbie. Other than proving your desensitization to gore by watching those scenes complacently, I can't see much point in sitting through this feathery little piece of fluff.

I noted in the opening credits that the film is based on a graphic novel. "Uh oh... That can't be good." And indeed, you can think of this as something of a hyper-realistic Sin City. Everything is drawn in broad, exaggerated strokes. Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello have a perfect, loving relationship that is hammered into your skull with an ice pick. Their son is a nice, gentle, sensitive lad. Their little girl is a cross between Shirley Temple and Heather O'Rourke in Poltergeist. Their small town has the cheery regulars down at the local diner. Of course this pastoral scenario is going to need some serious shaking up.

We have an early scene with the impossibly cute little moppet waking up screaming at the top of her lungs from a nightmare. Daddy wanders slowly into her room and calms her down for a while. Then young Sonny Jim meanders in to see what that noise was a while back and dispense his brand of familial care to little cupcake. After a while, Mom pokes her head in the door to make sure everything is okay. It's all such a series of staged entrances and introductions to the characters that I was rolling my eyes. But it gets better. You see, the little girl was frightened because of monsters hiding in the closet. Can you say "foreshadowing?" Can you shout it out loud and write it in letters three inches high on your script?

Then, what goes with violence? Why, sex of course! So we get a rather perverse little scene of Daddy and Mommy indulging in some graphic fantasy sex where she is dressed like an innocent little teenager. The scene goes on just long enough and just detailed enough to make you unnecessarily uncomfortable about watching, even though I think Cronenberg is honestly trying to make it seem very open, free-spirited, and loving (he has to help us with this understanding by adding some post-coital sweet talking to make sure we know just how MUCH they love each other). You see, he wants to contrast it later by showing that violence corrupts even the sacred and sweet bonds of marital physical closeness. It ain't a subtle comparison.

This bookending occurs all over the place. The son is a pacifist at school, allowing himself to be publicly humiliated rather than face down a bully. But as violence creeps into the family unit, he finds himself changed as well.

The plot gets its impetus from a seemingly random incident of violence where the father, Tom (Mortensen) ends up killing two very bad guys in an unambiguously virtuous and necessary act. He is thrust into the spotlight of media attention. Suddenly, more bad guys appear. Tom and his family are sucked into an inextricable whirlpool of violence, deceit, and mistrust.

I can't go any farther without giving away plot spoilers (although honestly you should be able to figure things out WELL before the script gets to each revelation). But at the end of the movie there is a scene that is so utterly bereft of storytelling skill it made me want to weep. I am sure the scriptwriter and director wanted to leave us with a thought-provoking open interpretation piece that would stimulate discussion and debate on the effects of (violence, deceit, mistrust... see above). I can visualize the thoughts going through their heads -- mostly remembering how cool it was when they read "The Lady Or The Tiger" in high school and then debated it in class.

But all they leave us with is an unfinished story and the only point that matters. The secrets about Tom's past are secondary and only a catalyst. The focus of the film is on his family and his relationship with his wife. And at the end, they leave us high and dry. They can't figure out themselves if redemption is possible or if the sins must be punished. So they leave it as an exercise for the reader.

I know there are those who will point out that this is the clever part. They will claim that I am a lazy viewer who wants to be spoon-fed a nice easy answer. They will say that it's heavy stuff and we should think about it long and hard. But I remain unconvinced. I think the filmmakers set up an important, central, solid story arc and didn't see it through to its finish. Which means that pretty much all that went before was just action-adventure time filler. And you know what? There are MUCH better action-adventure time fillers out there. Rent one of those. Not this.

Parents, my first sentence should have been warning enough. Don't let the kids be in the same room when this film is on. It has graphic depictions of things they shouldn't see. Probably things you shouldn't see either.

Madagascar

2006-04-22T00:52:00.000-04:00

I watched this the night after watching Chicken Little and what a difference a day makes! Madagascar had me from about the second shot of the movie in the pre-titles sequence. A dream sequence includes a large ensemble of penguin chorines who hit a beautiful harmony crescendo while flying gracefully off-screen in a Busby Berkeley formation.

The script for Madagascar is very witty, with many of the same film and pop culture references I derided in Chicken Little - except this time they somehow work. There are still stupid fart-noise jokes to delight the kids, but overall I think the movie does a much better job at entertaining both children and adults.

The look of the film is deliberately "cartoony", with the main characters and location settings opting for a make-believe look instead of realism. The lion's paws are big flat foam-looking things. Most of the animals walk on their hind legs.

There is a central story of friendship and togetherness that is pitched right for little kids. But there is also a strange dual theme of "be happy where you are" intertwined with "follow your dream, even if it takes you away from your comfort zone." They really do play both sides of the argument and you don't even realize you've had your cake and eaten it until the end of the movie.

I thought the main character quartet was a little boring. But the supporting "cast" more than makes up for it. There are two urbane chimps, a crazy-happy lemur king, a tiny baby lemur who oozes cartoon cute with eyes that take up 80% of his face, and most importantly... a team of four penguins performing "The Great Escape." They steal every scene they are in.

Most of the music is known pop culture oldies, but there is a big electro-dance original that will get your blood flowing and have you humming it afterwards. There is also a really nice Hans Zimmer instrumental score that you don't notice until the final credits. It's worth listening to.

There's lots of controversy in the film world about the "coincidental" release of this film near that of Disney's "The Wild", which has almost exactly the same plot. Jeffrey Katzenberger supposedly left Disney for Dreamworks right around the time Disney was looking at starting up "The Wild" as a project. I thought it was strange that characters in Madagascar repeatedly make pointed comments (and a doormat) referencing "The Wild."

But taking this film on its own, I found it thoroughly entertaining and laugh out loud funny. I'll bet it's one of those movies that plays better on the home screen than in theaters. You don't expect so much for your money, so you can sit back and let it unfold a little more easily.

Chicken Little

2006-04-20T22:38:00.000-04:00

What happened to Walt Disney animation? It went from the gold standard to dreck, recovered with the modern computer-assisted animated musical (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin) and then all the life went out of it when Pixar and Dreamworks redefined the genre with hip pop culture references, big names, and snappy writing.

This is an obvious and desperate-looking attempt to copy the new hip formula while still retaining "the Disney magic." It is frenetic and snappy in a "script by committee" kind of way. You can almost hear the writers saying: "We should put in a gag here." "How about referencing a movie?" "Okay, that will work."

Then things suddenly stop dead every so often for a moment of heartfelt moralizing about the importance of father-son communications or a wistful, yet unexplained, reminiscence of a single parent for his missing spouse. Play a song for the soundtrack album and ratchet up the action again. Rinse. Repeat.

Every voice is a recognizable celebrity, only one of whom (Steve Zahn) even attempts to create a vocal characterization for his part. The rest just read the lines. I was constantly pulled away from the thin story line to ruminate on the actors' voices and build associations of where I had heard them sound like that before. A main point of the story is that the lead characters are children in school, who don't get respect and credibility from the adults of the community. But all the kids' voices are done by adults. Zach Braff as Chicken Little sounds like the talk he needs to have with his dad is the same one he had as a disaffected mid-twenties young adult in "Garden State." And God bless her, but I don't think Joan Cusack EVER sounded like a kid!

Debbie and I disagreed about whether little kids would enjoy the movie. I don't have kids, so I'm no expert, but while I figure they would be engaged by the bright colors and fast motion, I had a hard time believing the paper-thin draggy plot would hold them. And the referential gags (many of which are not cute little throwaways with a wink, but are highlighted and jammed down our throats) are all made in reference to things that were popular well before any of the target audience children were born. Mixing references to The Spice Girls, Gloria Gaynor, Elton John, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and The Natural seems to me to call upon a weird timespan that doesn't fit the kids or their parents too well.

This isn't a maliciously bad movie... it's just not a very good movie. Still, you can fire it up as a time filler for the kiddies without worrying about anything more unsavory than their proclivity after viewing it to emulate all the references to burping, snot, and pee-pee synonyms. I'll tell you, for me there is no higher form of comedic innovation.

Millions

2006-04-18T19:58:00.000-04:00

I have to review this one from memory, as I saw it back before I was saving my reviews for posterity. But it's too good to let go without an entry on the blog.

This is one of my favorite rentals of the past few years. The movie is told as a slightly hyper-realistic fairy tale. You are prepared for the story telling by an early shot of two young brothers lying on an empty lot where their new house will be built and seeing the entire structure magically grow up into a completed structure through stop motion animation. It's cute and tells you not to worry too much about literal filming of real events.

The boys' mother has recently passed away and they are moving to this new home with their dad. The youngest boy has the curious quirk of seeing and talking to historical martyrs, each of whom he eagerly recites the "stats" for as if they were sports stars with bubble gum cards. He believes sincerely in the moralistic tales of his religious schooling. The older brother is more cynical and world-wise (but still in an immature way).

When the young boy magically comes into posession of a huge bag of money, he believes it is his obligation to do good with it for the betterment of men. His brother thinks they'd be better off buying some cool stuff.

When a new woman enters Dad's life and the secret becomes known to the entire group, they have to decide what to do. The older son doubts the woman's sincerity and thinks she might be in it for the cash. Could he be right?

The movie sets up a big conflict and doesn't really know how to get out of it, choosing instead to construct a magical ending that is far too abrupt and unsatisfying for what went before. But it's the youngest boy's story, and if that's the way he wants it, that's the way we get it.

The film belongs to the younger son, played by Alex Etel. He strikes that almost impossible balance between cuteness, sincerity, and realism that lets you accept him completely as a real kid instead of an unripe actor who just happened to be the right age.

The film is directed with surprising warmth and bonhomie by Danny Boyle, who usually handles harder-edged fare (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later). It is certainly appropriate for the entire family, although one reviewer wrote to say that the relationship between the father and his new girlfriend was inappropriate. There is also one scene showing blood on some of the martyrs who visit the boy.

The Aviator

2006-04-18T19:56:00.000-04:00

Critics were effusive in their praise of this movie. It's a good thing we have the critics around to tell us what is a good film, because otherwise there would be no way to tell.

This is a mess of a movie, completely lacking in any show of restraint. The camera never stays in one position for more than three seconds over the entire 2 hours and 50 minutes of screen time. Scorsese uses tracks, dollies, cranes, and anything else he can think of to show off. There is no hope of being drawn into the plot when you keep getting pulled out to exclaim over the camera work.

Then there are the obvious, unbelievable process shots. Ludicrous.

Then there's the casting... Every role is played by a major name or a recognizable character actor. Many are busy portraying real celebrities like Ava Gardner, Errol Flynn, and Kate Hepburn. Mostly as broadly played caricatures without a recognizable facial resemblance in the lot.

And finally there is the story line. If you don't already know the details, God help you. I'm guessing Marty shot about 5 hours of movie and then started ripping stuff out to get it down to even an overblown run time. They set up stuff that never pays off, they leave out major followups to story arcs, and they simply drop characters for a while, who then pop up in another time and another place... seemingly at random. The story is told linearly, but you almost never have any sense of how much time has passed from one scene to another. Every half hour or so, Scorsese runs another dateline subtitle to let you know what year it is.

Don't believe the hype. Because hype is all this has.

Parents: I seem to recall a few mild swear words. That's about all that should be offensive to kids.

The Sinister Saga of Making The Stunt Man

2006-04-18T19:53:00.000-04:00

I am a film buff and I enjoy documentaries about film making, background stories, and director's comments. But, phew!!! This is a two-hour egofest with director Richard Rush beating the audience into submission with his list of wond'rous accomplishments, limitless innovation, and clever production stunts.

There are three interesting tidbits interspersed here. One is that Rush (supposedly) invented the pull-focus technique of shifting focus within a shot. He is deeply sorry he referred to it originally as rack focus and then pleads with the world to call it Rush Focus so his name will live forever. I don't for a second doubt his sincerity.

The second is a story about filming the WWI biplane by violating FAA safety guidelines around the hotel. The third is the extended section about the opening of the film and the battles with his arch-nemesis at the studio. Unfortunately, even this fun story is killed by Rush's recitation of every good review and award nomination the film ever received.

Oh, by the way, I saw The Stunt Man in its original limited release in LA (after Seattle) and I own it on laserdisc. Watch the movie, not this piece of self promotion.

No parental warnings, other than the threat of severe boredom.

Sing Faster: The Stagehands' Ring Cycle

2006-04-18T19:51:00.000-04:00

Yes, I do enjoy opera. Yes, I have performed in and worked tech on many stage productions of plays and musicals. No, I did not enjoy this documentary.

Filmed as a PBS 1-hour special (with no extras on the disc other than "About the filmmakers"), this is essentially an amateur home movie showing random snippets of the backstage world. It's somewhat interesting if you've been involved in theater backstage, as you can spot familiar situations and reactions and get a self-satisfied fond memory. But the documentary has no continuity, no point of view, and no story to tell.

It honestly is nothing more than a collage of random sound bites over headsets and shots of stagehands and actors/singers getting ready for their show. You get no sense of time, no understanding of what operations are critical and what aren't, no dramatic sense of what cursing is throwaway and what signals real problems, and often no sense of how difficulties are overcome.

Those unfamiliar with The Ring Cycle won't gain too much from the garbled attempts by the crew to explain the plot to each other, although it is mildly amusing to afficionados. I felt that the prime purpose of a documentary was lost here... you neither learn something new, nor come away with your perceptions altered about a subject.

This is really just "slice of life" filmmaking, edited by turning the camera on and off and seeing what shows up in front of the lens. A disappointment.

Parents: Nothing to alarm the kinder here. But they won't be interested.

Gates Of Heaven

2006-04-18T19:49:00.000-04:00

Public opinion be darned... I hated, hated, hated this movie! A filmmaker should have something to communicate to the viewer, but this movie just rambles with no perceptible point of view, dramatic arc, or story of any kind.

It starts as a long, drawn-out discussion of how the original pet cemetary founders went through their business negotiations, along with the rise and fall of the business. The detail in their stories is extraordinary. But what is the point? Are we to laugh at the "hick" naivete of the concept originator? Are we to hiss at a callous rendering plant operator? And what do we make of the elderly woman at the door of her trailer telling a long, rambling stream of consciousness tale about her worthless son? What of the family in Napa carrying on the pet burying business? Is the service leader sincere or a hypocritical shyster? Is there a linkage?

I see nothing special in recording people babbling about things that are of personal interest to them, if we are given no framework in which to view the reminiscences. This movie is boring, technically primitive, and offers no insights or emotional connection. Feh.

Parents: No sex, violence, nudity, or swearing that I remember. The plot is all about pets that have died, so the kiddies might not like the concept.

Old School

2006-04-18T19:47:00.000-04:00

I love comedies. I have a large collection. One of my unreasonable criteria is that they have to make me laugh. Or at least stay mildly interested. Old School failed on both counts.

I did laugh once. Exactly once. At an incongruous shot of Will Ferrell about to start a rythmic gymnastic exercise. That's it.

The plot line is a jumbled collection of set pieces from forty other movies you've seen and forgotten. Comic plot points are inserted and forgotten as necessary to plod painfully to the next scene.

There is the obligatory gratuitous topless shot for titillation value (which is the VERY FIRST THING YOU SEE, proudly showcased on the initial disc menu - I see the producers figured out the most memorable highlight of their magnum opus).

I certainly enjoyed the credible concept of a 30-year old dean of a major university. Oh, what the heck. You'll probably like this if you are seriously drunk or stoned. But then again, you'd probably like watching a test pattern, so why bother?

Parents: Swearing, female toplessness, drunkenness, and a complete lack of intelligence throughout.

The Assassination Of Richard Nixon

2006-04-18T19:44:00.000-04:00

This film is played like an extended acting class exercise. Sean Penn runs through his usual "dramatic, Dramatic, DRAMATIC!!!!" chops (see any of his recent movies) as he plays the everyman whose inner demons and inability to cope with life's frustrations gradually overwhelm him. He mumbles, he darts his eyes, he explodes in rage - shouting and spitting, he sobs inconsolably. Thank you, Mr. Penn - We'll call you.

The movie suffers from inevitable comparison to Taxi Driver. The regular guy, feeling stripped of power in his life, decides to make a stand and a statement by offing a public figure. The comparison is not helped by the similarity of the character names - Bicke here, Bickle in Taxi Driver. Then there are the scenes where Penn seems to purposely copy DeNiro's sidelong glances, tilted head, and mumbled attempts to connect with people around him.

The difference in the films is in the craftsmanship. "Nixon" is filmed almost entirely with a handheld camera - zooming, swooping, and shaking in the best pseudo-documentary style. Aside from making us mildly seasick and mindful of TV coffee commercials, it simply pulls us away from the storyline, ever aware that we are watching someone filming an actor.

The second major problem is that there really is no story arc or character development. Bicke starts out as an ineffectual man with plans that are constantly thwarted and stays there. His life was the same before we enter the action, remains the same throughout the film's events, and is easy to extrapolate as always going to be the same, no matter what he might ever do.

Even if this is the point, truth does not equal entertainment nor interest. If nothing happens and nothing changes, you might as well summarize the concept. Nothing is gained by playacting it in a tedious and inevitable dramatization. I felt no new knowledge about the character, empathy for his plight, or realization about myself at the end of the film that I didn't have at the 10-minute mark.

Parents: This has swearing and violence, along with adult themes that would bore children.

Paradise Now

2006-04-18T11:02:00.000-04:00

As I write this, the newspaper is reporting on yesterday’s suicide bombing attack in Tel Aviv that killed eight diners at a restaurant. Who would do such a thing? What do they think? Last night I watched “Paradise Now”, which chronicles two young Palestinian men in the West Bank called up by their terrorist cell to carry out a double suicide bombing in Tel Aviv the following day.

The film depicts life in the Israeli controlled West Bank as seen through the eyes of the Palestinians who live there. It looks at small aspects of their daily lives, their relationships, and gradually delves into their thoughts and beliefs that could lead them to suicide bombings as a self-justified tactic in their struggle.

The movie is very careful to put a human face on all the characters. Nobody is vilified as a cartoon evildoer and people have doubts and conflicts. There are those who believe the violence is wrong, there are those who are convinced it is the only way, and there are those who sway back and forth, unsure of what is right.

I was fascinated and drawn in to the drama. It showed a lifestyle and thought structure that I was completely unfamiliar with and gave the impression of reality. Nothing felt like a set or like movie script writing. The movie is a fictional movie creation and it doesn’t try to present events in a documentary style. There is no narration, no voice-over monologues by the characters explaining what they are thinking. There is very little soundtrack music. Just a naturally building familiarity with the characters and their situations.

The middle of the film has a slow section that lasts for maybe ten minutes of people trying to find one another as they race around the city. Apart from this bit I was impressed by the pacing and flow of the movie.

I recommend this highly. Apart from the obvious adult nature of the subject, there are no parental concerns. No sex, nudity, or violence. The movie does not use graphic death to showcase its points.

After watching the movie, watch the only special feature on the DVD, which is the theatrical trailer (the promotional piece advertising the film). Then continue with this review.

SPOILER ALERT! DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I was infuriated by the trailer. The main tagline is “From the most unexpected place, comes a bold new call for peace.” And at the end of the trailer, it closes with: “Sometimes the most courageous act is what you don’t do.”

This is completely opposite to the way the film portrays its message. The bomber who turns back is portrayed as a crying, sniveling coward, while the one who elects to carry out his mission is shown as a forceful, determined individual. The same dichotomy is shown when the two are reunited at the terrorist hideout after the aborted mission and have to decide whether to try again. Courage is clearly shown as the willingness to blow yourself up for the cause without wavering or hesitation.

The decision to showcase the film as a call for peace is a cowardly and deceptive advertising ploy by Warner Independent. They obviously figured in America’s current political climate it was the only way to get distribution and attendance. But it reeks of the same double talk and lies of public presentation that made Bush tell us he didn’t want war except as a last resort while already drawing up plans and appropriating funds from the Afghan budget.

Hustle And Flow

2006-04-17T12:31:00.001-04:00

Djay is a small time pimp working three girls on the back streets of Memphis, selling their services for $20 a shot out of his beat up car. Through a chance meeting, he develops an interest in resuming his high school involvement in music and decides to try recording hard edged rap from his perspective as a pimp. His debut single wins an Oscar for Best Song in a Motion Picture. Oh wait… That last bit is the real Academy Awards story from this year.

Most of the movie is a straightforward genre piece about the struggling neophyte trying to develop his signature sound, write songs, get recorded, and better his life from his humble beginnings. We’ve seen it recently in “Walk The Line” and if you are a fan of the classic musical biography, you’ve seen it in “Till The Clouds Roll By”, “The Glenn Miller Story” and many others.

As with all of these films, the biggest hurdle is getting over the simplified way the movie makers compress the songwriting and producing business so that a song develops from a casual comment made in conversation to “Wait… Say that again” to fully worked out lyric to hastily written complete melody to full multi-tracked production, all in the space of a few minutes. In this movie, the group of amateur recording artists in a glorified shack on the loud, bad, low-income streets of Memphis manage to record straight into fully mixed multi-layered professional studio sound. But heck, if I’m willing to accept ballet-dancing gang members in West Side Story, I can tolerate this little conceit.

The twist of this movie is the hard edged rap musical style and the rough world that Djay and his women inhabit. They all want something just a little better than they have, but none of them is quite sure what that might be or how to get it.

I thought the movie was a bit slow in the middle act while Djay goes through the necessary struggles to create his music. But it starts and ends well, with some tense moments involving conflict with one of the girls, and Djay’s attempts to get his music heard. Terrence Howard fully deserved all the acclaim heaped on him for his performance in this, alongside his very different character in “Crash.”

I will admit that as a lily-white suburban boy I ended up relying on subtitles sometimes to figure out what the black characters were saying. The music has a good beat. The acting is all quite good. The movie pulls you along to see if Djay will be able to make it. I can give this one a thumbs up, but I don’t think it’s a classic for our time.

This is not a kid friendly movie. In addition to the obvious subject matter of cheap street hustling, there is lots of profanity and vulgarities, a brief shot of female breasts, and violence.

Loggerheads

2006-04-17T12:31:00.000-04:00

This is one of those films that is tough to review without giving away plot spoilers. You are supposed to be confused at first as the movie slowly introduces you to various characters and then lets you discover how some stories intertwine with others. It’s also a little strange that it takes place in two different time lines, one about two years ahead of the other, but they interplay scenes from each time and you have to remember by the characters and action which year you are watching (although they do put in audio cues with campaign radio spots for the 2000 presidential election helping to keep you grounded where appropriate). Be assured that everything does come together neatly (perhaps a little too neatly).

The basic storyline is based on actual events, but it has a melodramatic feel that makes it seem contrived. Since we only ever deal with people central to the story, you start to feel like everyone on Earth is involved in some sort of giant conspiracy. It’s a little like “Crash” in that respect… We feel like we are picking up random storylines and then feel manipulated when the characters start interacting and it seems like too many coincidences.

The movie is a relationship drama, as characters try to find connections and meaning in their relationships with family, friends, and significant others (I’m being deliberately vague to leave the important elements a surprise). Dialog is refreshingly real… The characters sound like actual people talking, not snippets of script. There are only a couple of times when it slips into heavy-handed spelling out of the turtle allusion in the title (which could also be seen as having to do with the phrase “being at loggerheads” to mean stubborn fighting over a principle where neither side will back down).

There is way too much reliance on closeups. It feels like the film was deliberately shot to play well on TV screens. The director uses one-shots instead of two-shots in most conversations, which means you spend time flipping back and forth between each person instead of seeing them talking as an outsider. This is supposed to draw you in instead of making you feel like an outside observer, but it got annoying after a while.

There are several “name” actresses in the cast and they turn in strong performances. Tess Harper, Bonnie Hunt, and Michael Learned are matched by lesser known males in the key roles. I liked Kip Pardue and Michael Kelly as the featured actors.

The action takes place in several North Carolina locations, from the beach on the East to the Blue Ridge Mountains in the west. But while they pay a lot of attention to the locales, it’s not important to the story. Just a happy coincidence for this relatively new NC resident.

I enjoyed the slow development of character personalities and gradually learning their back stories. It kept the movie interesting as you peel away layers to see more about the people who at first are just dumped in your lap. There are themes of prejudice and acceptance, family bonds, and damaged self-perception that are only occasionally made too preachy. For the most part, it is a very touching story, helped by its origins in real life. You may have a tear in your eye at the end, but I won’t say whether of sadness, happiness, or possibly both.

Parents don’t have too much to worry about. There are a few light swear words and adult themes including references to homosexual relationships. No nudity or violence. But young children won’t be interested. I give this one a recommendation for a night when you aren’t looking for light escapist fare.

Flightplan

2006-04-17T12:30:00.000-04:00

After viewing this movie, I said to Debbie: “I don’t know what to do for my review. Everyone accuses me of being so negative, but there isn’t a kind thing to say about this piece of garbage!” She then reminded me that I really liked the subtle touches in the opening titles. And she’s right.

Watch the opening credits carefully. They display the only artistry in the entire film. As some of the names are displayed over the exterior of a moving subway train in Berlin, you can see the letters ever so slightly reflected off the train’s paint. As the train pulls away, the credits shift light and shadow horizontally to mimic the look of the train’s windows.

The other good thing about the movie is the summary premise. A woman wakes up on board an airplane and discovers her daughter is missing. Or was the daughter ever there? It’s the old “Is she crazy or a victim?” ploy.

They had a workable concept, they had good credits, they had reasonably good to very good actors (I greatly admire Jodie Foster’s abilities). But the final script and the director sabotaged the end product.

The director is relatively young and this is his second feature film (not counting a half hour film school project). He is obviously delighted with his big Hollywood budget and has a ball playing with camera shots he dreamed of in school. Cameras go overhead and whirl around their axis, a stock airplane landing shot (wheels touching runway) is rotated ninety degrees so the runway looks like a wall, film stock is sped up to suddenly put the actors in slow motion at seemingly random times. He also has a neophyte’s grasp of how to build tension. The airplane keeps suffering random and disconnected bumps in the air, each accompanied by a loud low frequency CLUMP.

The key to making a story like this work is to keep the protagonist in a thoroughly plausible and realistic world, so she and we can discover the subtle clues that point to whether her danger is imaginary or real. Unfortunately, the script keeps opting for little touches of Hollywood falseness instead of normalcy. Nothing big… just tiny things that leave you aware that this is not a real person in a real situation, but something made up for a movie.

Examples include: Announcements at Berlin Airport are made first in flawless American English, then are translated into German as a secondary language. The flight from Berlin to New York seems to have no German passengers on board. Electronics have “beep beep” noises associated with each operation. Air marshals are seated at the rear of the most massive passenger plane flying. FBI agents, police, and SWAT teams calmly let people walk off hijacked planes without challenging them or ensuring they are not carrying weapons. Recorded greetings on the plane’s video system are played in every language on the planet Earth. When the authorities need to do an emergency transfer of 425 passengers off the plane, they drive three buses up to the single forward exit door. An air marshal interrupts flight attendants’ activities during passenger boarding with inane requests (to prove he’s a “normal” passenger).

Then there’s the big stuff. Foster’s character is described as a propulsion engineer who helped design the engines on the plane. Yet she has memorized the entire interior configuration, knows the electronics system, and knows where every internal access hatchway leads and exits. She also seems to have some knowledge of explosives or shaped charges or something (or else is INCREDIBLY lucky). When she boards the plane at a standard “parents with small children” pre-board announcement, she and her daughter are completely alone in a long shot down the full aisle and passenger compartment of the super-jumbo jet -- there is not another passenger or flight attendant anywhere for around one full minute (vital for the plot, but a real puzzler). And the central reasoning behind the elaborate cat and mouse game is so far-fetched as to defy any sense of plausibility or logic.

I could go on, but reviewer Frank Swietek pretty much summed it up in his wonderful quote about Flightplan: “So preposterous that you not only have to put your brain on hold but remove it from your skull, toss it to the floor and stomp it into insensibility.”

Parent’s note: Surprisingly inoffensive! No nudity, no sexual suggestiveness, no swearing, one non-graphic death, and two people get punched.

King Kong

2006-04-17T12:29:00.000-04:00

You want negative? I’ll give you negative. This movie rated a solid 9 on the Molay suck-o-meter. Peter Jackson over inflates every possible aspect of the 1933 original and creates a numbing test of endurance.

At three hours, eight minutes of run length, it sometimes feels like the story is being played in real time. Unlike many people, I rather liked the early sequences establishing the characters. Jack Black does a good job as a lovable movie maker / con man / scamp who seems devoted to his craft of filmmaking (at first). After some recent gritty reality film roles, Naomi Watts is back in glamour mode as a bright eyed ingénue, and she is lovely.

But then we start getting supplemental characters piled into the soup. The three studio execs. The other actors in Naomi’s vaudeville company. The ship full of crewmembers, each of whom is a “type.” The crew of Black’s film company. And on and on. The most baffling of these supporting characters is the first mate on the ship and his youthful ward. They go to the trouble of giving a long and mysterious back story to the young man, then drop it, never to reveal a payoff. And the distinguished black urbanite for some reason slumming as his mentor and fellow crewhand is an astonishing creation. He quotes passages from Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness” and explains the psychological underpinnings of the protagonist.

Once we get to Kong’s island, there is an incredibly long sequence of the boat almost smashing against rocks. We feel fairly certain that this early in the story (although still about 45 minutes into the film) nobody important is going to be seriously killed before we’ve even seen Kong, so the frenetic rushing about and repetitious close scrapes are more tedious than tense. Then we do a travelogue tour of the digital ruins on the island.

Finally we meet the natives living among the ruins and we get a genuinely scary sequence. As a matter of fact, it is testament to the weakness of the rest of the film that the natives are a more fearsome and harrowing threat than any of the many monsters we encounter later.

The long middle sequence of the story is a never-ending consecutive series of battles among creatures and men. Every time you latch onto something that seems marginally threatening, you are desensitized and deadened to its impact by extending the fight sequences until you find yourself rooting for something, anything, to die – just to end the scene. But once one fight is over, it is only a matter of seconds until the next monster comes along and you’re right back into the same action again. I felt like I was watching an entire year’s run of “Perils of Pauline” shorts shoehorned into a single highlights reel.

The resolution of some of these fights is so ludicrous that I would have felt just as satisfied with the Blue Fairy coming down and waving her wand. A man is covered with giant insects. So another member of the party machine guns the insects off of him, despite having no experience with guns and using a Tommy Gun that is jerking wildly in his hands. Two members of the party escape certain death by grabbing onto the talon of a giant bat, which carries them off to safety. Men and women are regularly able to outrun (or at least pace) gigantic animals with strides measured in dozens of yards.

These kinds of fantasy aspects ruin tension sequences throughout the entire movie. When Kong is rampaging through New York near the blessed end of the picture, the Army is seen lobbing artillery shells through crowded public areas and firing wildly from the back of moving, bouncing trucks into office buildings and residences. Riiiiiighttt.

When Kong needs a tender moment alone with Ann Darrow (Watts), we suddenly go from the crowded, panicked, snowy streets of Times Square to a quiet residential side street where no humans are about, no snow is on the ground, and peaceful silence reigns complete.

Ann is quite the trouper as well, surviving repeated thrashings that should cause whiplash, concussion, or at least severe nausea. She makes it through her jungle adventures without a rip on her dress or a bruise. She is placed on shards of broken glass in a skyscraper with bullets raining more glass on her head and never suffers a whit. Why should I feel concerned for the safety and well-being of an invulnerable superwoman? Check out the initial scene where she meets Kong. Her wrists are tied to stakes using very thick ropes. Kong grabs her body and pulls her off the stakeout. How she survives this without broken wrists or having her arms ripped off her torso is beyond me.

And now we come to the emotional content of the movie. There is a line that Adrien Brody delivers to Naomi about why he’s written a play for her:
“Isn’t it obvious?”
“Not to me.”
“It’s in the subtext.”
“I must have missed it.”

Jackson will have no truck with subtext. In his version, Ann Darrow is completely and obviously in love with Kong. Not sympathetic, not empathetic, not conflicted… She plays a giddy, emotional, heart on the sleeve open-mouthed love relationship. And Kong is just as open in his human emotions. He plays depressed, amused, infuriated, and a tender, sunset-loving ladies’ man.

In an insane sequence, Ann does an improvised vaudeville routine for her captor, who turns up his nose contemptuously at her juggling, but enjoys a bit of slapstick. In a later even more insane sequence, the two of them play Bambi and Thumper on the ice as they gaze lovingly into each other’s eyes and giggle with the joy of teenage romance.

I’ve spent far too long on this already, but I can’t finish without coming back to the Jack Black character. In many ways, the movie is about him more than Kong or Darrow. He goes from his initial characterization as a man fixated on his filmmaking vision to a common money-grubbing opportunist who cynically turns the deaths of his crew to his advantage. Okay, I can deal with that if they want to play it so superficially. Forget the subtext, play it on top. At least it supports the famous final lines of the original movie, which are repeated at the end of this one:

Reporter: “The airplanes got him.”
Denham (Black): “It wasn’t the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast.”

That’s a cheesy closing line and it works in the original because Denham is the kind of promoter who pompously speaks in marketing-talk like that. He delivers it to the reporter as though he fully expects it to be picked up as the headline on the Special Edition later that night.

But in this version, Black as Denham looks at the fallen Kong with horror and a dawning revelation on his face as he delivers the final line to himself in a surprised realization of some horrible truth and turns away in shame and grief. It makes no sense and simply sounds loopy.

Ugh, this is wrong, wrong, wrong. Bad movie. Bad. Add it to the big pile of unnecessary and inferior Hollywood remakes. Repeat after me… Computer Generated Effects are NOT complete and sufficient justification for a movie!

Parents’ notes: Scary creatures in the forests. People dying in gruesome manners. Kong’s death an emotional trauma. It should be good nightmare material for about a month. No problems for older kids. No nudity and very light swearing.

PS: “But Ken! What about the completely unsupported and unbelievable transformation of Baxter’s vain actor character that is never mentioned again? What about the fact that Kong can withstand having his arms and shoulders chomped by multiple Tyrannosaurii with eight-inch fangs, but pulls back in shock when Ann slaps him? What about the fact that Kong’s scale changes radically from scene to scene (watch him in New York… he sometimes towers above streetlights and sometimes is the same size as them)? What about Ann’s imperviousness to cold and wind, standing at the top of the skyscraper on bare metal in spike heels and a filmy little dress in the early morning hours of a snowy December day? What about the fact that when the greatly reduced numbers of the landing party regather at the walls of the native city, they encounter no local resistance in their attempts to capture Kong nor even see another native, when once the residents were so persistent in their attempts to outnumber and kill the intruders? What about the practical considerations of getting Kong from the island to the ship, securing him (he can break through “chrome steel” for goodness sake!), and feeding him for the weeks of the return voyage?” I’m sorry... I’d love to help you, but I’m out of time and out of patience.

The Squid and the Whale

2006-04-17T12:27:00.000-04:00

Time for me to buck the overwhelming critical majority yet once again. The critics loved this movie. I went into it with a pessimistic attitude. From what I had heard, it was 81 minutes of people being nasty to each other, and I simply don’t like that kind of thing. Debbie chided me with: “But you like Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf, don’t you?” At the end of the movie, I turned and said: “That’s got a LONG way to go before it gets to Virginia Woolf territory.”

The film is based on the childhood pain of living through a contentious divorce by writer/director Noah Baumbach. It runs into the familiar trap of being a project based on one person’s reality where that person is the conceiver, writer, and director. Nobody can really act as a check or balance to his vision. And there are many times when his vision is simply too glossy.

The film feels true, but doesn’t resonate like it should. Mainly because the figures of the feuding parents and the wounded children being lobbed about as beanbags all come from the viewpoint of a high school mind caught up in the middle of the dysfunction. This needs an outsider’s perspective to ask why the people are acting the way they are and to find balance in the portrayals.

The actors all do excellent work. Jeff Daniels is particularly good as the once important author father who is now mostly a close-minded blowhard has-been. His character though is the creation of a seriously disillusioned son who goes from a blind hero-worship to supposedly a more objective and aware viewpoint. But I would argue that he has merely shifted to the other side of the divide, with a similarly clouded rethinking of the father as villain.

There are unsubtle nudges in the ribs throughout the film that made me grimace. A book lying on the table is “The Victim.” A movie poster is “The Mother And The Whore”. And a semi-major subplot revolves around almost nobody in 1986 being aware of the Pink Floyd song “Hey You.” The album was hugely, amazingly popular from 1979 on. The touring show was trumpeted in popular media. The songs were played on the radio all the time. And the band broke up in a blaze of popular media, lawsuits, and publicity in 1985, right before the movie’s action. But the movie treats the band and the song like some cult underground secret known only to a few cognoscenti. The choice of the song and its lyrics is also about as subtle as the book and movie titles.

Don’t get me wrong. This isn’t a BAD film. It just didn’t strike me in the end as amounting to much. It’s a “slice of life” depiction of an unfortunately common occurrence in modern American society. Families breaking up is a painful thing to witness and I’m sure an awful thing to go through yourself. But my layman’s opinion is that Noah could use a bit more cognitive psychology sessions with a good therapist to see that he has traded one defense mechanism for another. It’s surely a step forward to be able to look at the squid and the whale without flinching. It’s a much more difficult step to be able to accept both of the combatants equally without demonizing one or the other.

Parents, this is not a movie for the kids. There are sexual situations, underage drinking, lots of swearing, and a mature subject that could feel traumatizing to children.

The 40 Year Old Virgin

2006-04-17T12:24:00.000-04:00

Look, do me a favor. If you loved “Something About Mary” and “Anchorman” and “Old School” please don’t read this review. Move on to the next. We aren’t going to agree on this movie either and it’s just going to frustrate you.

Let’s see... plot summary: The movie is about a 40 year old virgin. So much for the pitch to the studio heads.

It stars Steve Carell, who plays his character like a guy in a permanent Vicodin haze. At age 40, he finally meets Catherine Keener, whom he takes a shine to. But he can’t bring himself to even call her for a date, behaving like an awkward teenager before his first high school dance. Sex isn’t the issue here... It’s just “Revenge of the Nerds” for a slightly older demographic.

As a matter of fact, the entire movie is an uncomfortably age-shifted version of writer-director Judd Apatow’s TV work on “Undeclared” and “Freaks and Geeks.” How do the uncool kids cope in an environment where everyone else seems to be more “with it” (and frankly, more interesting)?

Carell’s man-boy keeps his apartment filled with collectible action figures carefully sealed in their original packaging. He carefully tucks his pants cuff into his sock before getting on his bicycle to ride to work. He has no understanding of even the basics of what “talking dirty” means or what a woman’s breasts look like (this is how his coworkers discover the shocking fact of his virginity, which is immediately trumpeted around the display floor of the electronics retailer he works for, with grown adults standing on furniture and yelling insults across the room). The entire movie is written with this high school version of social interaction.

Catherine Keener has done some great work. I fell in love with her in “Being John Malkovich.” This is the movie where I fell out of love with her. Her character moves between flighty Annie Hall knockoff, gentle caring mothering type, and caustic profanity spewing bitch (there is a gratuitous bit where she supposedly tells off a telemarketer in a long harangue that simply seems jarring and unnatural for the image they have built for her). I think Keener had no idea what she was supposed to do with the role, and Apatow wasn’t the one to clarify anything.

There are a couple of funny bits in the movie. There are many more in the extra scenes in the bonus features on the DVD. The actors were obviously given the opportunity to ad lib and improvise bits of dialog, and much of this work is tremendously inventive and humorous. But not much of that is left to shine through in the by-the-numbers approach to the film’s construction. You can count down the story arc milestones right along with the committee that approved its development while you identify each of the set piece blackout scenes that scream “insert outrageous comic bit here” as they arrive and depart, divorced from the rest of the film.

So we see Carell walking to the bathroom with a huge erection under his boxer shorts. We see him accidentally urinating up onto his chest and face from his erection while he sits on the can (unbelievably, these are two SEPARATE scenes!). We see him watching a nubile, gorgeous young blonde strip down, beg him for sex, and then masturbate in the bathtub all while he maintains a Buster Keaton sleepy stoneface while showing zero reaction to what’s going on in front of him. We see him desperately trying to figure out the operation of a condom, attempting to blow it up like a balloon, put it over his testicles, tie it in strange shapes and do everything else possible to prove himself a mental defective. We see him fumbling with a doctor’s model of the female reproductive organs, unable to reassemble the pieces and inexplicably having it end up later in his apartment (for those who have seen the film, I dare you to construct a logical way this could have happened, given the circumstances). Nothing EVER makes sense, since he is not supposed to be an idiot – which would be the only possible explanation for his behaviors in the comedy bits.

Ugh. This is a desperate movie, created in the worst modern traditions of Hollywood cookie cutter manufacturing. I don’t begrudge high school kids from enjoying it, but the fact that it was one of the higher grossing films of 2005 and lauded by critics and adult public alike makes me weep for America and the state of the industry.

Oh yeah... Parents’ notes. I think you can tell from the descriptions above that this is not a film for the kiddies. Female (and male) breasts, lots of sex talk, sexual scenarios, etc. Swearing as a substitute for comedic writing. One scene of comic violence (You forgot, didn’t you? The bloody nose in the flashback... Remember? Aha!)

Good Night And Good Luck

2006-04-17T12:23:00.001-04:00

This is a brief summarization of Edward R. Murrow’s public exposure of Senator Joseph McCarthy during the height of the 1950’s Red Scare and senate witch hunts for Communist sympathizers. Murrow and the gang in the CBS newsroom represent Good and Right and Justice. McCarthy and an unseen newspaper columnist in his camp represent Evil and Injustice. There is no subtlety or uncertainty or shading to the characterizations.

It was the look of the movie that stayed with me. The art direction is simply right in every tiny detail. The costumes are great, the lighting is perfect for the black and white historical feel, the camera work is never intrusive or obvious. Unfortunately, even at 93 minutes, the movie feels a bit draggy.

The problem is that the central conflict and tension is simply not very threatening to an observer in 2006. While the characters are concerned that their careers and reputations might be at stake, it doesn’t seem like that big a deal to audiences used to seeing movie characters in life or death situations.

And because we know the resolution of Joseph McCarthy’s quick career arc, there’s no tension about whether “good or evil” will win. So you watch events unfold and try not to flinch at director George Clooney’s more obvious emphases on parallels to the current administration and political climate. That and his adoration and deification of Murrow. And this is coming from a guy who agrees with both basic viewpoints.

It’s a nicely packaged history lesson that should be shown in high school classes. It’s also an impeccably made film. It’s just a pity I couldn’t get more involved.

Oldboy

2006-04-17T12:23:00.000-04:00

I sure wasn’t laughing at this one. An import from South Korea, this is a tragic shock/mystery/thriller riding the thin edge of depravity. It’s one of those movies you can’t give away too much about, as the tension and intrigue of discovering what’s going on are central to the film. Suffice it to say that the main character is wronged by a seemingly capricious tormentor for a long period of time. Why? He doesn’t have any idea. Nothing is asked of him. It’s not torture for the sake of getting information, there doesn’t seem to be a revenge motive, there is no communication at all. Just a showing of superiority and control over the poor guy. Then the character gets free and starts his personal vendetta of discovery and vengeance against whomever it was that controlled him. But is he free even yet? And whom can he trust in his battle?

The movie has its sadistic violent scenes. But it’s not a slasher flick where the point is to build gruesome body counts. It’s mainly a cat and mouse psychological thriller and mystery where the violence demonstrates that the stakes are brutally high. There is a true payoff and the mystery is revealed at the end. You won’t figure it out ahead of time. You aren’t meant to. There are no clues for you to play detective. Just the same sense of bewilderment and gradual understanding that the main character has. You see the world through his eyes.

I was a bit puzzled by the very end of the film. After the shocking reveal and climax of the chase, there is a wrap up that is ambiguous and I can’t tell if we are left on a sad, a happy, or a bittersweet note. I just know that I felt vaguely depressed and off kilter when the movie was over.

Production values are very high. It’s a full-budget film. The Korean DTS surround sound track is well recorded and the music is quite effective and lovely at times. The subtitles were clear and easy to follow. No mangled English there. You can watch the film with a dubbed English voice track if you prefer (I didn’t try it).

Recommended for those with the stomach to take it. I found it remarkably inventive and original in concept. The kids shouldn’t be anywhere within sight or sound of the TV when you watch this. There is graphic violence, bloodshed, death, partial nudity, and sexual situations.

The Yes Men

2006-04-17T12:22:00.000-04:00

Yes, man... I was laughing out loud during this documentary. The film chronicles a small group of guys who pursue socio-political activism through a combination of practical jokes and possibly illegal deception and misrepresentation. The documentary briefly touches on some of their early work, lampooning George W. Bush’s campaign web site during his first presidential race (they used a domain name with a very close sounding URL and modeled it to look like the real one).

But the real story is their adventures passing themselves off as representatives of GATT and the WTO (that’s the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs and the World Trade Organization). They did the website trick again (you can still see it online at www.gatt.org and compare it to the real one at www.wto.org) and when they got a few requests for representatives of the WTO to speak at conferences, they helpfully sent along their men to deliver the pitch that they thought the WTO should be making. They appeared on news/opinion shows, lectured in classes, and delivered startling and completely capricious press announcements.

This is a kind of outrage and approach to rebelling that only seems to interest the under-35 crowd and there were times when I did not at all approve of their methods. Having set up conferences in my business past, I thought it was simply mean to coerce an organization in Australia to reschedule and coordinate an entire press event for them after the original event was canceled due to low turnout. That’s a huge outlay of time, money, and goodwill where the victim is an innocent sponsoring organization… not the big bad WTO that is the boys’ target.

Still, I loved their ability to structure a formal presentation to start out innocuously and rationally, gradually progressing to more and more outlandish and controversial statements showing their opinion of what the WTO really thinks and stands for. The only people who ever reacted to their outrageous statements were college students. The professional groups and journalists simply took in the presentations and went along with their loony declarations. Rather sad, really. These are the people either formulating policy or disseminating information to the rest of us. And they have no filters whatsoever.

The humor is purely academic and conceptual. You have to really listen to the flow of the words and the progression from erudite to absurd in their presentations. I’m a word man, so I loved it.

The production values are nil (usually single handheld cameras following the guys around). There are no parental advisories, but kids will be bored by the content and lack of action sequences. Still, they can be playing in the room while you watch. Recommended as a thoughtful comedy with a message.

Oh, you’ll be enraged by the guys if you have any belief in the sanctity of trademarks and copyrights. They violate them right and left.

Infernal Affairs

2006-04-17T12:21:00.000-04:00

This movie really surprised me. It’s a Hong Kong action/thriller and I thought it would be very chop-socky with lots of violence and martial arts. Nothing could be further from the fact. It’s more of a psychological thriller in the best tradition of “cat and mouse” movies.

A major crime boss and the superintendent of police in Hong Kong have each placed an inside agent in the other’s organization and each realizes it. Now they have to race each other to find the mole in order to win in their ongoing battle of law versus crime. Of course the two double agents end up being given the task of ferreting out the traitor within their own areas of fake loyalty (Confused? They have to find themselves and report it to their fake boss!)

I found the first thirty minutes to be very confusing and demanding of a lot of concentration as they set up the back story and the early years of placement of each double-agent. As young men, the two stars look somewhat alike (at least to this ignorant Caucasian) and I had a tough time following who was who as they progress up the ranks. But that all goes away as soon as we move to “present time” and everything is clear and well played out as the two adversaries face an inevitable showdown.

The production values are first rate and look very slick. The most amazing trick may have been to make Hong Kong look like the movie’s characters were the only people in Hong Kong. I can’t believe all the rooftop, street, and building scenes where you don’t see any of the normal crush of humanity present in that city!

This is a very good example of the genre and recommended if you like nail biters. Subtitles are clear and understandable, although there is an English-dubbed audio track if you prefer that. Extras on the DVD are boring and not worth the time. Except there is an interesting alternate ending to wrap up the film. I believe they went with the better choice in the released version.

This is not a kid-friendly movie. There are a couple of scenes of gunshot violence and death. No sex or nudity. Not much swearing, surprisingly.

Advertising Rules!

2006-04-17T12:20:00.000-04:00

That title is an American release change from the original German title of “Viktor Vogel – Commercial Man.” Yes, this is another German import with English subtitles (very clear and understandable. No funny mistranslations that I noticed).

The movie is unfortunately a “Hit You Over The Head With A Message” film, but is delivered in a bright, breezy and fun way so that you don’t really mind. This is mainly due to fine acting from everybody involved and a directorial style that puts the story up front without calling attention to the moviemaking process.

I felt reminded at times of the American release from two years ago “In Good Company”, which you might have seen. This is another tale about a very young man entering the big bad corporate world, forging an uneasy friendship with an older, more cynical and experienced mentor and having to balance his professional aspirations against the inevitable complications with a love interest. Of course he learns about the capricious nature of corporate loyalty, the importance of prioritizing personal relationships, and so on.

This time around, the young man goes to work for a major Frankfurt advertising agency pitching major multi-million client campaigns. Alexander Scheer plays the completely relaxed and free-living young Viktor Vogel, and you can’t help liking him right from the first scene. The elderly mentor is played by Gotz George, looking a little like a Harrison Ford/Kris Kristofferson/Jeff Bridges mix. I was very impressed by his acting, and in looking him up on IMDB, I find that he’s been acting steadily in film and TV since 1957! I guess he should have it down by now.

The story line has the usual comedic and dramatic conflicts, improbable resolutions, and deus ex machina rescues from troubles. But as a light romantic comedy, none of that matters much. It’s a frothy romp and well-made throughout. Worth a popcorn evening rental.

Oh yes, parental notes: No nudity or sex. Minor fisticuff violence. Some swearing in the subtitles. But no major objections. Not made for kiddies, of course.

Walk The Line

2006-04-17T12:19:00.000-04:00

A good biopic makes you want to run out and read more about the subject to fill in the blanks. This movie made me want to run out and get an insulin shot. The movie is sometimes mistakenly touted as a biography of Johnny Cash. It is more accurately a highly filtered retelling of “How did Daddy meet Mommy?” by the son of John and June Carter.

John Carter Cash acted as executive producer on this film, and his adoration and personal biases show through in every decision about what to show, what to condense, and what to leave out. He was born in 1970 and the movie’s action stops in 1968, which should give you pause right there. The boy didn’t want to include anything that he had personal experience with, as that might taint the perfection of his rose-colored fantasy.

The movie starts out wrong with the casting of Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny. Cash was a big (“strapping”) 6’2” guy with chiseled features and sunken eyes, a habitual brooding look on his face that made you think he was capable of violence at any time. This was a guy who could walk into a prison and look hardened criminals in the eye, silently communicating “Don’t mess with me. I’m as bad as you are.” Joaquin Phoenix is a slight man, standing maybe 5’7” or 5’8”. He has a pretty-boy face with long fluttering eyelashes and a different variety of brooding expression that makes him seem to be pouting that things aren’t going the way he wished they would.

Much has been made of Reese Witherspoon’s Oscar-winning performance as June Carter. She is fine, but is saddled by a role as the perfect Earth-mother rescuing angel. While we know she goes through two divorces before marrying Johnny, they aren’t important and obviously couldn’t have any contributing factors from her. Surprisingly, Reese actually sings better than June on her one solo number early in the film!

Following the Lifetime Movie of the Week format, every event and emotion is foreshadowed and telegraphed before it gets there. Every line of dialog is written by a Hallmark employee. And every conflict is paraded out for one brief scene and then squirreled away, never to be heard from again. There are so many examples that I have a hard time picking one. Johnny has a conflicted relationship with his dad that brews to the inevitable showdown scene. Then Dad disappears until the end of the movie, when all seems to be well and everybody is living together in peace. Johnny faces seemingly serious trouble from a drug bust, complete with press reports and time in a jail cell. Then we see him back home and it’s never mentioned again. Johnny has a drunken, pill-fueled collapse onstage in a concert, but the business aspects of this behavior are only briefly mentioned in passing by his record company late in the film.

But the most egregious example of the “conflict and drop” ploy is the entire plot of Johnny’s marriage to his first wife, Viv. John Carter Cash made sure that this shadowy woman who had the audacity to stand between his mom and his dad is seen as a shrewish, non-understanding, selfish woman. She lasts just long enough for a big crying scene and then disappears… Never to be seen from or heard about again. We have to take it on faith that a divorce occurred somewhere in there (although it would be just as reasonable to assume that she died).

The film is also laughable in its portrayal of song writing. Song lyrics come to the characters perfectly formed in long flowing lines, always based on a single image or phrase that is carefully set up in the script. June is crying about her tortured feelings for tortured Johnny and pulls over in the car, whispering to herself “It burns, burns, burns!” Then we see her composing the song on her autoharp at home. (No mention of her co-writer on the real song, Merle Kilgore). Johnny sees a film about Folsom Prison and next we see him picking out chords on his guitar and making up the words to Folsom Prison Blues in a long stream of finished lyrics. June tells Johnny that he is unreliable on tour and won’t walk the line and we cut to him singing “I Walk The Line.”

This review is already way too long and I haven’t talked about the light and comfortable depiction of Johnny’s drunkenness and drug addiction (the main symptoms are that he just gets a little sleepy from time to time and professes his love for June a lot), the cheesy flashback setup that frames the main storyline, the glossing over of his business success, and so much more. The movie is treacle – thick and syrupy. All in all, I’d rather listen to the records.

(Oh, by the way… Having seen this, I can appreciate Jon Stewart’s Academy Awards crack about Walk The Line being a remake of Ray with white people. The number of parallels in tone, story, and construction are outrageous. It really is close to being the same movie.)

Corpse Bride

2006-04-17T12:17:00.000-04:00

This is not a sequel to Tim Burton’s “Nightmare Before Christmas.” It’s the same movie, but with a few details slightly altered. Coming in at a mere 77 minutes, it still feels drawn out and draggy. The characters are the same kinds of tall spindly people and skeletons we saw in “Nightmare.” The Danny Elfman music follows his usual pattern, but is not as catchy or engaging as usual. There isn’t a memorable or hummable tune in the lot.

The story line is all superficial conflict points that turn out not to matter and characters who are asserted to have strongly held views that they throw away when the plot needs some wrapping up. A serious disappointment from almost every possible angle. Oh yes... the cute animal sidekick in this one (a loathsome Disney animated film convention) is a maggot that looks like a worm with big puffy purple lips and an exaggerated Peter Lorre voice. A Peter Lorre voice? That was their big innovative stylistic decision?

If you really need a plot summary to decide whether to rent this... A young man has been betrothed in an arranged marriage for financial/social convenience to a woman he has never seen. Turns out he likes her. Through a convoluted plot contrivance, he accidentally marries a deceased bride who has been pining for her lover. He is ferried down to the underworld, where everyone drinks and sings. He tries to come back to his intended. Uninteresting plot complications ensue. A not very villainous bad guy emerges. All the lovers and families tend to be ambivalent or somewhat unconcerned about who marries whom. Everything is resolved and there is a very pretty final shot with a magical transformation that comes out of nowhere and has no foundation in the internal logic of the universe Burton has created. Burton proves that stop motion animation need not be as fun or as witty as in the Wallace and Gromit movie.

SPOILER QUESTIONS FOLLOW… STOP READING IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1) How does the corpse bride know Victor’s dog so that she can present him with the perfect gift?

2) Barkis is menacingly pulled off behind a closed door by the enraged denizens of the underworld at the end. They brandish knives and malevolent expressions promising he will get what’s coming to him. What are they going to do to him? We have seen that the dead people don’t mind gaping holes in their decomposing bodies, decapitation, maggots living in them, limbs falling off and being easily snapped back in place, swords stuck through their torsos… How do you threaten somebody with a knife in that kind of universe?

3) The Corpse Bride is “released” from her longing at the end of the movie and turns into a swarm of butterflies? Does this happen to many of the corpses? What are the criteria for such a transformation? Why does everyone else seem to just decompose away to a skeletal state?

Common Wealth (La Comunidad)

2006-04-17T12:16:00.000-04:00

Alex de la Iglesia does it again! Or more accurately, he had done it before, since I saw this after I enjoyed his “Crimen Ferpecto” even though he made this one four years earlier in 2000.

I used to think that “Charade” was the best Hitchcock film Hitchcock never made, but I may have to change over to Common Wealth for that title. It is scripted, shot, and scored like a classic Hitch thriller, complete with comedic touches and little contrivances that don’t quite ring true but help move the plot along so well that you are willing to let them go.

I won’t give away much of the plot, since we discover what’s happening at about the same rate as the protagonist does. Carmen Maura plays a desperate real estate agent in Madrid trying to sell a recently available flat in a seedy, run-down building. She ends up spending some time there and discovers that there are strange goings-on among the even stranger residents of the building. Secrets are discovered, lives are endangered, and loyalties are tested. As with many films of this type, I would urge you to stay away from online reviews until after you have seen the movie, since many of them give away key plot points that should be surprises.

It’s not a perfect film... Some of the performances are a bit overly theatrical for film (de la Iglesia hired stage actors for the residents because he wanted them to be very expressive). And the ending is a bit too pat and abrupt. But getting there is so much fun that I recommend it heartily. Pay attention to the music (especially you Bernard Herrmann fans). It is wonderfully evocative.

Parent’s warning: Not for the kiddies. Lots of swearing (Spanish dialog with English subtitles), graphic violence and disturbing images. Adults can handle it, although the squeamish may look away in a scene or two.

Grizzly Man

2006-04-17T12:14:00.000-04:00

A mess of a movie about a mess of a man. Werner Herzog sifted through hundreds of hours of footage shot by Timothy Treadwell, a fanatical devotee of the Alaskan grizzly bear. Treadwell spent 13 summers in the back country of Alaska, gradually growing more convinced that he understood and had a rapport with the local grizzlies.

The movie does not leave it as a shock that Treadwell ended up being savagely attacked and eaten by a grizzly, since the story was well reported at the time. The press liked the sensationalism of the fact that Treadwell caught the entire attack and death of himself and his girlfriend on audiotape. Herzog liked the fact that Treadwell was almost as monomaniacal as the great director. I’m no psychiatrist, but the words “paranoid szichophrenic with megalomania and a messiah complex” spring to mind when watching Treadwell’s relentless videotaping of his thoughts and adventures (often staged and restaged for an imaginary documentary he would never assemble).

Herzog is overly generous in referring to Treadwell as a filmmaker, since the guy really just turned on cameras whenever it suited him. Watching the footage is quite nauseating at times from the jerky, swaying handheld shots. Of course Herzog can’t help but interject himself into the film, since calm objectivity is not one of his bigger traits. Instead we see shots of him listening emotionally to the tape of the attack and then offering advice and counseling to an ex-girlfriend of Treadwell’s. Herzog also gives us his interpretation of the true nature of the bears and Treadwell towards the end of the film. But the movie jumps around in time and place, jamming together bits of interviews and Treadwell film with only Herzog’s narration to tie it all together.

The movie is strangely compelling because of the sheer intensity of Treadwell’s convictions and his propensity for spewing his thoughts and emotions onto tape. But I felt ultimately empty when it was all over. This was a guy headed for a certain fate that caught up with him in an entirely predictable manner. Nobody was changed by the experience and the world continues on its regular path.

There is a lot of talk in the film about conservation, the encroachment of civilization on nature, and the fragility of the bears’ existence – but they are peripheral sound bites and there is never a shred of evidential footage to support any of the claims. The worst that Treadwell can find is a small boat of fishermen who find a full size grizzly approaching them on shore and start throwing rocks towards the bear to frighten it off. Treadwell is decimated by having to watch the experience, which he seems to find a horrendous one for the bear. Mind you, the bear seems completely unperturbed by the whole thing. Treadwell keeps talking about how each season he has once again “protected the bears”, but even in this one case of direct contact, he stays completely hidden and ineffectual. Some protection.

Nice shots of grizzlies and foxes up close in the Alaskan wilderness. Parents should be cautioned by the obvious subject matter of death by wild animal and the fact that Treadwell swears like a longshoreman throughout his footage (when he isn’t professing his love for all of nature or presenting cute bear facts to elementary school children... an interesting dual nature).

The Memory Of A Killer (De Zaak Alzheimer)

2006-04-17T12:12:00.000-04:00

Of all the Belgian movies I’ve seen... Oh, forget it. This is the first Belgian movie I’ve seen. And I liked it a lot. The story is a cat and mouse thriller pitting an aging top of the line professional assassin against the police detectives trying to catch him. But it ventures into much weightier areas of loyalty, political expediency and corruption, morality, and an awareness of one’s own vulnerability. Because the assassin knows that he is suffering from rapid onset dementia (Alzheimers) and is just a tad depressed to see his self sufficiency and prowess slipping away, bit by bit.

The movie makers (and especially the actor, Jan Declier) accomplish a delicate balancing act by showing the assassin as a cruel, ruthless killer, but also managing to engage our sympathies and empathy for him. Up against the killer is an obviously professional and dedicated detective in “the judiciary” (Which is a separate branch from the Belgian police. I wasn’t quite sure of how their crime fighting system works, but the interdepartmental squabbles and hatred look like what in America would be the FBI versus the local cops fighting over jurisdiction of a local murder with larger security aspects.)

The killer and the detective may end up sharing the same overall goals and sympathies, but they are attacking their problems in different ways. They find themselves intertwined in a larger story of intrigue and depravity.

The movie is violent, showing people shot, killed, and injured. There is nudity and adult subject matter. It’s a tense thriller at many times as the characters figure out the larger picture of hidden and shifting loyalties. Unfortunately it gets a little waterlogged in the final act, as things play out somewhat inevitably. They could have shaved 15 minutes off the runtime and had a much tighter film. But I still recommend it.

My biggest discomfort was watching the shots designed to show us the fragmenting state of the assassin’s mind and memory. Lots of quick cuts, out of focus snippets of strangely lit pieces of scenes, and unidentifiable closeups are spliced in rapid-fire sequence to give us the idea of how the killer’s mind is disassociating and becoming unreliable. I get the concept, but it hurt my eyes.

Characters speak a few different languages, which is common for Belgium. French is one, and there are a few jokes in the script about characters knowing that language or not. My knowledge of the other languages isn’t good enough to tell if it is solid Dutch, or if there is German and Flemish thrown in as well. A few English words even slip into sentences occasionally. The subtitles were clear and understandable and easy to read in the black border below the letterboxed picture area.

Lord Of War

2006-04-17T12:10:00.000-04:00

On the www.rottentomatoes.com Tomatometer, this film got a 60%. And I’d say that’s about right for the movie as a piece. It’s about 60% fascinating, engrossing, and well done – with the other 40% hanging heavy. Nicolas Cage plays a Brooklyn-born son of Ukrainian immigrants who becomes (through sheer force of will and some never explained incredible sources in the early part of his career) a supremely successful arms dealer to third-world despots.

Cage plays the part in his usual sleepy-eyed monotone, narrating events in a voice-over and living through them in the real-time action in a style meant to convey a lack of emotional involvement about the things he is participating in. Unfortunately it makes it tougher for us as the audience to care about a guy who doesn’t seem to care about the events we are watching.

The film follows a story arc a little bit like Goodfellas... The early stuff is light and easy as we develop an uneasy admiration and fondness for a person caught up in a fairly despicable business. Then the stakes get higher and the inevitable ramifications and consequences catch up with that character. But writer/director Andrew Niccol is no Scorsese. Cage’s character never really feels the downside impact. And Niccol seems to have more of a feel for outdoor location photography than interpersonal scenes on sets, so some of the emotional character-to-character stuff is marred by quick cuts from many different perspectives.

Make no mistake, this is a Message Movie (with capital M’s), and Niccol pounds it in fairly hard at the end. But I still found it a more interesting and nauseating concept than the over-lauded “Constant Gardener.” I found the final 20 minutes of the film very engaging – enough so to make up for some of the cheesy bits that had been sprinkled earlier.

Parents’ note: Not for the kiddies. There is brief female nudity, some swearing, and graphic violence and death.

Goodbye, Lenin!

2006-04-17T12:08:00.000-04:00

This is a German import from 2004, looking back on the movement of East Germany towards unification and Westernization. That sounds like a boring historical documentary, but the movie is a fictional family drama that uses the fall of the wall as a backdrop and catalyst for a story about a devoted son trying to shield his mother from stress after she wakes from a heart attack and coma that overly weakens her frail body. That sounds like a heavy Lifetime Network chick flick, but it’s actually a fairly light farce at many times, with that typical dry German humor that takes a few seconds to register as a joke at all.

I don’t have to worry about spoilers in the main plot line of the movie, as it does not depend on surprise for its effectiveness. We start with events in the 1970’s, viewing a happy family in Socialist East Berlin. The mother is an idealistic believer in the Socialist system, but her son becomes a bit more disaffected as he grows older. In 1989, as protests start to grow, the mother suffers a shock that lays her out, throwing her into a coma (we have seen from earlier incidents that she is prone to physical/emotional frailty). With typical movie logic (you just have to take this in order to let the movie develop), she wakes up, but the doctors say that she can’t experience any stress, shock, or excitement or it could kill her.

Unfortunately, the months she spent in the coma include the entire dismantling of the Socialist system in East Germany and reunification with the West. So the son decides to shield her from any of these events and create a “bubble world” around her where things are the same as she remembers them. This is difficult to do, given the rampant upheaval in every aspect of society around them. He enlists co-conspirators and there are funny bits as he tries to cover up breaks in the facade.

The acting of the leads is excellent. The filmwork is quite acceptable and never pulls you out of the story (Except in one digital effects shot late in the movie, which kills the realism they careful strived for. You’ll know it when you see it.). The writer/director does a nice job of leading you to a point of view that is a bit wistful and surprising.

While the movie seems to be about the love between the boy and his mother, in a larger sense it is the love of idealism and the conflict between the goals and the realities of the East German lifestyle. It also touches on the manipulative power of media-controlled imagery and the relative nature of truth. Each of us knows a truth based on what we are shown, and it’s not that difficult to create a reality that is subjective rather than objective.

I enjoyed watching this film and recommend it. Parents’ note: There is a curse word in the English subtitles, but all dialog is in German. There is one brief shot of male nudity in a non-sexual context and one shot of female breasts in a weird (and probably inappropriate) context.

The Life Of Birds

2006-04-17T12:07:00.000-04:00

Got time for three DVDs covering a total of nine hour-long episodes from this BBC television series? David Attenborough is a spectacularly watchable TV nature documentarian, with a career spanning more than fifty years in on-air documentaries. If there is a patch of ground on any continent that he hasn’t stepped on, it’s not for lack of trying. And if you haven’t seen his work, shame on you and get one of his series. Any of them.

This 1998 series’ title pretty much covers the content. You get focuses on fishing birds, meat-eaters, mating habits, living conditions, communications, egg laying and protection, raising the young, etc. The photography includes many jaw-dropping closeups and framing masterpieces where they just happen to be in exactly the right spot at exactly the right time (which we have come to expect from nature documentaries and are far too blase about these days). Some birds are photographed in distinctive behaviors for the first time ever. And through it all walks the supremely unflappable Attenborough, always concentrating on the animals and never shifting the focus of the program onto himself (are you listening, Mr. Crocodile Hunter?).

In nine hours of viewing, you are certain to find your attention wandering now and then. Give yourself a mental challenge by figuring out the production mechanics on this show. Attenborough appears in about 30 different countries, at all times of the year, focusing on the one aspect of behavior that the episode is dealing with and smoothly linking from one segment to the next. I finally came to the conclusion that they had to script out the entire nine-episode series with the places and shots they wanted to capture, laid out a travel schedule to get to all the right spots, contacted the local experts on the species they were featuring, cleared all the political and legal hurdles, and then delivered prescripted material with improvised dialog and post-produced links. All this is so perfectly blended that you can’t find a seam anywhere to indicate what was done when. It is a masterpiece of production work that makes my head hurt to even contemplate it.

My favorite pieces in the series were: Footage of the lyre bird in the communications episode on disc 2 (mimicry so varied and note-perfect that you would swear it was fake. A wild bird in the jungle has learned to imitate the sounds of chainsaw foresters and automatic self-winding cameras of tourists.); Egg layers on disc 3 (The kiwi lays an egg weighing one-fourth its entire body weight); Meat eaters (I can’t remember the name of the bird that eats the African lungfish, but it’s straight out of Jurassic Park).

Completely suitable for kids (and cats... ours was fascinated).

Rize

2006-04-17T12:03:00.000-04:00

I have no idea how to review this movie as to quality, so I’ll stick to some facts and see what comes up. It is a documentary filmed in the poor black sections of Los Angeles County, chronicling the emergence of a relatively new dance style and social dynamic among the “disaffected youth” of the area (as the TV pundits would say). Dance groups have sprouted up as an alternative communal identifier to gangs.

The dance is made up mostly of fast, jerky muscle contractions, with barely camouflaged simulacra of sexual and violent interactions. But just as important as the dance are the dance groups, which have become gang-like in themselves (but without the bloodshed). Different factions and individuals are identified by the face paint they use. There are two major schools, which don’t seem to like each other very much. The clowns use much more facial makeup and are the “original” branch of the artform and social distinction.

The movie does a nice job of exploring the birth of the movement with its founder, an amateur street clown/magician/entertainer at neighborhood parties. He created dance clubs for the kids to have something to do other than gang warfare and he seems to take his role as a peacebringer very seriously. His followers are devoted, but have formed into many smaller groups as the number of participants has grown. A splinter faction has broken off and refers to their dance, their community, and their emotional connection to the whole thing as “krumping”.

As a white, 44-year-old, upper middle class Jewish guy with no rhythm, I felt hard-pressed to see much difference between their styles. But then again, I can’t read spray painted gang graffiti either. A lot of the time, I found myself thinking of Monty Python’s Life of Brian, where the various insurgent factions all hate each other as “splitters” ... The People’s Front of Judea, The Judean People’s Front, The Judean Popular People’s Front, The Popular Front of Judea, and so on.

The documentary makers pretty much just show the people in the community through interviews and filmed dance meetings in gyms, streets, playgrounds, and one big showdown spectacle to crown the dominant dance style. There is a fascinating segment showing African tribesmen dancing in stock footage and comparing it to similar moves among the kids in South Central L.A. The filmmakers are careful at this point to avoid any narration or point of view to be expressed, but the editing speaks volumes about their opinion. And running through it all is a running theme of the violence, drugs, death, crime, family stresses, and religious support that the residents live with as an everyday fact and background to their existence.

It’s hard to say whether I liked the movie or not. It’s not out there as an entertainment piece and the dancing is really not meant to please an audience. My perspective was like Anita’s in West Side Story: “You saw how they dance, like they got to get rid of something quick.”

It’s not meant as a social call to action, as the interviewees are too concerned with making it through each day to worry about dreams of changing their environment and the filmmakers don’t give the audience a rallying point of any kind. It is what the residents know, and as one girl says, there is a safety and a comfort in that.

It’s really more of an anthropological recording for the archives and I felt somewhat uncomfortable as a passive observer of these photographic records – as if I were watching a slideshow presentation on the state of the natives by David Livingston back in London after his travels through the Dark Continent. Is that appropriate in this day and age? Technically, the camerawork, sound, and editing are all remarkably good for cinema verite.

Parents Note: I can’t remember specific cursing in the movie, but I feel like it must have been in there from the normal speech patterns of the kids. There is no on-screen violence or nudity, but adult themes and the topic of death is presented with no euphemisms. I don’t think this is inappropriate material for kids, but you would want to be present to explain things and answer questions.

Wallace & Gromit In The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit

2006-04-17T12:02:00.000-04:00

If you are unfamiliar with the Wallace and Gromit franchise, it is the work of Aardman Animation in the UK, the same folks who created Creature Comforts (reviewed some time ago). Wallace is a wide-mouthed cheery inventor type with an obsession for cheese and crackers. Gromit is his silent (and much more sensible) dog, business partner, and household assistant. The pair appeared in three much-loved shorts, painstakingly animated in good old fashioned stop-motion Claymation. No computer effects or drawings. It’s probably taken the studio the full ten years since the last featurette to create this full-length movie (it’s not uncommon to produce a few seconds of usable film per day in this process).

The movie is a delight from start to finish. It is witty and inoffensive, with a real plot line, good gags, and fun appropriate for the littlest of kids and adults alike. The plot is a twisted take on the classic Universal horror films of Frankenstein and The Wolfman (adding in touches of King Kong and Indiana Jones), with plenty of direct references that fans will appreciate.

There are two “naughty” adult gags I caught, both of which are humorous and so subtle that a kid would have no idea they just occurred. The main Were-Rabbit plot is played as a mystery for a while, which is probably the shakiest part for adults, since everybody knows what the true nature of the beast must be. But I’m sure it is fun for kids to figure out the puzzler before the characters do.

Recommended fun for the whole family. I laughed out loud.

El Crimen Ferpecto

2006-04-17T12:00:00.000-04:00

Netflix has this listed under the incorrect English translation of “The Perfect Crime.” It loses the important misspelling in the title this way and confuses it with a real thriller entitled “El Crimen Perfecto.” They should list it as “The Ferpect Crime.”

This is a black comedy from Spain and references the earlier thriller. I was unfamiliar with the leads, as they haven’t broken through to the Hollywood glossy film industry. The male lead is Guillermo Toledo, who has an impressive list of movies to his credit on IMDB, even though he only started in 1995. The female lead is Monica Cervera, who doesn’t have many films behind her. The director is Alex de la Iglesia, (which literally translates to Alex of the Church – completely inappropriate for the content!) and he seems to have a strong legion of fans, although it’s my first experience of his work.

The plot involves an extremely self-confident and successful salesman (Rafael), calculatingly working his way up the corporate ladder for the perks it can provide and simultaneously trying to bed as many gorgeous women as possible. Think “Alfie” where the main character has more job ambition. Rafael addresses us directly through the camera (a la Alfie) throughout the early portion of the film and later we shift to listening to what’s going on in his mind.

Things don’t go exactly as he plans and he finds himself scrambling to adjust and correct his life. Eventually he realizes he needs to pull off “the perfect crime” (and even rents the earlier film to get pointers). There is a LOT of action, twists, turns, and surprises involved in the plot, so I’m not going to give out any details. The fun comes from seeing things evolve at the same time he does. Try not to read other reviews that give away plot developments.

The movie starts off fantastically. The opening scene sets us up for a slightly warped take on reality and you can view the remainder of the story as an allegory or fairy tale if you like. The set design and cinematography is all bright colors and sharply lit scenes. This will be eye-popping on a DLP TV set! Most of the action occurs inside the department store where Rafael works. Through the first 45 minutes I was laughing out loud and rooting for this slightly sleazy but thoroughly likeable character. I thought it had Hollywood remake written all over it and I was amusing myself casting the American actors.

Then the movie abruptly shifted from bright, cheery comedy to a darker, more antagonistic story. Think “War of the Roses” or “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” to see if you like some nastiness with your humor. It turns into more of a comedic suspense story with seriously nasty overtones and I think this is where de la Iglesia loses his way. Scenes drag on a bit longer than they need to, we leave the main characters for visits with others they interact with, and I eventually found myself looking at my watch and waiting for the inevitable resolution. The end was a bit too silly and illogical for my tastes.

But overall, I enjoyed it more than I didn’t enjoy it. The early stuff is simply too good not to watch. And the women that Rafael burns through... Ooh la la! I’m thinking of chucking it all and becoming a salesman in a Spanish department store! This is definitely NOT a family-friendly film. There is nudity, sexual encounters, and violence.

Wedding Crashers

2006-04-17T11:59:00.000-04:00

Oh, this started out so well! The first 15 minutes were a sheer comedic delight. Both Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson look like they are having the time of their lives.

Then it started to go downhill with some broad “wacky comedy” caricatures – the weird family with the unnecessarily mean and hateful preppy boyfriend, the drunk mom, the potty-mouthed little old lady grandma, etc. Then it devolved into a heartfelt message movie about the importance of friendship and love, which is where it completely lost all integrity. What a disappointment.

Good things included very good performances by the two male leads. A small, but bravura comedy performance by Jane Seymour as the drunk mom (still hot in a more mature way, some 32 years after winning my heart as a Bond girl in Live And Let Die). A goofy bubbly performance by Isla Fisher as one of the romantic interests. And Christopher Walken keeping the audience on the edge of its seats by playing the patriarch of the wacky family in a wacky comedy and never once breaking into one of his psycho rambling weirdo monologues. He plays it completely straight and it’s unsettling as hell.

Overall though, I have to give it a thumbs down for not having the courage of its convictions to stay politically incorrect and instead for morphing into a Lifetime Network chick flick. And the bit of stunt casting near the end was so needless, unfunny, and desperate that it shot whatever bit of goodwill I had left.

The disc has two versions. I watched the “Uncorked” version, which featured a few gratuitous shots of boobs near the beginning of the film. There are some curse words sprinkled throughout. The subject matter of attempting to bed women through deceit is probably best left for the older kids, although it might serve as a useful cautionary message for impressionable young females. Other than that, it’s surprisingly inoffensive, which is another point against it.

Divided We Fall

2006-04-17T11:56:00.000-04:00

For some reason, Netflix says this film “skirts a fine line between comedy and tragedy” and is “filled with pungent humor.” It’s a drama, people. Any comedic elements are relegated to what small uplifting things the protagonists can find in their lives to make the realities of their situations a little less painful. The movie in no way attempts to be “a comedy” at any time.

The story line takes place in Czechoslovakia from just before the Nazi invasion in the early days of WWII to the arrival of Allied forces liberating the unnamed city where the protagonists live. The catalyzing events are rather subtly referred to and can be difficult to follow if you aren’t concentrating (or familiar with the general history).

We are first introduced to some guys enjoying an outing in the countryside on a sunny day. Time shift. We see the owner of a large country estate and his family having to move out. It is visually implied that they are Jewish. Time shift. The family seems to be heading to another location, not necessarily by their own choice. They briefly mention that Theresienstadt isn’t supposed to be so bad a place to live.

It is very hard to know that the men in the early scene are the well-to-do Jewish owner of the estate and two of his employees. And it is hard to tell later that the family getting shuttled around is his. And it’s hard to recognize any of the people when they are reintroduced later. And it is VERY helpful to know a little bit about Theresienstadt to understand the significance of the message. (Theresienstadt went from a sleepy little Czech town of 7,000 people to a Jewish ghetto/concentration camp holding many tens of thousands of Czech Jews. It also was used as a staging area to the infamous Auschwitz camp.) All this occurs within the first five minutes of the movie, so I’m not throwing you any spoilers.

The majority of the movie deals with the experiences of the man and the two employees as they relate to one another and their families and their neighbors and the occupiers throughout the war years. It is an intensely personal and human-oriented film on a much smaller scale than "Schindler’s List". The period re-creation is very good and you certainly come to know and empathize with the various characters. The film explores the gray shades of loyalty, survival, self-preservation, human kindness and decency, and social interaction.

The good guys are not saints and the bad guys are not inhuman monsters. They are all people, attempting to figure out how to behave in a situation none of them created or were prepared for. At the end of the movie the title eventually comes home to roost. It’s a profound film and you’ll think about it afterwards.

That said, it is not a perfect film. There are jarring uses of digital photography that are shot off-speed and at a different color stock than the rest. I couldn’t figure out any reason or symbolism for these sequences. There are also small details that seem unlikely or impossible (a refugee from the camps emerges with a severely shaved haircut on his escape and it never grows over the next two years of story time!).

But if you liked Spielberg’s rumination on the concept, this film deserves a look and won’t leave you feeling as depressed at the end. Although the subject matter will be lost on the kiddies, you can watch it with them in the room. They won’t be interested, the dialog is all in Czech and German with subtitles, and there is no explicit sex or violence that you have to worry about.

Microcosmos

2006-04-17T11:55:00.000-04:00

This is a fairly short documentary focusing on insects and small animals in the countryside of France. It doesn’t have any story or narration aside from an inane intro and finale that run along the lines of: “A meadow, somewhere on Earth. Here, time takes on a different dimension. A moment is an hour. An hour is a day. And a day is a lifetime.” Ugh.

Fortunately, that stops after two minutes and the rest of the film is simply closeups of creatures you don’t usually watch in such detail. There is no attempt at identification or educational value. You just watch the critters doing whatever they do. Students of nature documentaries can test themselves by trying to identify the animals and their behaviors.

My favorite segment was a fierce battle between two stag beetles with an outcome that surprises them both. There is also excellent footage of a rainstorm from the perspective of a very small insect. Makes you wonder how any of them survive. The photography is often excellent. Some of the shots are of the type that make you wonder how the heck they happened to be in the right place at the right time. There are a few of those amazing point of view shots that always amaze me from inside an ant colony looking out.

Kids should love watching the animals, although you should be prepared to answer LOTS of questions about “What is that? What’s it doing?” Very small children may be alarmed at the grotesque appearance of some insects when viewed in closeup.

The Emperor’s New Clothes

2006-04-17T11:53:00.000-04:00

I didn't love this film. First of all, the directing and photography is poor. If you have an LCD screen, don't even bother. About 80% of the film is shot in dark shadows and it can be difficult to pick out the action. Closeups are overused throughout. Many of the supporting actors are allowed to overplay bits and reactions so they seem like vaudevillians.

The story comes from a book that posits a scenario where Napoleon escapes from his exile on Elba and is replaced there by a double. Napoleon makes it back to France in the guise of a lowly person. If you are thinking "Didn't we do this in The Prince And The Pauper?" you are correct.

Ian Holm is excellent as usual in his role as Napoleon (and the double). His force of will almost carries the movie on its own. The leading female (Iben Hjejle) is also very good – although I think she is going to have to pick a better marquee pseudonym if she wants to make it big in American cinema. But the movie is all buildup that leads nowhere.

On the plus side, there are some nice sets and costumes doing the whole Paris of the 1800's thing. A few countryside location shots are very pretty. But I couldn't bring myself to care too much. The movie is sometimes billed as a comedy (an idea supported by the cover art with a big lipstick kiss on the emperor's cheek). But it's not very comedic. It tries to be a historical drama, a thriller, a psychological character study, a romance, and a light comedy all at the same time. It's too much weight for the donkey's back.

Parents won't have any problems with kids in the room, other than keeping them amused with some games, because they won't care about what's on the screen.

The Castle

2006-04-17T11:51:00.000-04:00

I loved this film! Almost every "common person" review I read loved this film. See this film. You will love this film.

The movie is a low-budget comedy from Australia (Debbie looked up something that said they shot it in 11 days – reduced to the number of days they could afford to feed the cast).

It is a very simple story about a very simple family, content and happy with their life and each other. A situation arises that forces them to take a stand against perceived injustice from an uncaring governmental system. Honestly, the plot doesn't really matter. The movie is more like a realistically-set fairy tale.

The script writing is often very funny, but more often, the humor lies in the complete sense of sincerity in the actors' portrayals of these loving, heart-strong people. They always believe they can triumph over adversity because they believe in themselves, each other, and the basic rightness and perfection of the world. I don't want to give away too much because I like letting movies unfold as a discovery.

Yes, there are certainly weaknesses in the film. A small town lawyer is written as such a complete bumbling boob that he is simply impossible as a real person. A pivotal court battle is ludicrous. But it doesn't matter a bit. There is a bouncy soundtrack full of pop/rock radio hits mostly from the 70's. As the credits rolled I realized I had a big goofy grin on my face and a warm spot in my heart for humanity. And that's enough for me.

Parents' note: There is an unfortunate amount of swearing, with lots of four-letter S and F words. Which is a pity, because other than that, it is a perfect family viewing film with a great message of family love, support, and togetherness.

The Importance Of Being Earnest

2006-04-17T11:50:00.000-04:00

If you like Oscar Wilde one liners and dry wit, this play is his signature piece. The film version from 2002 uses an all-star cast with several actors who have done it on stage. The film is marvelously opened up and rewritten to make it feel at all times like a movie rather than a filmed stage play. The good lines are retained, but purists should note that it is NOT the straight text of the play. The settings and re-creation of old England are beautiful and meticulous.

Reese Witherspoon affects a marginal English accent without too much embarrassment, although her character is such a flibbertigibbet that you can't care too much about reality around her. Judi Dench reprises her constipated angry upper crust British matriarch persona for the 4,376th time on film. Rupert Everett, Colin Firth, and Frances O'Connor are all very good as the leading triangle.

A fun time once you accept the outlandish foundation for the screwball mixups. There is one very strange touch in the film where Witherspoon's character is prone to fantasies of shining knights on horseback and we suddenly see things in her fairy tale imagination, complete with long-locked minstrels serenading the lovers. It comes in as jarring, and hardly seems appropriate for a character repeatedly referenced as being 18 years old, but showing the emotional maturity of a 14-year old.

Walk On Water

2006-04-17T11:48:00.000-04:00

Here's an Israeli film dealing with the Palestinian/Israeli problem, hunting Nazis, assimilation of foreigners into Israeli culture, homosexuality, life and death morality, vengeance, secret agents with a license to kill, and taste in pop music. No wonder its acronym is WOW!

There is a lot of meat here and the writers and director sometimes get a little pedantic in their treatment. But this is not a big preachy Lifetime Special drama. It is an interesting and engaging story line about a member of an "unnamed" Israeli secret intelligence agency given an assignment of tracking down one of the last of the big name Nazi fugitives from World War II. This is a contemporary movie from 2004, so the young guy feels rather uninterested in pursuing the object of his older boss's obsession.

He takes on the cover of a tour guide to get close to the fugitive's grandchildren and just about everybody has various problems with tolerance issues of one sort or another and learns from one another throughout the movie. I'm relating this flatly and it may sound like I'm dismissive, but I liked the movie. I don't want to give away developments along the way, so I'm staying vague on purpose.

The acting is generally very good, especially from the secret agent, played by one of Israel's top actors – Lior Ashkenazi. This guy is a major hunk (Debbie said he looked like an Israeli Clive Owen) and he gets some good dry one liners to lighten things up. Not like cheesy James Bond puns when killing a bad guy... real humor in real settings. The movie uses English subtitles as characters switch smoothly in various settings from speaking Hebrew to German to English.

There is one fist fight scene and some brief male nudity. Kids will be bored.

The Dresser

2006-04-17T11:46:00.000-04:00

Yes, I'm only seeing this 1983 Oscar nominee now. The movie is a film adaptation of a stage play. Look at what Peter Yates did with this one and what Milos Forman did with Amadeus a year later and you'll see a world of difference in how to bring a stagy piece to the big screen. Yates keeps the action small and tight on the protagonists. Forman goes for the epic sweep. I thought The Dresser suffered from its claustrophobic feel of filming mostly in a single dressing room.

The movie is for the most part a two-person dialog between aging actor "Sir" (Albert Finney) and his swishy personal assistant and dresser, Norman (Tom Courtenay). Sir is suffering from what seems to be rapid onset dementia as he leads a Shakespearean touring company throughout England in the middle of World War II. These are the dark days of the war and bombs are falling throughout the country, all able-bodied men are off fighting, and Sir is vainly attempting to bring culture and entertainment to the masses with the motley crew he can assemble.

His character is supposedly an acclaimed, noted actor who can generate an audience and carry a show based solely on his own enormous talent. He has an ego to match. It's difficult to watch now and know what is supposed to be the good acting and what is supposed to be over the top, since styles have changed so much since the 1940s. Even the monologues that bring the audience to tears in the movie seem artificial and overdone to our modern eyes.

But what goes on onstage is not the point. The movie showcases the dedication and love that Norman shows his employer as he supports the man through ever-worsening bouts of delirium, amnesia, fits, and panic attacks. Norman is single-minded in getting Sir onstage and through his performance of Lear, no matter what. The viewer is left with the job of determining how much of this is support for Sir and how much is Norman's need to keep his carefully organized life running in its predictable order.

In the end, I was disappointed in the movie. The development and acceleration of Sir's illness is rushed and improbable as the central catalyst. Both Courtenay and Finney seem too aware of the Acting required to tell the Important story of these characters (capitalization put in for emphasis).

And although Finney played Ebeneezer Scrooge thirteen years before this movie, I still felt he did not look old enough for the character as written. It is certainly an interesting historical look at English theater during the war years. I enjoyed that part of it. The DVD has no special features and is an old, grainy print.

There is no objectionable material for children, but they'll be asleep after the first ten minutes.

Eulogy

2006-04-17T11:43:00.000-04:00

This is a tough film to rate because it's so wildly uneven. The central story is rather similar to The Big Chill. Instead of friends coming together for a funeral, this has family members meeting for their father's funeral. His wife and granddaughter seem to be the only stable ones in the group. All his kids are messed up in various ways and they spar with each other as they learn valuable lessons about sharing and caring.

Yes, the end is a little too "After School Special" for the dark, nasty comedy set up in the first half. But there are some wonderful bits of comedic slime going on in the muddle. I thought Zooey Deschanel was a bit too flat as the central figure. The family is viewed through her eyes, and her viewpoints aren't that interesting.

Rip Torn is completely wasted as the dead father (there are a couple of flashbacks so he isn't merely a corpse, but not enough). Ray Romano always grates on my nerves and continues to in this film, although his lecherous character is sometimes funny. His two kids in the movie are gems. They have all the worst characteristics of their dad multiplied by two. Truly horrendous and sickeningly comic.

Hank Azaria is fine, but dismissable in a very quiet role. Debra Winger turns her acting dial up to 11, playing a tightly-wound hyperactive control freak. Piper Laurie shows everybody what it means to be a true actress in her role as the mother of the clan. She is marvelous without ever doing anything obvious.

In the end, I really enjoyed the movie, as I like dark comedy. Reading user comments online, I seem to be in a minority.

Parents report: The movie features mature themes of voyeurism, drug use, lesbianism, and has swearing. No sex or blood. Kids would probably get bored.

Bandits

2006-04-17T11:41:00.000-04:00

This is a fun throw-away film when you are not in the mood for anything requiring brain power. Bruce Willis and Billy Bob Thornton play escaped convicts who go on a bank-robbing spree throughout the West Coast. They "meet cute" with bored housewife Cate Blanchett. A romantic triangle develops while they successfully get away with robbery after robbery.

Everybody on screen seems to be having a good time without worrying about turning in an Important Cinematic Achievement. I laughed many times and I was drawn into the contrived story. It's more interesting when you learn that the film is "inspired by" two guys who really did rob banks using the methods portrayed in the film.

The special features are interesting and recommended for back story and some insight about how movies get made. Now that I think of it, this movie bears a number of comparisons to Natural Born Killers. But in a lighter, sitcom sort of style. And without all that nasty sex and murder stuff. Older kids may enjoy it, but there is plenty of swearing and a graphic gun battle with blood. The subject matter of the romantic triangle and its resolution may bother more conservative parents.

Junebug

2006-04-17T11:39:00.000-04:00

This movie reminded me a lot of Bubble. In that film, an experienced director took a bunch of inexperienced actors and had them portray small town working class people caught up in lives of "quiet desperation," unable to communicate effectively.

In this film, we have a bunch of experienced actors with an inexperienced director. The story portrays small town working class people caught up in lives of "quiet desperation," unable to communicate effectively.

The problem with all these films about people who don't communicate effectively is that we are left to fill in the blanks for them. I got tired of playing charades with the director, guessing at what he wanted to say.

I thought all the actors delivered good, workable performances, but they were ill-served by a director who viewed every role as a caricature instead of a real person. Each character can be neatly summed up in a quick story-conference descriptive phrase. They never break out of their superficial personas. My favorite example was the character of George. George is what Jesus would have been if the Son of God had a few less character flaws. This guy is set up as perfection itself. There must be some reason that his younger brother hates him and asks early on if George has stopped being an asshole, but we never learn what drove him to this viewpoint. The entire movie seems to be building to a confrontation between these characters and it never occurs.

The movie is shot well and is technically proficient. The acting is fine. But I felt it was all a waste of time.

Parents note: Sex and cursing, as well as adult themes of family conflict.

The Wild Parrots Of Telegraph Hill

2006-04-17T11:38:00.000-04:00

This is a rarity... an independent documentary that is produced like a real theatrical movie. Excellent production values, camera work, editing, color matching, sound, and so on. No fallback on cheap stock footage to emphasize points. Creator Judy Irving is to be congratulated.

The film is more about human Mark Bittner than it is about the parrots. Bittner is something of a "societal dropout" who decides to begin getting in touch with ecological sensitivity in his own backyard. Luckily, at the time he comes to the philosophy, his back yard is in a beautiful gardened area on Telegraph Hill in San Francisco, where a flock of parrots comes to feed. He gradually develops an interest in the parrots, followed by an involvement in their welfare, followed by a feeling of communal relationship.

The film is non-fiction and is almost completely narrated by Bittner. The parrots are not his pets, but he likes to feed them when they come around and he occasionally takes in sick or dying birds to care for them. I found the first 3/4 of the film rather slow and uninvolving. The parrots are colorful and cute in the way that parrots are. The settings in San Francisco photograph well (as always). But there is not a lot of depth or information about the key subjects.

Then near the end, events in Bittner's life create real drama and a sense of emotional honesty and openness that are well communicated. Many "common folk" reviewers reported crying while watching. There are bitter and sweet moments. It's not a great film, but it is a nice examination of a man and his growing connection to other beings. I wish the first part had more content.

Parents note: G-rated all the way. Sometimes bad things happen to good parrots, and children may be upset by the realization. This isn't E.T. and good guys don't come back to life just because they are cute.

The Corporation

2006-04-17T11:36:00.000-04:00

View this as a companion piece to "Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room." It is a sprawling 2 hour 25 minute documentary exploring the history, legal status, and behavior patterns of corporations. Although the documentary mentions international corporations such as Royal Dutch Shell, all legal discussions are purely American.

The film starts badly, and for the first 10 minutes I thought I was going to have to turn it off. Lots of quick cut flashes of corporate logos and a breathy female narrator spouting hyperbole. But then the film settled down and I was pleasantly surprised to find good history and overview of the growth of corporations, their legal privileges, and some good analysis and thought pieces.

The movie uses lots of talking head interviews with people such as Noam Chomsky, Milton Friedman, and Michael Moore – as well as a few CEOs of major corporate entities. It does occasionally fall back on cheap stock photography to illustrate over-simplified points, but then makes up for it with stunning recaps of major news events around the world involving corporations.

The film has a decidedly anti-corporate bias, but does at least attempt to acknowledge the opposite viewpoint and point out some good from the system. If nothing else, this will get you talking. Recommended as a primer on a complex and pervasive subject. Or you can watch the short form by simply cueing up one of my favorite classic film scenes - Ned Beatty in "Network" explaining things to Howard Beale:

"There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. [...]
We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that perfect world in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality -- one vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused."

God, I love that film, that speech, and that performance!!!

Parents note: No cautions for this movie. The subject matter is not interesting to children.

Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room

2006-04-17T11:33:00.000-04:00

At last... A movie where I don't have to worry about giving away spoilers in the review! This is a documentary about the executives at the top of Enron and how their actions and philosophies led to the largest corporate bankruptcy in American history. You should know the general story already from the massive media coverage. This will give you a little more familiarity with the key players who are about to be involved in the main criminal trials (Skilling, Lay, and on the prosecution side, Fastow).

I have mixed feelings about the documentary. On the plus side, it covers a tremendous amount of time, corporate activities, personalities, and intricate dealings in a mostly linear and organized fashion. It does give you some insight into the key players you might not have had before. And while it makes sure to mention the common people who were hurt in the scandal, it does not go sensationalistic or maudlin, focusing on tear-stained faces. It also is not simply a hack attack, demonizing the executives as modern-day Hitlers.

But on the negative side, it's really an amateurish piece of filmmaking. Talking head interviews are filmed way too close to their subjects so that you are uncomfortable watching and listening to them. Segues and supporting audio and visuals are superficial and obvious. One example I can remember offhand: The narrator (Peter Coyote, who reads VERY well!) says "It seemed that the ability to make money was like some kind of black magic." The movie then shows some stock imagery of a stage magician doing handkerchief and rabbit tricks while they play a pop version of "That Old Black Magic" loudly on the soundtrack. Okay, okay... we GET it! This combination of pop song repeating the script phrase and stock photography alluding to it is repeated often enough to get tiresome.

I was also frustrated when they would talk about some of the financial dealings that were central to the manipulation of the company's stock prices and market energy prices with no underlying explanation. If you don't understand the world of energy futures trading, the subtleties of arbitrage, and the sheltering of funds in partner corporations, you will be lost as each of these aspects is spoken of as some kind of serious problem, but never explained as to exactly WHAT was going on.

One of the very interesting aspects to me as a resident Californian during the infamous rolling blackouts and subsequent pillorying of Gray Davis was their coverage of the manipulations that made this occur. They play a number of audio tapes with conversations between the traders who were pulling the strings and it is a perfect non-fiction version of the movie "Boiler Room" that I reviewed last month. These guys had no conscience and no sense of personal responsibility other than corporate profits.

I would recommend a viewing to help you appreciate and better understand the trials that are coming up (or possibly occurring by the time you read this). I now know to watch for a spectacularly acrimonious vendetta between Fastow and Lay/Skilling, which I wouldn't have understood before.

Parents alert: Obviously the kiddies won't be able to follow this or be engaged by it. There is one scene with bare breasted pole dancers at a strip club. Gratuitous? I should think so.

Boiler Room

2006-04-17T11:24:00.000-04:00

I loved it, Debbie hated it. Too much testosterone for her. Although not a guy flick in the sense of things blowin’ up real good on screen, it is all male, all the time.

You can think of this as the next generation sequel to “Wall Street.” What happens to the young lions who grew up worshipping Gordon Gecko and his philosophy of Greed Is Good? They became stock brokers, making money with rampant disregard for morality, consideration of others, or conscience.

The story follows a young man (Giovanni Ribisi, whose character is repeatedly identified as Jewish, but looks about as Italian-Catholic as they come) who joins a small fringe stock firm as a cold caller. Ben Affleck shows up every now and then to deliver inspirational speeches to the rookies, then disappears again. It’s a weird role. His job function at the firm is never identified and it’s basically a multi-scene cameo. They probably shot all his bits in one afternoon. I mention it because a lot of the advertising promoted him heavily, so you shouldn’t go in with the expectation that he is the star.

There is one featured female in the movie, and the part is downright insulting. It’s a cliche "movie female", put in only to act as a foil for the male character to interact with. She has no reality outside his world. I love scripted scenarios where the secretary is beautiful and instantly falls in love with the unattractive shlub playing the main character for no obvious reason other than it’s written that way. But I’ll give her this much... Nia Long nicely fulfills the "beautiful" requirements of the role.

The end of the movie is far too much a duplication of "Wall Street" (well… the whole thing is, really), but getting there is often a bunch of fun. I really liked the take no prisoners, rapid fire drive of the boys in the calling rooms. I had to stop and look at the release date when one of the guys says, "It doesn't matter. I could sell anybody anything in this market." The movie was filmed in 1999 and released in 2000. It is somewhat comforting to think that many of these guys were out on the street washing cars a few months after the film came out. That may be why it didn't get a lot of publicity.

Oh yes, Vin Diesel plays a major character and this is the first film I've seen him in where he didn't make me want to leap out a window. I found him rather ingratiating. Go figure!

For the parents, this is not a kid-friendly movie. They would be bored anyway and there is a lot of swearing. No sex and no violence beyond one bar fight. The film uses loud, bass-heavy rap music for its soundtrack. Your tolerance may vary.

Bubble

2006-04-17T11:22:00.000-04:00

If you follow the film industry, you’ve heard of this movie not for its own merits, but because of its experiment in distribution strategy. A production of high definition cable network HDNet, the movie was released simultaneously to theaters, DVD rental/sale, and the HDNet cable channel. I watched it on TV rather than through Netflix, so I can’t comment on any special features or commentary that might be on the disc.

The movie is a throwback to director Soderbergh’s independent roots (Sex, Lies, and Videotape). He shot on digital film using available light and employed non-actors who lived and worked in the small towns on the Ohio/West Virginia border where the story is set.

The plotline involves a relationship triangle between people who work together in a small factory that hand-makes rubber baby dolls in a laborious, somewhat antiquated manual process. Something unexpected happens to upset the mundane monotony of their lives and then we watch how it plays out. I won’t give away the surprises, as they are necessary for building any sense of tension you might have. After seeing the film, I read some reviews online and they almost all gave away the key developments and even the outcome in some cases. If you are planning to see the movie, do yourself a favor and don’t read reviews first!

The movie has polarized reviewers. Some blast it to shreds for being mind-numbingly pointless and rambling with no effective payoff. Others praise it as an incredibly insightful commentary on the lives of small town working class people who struggle to get by with no time or energy left for emotion or action that could change their repetitive existence. I saw some of both.

I liked the naturalistic low-key style of the movie and the performances. These real people seemed like real people. After the initial introduction to the routine was established (which is very slow and deliberate), the mounting tension of the plot complication was intriguing. The problem is the denouement. The end of the movie feels like a let-down and I found myself saying... Yeah? So what? I have no idea what the director wanted to communicate. I had no sense of payoff for my time and involvement. (One reviewer phrased it as "a giant F-U to the audience.")

Parents note: The slow pace and adult relationships theme will bore children, but there is nothing in the movie that makes it inappropriate for them to be in the same room.

March Of The Penguins

2006-04-17T11:21:00.000-04:00

There’s a lot to like here, as you obviously know from all the hype and hoopla surrounding this movie. Penguins are innately fascinating and lovable to humans. The Arctic environment is breathtaking in its beauty and harshness. The danger and difficulties the penguins face in their breeding cycle is real. And the photography in the movie is crystal clear and gloriously detailed.

BUT... This is 15-20 minutes worth of material padded to fit an 80-minute running time, which must be the least they thought they could get away with for a feature film. The filmmakers spend ages just focusing a super-tight closeup on the neck feathers of a penguin. It’s thoroughly unnecessary. The movie is of course suitable for children, but be prepared for tears when penguins, eggs, and chicks sometimes don’t survive.

The DVD contains an unfunny lesser Bugs Bunny cartoon where he is involved with a penguin. There is an unwatchable documentary on the two French photographers who put the documentary together (boring and repetitive).

And then there is a National Geographic short documentary obviously intended for a youth audience. In about 15 minutes, it tells the same story of the penguins without the sensationalizing that the French team goes for. It contains more facts, more varied shots from more perspectives, and more real scientific understanding of the birds and their environment. This is the gem of the set and for my money, a better film than the main feature.

In The Mood For Love

2006-04-17T11:20:00.000-04:00

Okay, I finally finished off my Wong Kar Wei trilogy with this, the middle movie of the set. This one introduces Mr. Chow (Tony Leung) and Su Li-Zhen (Maggie Cheung) as neighbors who discover their spouses are having an affair with each other. The two develop a friendship that turns to unrequited longing.

The movie shares many themes and stylistic points with the other two (Days of Being Wild and 2046). There is longing and emotional suppression. The ache of memories and love that might have been.

This is a much more technically advanced and assured directing effort than the film from a decade earlier, as it should be. But having seen 2046, I label In The Mood For Love strictly a warm-up to what he would accomplish with that next feature. He is trying out many of the camera shots, lighting, and sound aspects he would perfect in 2046. There is the naked streetlight in the rain. The shot down the narrow hallway. The classical music mixed with popular songs from many languages and cultures (there is something a little weird about watching a Chinese film with English subtitles as Nat King Cole sings in Spanish on the soundtrack).

Wong also seems to have a fixation with shots of clinging cheongsam dresses on the lovely backside of Maggie Cheung, as he would again with Zhang Ziyi in 2046 (not that I blame him, but it gets laughable after a while).

This is a fairly short 97 minutes, but the story is SO linear and SO deliberately paced that it feels much longer. As with his other films, I felt a desire for an outside editor who could argue with Wong over the necessity of some of his scenes.

There is nothing here to concern parents other than the overall theme of marital infidelity.

The Aristocrats

2006-04-17T11:17:00.000-04:00

Oh, I have been looking forward to this since I first heard the concept, before it was ever released in theaters. It is a film made by comedians about the art of comedy.

It uses as a basis a single “insiders joke” told between comedians as a part of some mythical brotherhood after hours in smoky comedy clubs, but almost never to paying audiences. The joke is simplicity itself and not terribly funny as jokes go. It’s no spoiler to give it away, as the surprise factor is not important for the movie... A guy walks into a talent agent’s office and says “I’ve got a great act.” He then describes a series of completely disgusting activities. Shocked, the agent says, “What do you call that?”

“The Aristocrats!”

The art of the joke, and why it is beloved by comedians, is the art of telling the disgusting part in a way that builds through shock to disbelief to absurdist humor. When you go far enough over the top in the sheer horror of the described actions, you reach laughter as the only way of releasing the tension. As the filmmakers and various interviewed people say, “It’s the singer, not the song.”

I have laughed heartily at several such setups on screen. The recent “Team America” has a couple of scenes like that (as a matter of fact, many of South Park’s best episodes rely on this methodology). Monty Python’s “The Meaning Of Life” has the famous restaurant scene, which is nothing more than such a setup and weak payoff line.

But the movie is ruined and the point is lost through the filmmakers’ ineptitude with the mechanics of movie making. They film all interviews with two or three cameras, editing the footage between angles every couple of seconds, in the middle of sentences. Your distance to the subject changes as well as your point of reference. Sometimes they use the audio from one shot with the video from another shot so that the mouth doesn’t match the words for a moment. You are constantly pulled away from the story of the joke. It’s cinema as epileptic seizure.

Then almost nobody is allowed to tell the joke from start to finish. They jump cut to others commenting on the recitation in the middle of the joke. As a result, you are forced to take their word that it is possible to build a sustained sense of momentum and involvement in the action from a skilled teller, since they don’t demonstrate it. I laughed a couple of times, but that’s not enough for a 90 minute comedy film.

There were really only a few points where they let the joke be told straight through. One didn’t count, because it was done as a sleight of hand card trick (and a VERY good one, I might add... I was impressed, but not amused). Another was Wendy Liebman doing a reversal on it. This was an example of someone who knows how to deliver comedy in exactly the way that works for her. I always love listening to Liebman’s delivery and recommend her highly as a comedienne who has never received the recognition she deserves. She runs RINGS around boring Rita Rudner (also featured in the film and completely clueless).

The one segment where you can see the joke delivered complete and uncut, with full buildup and perfect timing is in a South Park animation segment that the editors of this movie couldn’t get their paws on to destroy. It single-handedly defined the point they were all trying to make.

Comedy is like the Heisenberg Principle... the act of analyzing it alters the thing you are analyzing. And honestly, there’s not much to analyze here. “You see... it’s shocking and then there’s a twist at the end that doesn’t match the context of what’s come before.” That’s all there is to say about why the joke is funny. Everything else should be one-camera archives of comedians delivering it so you can watch the build and flow.

Even the segment that gave impetus to creating the film - the much-lauded Gilbert Gottfried delivery at the Hugh Hefner Friar’s Club Roast - is chopped up with cutaway shots and analysis in the middle of it so that we have to “take their word” for the fact that it was hilarious and magical... Even though they have the whole thing available on film! Arrgggghhhh.

Penn Jillette (as co-creator) and especially Paul Provenza (as director and co-editor) deserve to be pilloried for their massacre and mutilation of humor. Oh, this makes me so angry. NOT NOT NOT recommended.

PS: Do I really need to give you a parents advisory for this movie? Don’t let your kids anywhere within a city block of this film.

Days Of Being Wild

2006-04-17T11:16:00.000-04:00

This is one of the films referenced in 2046 (see earlier review). It was the director’s second film, made 13 years earlier, and the difference in time and experience shows. The shots are much more conventional, the editing is haphazard and detracts from the flow of events. You often can’t tell if a shot to shot edit indicates a different camera angle in the scene or a jump to another scene after a time shift.

It is interesting to see two of the women from 2046 in their younger years. Carina Lau is the standout here in a fiery role. The drama between the main characters is much the same as in 2046... The movie follows a man (Leslie Cheung) who actively pursues women, but distances himself emotionally as they get more attached to him. The central theme of the movie is attachment and memories. I have to say that I felt uninvolved and that the director presented events as if to an objective third party observer. In many ways, it is too close in theme and content to 2046 to survive being seen second, as it doesn’t have the stunning technical mastery and audio/visual magic to carry it over the emotional detachment. Recommended only for completists of the trilogy.

2046

2006-04-17T11:14:00.000-04:00

In The Constant Gardener, I said there was hardly a single camera shot I didn’t consciously hate. In this movie, I don’t think there is a single camera shot I don’t consciously love. The film is constructed as a piece of fine art, with some of the most visually distinctive work you will ever see. You honestly haven’t seen anything that looks like this. And not because of special effects jiggery-pokery. There are computer graphics scenes of a science fiction future, but those are very limited and not the focus (despite an overemphasis on them by the advertising and marketing departments).

Most of the movie takes place in the 1960’s. Much of the film is shot in dark shadows and the director thinks nothing of shooting from behind a doorpost and shading half the screen in black, letting you see a character’s face on one side of the frame only. The costuming, makeup, and set decoration are superbly detailed. The editing is intricate and unusual, but never jarring.

The music is spectacular. They use a mix of original instrumentals, classical and operatic pieces, “club jazz”, and big band standards. It all fits the mood perfectly. I spent all this time talking about the technical aspects because those are what blew me away. The story line is very dense and somewhat difficult to follow as it tracks a man and his romantic interests over several years, interspersed with fictional interludes.

While the story is all about emotional impacts of failed relationships, it takes a rather cerebral approach to the whole thing. I had a hard time being drawn into the emotional aspects because I was concentrating so hard on figuring out what was happening and who was who as it progressed. I believe this would be somewhat easier if I had seen either of the director’s two other movies referenced by the action (“Days of Being Wild” and “In The Mood For Love”).

The main character is driven by events that happened in the earlier films (particularly In The Mood For Love). I know this from one of the several excellent Special Features included on the disc. In addition to interviews and deleted scenes, there is extensive coverage given to the music, with descriptions of the pieces and direct indexes to where they are used in the picture. There is also a special music-only montage from the film.

Now I want to go back and watch the earlier films as prequels to figure out what happened before. I haven’t mentioned the acting. The film brings together many Chinese and Japanese major name actors and they are all tremendous. Ziyi Zhang is transcendent as one of the love interests and Tony Leung carries the movie in his central role.

If you get this movie, make sure to watch in a dark room with a well-calibrated set because of the extensive use of shadows and black levels in the photography. Sound run through a good stereo (or preferably surround system) will reward you with the beautiful music and some nice subtle effects work such as rain and street noises.

Trust me... For the first half hour you won’t have any clue what is going on. By the one hour point you’ll begin to understand the storyline, and by the end of the movie, you’ll have enough to satisfy you and give you something juicy to think about. It’s not a Hollywood tie-up-the-loose-strings pat ending, but it’s not just a David Lynch collection of experiences that is left as a mysterious experiential piece.

Parents note: There are scenes of sexual activity, but no nudity or graphic imagery. Kids will find this too confusing and boring to stick with anyway.

Broken Flowers

2006-04-17T11:13:00.000-04:00

Ugh. Bill Murray continues his experiments in minimalism to the point where he carries this entire movie with approximately eighteen lines of dialog and three changes of facial expression. Look for him in his next film where he plays the leading role of a table lamp.

There are no spoilers to give away, so I’ll lay out the plot quickly. Bill is a withdrawn (Hah! Understatement!) well-off bachelor who seems to have had many girlfriends in his past. One writes him an anonymous letter saying that he has a 19-year-old son he never knew. His buddy presses him to go meet the girlfriends from that period who could potentially be the mother.

His friend gives him travel bookings and many pages of MAPQUEST printouts. Bill spends time on airplanes (reviewing his MAPQUEST printouts) and in rental cars (looking at his MAPQUEST printouts). He sees the ex girlfriends and probably feels some internal emotion at the path their lives have taken. Or maybe not. All we really know is that MAPQUEST is very important to him.

Jim Jarmusch directs the film with a quiet intensity and concentration on details. The color pink is important. Focusing on a half-eaten chicken at the dinner table is important. Shots of rural tree-lined roads seem to be incredibly important. Possibly because the growth of the trees matches the speed of the plot.

At the end of the film, we get the requisite 360-degree pan shot around Bill Murray’s sphinxlike visage. Then you can watch the special features which include a fascinating bonus featurette montage of clapper shots taken before each scene of the movie. Someone must have thought that was just astonishingly clever. They didn’t ask me.

Oh, by the way… I loved Lost In Translation, so you can’t use that as a litmus test of me not liking this “kind” of movie. Parents may not want the kiddies to see the one shot of completely gratuitous female full frontal nudity that contributes nothing to the plot. I strongly encourage you to not show this movie to your children, your spouse, your friends, or yourself.

The Constant Gardener

2006-04-17T11:09:00.000-04:00

This movie is much better when you are thinking about it afterwards than it is while you are watching it. At about the 20 minute mark, Debbie and I looked at each other and asked, “Are you into this at all? Do you care about these people or what happens to them? Should we bother to keep watching?”

Eventually the story picks up and it turns into a complex and rather densely plotted thriller about corporate/governmental dealings and how they can impact common people in unexpected ways (sorry for another generic plot summary, but I try to avoid spoilers in my mini-reviews). The story comes from a book by mystery/thriller/spy novelist John le Carre. If you have read his stuff, you know that means unbelievable detail and very confusing collusions and possible deceptions between characters. The movie has a hard time jamming in the sheer number of people involved and their roles in the unraveling mystery. You can easily lose track of who is who. That’s a problem when you get big revelations near the end spoken as expository (or revelatory) dialog by one character to another and you can’t figure out who they are referring to!

There is a central love story between Rachel Weisz as an outspoken activist of some sort or other (we never really learn her professional association and it’s a real shock late in the film to find out she seems to be extremely wealthy) and Ralph Fiennes as an introverted and somewhat wimpy diplomat of some kind (we never see him do any work either and have no idea of his governmental role). I found both of their characters somewhat annoying. She seemed like an antagonistic brat determined to have her own way in every situation and willfully rude to anybody in power who may cross her path. He did not convince me in his acting of what his character was saying about the depth of his love for her. The supporting actors fare better, mainly because they are put in place as superficial plot catalysts rather than real people anyway.

There was hardly a single camera shot in the entire movie that I didn’t consciously hate. The director never seemed to have any idea how to photograph people unobtrusively. It was all shaky handheld work and extreme closeups and soft focus and strange angles. This stuff makes me want to throw things at the screen. He did get some lovely outdoor vistas of the African countryside and villages where they filmed (the movie was shot on location in Kenya).

All those negative comments out front, it still was fun to watch Fiennes work his way through the labyrinthine maze of lies and underhanded dealings to discover the truth, once he finally got motivated. There was a real sense of danger and vulnerability for his character to overcome. And there is a powerful message in the plot (admittedly, delivered to the viewing audience with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the forehead) that will make you think about business and political morality versus expediency. Or you may choose to view it as bleeding heart liberal tripe. Either way, you will feel satisfied that all the loose ends come together at the end (helped along by rather convenient assistance from key individuals just when they are needed).

You know what? The more I read this, the less I like this movie! The heck with it. This one is not for the kiddies. There is partial nudity, some sexual situations (although nothing graphically shown), and physical violence. But they wouldn’t last to those parts of the movie anyway. Too much boring and confusing talking up front.

UHF

2006-04-17T11:08:00.001-04:00

Wow. Weird Al Yankovic's big starring vehicle in 1989. Somehow I had avoided it until now. I hadn't missed anything. The only possible reasons to watch this disposable piece of junk are:

1) For Seinfeld completists, you can see a pre-Kramer Michael Richards playing a mildly retarded character. Or IS he playing?

2) For Saturday Night Live completists, you can see Victoria Jackson once again stumbling confusedly through her lines with a total lack of emoting skills or acting ability.

3) For fans of historical comedy references, you can watch for small parts given to mostly unknown veterans of TV sitcoms and old dramas. But this is more of an online research project than something you are likely to pick up while watching. I was amazed to read the backgrounds of the actors in many bit parts. It's obvious that Al had a reverence and respect for those who went before. And of course he manages to get Dr. Demento into the film, since Dr. D gave Al his start on the radio.

But golly, this is a mess of a movie. I'm going to tell you the one laugh-out-loud joke in the entire thing so you don't have to sit through it yourself. As the camera pans across an outdoor scene, you hear two voices:

"How about now?"
"Nope."
"Now?"
"No."
"Is this it?"
"Not yet."

And then camera keeps moving to reveal the voices belong to a blind guy attempting to complete a Rubik's Cube, asking his buddy for clarification after each twist. A brilliant concept. Now go rent something else.

Rabbit-Proof Fence

2006-04-17T11:08:00.000-04:00

This is a re-creation of a true story set in 1930's Australia. Children born of cross-breeding between whites and aboriginals were checked for the lightness of their skin. If light enough, they could be forcibly separated from their families, moved to re-education camps, and taught how to live in a white world - all for their own betterment, since they had enough good genes to be able to learn and to comport themselves in a "civilized" fashion. Fortunately this practice is no longer legal. Make sure to check the closing supertitles in the movie to see how long it went on.

The movie becomes a sort of "Fantastic Journey" for people instead of pets, with three young girls (ages maybe 6-10) walking over 1,200 miles back to their families after breaking out of the camp. The government and an aboriginal tracker are on their trail the whole way. All three actresses are aboriginal girls with no acting experience. It shows sometimes, but they deliver a sincerity and realism that Dakota Fanning would not necessarily have provided.

The movie is good, but not great. It has just a little too much of that earnest Hallmark Special treatment. But it's certainly worth seeing. The plot is a fascinating look at a bit of Australian history that not many Americans are familiar with. Although completely safe for children, I have a feeling they might get bored. The long walk back takes a heck of a long time! And the scene where the girls are taken away from their family may be too emotionally upsetting for youngsters.

The disc includes a long behind the scenes mini-documentary on the search for the girls to play the lead parts and on their struggles to deal with the strange world of film-making. It gets good about ten or fifteen minutes in and is worth watching. The closing line is one for the ages.

Team America: World Police

2006-04-17T11:06:00.001-04:00

I laughed uproariously at many things in this movie. I also sat drumming my fingers from time to time. About 30 minutes of editing could have paid off big. But for fans of the grosser efforts by Monty Python (think "Meaning Of Life") and the obvious connection to Matt Stone and Trey Parker's "South Park" series and movie, this is a politically incorrect gag-fest.

The technical production value is superb, within its own carefully constructed world. The movie is shot entirely with marionettes, using a conscious reference to the old UK TV show "Thunderbirds" (you will appreciate this more if you have seen that). They left the strings very visible and obvious, and the characters move with carefully planned puppet-like movements. The sets span the globe and are beautifully detailed and rendered, all in miniature scale. And just about every puppet and set is destroyed at some point in the movie. Parker and Stone said they didn't want anything left when they were done shooting.

The movie is a vicious parody/put-down of America's self-decreed role as policemen of the world. In this case, a team of five gung-ho actioneers fly where they are needed to wipe out terrorism (and blow up any historical landmarks or innocent civilians who get in their way). But to be fair, the movie also savages the left-wing liberal slant of the Michael Moore/Tim Robbins school, lambasting all the Hollywood celebrities who jump on the anti-war bandwagon.

The DVD is the uncut, unrated version, which includes close-up graphic sex between two puppets (neither has visible genitalia), long vomit sequences, and explicit violence showing puppets exploding bloody SPAM all over the set. Only you know whether you find this kind of thing funny. If so, go for it.

There are many interesting behind the scene extra features on the disc showing how they created the film. Very interesting stuff if you care about what goes into this kind of a production. I thought that they must have computer-superimposed facial expressions on the puppets, but they insist that there is no computer graphics used in the movie. Everything was done in camera. The puppets have intricate servo mechanisms controlling their facial movements and expressions, right down to synchronized mouth movements with the dialog. It could take anywhere up to four people to manipulate a single puppet for some of the more complex scenes. And some scenes featured many dozens of puppets on-screen simultaneously.

Murderball

2006-04-17T11:06:00.000-04:00

This is a documentary shot over quite a few years, following the rivalry between the US and Canadian quadriplegic rugby teams as they move from world championships to the Paralympic Games in Athens last year. It is a true sports thriller, building the tension of who will win in a bitter ongoing competition between the evenly matched teams. It is also an insightful look at the lives and thoughts of the variously-abled quadriplegics involved, as they discuss their injuries or illnesses, recovery, and facts of day-to-day life.

This is not a sentimental feel-good movie about the brave martyrs coping so well with life's adversity. The foul language and frank views make sure that this is not going to run on the Lifetime Channel as a movie of the week. And some people are just assholes, whether they are in a chair or not. But it is involving and thrilling as they build up to the final competition.

The production values are nil, the sound quality is muddy at times, but it is a good film for the story and the real people showing real emotions. Definitely not suitable for minors.

Charlie And The Chocolate Factory

2006-04-17T11:03:00.000-04:00

This is a tough one to review. There are a few different movies going on inside the running time. I was a big fan of the book as a child, but I don't remember it completely accurately at this point. I also liked the 1971 Gene Wilder version when I was a kid, but it feels very clunky and tired when I see it on TV these days. Tim Burton has said he didn't set out to do a remake of the earlier film, but to do a more faithful interpretation of the book. Yet he has invented a completely new, made up backstory for Willy Wonka that seriously detracts from the wonder and fantasy.

Things that worked for me:

1) The Dickensian industrial town outside the walls of Wonka's factory is vintage Burton dark Gotham city creation. It looks great. Little Charlie's house in the middle of the most rundown area is classic Burton as well. All angles and holes, the entire structure looks like it could fall over and collapse at any second.

2) Charlie's family and their lives have the only real "heart" displayed in the movie. That story line is sweet and well played. It doesn't get all treacly and has some very nice acting. There is a charming little family drama here that may surprise you.

3) Another familiar but excellent Danny Elfman score. He and Burton probably communicate telepathically these days. In an interesting side note, the lyrics to the Oompa Loompa songs were taken from the book, but each song is given a different musical style. And Danny Elfman performs the vocals for each, overdubbing to become a chorus of Oompa Loompas.

4) I loved the first full shot of Johnny Depp as Willy Wonka. A great visual gag reference to Edward Scissorhands (the first collaboration between Depp and Burton)

Things that didn't work for me:

1) The Willy Wonka character is shown too early. He doesn't have the sense of mystery for the big reveal on factory visit day. My favorite scene in the 1971 version was Gene Wilder walking down the path as a lame, weak man to the shock and disappointment of the audience. Only to fool them and delight in the fun of the joke.

2) Everybody has their own opinions of Depp's weird takes on lead characters. I didn't like his choice here. There is no emotional hook to link to as a viewer. I never felt connected to him, even with the elaborate flashbacks to explain his development and psychological makeup.

3) Deep Roy as the Oompa Loompas. If you follow any of the publicity machine at all, you will have read that they used a single actor digitally reproduced to play all the Oompa Loompas. I felt that this pulled me out of the fantasy by reminding me that I was watching fancy modern filmmaking. It's like a camera shot that calls attention to itself instead of to the action it is supposed to capture. And why they chose that actor is bewildering to me. The book takes some pains to set up the Oompa Loompas as a gentle, tiny race that lived in fear in the forest. This backstory is visited in the movie. And the book and movie tell us that they moved the entire race to Wonka's factory partly to accept the benevolent protection of the kindly man. But Deep Roy looks like a Mafia hit man, straight out of The Sopranos. Whenever the Oompa Loompas took a kid off, I wanted to scream "No! Don't go! He's gonna whack you!" This guy doesn't need protection... He sells it!

4) The winnowing of the bratty winning children felt like an afterthought to be gotten through, instead of a central ongoing plot line. The kids were there, then they disappeared. In no time, Charlie was alone and the winner. There was no sense of victory or accomplishment. And although the 1971 movie added a complication to build tension, it was nice in that movie to see some tangible evidence of Charlie's moral superiority to the others as a justification for him winning. In this movie, Depp turns, sees Charlie still standing, and almost shrugs his acceptance of the fact that this nameless, character-less kid is the winner by attrition.

Things that I'm conflicted about:

1) The visual splendor of the factory rooms is at times stunningly conceived and executed and at other times glaringly fake and hokey. The boat ride did not work at all. It felt like bad stop motion work combined with clumsy miniatures filmed in a bathtub.

In the end, I had to say that I did not like the film. But for our family readers, it is of course completely safe for children.

Mr. And Mrs. Smith

2006-04-17T11:02:00.000-04:00

How many implausibilities and plot holes can you stick in one movie and still have it be enjoyable? Yes, I liked the movie. And I feel incredibly guilty about that.

This is a straightforward cross between "War Of The Roses" and "True Lies." Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie are coifed and dressed to the nines. They go through the ridiculous action of the plot line with a knowing smirk and a wink for the audience at all times. There isn't a breath of reality to be found anywhere.

I must confess to a minority view of Angelina's supposed goddess status... her lips creep me out. But she honestly did look great in this movie (kudos to her hair stylist!), never wearing an outfit that left even a sixteenth of an inch of breathing room between the fabric and her skin. I loved the scene where she peels off a bullet proof vest/flak jacket that has supposedly been hiding under a sheer, form-fitting suit. Right. And Brad Pitt looked appropriately male model quality.

The action is too silly to recount in depth here. But the two stars have a lot of fun in their interplay (National Enquirer readers can put their own interpretation into that sentence). Vince Vaughn is incredibly wasted in a role written as a carbon copy of the Tom Arnold character in True Lies. It is a dull, witless part and he seemed embarrassed to have to go through the motions.

The action climaxes with an overlong gunfight sequence that quickly becomes boring, after which the executive committee in charge of production decided to throw up their hands and declare the movie over by completely writing off the central catalyst to the action and ignoring the central complication for the protagonists. I hate fantasies that violate their own internal logic, and this movie is a prime example. If any of you have seen this and want to send me a made-up explanation of how the leads overcome their dilemma before the "and they lived happily ever after" close, I would be fascinated to hear it.

There is probably some swearing in the movie, although it doesn't stand out in my memory among all the other noise and explosions going on. Lots of staged violence and one of the highest body counts in recent memory. Yet little blood or guts. It's an action movie fairy tale. Still, probably not good for impressionable youngsters. They might decide to try jumping off a building holding onto a clothesline.

Melinda and Melinda

2006-04-17T11:01:00.001-04:00

I stomped out of the room angrily. I won't watch this self-indulgent pseudo intellectual claptrap from Woody Allen anymore. Nobody talks like a real person, the comedic bits have no comedic content, and it is purely a vanity project. Feh. Not recommended for anyone.

Mad Hot Ballroom

2006-04-17T11:01:00.000-04:00

Very good documentary about ten-year olds in low-income public schools around New York learning the basics of ballroom dance and trying to advance through city-wide competitions. You'll care about the kids. Not a syrupy Disney competition movie... this is about real life and real people. Recommended. Young viewers will get bored, but kids of this age or near it will want to talk about it.

Schultze Gets The Blues

2006-04-17T10:52:00.000-04:00

Winner of several Scandinavian film awards. Which shows something about the Scandinavian film industry. Allow me to summarize the movie for you. At first nothing seems to happen. Then, nothing happens some more. After a bit, nothing happens. Eventually the film ends, which you can tell by the fact that credits roll upwards on the screen. Oh my God... someone give me a shot of adrenalin straight to the heart! Please!

Vacuuming Completely Nude In Paradise

2006-04-17T10:51:00.000-04:00

Only 75 minutes long, this is a whirlwind, tour de force acting performance by Timothy Spall wrapped up in the guise of a Danny Boyle movie (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, Millions). It was made for TV in the UK and is a low-budget, poorly shot video-looking thing.

The story is beside the point... an experienced door to door vacuum salesman is trying to win his company's annual highest sales award while taking on an innocent rookie. But the experienced salesman is Timothy Spall, channeling Zero Mostel at his most frenetic and obnoxious. He cuts through life like a hurricane, leaving destruction in his path without a glance backwards. Spall spits out his lines like demons posess his soul and Boyle puts him in full-face closeups that accentuate his pudgy, ugly, leering visage so that we are knocked backwards by the sheer horrendous nature of his character. And then suddenly Spall delivers a long heartfelt monologue that humanizes the man and brings you close before knocking you back on your heels again a second later.

The movie has some laugh out loud funny moments, some quiet touching moments, and quite a few confusing "that didn't work, did it?" moments. But I count it as a must-see purely for the acting by Spall. You'll forget anyone else was in the film. He is a wonder.

Viewer notes... The accents are molasses-thick Northern England and the dialog is fast. There are no subtitles available. So it can sometimes be a challenge for American ears. The kids won't like this and it involves some sexual situations and a lot of angry screaming.

Batman Begins

2006-04-17T10:50:00.000-04:00

The other side of Christian Bale. Watch this with The Machinist and shake your head in disbelief. Here he is buff and studly, showing off a muscled torso. Unfortunately the film doesn't show off anything. It is long, rambling, boring, and pretentious.

Bale's Bruce Wayne goes through a training montage straight out of TV episodes of "Kung Fu" under the direction of well-known martial arts master Liam Neeson. Incidentally, Neeson was my favorite actor in the movie, despite his ridiculous role. Morgan Freeman plays the same character he always does, except someone forgot to give him voice-over narration duties for the film. Michael Caine is wasted as Alfred. Your time is wasted as a viewer. Thousands of feet of film stock were wasted to get this made. Forget it. I'm trying to.

The Machinist

2006-04-17T10:49:00.000-04:00

Wow. This is Hitchcock meets The Twilight Zone.

Christian Bale lost a truly alarming amount of weight to play the cadaverous haunted victim of a solid year of insomnia. He is slipping into a dark world of paranoia and uncertainty as events and people keep affecting his life in episodes that seem alternately real and dreamlike. You've seen the concept before... Are we watching reality or the main character's altered perceptions?... But this is a very well made version of the genre.

The music is quite good. There is a lot of Bernard Herrmann Hitchcock influences. The film color is mostly washed out and lifeless, much like the main character. Bale turns in a riveting acting performance, quite apart from his shocking physical appearance. I was very caught up in the story, which takes its own sweet time in developing. But things do come together and early patience is rewarded with a real conclusion that ties things together.

This is adult viewing only -- no kids allowed. There is graphic violence, partial nudity, and a nightmarish feel. It is NOT a David Lynch kind of "film a dream fugue and let the audience guess what I meant" - although in the middle of the movie I thought it was going that way. Recommended.

Creature Comforts

2006-04-17T10:47:00.000-04:00

This is a compilation DVD of short subjects created by Aardman Studios (the Wallace and Gromit people). It's all painstaking stop-motion claymation, with nary a CG effect in sight. Watch the special features documentary to get an idea of what it takes to put one of these together... they shoot an average of 3 seconds of film time per day!

The shorts were presented as a television series in Great Britain and I hear that BBC America has picked up the series for showing in the US. It's probably better to watch them sprinkled here and there as an amuse bouche between other shows than to wade through an entire disc-full at once. Each segment might last about ten minutes or so.

The gimmick is that interviewers went all over the United Kingdom to talk to random people about a variety of common subjects (the circus, gardening, going to the seashore, etc.). They collected the interviews on audio tape only and brought them back to the studio. Then they went through more than 600 hours of audio and culled little snippets of sound bites. For each voice, they invented a claymation animal to speak the lines and strung them together as a "mockumentary." Every word in the program is some uncredited, unknown person in the UK coming out of the mouth of a seagull, a dog, an earthworm, a bird, or some other Wallace & Gromit looking creature. Everybody has the wide toothy mouth that is a trademark of the studio.

Sometimes the stuff is brilliantly funny and sometimes it's just weird. It has much the feel of one of Christopher Guest's quieter films like Best in Show or A Mighty Wind. Kiddies will enjoy looking at the creatures, but they will be bored with the non-action and high concept discussions. Adults need a willingness to spend some quiet concentration in small doses and an appreciation of this kind of dry observation humor. Worth a look.

What Is This?

2006-04-12T00:51:00.000-04:00

I have been sending out movie reviews by email for some time now. I finally decided to post my rambling opinions on a blog for easier reference, faster updates, and less overload to the inboxes of my friends.

Movies reviewed are based on whatever I happen to feel like watching in my Netflix queue, in whatever order they arrive.

I try to give a fair shake to the home viewing experience. Here is my setup for watching DVDs:

A dedicated media room with blackout curtains and an IDEAL-LUME 6500 Kelvin bias light from CinemaQuest mounted behind the TV.

A Hitachi 57S700 57" CRT projection TV, professionally ISF calibrated.

Vienna Acoustic Mozarts for the front mains, wall-mounted V-A Waltzes, and a V-A Maestro for the center channel (mounted above the TV and angled down to the listening position).

An SVS PC-Ultra cylindrical subwoofer with dedicated 525 watt amp.

A Pioneer Elite DV-59AVi DVD player, with digital audio and video output. Hooked via DVI cable to the set and via i-Link to the receiver.

A Pioneer Elite VSX-59TXi receiver with DTS processing.

Enjoy the reviews!